0:00 - Referendum Proposal 1:15 - Implications from Recognition 4:37 - New Chapter and Structure 7:20 - Section 129 8:20 - A Singular Voice 9:47 - Representations 11:18 - Executive Government 13:11 - Matters relating to ATSI 15:12 - Accountability 16:14 - Conclusion SUBSCRIBE: kzread.info BECOME A MEMBER: kzread.info/dron/loahlV-M4A0LIc14rmfNnw.htmljoin // This video does not provide legal counselling or opinion about cases. This channel was created for educational purposes only. //

At present, I don't believe anybody can trust any government proposal, anywhere. Global politics is rotten to the core, lacking transparency and responsibility. Even the electoral process is being compromised to ensure corporate interests have the right people in the right places. I believe this voice to parliament will not help the vast majority of the aboriginal people, but instead will weaken them as they lose their land to vested overseas interest. Hence it will put more pressure on every Australian person socially and financially.

@rossevans1774

9 ай бұрын

When we have a Prime Minister persistently and enthusiastically telling us to vote yes, but at the same time he says, "we'll work out the details later", I can't help but smell a rat!

@mysty0

9 ай бұрын

I am Aboriginal, please Vote No and have a clear conscience in the matter. This is a power grab, they want to consolidate all Aboriginal Power within a small minority group in Politics who have already sold us down the river multiple times. The same group, we call the magnificent seven, who diluted the original Native Title and signed into existence the Native Title Act which was a major dilution of Sovereign Ownership. This is where many Australians get confused.. Eddie Mabo's original claim, the Uluru Claim, Kakadu and a few others come under the original Native Title so their Land Ownership is Absolute and Sovereign.. all other Native Titles claimed since have been under the current Act which allows the Crown still a considerable amount of control over those lands. This was done by the same peoples they want to make the members of the Voice, I guess a kind of constellation prize for them because none of them could ever get Elected on their own damn Merits so they are bypassing the Election Process and Selecting them. I for one do not want decisions over my Lands being made by a small handful in Parliament where my people haven't been consulted at all. People need to understand there is bad blood between many Indigenous Tribes and if I ask some guy from Queenslands if I can flatten Wave Rock in WA if I give him $100k, then what do you think he is going to say? Between the bad blood and the desperation of poverty some Indigenous Groups in one State will happily sign off on Catholics molesting babies in another State for a price. This will create more Indigenous unrest than ever

@mysty0

9 ай бұрын

@@rossevans1774 we have a group of Republicans in Australia that have been desperate to make Australia an Independent Nation, a Republic with a new Constitution and so called Bill of Rights.. I dont trust them as far as I can kick them. And yes I am convinced they have their finger in this somewhere. Somewhere the alteration to the Constitution will be creeping towards diluting it so they can achieve their desires

@AdamSandaver

9 ай бұрын

It's not a government proposal. It was proposed by The Ururu Statement from The Heart. Think you need to do some more homework.

@user-co2ds3ox5u

9 ай бұрын

@@AdamSandaver think you need to open your eyes. It's not a government proposal? - no they have no interest in it at all. You're right. They love us and care about us and just want everyone to get along. Give me a break. Time to wake up sleepy head.

Would you sign a blank cheque? If not, then why would you vote yes to something the details of which you do not know?

@greebj

8 ай бұрын

There shouldn't BE any details to know, or debate! Constitutions are not the place for details, that is what Parliament is for. This referendum is asking a question unsuitable for a referndum

@jijogeorge5792

8 ай бұрын

Blank cheque??? U do vote in election to select who makes laws for u right? So trust the ones who make laws for u.

@gcujimmy

8 ай бұрын

@@jijogeorge5792 I vote in elections as it is compulsory to do so. Doesn't mean I trust or believe whatever any politician has to say. Plus any laws they make can be easily unmade by the next administration, not so easy when it is written into the constitution. Maybe if Albasleazy would stop hiding what the ramifications of this change may mean people would be happier to vote yes. As previously stated I would never put my name to something with so little information. Just lots of touchy feely bollocks.

@jijogeorge5792

8 ай бұрын

@@gcujimmy Well, referendum is not making a law, it is asking if the advisory body needs to be created. How that body functions will be decided by same Parliament that makes this law. Adding to constitution only ensures such a body exists.

@gcujimmy

8 ай бұрын

@@jijogeorge5792 Advisory my arse. Look at the proponents of the yes case ad listen to what this is really about. They make no bones about it the voice is only step one to a treaty and reparations. Mayo in an interview says quite explicitly that if the government don't take their advice then they will have the power to punish them. I am not comfortable with handing that kind of power to a tiny part of our population. So for me the advisory body as they envisage it does not need to be created.

Stuart Wood AM KC put it more succinctly, "It is unconscionable that a government would, with full knowledge, put forward a seriously deficient and misleading question, in an attempt to misinform the Australian people at a referendum as critical as the one ahead" (IPA, 12th September, 2023)

I spoke to a friend who's a successful lawyer and she has read the Voice To Parliament info booklet. She then said "voting Yes to The Voice is like signing a contract with no terms or conditions specified." She's a definite NO.

@dancingclair

9 ай бұрын

I spoke to a friend who is a judge and an expert in constitutional law who read the info booklet and she said that "Voting Yes to the Voice is a modest step in the right direction to close the gap, and all the pseudo-intellectual scare mongering about constitutional upheaval is completely unfounded."

@Tomi-Grguric

9 ай бұрын

@@dancingclair your friend or you isn't telling the truth. Thomas Mayo who is an architect of The Voice clearly said that it's about reparations, compensation and punishing politicians that do not listen to The Voice. Thomas Mayo has even said that he wants to change Australia Day and he will use The Voice to push that "advice." It's a "modest request" right?

@scroungasworkshop4663

9 ай бұрын

Exactly, vote yes and then we’ll decide how it will work. No thanks.

@dancingclair

9 ай бұрын

@@Tomi-Grguric It's an advisory body. Without an actual legislative role how could any of those things you mention actually happen without a majority of elected representatives voting for them? No matter what the parliament decides in terms of the details (and there's that democratic process again btw) there is no way that the voice will translate to actual votes or veto power. But you go ahead and give in to the fear mongering pushed by corporate media and deny the will of a broad consensus of indigenous australians.

