"I for one welcome our insect overlords" - The Politics Thread

[Insertnamehere]

It is a left wing source. The IPA is a conservative think tank.
Should we really limit ourselves to the legal opinions of one part of the political spectrum.

As for the 'human centipede' and 'KKK' references, I thought we were supposed to be playing nicely in the sand pit.

Guardian vs IPA isnt apples vs apples though.

As for playing nice in the sandpit, there is an end point. Invoking IPA is my end point.

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

Also depends on the argument and law stated by who ever puts in a challenge. The skill or argument provided to the high court is what is important and whether the argument has merit or not.

Very true, and the advice of ex judges carries great weight, but I think it would have been preferable for Marcia and Tom to have amended the draft as suggested to prevent such challenges instead of pushing back.

Call me cautious, but I think being cautious in a matter of such importance is for me.

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

Guardian vs IPA isnt apples vs apples though.

As for playing nice in the sandpit, there is an end point. Invoking IPA is my end point.

That's up to you.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Its legal advice isn't valid? I posted the left wing Guardian's advice and no comment was made.

Guardian is centrist. Mind you if viewed from the IPA it's communist.

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

Guardian is centrist.

Actually it isnt.
extract from Wikipedia

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

On such a crucial issue I think its important to get a wide range of advice to cover all of the bases.

The lawyers on this forum well know that nothing is certain when it comes to court and that different lawyers can provide different advice on the same piece of legislation. I think its always preferable to avoid Court in the first place, and if there is even a small risk to the most stable democracy in the world then I'll vote No.

I commend you for taking our Constitution seriously and informing yourself.

All Australians are the guardians of our democracy and Constitution.

But it's important to be clear eyed in what our Constitution is and the context in which it was written. Not a single contribution to drafting was made by a woman or a First Nations person. That was by design and intention.

Only 7 of 42 Amendments have passed since then, with nearly all being technicalities such as the age judges have to retire or whether the federal government can take over State debts. The world has changed since 1901 but our Constitution hasn't.

I admit I have a vested interest in this proposal, both my son and my wife are First Nations. My son is white passing in winter but not in summer. My wife was reluctant to tell him he was First Nations due to her experience of discrimination and we only did so when he turned 5.

What has impacted me most about this is a quote from Thomas Mayo who is part of the Referendum Working Group. "If this fails how will we tell the next generation, how do you tell the 8 year old Indigenous boy sitting in their year 3 class that this was too much to ask of the Australian people."

It is our duty as guardians of our Constitution and Democracy to stand up for what we believe in, but I urge everyone to think about the Constitution they want for future generations.

 

[FFC Mariner]

I commend you for taking our Constitution seriously and informing yourself.

All Australians are the guardians of our democracy and Constitution.

But it's important to be clear eyed in what our Constitution is and the context in which it was written. Not a single contribution to drafting was made by a woman or a First Nations person. That was by design and intention.

Only 7 of 42 Amendments have passed since then, with nearly all being technicalities such as the age judges have to retire or whether the federal government can take over State debts. The world has changed since 1901 but our Constitution hasn't.

I admit I have a vested interest in this proposal, both my son and my wife are First Nations. My son is white passing in winter but not in summer. My wife was reluctant to tell him he was First Nations due to her experience of discrimination and we only did so when he turned 5.

What has impacted me most about this is a quote from Thomas Mayo who is part of the Referendum Working Group. "If this fails how will we tell the next generation, how do you tell the 8 year old Indigenous boy sitting in their year 3 class that this was too much to ask of the Australian people."

It is our duty as guardians of our Constitution and Democracy to stand up for what we believe in, but I urge everyone to think about the Constitution they want for future generations.

Well said

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

Hi Joyful Penguin,
I'm sorry to hear about your wife's experiences and I'm glad that you will do whatever you can to make your son feel good about himself. You must be a great husband and father.

Yes, times have changed, and while the Constitution has had few amendments over the years it has provided us with great stability. Referenda succeed or fail according to the will of the voters [which thankfully now includes women and Aborigines].

