Opinion It’s The Voice, try and understand it : WCE supports The Voice

[Forward Press]

No it’s not. All constitutional matters have to go before the High Court. How many cases do you think they hear in a year? Thousands? Hundreds? It’s in the dozens. And the vast majority of those are appeals from State courts.

This suggestion that the Voice will result in the courts being tied up with litigation are pure fearmongering.

But what would checks notes multiple High Court justices know about the High Court?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

But what would checks notes multiple High Court justices know about the High Court?

Not as much as an economics reporter from The Australian, that’s for sure.

 

[Winky]

Yeah, I still haven't heard a good reason for not giving details on how it will actually work.

There's also no good reason as to why they need the constitution to implement it. They could do it straight away through the existing government department (Aboriginal Affairs or whatever it is now) or pass a law if they need it to make direct representations to parliament (instead of through the minister). SA is already working to legislate a voice for their state.

It really smells like a token effort to get some fat cats a salary and look to be doing something (while just adding another layer of beauracracy).

Where’s that quote from?

The wording of the Constitutional question is that Parliament “may” “consult” with the Voice.

It makes zero difference. You can have your opinion and many people can disagree. The fact is that there are valid reasons to vote against this and people have the right to do so. There has to be a referendum and we will have to live by that result. I’m not going to use this forum to argue on the voice itself but I am disgusted with the fact that this club commits all of its members and supporters to a political stance. I think you will find that this is a move that will prove just how divisive this voice proposal is for not only this club but the country overall.

 

[Forward Press]

It makes zero difference. You can have your opinion and many people can disagree. The fact is that there are valid reasons to vote against this and people have the right to do so. There has to be a referendum and we will have to live by that result. I’m not going to use this forum to argue on the voice itself but I am disgusted with the fact that this club commits all of its members and supporters to a political stance. I think you will find that this is a move that will prove just how divisive this voice proposal is for not only this club but the country overall.

Were you 'disgusted' when the club and AFL supported voting Yes in the same sex marriage plebiscite?

 

[Forward Press]

Yeah, I still haven't heard a good reason for not giving details on how it will actually work.

There's also no good reason as to why they need the constitution to implement it. They could do it straight away through the existing government department (Aboriginal Affairs or whatever it is now) or pass a law if they need it to make direct representations to parliament (instead of through the minister). SA is already working to legislate a voice for their state.

It really smells like a token effort to get some fat cats a salary and look to be doing something (while just adding another layer of beauracracy).

Legislating the Voice means that it is subject to the whims of Parliament as to how it functions, who it is made up of and even whether it exists.

ATSIC was an example of such a legislative body and it was made extinct by John Howard.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

The government has made a poor effort at explaining the relevance of the voice to parliament. I literally don't understand it's purpose, other than to pay lip service to Indigenous Australians.

It's a body that is meant to advise parliament and is not a 3rd branch of government. So why does it need to be in the constitution?
We already have an Indigenous Affairs minister, why is this not sufficient to address issues Indigenous Australian's are facing? It's the literal purpose of this ministers existence.
Why is it necessary to enshrine race in the constitution?

 

[WCErevival]

Why would any non-indigenous person care if there was a voice? The way I see it is that it will not impact me at all so why would I deny a possible positive change for another group of people.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I am disgusted with the fact that this club commits all of its members and supporters to a political stance.

No they haven’t. They’ve taken a position and encouraged members and supporters to do the same. You’re free to take whatever position you like.

 

[Winky]

No they haven’t. They’ve taken a position and encouraged members and supporters to do the same. You’re free to take whatever position you like.

Of course they have. They should not be taking a position on a political issue and there was no reason to do so. They are meant to be running a football club. At the moment they are doing a very poor job of that so you would think their priority would be to concentrate on that. I've been a supporter since their entry into the AFL and a member for nearly the same time. There have been some good times and lowlights and I haven't always agreed with their decisions but that is understandable. You are obviously a supporter of the voice so good luck to you. I have legitimate concerns over this topic and cannot support this change to the constitution so will not support it and I do not want an organisation to speak on my behalf. There are many arguments and opinions and that illustrates the divisiveness of the proposal and this will not be resolved in this forum.

 

[Winky]

Why would any non-indigenous person care if there was a voice? The way I see it is that it will not impact me at all so why would I deny a possible positive change for another group of people.

It will affect everybody as the country's government will be affected. What's more any change made will be forever as their will never be another referendum call made should it fail dismally both in cost and effectiveness.

 

[Winky]

Legislating the Voice means that it is subject to the whims of Parliament as to how it functions, who it is made up of and even whether it exists.

ATSIC was an example of such a legislative body and it was made extinct by John Howard.

Correct. That is part of the problem with having it in the constitution. It will never be changed as no government will call another referendum. So if it turns out to be ineffective, costly and a hindrance to government then you're stuck with it. By the way, did you ever wonder why ATSIC was made extinct.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Of course they have. They should not be taking a position on a political issue and there was no reason to do so. They are meant to be running a football club. At the moment they are doing a very poor job of that so you would think their priority would be to concentrate on that. I've been a supporter since their entry into the AFL and a member for nearly the same time. There have been some good times and lowlights and I haven't always agreed with their decisions but that is understandable. You are obviously a supporter of the voice so good luck to you. I have legitimate concerns over this topic and cannot support this change to the constitution so will not support it and I do not want an organisation to speak on my behalf. There are many arguments and opinions and that illustrates the divisiveness of the proposal and this will not be resolved in this forum.

They’re a big organisation with a big presence in the community and a big platform, they can take any position on any social issue they like, particularly one that affects parts of the club like the Waalitj Foundation.