@netwarrior1000

9 ай бұрын

​@dancingclair advice = influence = power, particularly where advice and influence over government decisions is concerned. No, the Voice won't have an explicit veto power, that is true, but even the PM, and others, have admitted it would take a brave government/parliament to go against the wishes of such a Voice. In certain circumstances this will almost certainly result in the same outcomes in terms of government decisions as if they had a right of veto. Make no mistake, this 'advisory' is about gaining power. Activists like Mayo have said as much.

It's not about fear or loathing, it's simply about wanting a united Australia, not a racially divided country. It's about reason and common sense equally applied to all of us. The Constitution should not be used for political agendas by anyone, be that in this case, Labor or Aboriginal activists. No-one is special, should be viewed/treated as special because of race.

@Will-nb8qk

9 ай бұрын

But it was used against aborigines for years. You can’t talk equality when there is gross inequity. It’s actually dumb to oversee this.

@michaelharvest931

9 ай бұрын

@@Will-nb8qkSo it’s retribution then?

@Will-nb8qk

9 ай бұрын

@@michaelharvest931 Wait, what? Do you have a comprehension issue?

@michaelharvest931

9 ай бұрын

@@Will-nb8qkNope.

@AdamSandaver

9 ай бұрын

@@Will-nb8qk indeed

Such a power, cemented into the Constitution, that would be in the hands of just 3.5% of the population, a percentage which includes not only genuine Aboriginals but all the "Identifiers" whose ancestry makes many of them only fractionally "Aboriginal", is the starting point of where the NO Vote must succeed. Then we need a full, independent and transparent audit of exactly where all the billions of dollars have gone that could have, should have fixed many of the issues that still exist in remote communities.

@dancingclair

9 ай бұрын

Andrew Bolt was successfully sued for defamation for promoting the “fake aborigines” lie you have repeated here. Read the Uluṟu dialogues and you’ll find people with a deep connection to country, family, and history were participating.

@martinpascoe7678

9 ай бұрын

so why are you so scared os us 3.5 prercent m8, and the frsactionlly 'Aboriginal' lol

@martinpascoe7678

9 ай бұрын

you seem like your voting no coz of you fear and loathing m8

@josephine4611

9 ай бұрын

​@martinpascoe7678 it's not fear of aboriginal and Torres Strait people, it's distrust of our government.. where has the billions gone that is supposed to support aboriginal and Torres Strait people?? Why are ppl who are way more other cultures than aboriginal and Torres Strait, receiving the same as mostly aboriginal and Torres Strait people?? There's already irresponsible spending that isn't going towards the actual needs of aboriginal and Torres Strait people, going more so to organisations that aren't run by aboriginal and Torres Strait people.. there's clearly an issue with ppl simply "identifying" as aboriginal and Torres Strait, with no system in place to verify heritage or track outcomes of spending.. with all countries on board with immigration, why are born Australians being charged for the past we weren't even apart of?? There's alot of different reasons for Australians to vote no..

@martinpascoe7678

9 ай бұрын

'born Australians'' and being 'charged' ? Could take issue with a lot of your essay but just vote no, you have every right and you will feel justified and maybe yours will be he deciding vote lol @@josephine4611

Good stuff Renato - and thanks a lot. Your emphasis upon the importance of accountability of all citizens for the Constitution is well taken - and that is also what is implied by the Uluru statement, even with your caveats WRT the wording of the proposed change to the Constitution.

Interesting video, great to have a resource like this available

If we keep on looking over our shoulders at the things some people (not all Australian's, as some activists like to claim) did in the past, then we will be forever tripping over a debatable history. The general attitude of the 96.5% I would argue, is one that is very keen to see things improve and in many cases they have that is true, but there are obviously still many problems to be sorted. If the billions that have been directed at supposedly fixing the issues had actually gone to where it was meant to go (to those truly in need), then we would be even further down the road of good outcomes. So why don't we start right there and do a fully transparent and independent audit of all that cash and point the finger at the real culprits rather than the 96.5% who are largely innocent of any crimes against Aboriginals. And yes, I do use the word "Aboriginal" instead of "Indigenous" because as far as I am concerned, I am indigenous to this country being born of generations within these lands. We are one, we are many.

@vields2352

8 ай бұрын

I say Aboriginal as well since watching a documentary where they asked to be called aboriginal. Indigenous is a Canadian thing apparently and many prefer to be called aboriginal.

@Traveler42069

8 ай бұрын

If this guy really is a lawyer, he's not a very smart lawyer.

@Traveler42069

8 ай бұрын

​@vields2352 to you and the original commenter. Indigenous is used to encompass both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, you potatoes. 🤦‍♂️ and to think people like you two are allowed to vote...

I knew I smellled a rat with this vote but I wasn’t sure why…..now I know why. Thank you for breaking down the legal side to this referendum.

I love your straight forward explanations of the Constitution😊 With regard to sub-section 3, I would be interested to know how that may be interpreted, and, as with the 1967 referendum, how the parliament could use this to the disadvantage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Of particular concern for me are the following: 1. ‘. . . have power to make laws with RESPECT TO MATTERS relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice,’ (emphasis added) How could this be interpreted? 2. ‘. . . including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.’ Will the parliament be able to exercise its discretion in such a way, effectively making the Voice a complete lame duck? 3. Could the Constitutional change effectively be interpreted as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples having ceded sovereignty?

@sirrobincompany

9 ай бұрын

Statutory interpretation by the HC tends to 1. stick to the ordinary meaning of words, and 2. only 'read in' directives where they would be necessary for the function of the instrument (be it a larger, clause or the act as a whole). So, for 1., 'laws with respect to matters relating to...' gives parliament reign over all matters relating to the voice (i.e., all listed in 2.). 2. enables parliament to do everything and anything with the voice. Parliament can turn the Voice into anything it wants, yea. They're the peoples' representative, so this is the best option, imo (especially considering the lack of info surrounding Voice's actual function/construction). 3. That would be an impressive stretch for anyone, let alone the HC. Native Title is a HC recognised system and the voice does nothing to change that. So yes, if you are asking whether it could be determined to be such, then almost certainly no. P.S. parliament can already disadvantage First Nations people in a number of ways. This amendment is FAR less shoddy than the s51 race power, so I'd sooner look to amend that than to prevent this from going through. Cheers!

@tlb2970

9 ай бұрын

Albo needs the voice to secede sovereignty to KLAUS SCHWAB, that’s it, he has no intentions of helping the marginalised indigenous people

@sirrobincompany

9 ай бұрын

@@tlb2970 Would you be so kind as to outline how the Voice in any way helps Klaus Schwab and the WEF?