I understand the impact of Mr Mayo's quote, and on your family in particular, but with all due respect it is an emotive appeal [not in itself a bad thing]. Unfortunately there is a risk that this amendment is more than just symbolic, and had the drafters chosen to alter the wording to limit the possibility of High Court challenges, it would be more likely to get a tick from me. Its a shame that Albo didn't have the spine and folded when they stared him down.

All the best

Roger

 

[pjennings]

If you are talking about the 'executive government' part then the referendum would be pointless. There is no point in advising parliament once legislation is being debated. It needs to be as legislation is being drafted like any other lobby group.

 

[Ironbark]

I need to call out the weakness of one of the most common refrains in this debate that I've noticed (country wide). Which starts in the idea that a yes vote is only symbolic and is unlikely to make a real legal difference. Seems to be be key to many viewpoints on both sides.

On the No side it appears a regular argument that if it is indeed only meant to be symbolic, and there is even a chance that it could have a more than symbolic impact, we shouldn't risk it.

So, for those pivoting on this idea alone it is a case of weighing:
- a tangibly limited risk of legal consequences - which are notably small and unlikely,
versus
- the social consequences a No vote brings about.

What I find interesting about this debate is it is rarely being framed this way or proportionately considered.

If No does get up - what is the tangible impact of that kind of symbolism on society? On indigenous people? For how long? Surely decades at the very least.

Let's call a spade a spade - the peoples of Australia were invaded, murdered, stolen from, treated legally and practically as animals, had their children removed, are still incarcerated at a disproportionate rate and have a lower average life expectancy - and things are both clearly and measurably still not much better.

A No vote, symbolically, implies that in 2023 the majority of Australian's would prefer not to make moves towards reparation for this, even minimally impactful, symbolic moves.
The social consequences of that could be far worse.
Because of what, in reality?
Fear? That, maybe - but almost definitely not according to the majority of legal experts -, that there may be some unlikely repercussion from touching a constitution that doesn't actually do very much?

 

[scottmac]

The High Court does not legislate, and an amendment to the Constitution cannot be overturned by legislation, it would require another Referendum.

I dont think anyone has suggested that a house is being taken.

The download of the IPA research note suggests that the High Court is likely to make rulings, and where there is ambiguity that it would consult extraneous/contextual /background material for its interpretations. Controversial concepts such as treaty, sovereignty, and reparations are are mentioned in these materials, yet are not presented as a risk by the Yes advocates.

The advice here does not consider the risk of the High Court ruling on this as negligible; it considers it to be likely. The risk of legal challenges could have been minimised by the drafters making amendments to the wording but they chose not to- see point 12 of the downloaded pdf.

The assurances of current politicians and Yes advocates will be worthless if it succeeds and becomes a matter before the High Court.

Not sure how treaty, sovereignty and reparations are controversial concepts. What is controversial is leaving this absolute mess the exact way it is or not enshrining something in the constitution so the next conservative politician can abolish it. The fact is the indigenous of this country do have sovereignty which hasn't been ceded and there should be a treaty as per the laws of England at the time. Because they didn't follow law then some form of reparations should exist.
Not sure why the yes vote should be saying this is a risk. It should be a certainty IMO.

 

[scottmac]

I need to call out the weakness of one of the most common refrains in this debate that I've noticed (country wide). Which starts in the idea that a yes vote is only symbolic and is unlikely to make a real legal difference. Seems to be be key to many viewpoints on both sides.

On the No side it appears a regular argument that if it is indeed only meant to be symbolic, and there is even a chance that it could have a more than symbolic impact, we shouldn't risk it.

So, for those pivoting on this idea alone it is a case of weighing:
- a tangibly limited risk of legal consequences - which are notably small and unlikely,
versus
- the social consequences a No vote brings about.

What I find interesting about this debate is it is rarely being framed this way or proportionately considered.

If No does get up - what is the tangible impact of that kind of symbolism on society? On indigenous people? For how long? Surely decades at the very least.

