Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Link to the proposed Referendum, from the Referendum Working Group:

(Edited 6 April 2023)

These are the words that will be put to the Australian people in the upcoming referendum as agreed by the Referendum Working Group (made up of representatives of First Nations communities from around Australia):

"A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

As well as that, it will be put to Australians that the constitution be amended to include a new chapter titled "Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples".

The details would be:


View attachment 1636890

The Prime Minister has committed to the government introducing legislation with this wording to parliament on 30 March 2023 and to establishing a joint parliamentary committee to consider it and receive submissions on the wording, providing ALL members of Parliament with the opportunity to consider and debate the full details of the proposal.

Parliament will then vote on the wording in June in the lead up to a National Referendum.

The ANU has issued a paper responding to common public concerns expressed in relation to the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice here:

Indigenous Voice to Parliament | Australian National University

Responding to common concerns about an aboriginal and torres strait islander voice First Nations portfolio Background

www.anu.edu.au

Summary details of the key points from this paper may be found in Chief post here:

The Uluru Statement from the Heart:

Not specifically No. In any case it does not form part of the Referendum proposal.

View attachment 1769742

Seeing as things have gotten a bit toxic in here, let's try to return things to a more civil tone.

The following will result in warnings to begin with, and if said behaviour continues will be escalated:

• referring to another poster as racist without direct provocation.
• dismissing or deriding another poster's lived experience.
• personal attacks or one line posts designed solely to insult or deride.

You might notice that the final rule is from the board rules. Thought we should probably remember that this is against the rules in case it's been forgotten.

Let's play nicely from here, people.

 

[Gough]

I can imagine Babet struggling with no.

 

[mighty tiges]

LOL @ this d*ckhead cooker trying to be a smart@rse and boasting about it on twitter/X but not realising he made his vote informal by stupidly writing his name on the ballot paper and identifying himself . Well done on wasting your vote, moron!



==================

Edit by Chief:

 

[Engimal v3]

LOL @ this d*ckhead cooker trying to be a smart@rse and boasting about it on twitter/X but not realising he made his vote informal by stupidly writing his name on the ballot paper and identifying himself . Well done on wasting your vote, moron!

Haha surely it becomes a donkey vote if you scribble on it?

 

[Gough]

Haha surely it becomes a donkey vote if you scribble on it?

Informal, donkey is when you number from top to bottom on an HoR ballot paper.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Haha surely it becomes a donkey vote if you scribble on it?

Nah can do all sorts of scribble. What you can't do is ID yourself like this idiot has done.

 

[swingdog]

Yeah I voted this week and was approached by a person with how to vote card.

" Er ah, yes has 3 letters. No has 2. you think I need help with that?"

I know. I should be more tolerant of stupidity but alas.

Never underestimate the average voter. Remember, Married At First Sight is a thing.

 

[Engimal v3]

Informal, donkey is when you number from top to bottom on an HoR ballot paper.

Well there you go - I always thought those terms were synonymous

 

[Beerfish]

Voted yesterday. Straight in straight out. Only 1 of each campaigner at the door and neither bothered me. Bliss.

 

[Gethelred]

Never underestimate the average voter. Remember, Married At First Sight is a thing.

It's where the marketing was genius. "Don't watch it because it's good, watch it because it's bad!"

It starts off as a hate watch, before the parasocial relationship between the watcher and the watched really forms. Once it's formed, you're in; you're not watching it ironically anymore, you're watching it because you actively are invested in the people on the screen before you. You know them, the version of them they've cultivated for your consumption, and you cannot stop looking. You rise with and fall with them.

There's overlap between the image consultants and the political aides and those who make shows like Married at First Sight. It's funny to me that the blame for you rests with the voters, and not with the people whose task it is to make them easier to hoodwink.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

LOL @ this d*ckhead cooker trying to be a smart@rse and boasting about it on twitter/X but not realising he made his vote informal by stupidly writing his name on the ballot paper and identifying himself . Well done on wasting your vote, moron!

I'd go and vote Yes in his name now, except he's already marked off, ( i assume they are using electronic rolls for pre-voting ) and i'd have to do a declaration, and i'd need ID to do that.