@tlb2970

9 ай бұрын

@@sirrobincompany without the voice Albo cannot secede sovereignty

@sirrobincompany

9 ай бұрын

@@tlb2970 What exactly do you mean by 'secede sovereignty'?

This was incredible! This is the debate I've been hoping to hear on mainstream media!!! Thank you so much.

I will be voting No for one very simple reason. The Constitution is not the place for policy matters to be decided. That is why we have a Legislature, elected by the voters, to debate matters of public policy involving all citizens including Indigenous Australians. For me, the MPs and respective governments have failed to pull their thumbs out and solve the problems facing Indigenous Australians. So, they are pulling this nonsense out to supposedly solve matters that the Parliaments (Commonwealth and State/Territory) are there to resolve via legislation to be executed by the respective governments. They need to get on with things and stop their expensive schemes at delaying policy results (there are other policy areas with this problem too). The Voice is a sham.

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

"The Constitution is not the place for policy matters to be decided." - so, the policy of imposing taxation in Australia (for instance) shouldn't be in the Constitution? (I hate to break it to you ...)

@dancingclair

9 ай бұрын

@@AnotherDoug exactly

@hughthomson6201

9 ай бұрын

Tax policy is not in the Constitution. The power to impose taxation is - they are not the same thing.

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

@@hughthomson6201 Voice policy will not be in the Constitution either. The power to create the Voice will be - they are EXACTLY the same thing.

@greyman003

9 ай бұрын

That is not policy, it is law.

Alarm bells ring for me when recognition of original occupation is made to be expressed through the voice. It is as though the unarguable fact of original occupancy is being used as a trojan horse to introduce the far more problematic Voice. Quite a slippery move, and not one that instils trust.

That was outstanding Renato. Thank you.

I suggest that you should have included the implications of the Solicitor-General's Opinion on understanding the proposed Constitutional change. Possibly also include the explanations contained in the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanied the Constitution Alteration Bill and the Attorney-General's Second Reading Speech to Parliament for the Bill

@sn0wchyld

9 ай бұрын

got a link to such implications?

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

@@iand4835 What is the "A.J"?

@iand4835

9 ай бұрын

Apology typo. A.G’s sub 64, 111. 9. (a) First Peoples It’s the key.

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

@@iand4835 Of course, the Attorney-General, indeed any Parliamentarian, introducing their legislation is going to articulate their intentions behind the legislation. That is a normal and acceptable practice. The Solicitor-General points this out in paragraph 38 of his Opinion: "The High Court has given weight to equivalent explanatory materials when interpreting previous constitutional amendments. Accordingly, the Court can be expected to have regard to the statements just quoted from the Explanatory Memorandum and Second Reading Speech if it is ever called upon ..."

@iand4835

9 ай бұрын

100%, I have also read most. He must also be fully aware and supportive of the outcome of his decision. It’s that end result that stuns me.

Nobody knows the constitutional implications of the voice because no one knows what the voice is going to be.

Thank you for taking the time to make this video

To tell you the truth, I don’t trust the Govt. and I don’t trust the people behind this whole Voice thing. If we vote yes, that will give them a free hand to do whatever they want without consulting the other peoples of this country. So, I am definitely voting NO period.

@nihilistic7840

9 ай бұрын

The moment the guy said it's not easy to pick sides he blew his cover. He's a narrative influencer aimed at people who don't understand that the government does not work on the interests of the people. He's either naive or paid. Unbiased my arse. He's controlled.

@Will-nb8qk

9 ай бұрын

You sound silly tbh

@rubywagner3487

9 ай бұрын

@@Will-nb8qk not as silly as you dood. They are all corrupted right down to the marrow of their bones.

Great analysis. Your points on the “executive government”. It would lead to an elected government having to consider the Voice input for everything. With the further risk that a government that didn’t listen to the Voice would result in outrage by certain groups, protests and general disruption. Vote No.

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

"having to consider the Voice input for everything" - incorrect. Reads the Attorney-General's Second Reading Speech and the Solicitor-General's Opinion on the Constitutional change. There will be NO REQUIREMENT for the Government to have to consult the Voice or to accept all of its advice

@hadassah6085

8 ай бұрын

@@AnotherDougThe NZ version of the voice supposedly didn’t have powers, but just put white people at the back of surgery queues. “The inclusion of ethnicity in the tool has provoked fierce political debate in New Zealand, where approaches to fixing racial inequality are set to be a contested subject in the coming election. The opposition parties - centre-right National and libertarian-right Act - are opposed to ethnicity being used as a factor, and say they will remove the tool if elected in October. The tool has been implemented by health boards rather than at a central government level” This is from an article titled “New Zealand starts giving priority to Māori and Pacific elective surgery patients.” By The Guardian (this article is free online to read.) Something else to keep in mind is that if you say no to any advice the Voice gives, you’ll likely be called racist. In Africa, they gave back 30% of the land and removed white farmers. Everyone lost because the new owners didn’t know how to tend to the farms, which came from 5 generation families, that provided for everyone. This is why people don’t like racial divisions. It causes problems in a many ways.

@emeralddiscordian3116

8 ай бұрын

​​@@AnotherDougyeah that's one of the reasons I'm against it. They should have to consult aboriginals on certain matters.

@AnotherDoug

8 ай бұрын

@@emeralddiscordian3116 So, you want to discard the entire idea of the Voice because it does not go far enough. Wouldn't the version proposed be better than not having the Voice at all? If the Voice loses at the Referendum, we will not get another chance for years - if ever.

Ehhhh its been very easy to pick a side.....NO, NO, NO

Excellent presentation of some of the key implications associated with this particular form of constitutional amendment, and I materially agree with all the points you make. On the issue of 'matters relating to' in proposed section 129(2), I find it curious that the EM circumscribed these words by the addition of the words "specific to" and "differently to other", yet these words were not included in the proposed law itself. I think the additional words would largely address concerns around the 'matters relating to' issue - have you any idea why they were jettisoned? Thanks for your efforts in making this video available.

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

These will be in the Voice legislation - they shouldn't need to be spelled out in the Constitution itself.

@richardsilver98

9 ай бұрын

@@AnotherDoug Hi Doug. Perhaps I wasn't clear. In the Explanatory Memorandum of the Amending Act, the s129(2) provision appears with approximately 5 additional words, being those I referenced. They appear to me to circumscribe, and indeed clarify, the relevant provision and, if they were intended to do so, then they should in fact appear as part of it as it would be inserted into the constitution. While the Voice legislation will confirm powers, functions etc, it cannot limit that which is constitutionally written. And that was the point of my question - proposed s129(2) as written does not include the additional words in the EM. I suspect it was a last minute change by the drafters, I'm just not sure why as it would seem to have given a free kick to opponents, quite unnecessarily.