Let's call a spade a spade - the peoples of Australia were invaded, murdered, stolen from, treated legally and practically as animals, had their children removed, are still incarcerated at a disproportionate rate and have a lower average life expectancy - and things are both clearly and measurably still not much better.

A No vote, symbolically, implies that in 2023 the majority of Australian's would prefer not to make moves towards reparation for this, even minimally impactful, symbolic moves.
The social consequences of that could be far worse.
Because of what, in reality?
Fear? That, maybe - but almost definitely not according to the majority of legal experts -, that there may be some unlikely repercussion from touching a constitution that doesn't actually do very much?

The international impact of a no vote shouldn't be discounted also. I've just spent 7 weeks in Europe and most people don't have any idea about how we treat our indigenous.

 

[FFC Mariner]

The High Court does not legislate, and an amendment to the Constitution cannot be overturned by legislation, it would require another Referendum.

Any future ruling(s) by the High Court can be dealt with by legislation - simples. This is just not a thing for the no people to be concerned about .

Lets say Dutton/Sky/Murdoch's nightmare comes true and the constitution is amended to create a voice for indigenous people to tell parliament what they want rather than have it foisted upon them (how terrible)

Even if they went to court over something they didnt like and won.( I dont know what on earth that might be and no one in the no camp seems to explain it either. ) The government of the day simply legislates against it. This is how our consitution and legal system works now.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Maybe to put this into context.
Japan invades Australia in 1942 and wins (which they probably would have) and forms government in "their" new country. They forcibly take anything the want from the beaten people and kill and imprison us.
We have to watch the invaders celebrating their victory. The invasion in Darwin etc.
They treat the Australian people worse than slaves.
Eventually they think that we ought to at least be able to tell them what we want and propose to amend the constitution of "their" country to include us (a bit)
How supportive are you of your over lords?
Personally I think its testament to the grace of the 1st Australians that they arent burning the place to the ground

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

If No does get up - what is the tangible impact of that kind of symbolism on society? On indigenous people? For how long? Surely decades at the very least.

Let's call a spade a spade - the peoples of Australia were invaded, murdered, stolen from, treated legally and practically as animals, had their children removed, are still incarcerated at a disproportionate rate and have a lower average life expectancy - and things are both clearly and measurably still not much better.

A No vote, symbolically, implies that in 2023 the majority of Australian's would prefer not to make moves towards reparation for this, even minimally impactful, symbolic moves.
The social consequences of that could be far worse.
Because of what, in reality?
Fear? That, maybe - but almost definitely not according to the majority of legal experts -, that there may be some unlikely repercussion from touching a constitution that doesn't actually do very much?

Well you certainly are passionate about this and that's a good thing.

I dont think that you or I can predict "the tangible impact of that kind of symbolism on society".
I dont believe that a No result represents any symbolism-it represents a less than compelling case for change

I think if the amendment is rejected, then the electorate should not be branded as bedwetters [thanks Noel-that's a cracking insult, I cant wait to use it myself ] or bigots, although I suspect that there are many who will try to make that case. I think any criticism of its failure should be laid squarely at the feet of the architects and the politicians who failed to present a more compelling case for change. Perhaps next time around they will do better and not over promise and underdeliver.

Had the British of the 18th Century just sailed past and left the first Australians to their own devices I doubt that it would have taken long before the Dutch, French, Portugese, Spanish, Russians Japanese or Chinese dropped in to spoil the party. It was inevitable that their lives would change, and I suspect that none of these others would have treated them better.

Love him or loathe him [and I tend to be a loather] I think John Howard is correct in his analysis that Australians dont like to be bullied, dislike condescending advice, and that dividing us along race lines is a mistake.

I dont believe in guilt by association. While Aboriginal people were conquered/invaded and treated shabbily in the past I dont believe that current Australians need to feel shame about this, just as I dont think modern Germans and Japanese should be shamed by the atrocities of their grandfathers. Learn from the mistakes of the past by all means, but guilt for something you had no control over? No.