They can speak on behalf of the organisation, they can’t speak on behalf of every single fan in the same way that Qantas can’t speak on behalf of every Qantas passenger. They haven’t spoken on behalf of you personally at all. You’re still just as free to take whatever position you like as you were two days ago.

Correct. That is part of the problem with having it in the constitution. It will never be changed as no government will call another referendum. So if it turns out to be ineffective, costly and a hindrance to government then you're stuck with it. By the way, did you ever wonder why ATSIC was made extinct.

If it turns out to be a hindrance, costly and ineffective they can legislate to fix it. That’s the benefit of not having the detail in the constitution itself.

 

[Forward Press]

Correct. That is part of the problem with having it in the constitution. It will never be changed as no government will call another referendum. So if it turns out to be ineffective, costly and a hindrance to government then you're stuck with it. By the way, did you ever wonder why ATSIC was made extinct.

The Constitution would not impose the membership requirements, how it operates, what weight Parliament gives to its opinion etc etc. It only imposes the requirement that it exists.

ATSIC needed reform, not abolition - the latter was entirely due to political purposes. Do you know what they replaced ATSIC with? Nothing - we still do not have a peak body to somewhat represent the perspectives of indigenous peoples in Australia. New Zealand and Canada can operate effectively with treaties with their indigenous peoples yet somehow the issue of an indigenous voice (far from a treaty) is controversial here.

 

[MrKK]

No they haven’t. They’ve taken a position and encouraged members and supporters to do the same. You’re free to take whatever position you like.

I'm sure any players or employees who disagree with that position will feel comfortable voicing that within the club. Wouldn't be a career-limiting move at all...
It's not a situation they should be put in.

Bit different for a member who can just stop financially supporting the club if they don't like it, but again it's not a decision they should be pushed into making for a political issue.

We need to get away from this push to have organisations take public political stances on the issues of the day. It's the opposite of inclusivity.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

It makes zero difference. You can have your opinion and many people can disagree. The fact is that there are valid reasons to vote against this and people have the right to do so. There has to be a referendum and we will have to live by that result. I’m not going to use this forum to argue on the voice itself but I am disgusted with the fact that this club commits all of its members and supporters to a political stance. I think you will find that this is a move that will prove just how divisive this voice proposal is for not only this club but the country overall.

The club has not committed anyone to support this and members are free to do what they want.

In fact they have made it clear that people should get informed and base their decision of that.

If you really have issues with the club hand back your membership, if you have one.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

The government has made a poor effort at explaining the relevance of the voice to parliament. I literally don't understand it's purpose, other than to pay lip service to Indigenous Australians.

It's a body that is meant to advise parliament and is not a 3rd branch of government. So why does it need to be in the constitution?
We already have an Indigenous Affairs minister, why is this not sufficient to address issues Indigenous Australian's are facing? It's the literal purpose of this ministers existence.
Why is it necessary to enshrine race in the constitution?

No. You've done a poor job of informing yourself, or more likely you've heard misleading and deceptive media commentary from media who are opposed.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

No. You've done a poor job of information yourself, or more likely you've heard misleading and deceptive media commentary from media who are opposed.

I don't understand your post.

Are you criticising me for admitting I don't understand the issue?
Would a better approach not be to educate me after I've said I don't understand?

Or is it a case of you don't actually have the answers either?

 

[ZergMinion]

 

[JackOutback]

Why would any non-indigenous person care if there was a voice? The way I see it is that it will not impact me at all so why would I deny a possible positive change for another group of people.

Because we're becoming a society of selfish campaigners and they think Aboriginal people might be getting something they won't get, which can't possibly be allowed. Ignoring that they also get shorter life expectancy, increased rates of incarceration, judgemental treatment etc.

 

[Balls In]

I think the shame of the proposal not getting up is the psychological effect on such a small minority being voted against by the vast majority. Whatsmore I think it will get squashed. Talk of treaty, vetto powers, and reparations aren't being countered well enough by the yes campaign and then you have that lunatic ex green senator running around confirming everyones worst fears.

 

[dewcefault]

I think the shame of the proposal not getting up is the psychological effect on such a small minority being voted against by the vast majority. Whatsmore I think it will get squashed. Talk of treaty, vetto powers, and reparations aren't being countered well enough by the yes campaign and then you have that lunatic ex green senator running around confirming everyones worst fears.

She'll be voting 'No' to the voice.

 

[Balls In]

She'll be voting 'No' to the voice.

Yep but doesn't matter. Most people are apolitical just see an aboriginal activist politician carrying on like a pork chop demanding this and demanding that and it plays directly to the no campaign.

 

[JackOutback]

I think the shame of the proposal not getting up is the psychological effect on such a small minority being voted against by the vast majority. Whatsmore I think it will get squashed. Talk of treaty, vetto powers, and reparations aren't being countered well enough by the yes campaign and then you have that lunatic ex green senator running around confirming everyones worst fears.

Yes they are. Or are you one of those still waiting for the Mabo decision to result in your backyard being claimed?

Also, what's wrong with a treaty?

 

[Forward Press]

Yes they are. Or are you one of those still waiting for the Mabo decision to result in your backyard being claimed?

Also, what's wrong with a treaty?

New Zealand and Canada have treaties and as a result they have become apocalyptic hellscapes where black gangs hold government to ransom.

/s

The whole veto and reparations 'issues' have been decisively squashed by armies of legal experts, the Solicitor-General and their office, and actual High Court justices so those who claim they are undecided because they still have 'concerns' over the legal ramifications are No voters just shifting goalposts to justify their position. I'd have more respect for any No voter if they just owned it (eg I think the Constitution just shouldn't change at all, period) rather than using misinformation to justify their position.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]