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

@@richardsilver98 Well, the Attorney-General disagrees with you (and the Solicitor-General did not object). He obviously believes that the definition of "matters relating ..." does not need to be in the Constitutional amendment.

Wow stumbled across this video. What a great explanation and very balanced. The no1 thing missing in the entire debate

Are we one or are we going back too black and white?

The intention is to provide hope and respect. And yet, the voice has no authority and nor should it. The voice will achieve nothing. The constitution should not be changed to provide hope. The constitution is the basis of our legal system, it is the ultimate authority. Any changes to the constitution should empower authority. Anything less than that should not be part of the constitution. All sides of parliament will have supported the recognition of Australia's Indigenous people as the first Australians. From there the electorate would have become more open to further changes. This referendum has been poorly planned dispite good intentions.

If this passes I'll be identifying as Aboriginal henceforth. 😂

In this day and age, no one race should have any more say over everyones affairs than any other race.

Looking for the words "advise" in the proposed change to the constitution......I am afraid I cannot find it.

this is a great video will done Renato!

So there is no mention of "consultation" in the proposed section unless you are suggesting that consultation is an implied right.

@mtscott

9 ай бұрын

There is also no “advice”. Make representations means tell us what they want.

Brilliant and detailed video! Many thanks from Tasmania 😌

Kind of like every referendum with a binary choice, voting ‘nay’ does not signify nothing needs to done, just that what is being proposed may not be an optimal solution. I have heard a lot of false equivocation that ‘no’ voters must happy with the status quo. This is a sneaky appeal to the kind of ‘somebody do something-ism’ that has caused so much trouble around the world in the past four years. Sometimes doing nothing might be a less destructive act than doing the loudest thing proposed when there may be multiple possible solutions.

Great analysis however one issue I haven't seen discussed anywhere, although you do allude to it, is the determination of what are "matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples". Who is to decide what does and does not relate to ATSI peoples? It seems pretty clear that the proposal is giving the right to make that determination to the Voice. So while the Voice "is advisory only" and may or may not make representations to Parliament and Executive Government it absolutely will have the power to insist on being privy to every single discussion, decision, process, function of Government in order to make it's determination of the relation of those to ATSI peoples. This seems to me to be yet another unintended overreach of the proposal

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

~ "Who is to decide what does and does not relate to ATSI peoples? " - Parliament, not the Voice. ~ "it absolutely will have the power " - no, it won't. See the Solicitor-General's Opinion on the Constitutional change.

@afoolonahill6417

9 ай бұрын

I don't have the legal background to be as certain of it as you but I have not seen this specific issue addressed anywhere, not in the Explanatory Memorandum nor in the Solicitor General's Opinion. The Solicitor General concerns himself almost exclusively that Voice representations not impose any obligation on those so advised but that is not the issue I am concerned with. This is different to consultation or heeding representations as it precedes both. The Voice's sole reason for being is to consider matters relating to ATSI peoples for which it may then make representations. On my naïve reading of it this seems an implicit obligation the amendment imposes on the Voice and the Voice itself must therefore determine what matters those are. The Solicitor General even implies as much: 38 "...a core rationale underpinning the proposed amendment is to facilitate more effective input by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in public discussion and debate about governmental and political matters relating to them. Insofar as the Voice serves the objective of overcoming barriers that have historically impeded effective participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in political discussions and decisions that affect them, it seeks to rectify a distortion in the existing system." Imagine the scenario where a new law is enacted that impacts ATSI people but the Voice was left completely unaware of it's introduction. Wouldn't the Voice claim this was a denial of it's Constitutional remit? Might they not seek some future redress? Now imagine it's a Departmental procedure instead... see the problem?

@chrisharvey8947

9 ай бұрын

It is very reasonable to argue that almost any topic anywhere in the world impacts ATS peoples, as all of us. That means, on any or all topics, so, meaningless words.

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

@@afoolonahill6417 The Explanatory Memorandum and the Attorney-General in his Second Reading Speech have both given the same specific meaning for "matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples". Parliament will include this in the legislation.

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

@@chrisharvey8947 No, both the Explanatory Memorandum and the Attorney-General in his Second Reading Speech have said "The phrase ‘matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ would include: a. matters SPECIFIC to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and b. matters relevant to the Australian community, ..., but which AFFECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples DIFFERENTLY to other members of the Australian community."

Great video

The constitutionality of recognizing Indigenous Australians has ALREADY been read into the constitution by the High Court in 1992 Mabo vs Queensland case. I understand that this was though the assumption of the common law, which the originators of Australian Constitution were assumed to have implied would continue to apply; this is part of Australia's English law inheritance. In this way Australia inherits not only the British common law, but also laws from other sources as the Magna Carta, habeas corpus, Bill of Rights 1689, and conventions and precedents inherited from the English legal system and Westminster system of government. For instance, freedom of speech, is not mentioned in the Australian Constitution, yet the High Court reads in this implication based on this inheritance. Most importantly, though, very very importantly, the Australian Constitution inherits the west minster system where the Governor General can only take advice from the Prime Minister and is expected to act on this advice (reserve powers not withstanding).

Renato, in case you contemplate to publish a video about the WHO treaty you may desire to contact me and may find it is not as simple as most people may belief it is. Remember, I (representing myself) in 2 cases defeated the AEC in AEC v Schorel-Hlavka based on constitutional grounds and all 9 Attorney-Generals were served with a copy of the NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER. This may underline that defeating them all based on constitutional provisions is not a minor issue!

outstanding analysis renato. easily the best I've seen. why oh why don't we get this sort of quality on our public broadcaster ??

@nambourwesleyan

9 ай бұрын

Because ABC don't want us to know the truth unfortunately.

@JoelReid

9 ай бұрын

it was far more complex than most broadcasters would be happy with. While I found it informative, i can think of many friends (and voters) who would find it boring.

@jocelynhunter2359

8 ай бұрын

​@@JoelReid sure, but isn't that partially the point of having a public broadcaster? It really went downhill when we insisted it focus on popular programs when it has a unique ability to air less popular but higher quality/higher educative content.

There is no definition provided for "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples" for which this Voice is supposed to be making representations for. And it also doesn't stipulate the Voice has to be composed of members of this group, deferring composition to parliamentary legislation.