I too have an issue with the 'Just Symbolic' argument. When it suits, the Yes campaign try to reassure us that it is merely recognition in the Constitution and that we have nothing to worry about. If that was the intent then it could have been worded better to ensure that this is the case-but it wasn't. Perhaps as you say that the legal risks are small, but I am being asked to gamble with something very precious. Like LP, my interest is also in the future of my children and grandchildren, but for me that is in maintaining the status quo for now.

BTW higher incarceration rates may have more to do with poverty and social dysfunction than institutional racism. I suggested earlier that The Gap may be a function of those affected choosing to live in remote communities, away from health services more available to the rest of us. I hope you weren't suggesting that broader Australia is deliberately trying to shorten those lives.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Not everyone who votes no is a racist.
Every racist will vote no.
Choose who you want to stand with

 

[Ironbark]

...Like LP, my interest is also in the future of my children and grandchildren, but for me that is in maintaining the status quo for now...

Let's be clear though - there is no actual risk. All the hype around there being some kind of constitutional consequence is just hyperbole, aimed at frightening people into preferring the status quo. This is a very old and commonly used political tactic.

 

[Roger the Cabin Boy]

Let's be clear though - there is no actual risk. All the hype around there being some kind of constitutional consequence is just hyperbole, aimed at frightening people into preferring the status quo. This is a very old and commonly used political tactic.

While I understand your passion, your assurances, like those of others will be meaningless if you are wrong.
Any perception of risk could have been eliminated by rewording. I'd rather be certain by voting No.

 

[pjennings]

Let's be clear though - there is no actual risk. All the hype around there being some kind of constitutional consequence is just hyperbole, aimed at frightening people into preferring the status quo. This is a very old and commonly used political tactic.

I agree that the voice provides no actual risk. However, the way Britain claimed what became Australia (or at least the east coast), was basically illegal. It wasn't until 1835 that terra nullius was proclaimed in the then New South Wales.

It wasn't until Mabo (No 2) 1992 High Court case which legally overturned the terra nullius fiction and recognised the past and continuing connection that Indigenous people have to the land.

Terra Nullius | Rule of Law Education Centre

www.ruleoflaw.org.au

The Keating/Indigenous Australia/National Farmers Federation response to this decision basically was another case of Indigenous Australians working with the rest of Australia to make a workable solution. At that stage the options were mass extinguishments by the States (what would have been a shameful act), testing it through case law (along the lines of the Mabo case, but for each claim - basically a long and convoluted process) or putting the essence of the Mabo judgement into Commonwealth law.

At this stage 'backyards were at risk' but Indigenous leaders rather than being litigious chose to work with the Government for the good of Australia.

Of particular not is the role of Rick Farley who apart from being the head of the National Farmers Federation, had been extensively involved with Aboriginal people with membership of the Government's Aboriginal Reconciliation Council and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission rural affairs committee.

He felt strongly about Aboriginal reconciliation and had a rare understanding of, and affinity with, the Aboriginal relationship with the land. He believed that reflected the spirit of his own farm constituency.

"Probably the most important thing I have learned out of my contact with Aboriginal people is the absolute central importance of the land to their culture and heritage and religion,"

"If you talk directly to Aboriginal people and to pastoralists, many of their concerns are the same. They want to use the country sustainably. The thing Aboriginal people might want from the country may be different but they both have a very deep-seated love of the land and recognise the need to use it sustainably."

 

[Ironbark]

While I understand your passion, your assurances, like those of others will be meaningless if you are wrong.
Any perception of risk could have been eliminated by rewording. I'd rather be certain by voting No.

You keep commenting on my passion but this is my logic, not passion.

If there were zero consequences to a No vote I could, maybe, see it that way. But a No vote does have a very real impact on the social fabric of our society and when weighed against the near nothing of a risk that comes with a Yes (along with the benefits) it seems an easy weighting to me.

I'm not trying to convince you though, just throwing in my 2 bob