Interesting but you are confusing it with legislative administrative law and rules that will define the structure and scope of the voice defined by parliement. Also the High court do NOT interpret words in isolation, but may look at explanatory notes and even parliamentary speeches or media to determine the meaning and intention of the clauses, this is known by anyone who has studied law as the mischief interpretation. I do agree there will be challenges, not unexpected in such a divisive decision but to be sorted out by the high court and legislation... same as any constitutional question. Your video simply creates fear for change as it asks people to make decisions based on legal interpretations of which 99% of population have no legal training or understanding... we can't predict the future (Yes or No)... welcome to life. That is why this referendum is actually more a moral choice about the right to self-determination and respect for first nations than a legal game... but the politics have taken the conversation well away from the core question.

I think you have nailed the correct term to apply both to the Fed Govt and the "Identifier Activists" ..."Underlying motives" are exactly what the Bent Albo won't talk about and what the Activists are exposing as their true agenda.

@johntomasini3916

8 ай бұрын

You are blaming Albo, please consider that there are other political parties, to say it's Albo's fault shows political bias, that is not what this is supposed to be about, unfortunately it happens because of false and misleading information is being pushed in the media. btw, I have never voted Labor.

Renato, você confia no Parliament e nos High Courts? What are three worst-case scenarios?

Why can’t there just be a voice to parliament with no constitutional changes?

Great presentation brother.

Does anybody know the details of the amendment of the constitution? I heard that we won't be told until after the vote.

Thanks for the perspective. i will continue to think on it. As someone who teaches indigenous students in a rural area it is an important issue to me. i am currently on the fence and gathering as much information as I can.

"With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood...We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history."

@smkh2890

8 ай бұрын

Great video on Aussie Law and the extent to which the Voice wold have powers and influence. All in all, it's a good thing the Voice is unlikely to pass.

I believe the high court ruled in a case where a body didn't give due consideration to input of another body when it had to take on that consideration in their decision. This could have implications for the voice and the power, or lack of, the govt has to disregard the voice.

Referenda to change the constitution should take place during federal elections. A lot of money would be saved, it would spare the citizens the inconvenience of attending to vote, and the government would need to “put their money where their mouth is” - that is, if the citizens think it’s a poorly thought out, harmful, or ideologically motivated proposal, they could let their annoyance be known at the same time.

Regardless of who, why or when any ethnic group arrived in Australia, we are ALL equal. But then to give/allow any ethnic minority Constitutionally enshrined exclusive access, contribution or even influence to any Government/s is racist and divisive. I'm not for segregation of any minority regardless of their genetic inheritance. The Australian Constitution contains no reference to any race, I'll be voting an emphatic NO to maintain the equality of ALL Australians.

@dancingclair

9 ай бұрын

Did the government genocide your ancestors, drive you off your land, and steal your children?

Best explanation.

From a practical perspective, we can't know what impact the voice will have. What freedom of speech we have in Australia derives only from the High Court finding that there is an "implied freedom of political speech" in the constitution. it is literally not written anywhere. So, the High Court can and has created a complete right based on what it found to be implied in the constitution. This can happen regarding the voice and good luck predicting what a High Court staffed by Judges not yet born might find to be implied. We are talking about the constitution, not your local bus timetable, so we need to treat it very carefully as mistakes could bring disaster. Vote No, Write No, In Pen.

@KellyMPVM

9 ай бұрын

Unless you feel the same way about every other part of the Constitution and every other referendum, you run the risk of sounding discriminatory.

@politenessman3901

9 ай бұрын

@@KellyMPVM Unless you acknowledge that the High Court can and has, historically invented a whole new right based on a perceived (implied) right that is not written anywhere in the constitution, you run the risk of sounding like you don't understand the issue or what is potentially at stake.

@KellyMPVM

9 ай бұрын

@@politenessman3901 Do you respect & trust Australia's democracy in both its theory and practice?

@politenessman3901

9 ай бұрын

@@KellyMPVM No. Australia's democracy locked Australian citizens out of the country for 2 years whilst allowing sportsmen and celebs to fly in and out. Australia's democracy locked people in their homes for longer than any country (with the possible exception of China) in the world, it allowed police to head stomp a disabled man in public, on camera. Businesses closed by Govt order, the constitutional right to freedom of trade ignored. We are one flimsy excuse away from tyranny - we know that because we just did it. Do you trust it?

@politenessman3901

9 ай бұрын

@@KellyMPVM Do you acknowledge that the High Court can and has invented a whole new right based on a perceived (implied) right that is not written anywhere in the constitution?

As a thought experiment what would be the worst possible scenario 😢 if the Voice gets voted yes How can the "power over reach" be utilised maliciously ? And how would that be different in severity in comparison to the people already in power ? Im all about yes for our first nations people and im trying to get some substantial no vote argument so I can make an informed decision. Can anyone here help?

@jnewgot

8 ай бұрын

The worst possible scenario is it triggers a cascade of racism and hatred due to a right given to one race of people above Australians as a people. SO, I suppose the outcome of that is the murder rate goes up.

The two terms, "Indigenous" and "First Nations" were used to describe the Native American tribes. I do not accept that the term "Indigenous" only applies to Aboriginals. Being born in Australia from generations of Australians, I plus many millions of other non-aboriginal are also indigenous. Where else do we belong but here? As far as applying the word "Nation" to describe the disparate tribes with practices and dialects that were quite often not understandable to neighbouring tribes makes no sense. It is used as a means of conveying the notion that all Aboriginals are one group with the same agendas and needs and I believe that that is ingenuous. Hence my use of the term "misappropriated" because the two terms have been borrowed and misused.

You’ve made good points mate 👍🏻

Thank you. This was great, but there is far too much that can happen that is not dealt with in the statement the Government wants to input into the Constitution. So it's still a very firm No from me. Unfortunately, ALP Governments at both Federal and State Levels have never been good at legislating accountability.

@johntomasini3916

8 ай бұрын

What only Labor, please take off your blindfold.

@nambourwesleyan

8 ай бұрын

@@johntomasini3916 both sides are bad but I was simply commenting about the current governments in power. So, no blindfold, just talking about where our country is at the moment.

@johntomasini3916

8 ай бұрын

@@nambourwesleyan Thank you for your reply. I am really perplexed as to where this is going, recognition should not be a political football. One of my closest Indigenous friends wants the Voice to be the Birth Certificate for her people, recognition of there existence. Her life has not been pleasant because of the way she and her family has been treated. There is a lot of supposition and opinion, complex legal mumbo jumbo that gets us nowhere. If the vote is lost, I doubt that there will ever be another chance of it happening again, this should have been done in the sixties when Indigenous Peoples finally had the right to vote.

@nambourwesleyan

8 ай бұрын

@@johntomasini3916 my biggest problem is that we shouldn't need the voice tacked on to recognition. The Voice can be actually be legislated later which means we'll see exactly what it will look like. Right now, we're not seeing it and this guy has shown a lot of what the confusion is about. I want the recognition, but not the enshrined voice part. There are better ways, and I see it as another government thing that will just get messed up. We've been told what the "Closing the Gaps" problems are and have the funds to deal with what needs to be done. We (governments) have just given the funds to the wrong people who seem to keep it for themselves or their fees. About time we simply put the funds where they should be; have recognition in our Constitution and go from there. Unfortunately I see this current ALP government as setting this up to fail and be divisive, at the cost to our Indigenous country people.

@johntomasini3916

8 ай бұрын

@@nambourwesleyan I doubt very much that the Voice will ever be aired again. So many issues being brought up, so many hypothetical comments I don't think there will be consensus into the future, it will be in the too hard basket. I try to see the positive side of just about everything, but the negativity around this is killing me, I feel sorry for the many Indigenous people I have come in contact with in my seventy years. It won't matter which side of politics puts forward a referendum I think the racial divide will win out.

It would not only be an alteration of the Constitution's structure, but a radical restructuring of society itself. Not even the (unfairly) oft-derided people who voted for Federation gave their race a Constitutional privilege of having a permanent, direct say in every government decision. It was assumed that the citizens were all equal and that The Executive would be staffed by highly-trained professionals. This would be a big step backwards for Australia, socially.

@dancingclair

9 ай бұрын

Indigenous people could not vote for federation. White people most certainly had “constitutional privilege” - so much so that one of the first pieces of legislation passed in 1901 was the white Australia policy.

@KellyMPVM

9 ай бұрын

As opposed to the brutally-imposed radical restructuring of society itself via colonisation and all else?

@KellyMPVM

9 ай бұрын

Speaking of permanence... How does 65,000 years sound to you, as compared to 235?

@youbigtubership

9 ай бұрын

@@KellyMPVM I'm aware of the history. Are you one of the people who want to destroy the current system in order to rebuild without the British Monarchy? If so, I can understand the vengeful attitude. But remember, no one alive had anything to do with setting up the society around us, so your vengeance would probably bring a response. In fact, the British has seen this coming and have well-developed plans to limit the scope of damage. The Commonwealth may turn out to be the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg for many cultures, but there's one which will benefit more than any other from the demolition of the ststus quo, and it isn't traditional indigenous culture. The tumult which would result from restructuring a society of 25 million people currently not formally-divided by race to something where one heritage into the future has special treatment no matter how successful they become, could result in levels of injustice unseen before by Aboriginal people or any one who has grown up in Auatralia. Remember, the Voice proposed says nothing at all about serving a particular socio-economic class, and will easily be exploited by the rich and powerful to serve themselves.

i understand the hopes for Yes voters but i have no faith in the government to uphold thier end of the deal... and think to change the constituitn is stupid

8:35 - so - if a ruling government just doesn't listen to Voice clause in constitution, doesn't legislate a Voice... nothing happens?

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

The Government will always be able to ignore advice from the Voice.

@Want0nS0up

9 ай бұрын

@@AnotherDougAt their peril.

@MrMomo182

9 ай бұрын

No. They go to The High Court who make up whatever they want.

@CautiousKieran

9 ай бұрын

@@MrMomo182 - I don't see though... what high court could rule there... its so nebulous. Would they ask Aus to do another referendum to sort it out? Or like... what can they do?

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

@@Want0nS0up Not at all. The Government will have the absolute right to accept or ignore any advice/representations supplied by the Voice. See the Explanatory Memorandum for the Constitution Alteration Bill: "Subsection 129(ii) would not require the Parliament or the Executive Government to wait for the Voice to make a representation on a matter before taking action. Nor would s 129(ii) require the Parliament or the Executive Government to seek or invite representations from the Voice or consult it before enacting any law, taking any action or making any decision."

Just as the word indigenous has been misappropriated, so too was the term First Nations "borrowed" from North America.

@KellyMPVM

8 ай бұрын

Please do explain misappropriation and how it played out in the context you described. I don't see it.

To your first point. The form or recognition is only in the form of "the voice", which is very clearly subservient to will of the democratically elected parliament

I think you have addressed this well. I have submitted my vote.

@Will-nb8qk

9 ай бұрын

Yeah I voted Yes too. 👍

@Sigrid333

9 ай бұрын

@@Will-nb8qk I voted no

@Will-nb8qk

9 ай бұрын

@@Sigrid333 Oops, no worries 👌

@Sigrid333

9 ай бұрын

@@Will-nb8qk all good 😊

by way of voice - no … by way of something else - maybe depending on what it is.

I am happy that I voted yes, in support of the first Australians; who accepted me to live on their land

What is not being addressed is the ethics. What implications is there for this recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with regards to equality? That is there has already been, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander behaving like they are now first class citizens and everyone after that is second class. Also with this constitutional change, implications towards treatment towards Australian citizens, with regards to one group being treated better than another group and the implications of that with regarding oppression, classism, and equality. Or the impact that could lead to one part of the population behaving like thugs to the other part of the population. It would also be good for a video to be done on the difference between Federal and Commonwealth government or federation of states, with the Commonweatlh of Australia and how they work and come together in Australia constitutionally.

Quite a bit of your "opinion" is not supported by constitutional lawyers. The whole consult thing has been very clearly spelt out. It even says it in the wording "to gives it's views" and to "make representations". It's very clear and you have totally misrepresented that part. As for the high court getting involved, there is nothing in the referendum wording that is open to interpretation. It is very clear, and I have to ask, do you have ulterior motives?

It's a legal matter . The constitution is a legal document . Simple question to ask yourself - Is it a good idea that a group of people who make up about 4% of the population of Australia get special legal privileges enshrined in the constitution that the other 96% of the population don't get .

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

Not "legal privileges". They would get recognition as the First Peoples of Australia and a body that can only offer ADVICE to the government. There is no obligation on the Government to accept the advice. What "legal privileges" do you think are proposed?

@mcrobsaccount

8 ай бұрын

The privilege to advise parliament on issues that relate to your racial group. Seems like a pretty discriminatory privilege to me. And if being an advisory body is meaningless and not a privilege then why are people so passionate about voting yes? Just admit it's discrimination and invokes special privileges to a racial group, just discrimination that you think is justified. Atleast be honest.

@mcrobsaccount

8 ай бұрын

The 'legal' part of the privilege is that a racial group is allowed by our constitution to consider and advise on issues relating to said racial/cultural group. No other race or cultural group gets this privilege and if the yes vote is successful will be written into constitution thus enshrining it into Australian law.

@AnotherDoug

8 ай бұрын

@@mcrobsaccount Firstly, not "racial". Leaving aside the fact that there is only one human race on this planet, the Voice is about helping the descendants of the first peoples of Australia who are among the most disadvantaged communities in Australia. Secondly, they already suffer discrimination by being the most disadvantaged communities in Australia and have been unable to get successive governments to truly listen. Even the Productivity Commission in its recent review of the Closing the Gap program berates the Government (and previous Governments) for not properly listening to A&TSI peoples.

@MrBCRC

8 ай бұрын

@@AnotherDoug It's clear that you didn't watch or understand the video and just came to the comments to promote apartheid.

I agree it’s too much confusion and different governments and political parties will interpret differently so in the future it’s going to be problems if there is disagreements ( there is disagreements now,) so it’s not going to be a good marriage, looks like an arranged marriage if anything

Forget external affairs, look what the HCA did to the Trade and Commerce power. When that kind of reasoning is applied to subsection 2 and theres no telling how far reaching this will be.

Aboriginals are citizens of Australia.All citizens should be treated exactly the same.Health,education. The constitution covers Australians - and Aborigines are AUSTRALIAN.

You didn't spend much time on paragraph 3 (not sure if it was covered in other videos), but the ability for the government to legislate the power and composition of the voice means that any future government with a majority in both houses can simply legislate it to either be an undemocratic abuse of power, or (and more likely) be gutted and made into a toothless tiger, a complete waste of tax payer dollars and useless to the traditional owners

@emeralddiscordian3116

8 ай бұрын

This is my problem.

I would be more interested in knowing what the Constitutional implications are to Local Councils pretending they are a third tier of Government when they are not recognised as a third tier of Government in the Commonwealth Constitution.

@hasansheriff4310

9 ай бұрын

Whenever I voiced this fact (the 3rd level of govt), I'm always ridiculed as a foil hat wearing conspiracy nut job. People are such blind sheep!

@AnneSmith-lr7cp

9 ай бұрын

The pm isn't in the constitution either 🙄

Good, now do a video explaining that accent ;)

Like Turnbull handballing the SSM plebiscite to the people, Albanese has handballed a sticky issue to the masses instead of having spine and simply legislating The Voice. But if this referendum fails tyat this important but moderate change eill not consider a legislative change is telling. Like SSM, there is more to The Voice than what the Albanese Labor government wants to let out. And that is, treaty, reparations and whatever sits back in the their war room.

@brucewearne5081

9 ай бұрын

You point to the furtive and deceptive ways our major political parties work using Parliament to camouflage their party's secretive aspirations .- you are right to connect discussion of the referendum to the bogus SSM ABS survey of 2017 - but it was not a plebiscite and even though less than 50% of all eligible voters voted YES, the Marriage Act was dudded and now withholds any explicit due respect for husband-wife marriage from the Act's wording. So you're right to suggest that the mushroom principle is ascribed far too much reverence by our Parliamentarians in our political life.

Are you an Australian citizen? How will you be voting?

Aussie Law "The importance of being educated about it" Anthony Albanese, "it is a first nations voice to parliament, now stop asking questions and vote for it"

@boitmecklyn4995

8 ай бұрын

Literally a "trust me bruh" referendum.

@mystikmind2005

8 ай бұрын

@@boitmecklyn4995 And Albanese 'trusted' that we do not need to understand it with the great media and celebrity woke whipping campaign going on (how ironic the yes side complains about the misinformation of the no side eh???) But honestly, i thought it would be, but turns out Australians are only 40% as dumb as i thought they were!

shared to FB and Albo on X

I'm sorry but just to clarify, you're simultaneously worried that the Voice might have too much power ro purely discuss broad matters yet you are also stating that Parliament in no way has to listen to it or take any of its suggestions on board. Doesn't that strike you as contradictory?

Where is this Proposal ? It should be easy to find.

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

www.aec.gov.au/referendums/learn/the-question.html voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment Take your pick

In you video posted on the 11/9/23. In relation to section (51) of the constitution. You state (and I paraphrase) that the government may make Special law regarding race if its deemed necessary for the benefit of that race. Is this not the case for the voice ? Also section (51) sounds very similar to how the voice is to be structured. If over reach of the voice has negative implications on Australia, we still has the democratic process through the courts and parilment to correct such things. Ledgistration will have to follow which will bring in the check and balances you talk about. And so I don't entirely understand your concerns about the voice.

Does a treaty dissolve sovereignty?

citizens are the serfs of political leaders

What i heard is we are voting to give unspecified special privileges to certain people based on race.

A final thought. The extent of the No vote provides a clear indicator that constitutional revision is actually needed. And that is always worth doing. But to think that you can address broad substantive issues via a referendum such as was held is dangerously irresponsible- as well as ill thinking Think about it.

Can we please recognise when Australia was named "Australia." We are all Australian.

@getl0st

8 ай бұрын

What you call Australia is very, very different from the Corporation called Australia

@09Drdray

8 ай бұрын

@@getl0st 88% of world is owned by 3 companies buddy, not really saying anything special

What happens when two or three Aboriginal nations rise up against the others? Civil war?

Big difference between the law and your personal incredulity.

Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge on the tragic history of the colonization of Australia which still impacts Australia's first nation peoples today, will vote yes. I hope the successful yes vote has a huge impact on our constitution!

@sliver37

8 ай бұрын

😂

@jnewgot

8 ай бұрын

Everyone else with an education level higher than their mom's basement will vote No.

Their claims are not as solid as presumed. They're not even reasonable suggestions in many cases. The architects of the proposal are the militant partisan Indigenous Grievance Industry 'Big Men' (including women) who have held dominance over ATSI affairs for decades. The indigenous art culture and traditions should be kept for special (exceptional) ceremonies and occasions and not pushed on Australians endlessly, also a far greater respect needs to be given offered to Australians who have built this country to what it is now, our European history. Australia needs to end the discrimination, and inequity. The graceless, tactless, self-righteous, forced factitious, pretend Welcome to countries, apologies, and acknowledgement ceremonies… While at the same time dishonestly perverting, and subverting Australia’s genuine history into a villainous deceptive assassination of all practices and experiences associated with Australia’s fair dinkum European heritage. Yes23 is what happens when the demand for racism outpaces the supply of racism. Equality, egalitarianism, fairness, justness, and equitability are non-discriminatory, evenhanded, and unprejudiced. Bring Australia together. Australia is for all Australians equally, with objectivity, fairness, impartiality, and even-handedness.❤🇦🇺🦘

The pygmies are the first people not the Aboriginals.

Which Constitution are you talking about? The real 1901? Or the 1973 Gough Whitlam fake?

@TheSilmarillian

9 ай бұрын

Yep when Whitlam adopted the maritime constitution most people forget that

@voodoodoctor1435

9 ай бұрын

yes since he didnt touch on that his opinion is worthless

These 2 things require consideration: 1) the people that will constitute the voice are not elected. They are chosen somehow. 2) am the big companies that usually mine (and destroy) aboriginal land, being BHP and Rio Tinto have publicly stated their support for the Voice. That's weird isn't it?

Do you actually answer anyone's questions?! Which Constitution does this referendum intend on altering? Our 1901 Commonwealth Constitution or the 1988 Australian Constitution? I'll wait... 🤔🤔🤔

YEAH NAH ....... I HAVE HEARD ENOUGH .....I VOTE NO

They don't need one.

Constitutional Law 101. This is kids stuff. But that it ever actually led to a constitutional proposal in the form it did is shattering. What kind of basic understanding of how constitutions should be framed and the pillars supporting good constiutions was seriously considered in this utterly inappropriate proposal? Its difficult to imagine a more meritless approach being followed. Identify the wrong you seek to address- for starters. That is the gaping hole in this whole ill considered affair. Look across the Indian ocean to the much despised South Africa. They can tell you more about racial and cultural identities than you can ever contemplate. Moreover their constitution is a model whose shape and content would be worthy of consideration. If you want to change a constitution call a convention.

the voice is a trojan horse vote no. use a pen, not pencil!

@CautiousKieran

9 ай бұрын

for who?

Three top reason to vote no 1: it’s fundamentally undemocratic 2: it uses race to seperate Australians 3: TRUST or lack of it in the motivation of those pushing it so hard. They talk with absolute disrespect for anyone with a different opinion. Thank Lydia Thorp, Marcia Langdon etc etc outrageous racist and pathetic words and behaviours. These are the ppl who will be implementing it. Who, with a sane mind, would allow them that power.

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

1. It is absolutely democratic 2. Not race and not divided 3. 230 + years of mistreatment, 120 years of negative inclusion in the Constitution, 16 years of the Closing the Gap targets not being met - those are the motivations

@dingodog5677

9 ай бұрын

@@AnotherDoug splitting citizens by race is obviously racist. This is 2023. The past is gone. Stop trying to make those who weren’t part of it pay for it. Collective punishment is also against the UN charter.

@dingodog5677

9 ай бұрын

Btw, two wrongs don’t make a right.

@cfox4028

9 ай бұрын

Agreed- it is not the point of the law an its effect. 1 - It is a racist concept -offering benefits based on ethnicity. never the right thing to do. 2 - it wont help. enshrining a concept of disempowered peoples. local based empowerment is the required starting point. 3 - it will make government worse. there are already too many sub-committees to get decisions in Canberra. This adds another layer so must be absolutely required; it is not. Furthermore, it is too powerful. Anyone who says it is just offering advice doesn't understand how Canberra works; by the time the sub-committees pass decisions onto Cabinet it has largely been decided already, not only will this slow and already ludicrous process but it will have overdue influence in ALL areas. (what project doesn't need land...). I could go on...

@AnotherDoug

9 ай бұрын

@@cfox4028 1. Constitutional recognition is not based on "race"; it is based on recognising the history and culture built up over thousands of years by the first people to arrive here 2. You absolutely do not know that "it won't help" "local based empowerment" - who do the "local based" people speak with to get the message to the Federal Government? That is the problem, the disconnect between the local communities and the Federal Government that makes many of the decisions 2. You absolutely do not know that "it will make government worse" - this also is fear-mongering. How can a body that only offers ADVICE is "too powerful"? It only has one "power" to provide advice directly to decision makers.

Good presentation! But ... 1. It's not correct to say (at 16:54) that s 129 does not create the Voice. The language of s 129(i) is the same as the language of s 101, which created the Inter-State Commission. And s 129 does not give the the Parliament the power to make a law establishing the Voice. It just says that there shall be a Voice. “There shall be a body…” is not a grant of legislative power, as you cab see from the many other provisions of the Constitution that give the Parliament power to make laws. 2. Given the s 101 analogy, s 129(i) is probably intended to create the Voice. But what does it create? What are the characteristics of the entity created, that distinguish it from any other entity? The power to make representations is not a characteristic defining the Voice: it a power of the Voice, one that body is identified. In fact, no characteristics of the Voice can be derived from s 129. The Voice can be anything, and anything can be the Voice. On this basis, s 129 fails completely and is a nullity. 3. The Executive will be required to take into account what the Voice says on matters that the Executive is considering; this is basic administrative law. This doesn't apply to the Parliament though. 4. The Executive does not include autonomous agencies. There's High Court authority to the effect that a whole range of governmental bodies aren’t part of the Executive Government. These include the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the ACCC), the Reserve Bank, the Human Rights Commission, Australia Post, CSIRO, the Director of National Parks, ANU, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, the Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation, the Torres Strait Regional Authority, the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation and all the Land Councils. The effect of section 129 is that the Voice can’t speak to any of these. So, for example, it won’t be able to tell ASIC or the ACCC about scam funeral scheme operators preying on remote communities. And it won’t be able to address Land Councils …

@karate4348

9 ай бұрын

Very good point

12:18 - This risk of overreach seems a bit tenuous to me. I think you can trust the body not to take the piss. They'll be busy and underfunded enough lobbying MP's, focusing on the more dire issues. Their form is still legislated by gov at the end of the day.

@Want0nS0up

9 ай бұрын

The Western Australian Heritage Act showed conclusively that overreach can occur and does occur.

@mtscott

9 ай бұрын

“Trust”. You are going to take that risk in our constitution?

@gjhomes

9 ай бұрын

I would not trust anyone!!! This should not be based on trust alone! It's too important!!! Your she will be right attitude does not wash with the majority I hope!

@adriansimnett3049

9 ай бұрын

Based upon evidence they are very likely to take the "pi55"