If someone else votes in your name before you do, you still get to vote but you need to prove yourself.

If lots and lots of people voted in other peoples names ( and we have never ever ever had to produce ID to vote, why does this moron think he should need to now ?) it could possibly affect the outcome and need to be redone at a seat, but luckily we haven't had so many idiots, though we seem to be getting more by the day.

 

[Chief]

Haha surely it becomes a donkey vote if you scribble on it?

No it becomes invalid due to the fact the person has identified themselves.

The squirming brain of a cooker:



He's going on about estoppel??

Half-baked lawyer wannabes trying to play semantic games like they are undiscovered genius legal minds.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Nah can do all sorts of scribble. What you can't do is ID yourself like this idiot has done.

Pictures of dicks seem to have remained very popular over a very long period of time.

 

[swingdog]

No it becomes invalid due to the fact the person has identified themselves.

The squirming brain of a cooker:



He's going on about estoppel??

Half-baked lawyer wannabes...

Love that he's a Corporate Advisor based in.....Albury.

 

[Gough]

It would have been easier to write I am a rolled gold bellend and save us all the year 11 legal studies crap.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No it becomes invalid due to the fact the person has identified themselves.

The squirming brain of a cooker:



He's going on about estoppel??

Half-baked lawyer wannabes trying to play semantic games like they are undiscovered genius legal minds.

Dear Allan, the returning officer doesn't give a crap. No one cares if you are really you. No matter how much you'd like to be important you are not. They are just going to take your worthless vote and shove it in the informal pile, and you won't even know about it.
If the election is so tight that they need to check the informal's a review will find that your vote is indeed informal.

Thank you for supporting the YES cause.

 

[blueboy25]

I watched the Q and A from last night, geez Pia Miranda didn’t add much of substance, out of her depth really. Noel Pearson came across pretty arrogant to me in all honesty. Dan Tehan gave an interesting perspective, and it’s fairly obvious which way the host is voting.

Dan Tehan embarrassed himself on Q&A with his lack of knowledge of the constitution, parliament and legislation.

Which is quite something for someone who has spent so long in Canberra.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

OMG

He thinks that Dan Andrews invented our current electoral system.

 

[Engimal v3]

No it becomes invalid due to the fact the person has identified themselves.

The squirming brain of a cooker:



He's going on about estoppel??

Half-baked lawyer wannabes trying to play semantic games like they are undiscovered genius legal minds.

Yeah, I meant invalid not donkey vote. So funny lol

 

[Chief]

Robodebt for Indigenous programs? Beyond No, Coalition prepares to slash spending

Calls for an 'audit' of Indigenous spending — which the Coalition had little interest in while in power — would be a pretext for cuts to programs.

www.crikey.com.au

Paywalled but Dutton and Price now want an audit of all Indigenous spending. From the party that bought us Robodebt and Sports roots that's showing more front than Harrods.

It's a "look at the poor people who aren't like us... they are the cause of your problems! Price-gouging, rampant corporate profiteering and tax dodging? Who dat?"

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Are these all the same guy?

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/horse-racing/allan-endresz-to-relinquish-ownership-in-nine-banned-queensland-horses/news-story/6e56afcd7e7b361e4c5104a5f9ace3d4

https://fintechshowcase.com.au/speaker/allan-endresz/

Paradise papers: The Cook Islands millionaire who never has to pay his debts

Meet Mr Teflon: Assets don't stick to him. And neither does debt -- just ask the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

www.afr.com

There should be a rule that he's not entitled to vote, on the grounds of being a bloodsucking piece of scum.

 

[NSWCROW]

Hey i heard some mommys boy made a video threatening Lidia Thorpe but when i checked sky news, the daily tele and 2gb there was nothing about it

 

[mighty tiges]

I'd go and vote Yes in his name now, except he's already marked off, ( i assume they are using electronic rolls for pre-voting ) and i'd have to do a declaration, and i'd need ID to do that.

If someone else votes in your name before you do, you still get to vote but you need to prove yourself.

If lots and lots of people voted in other peoples names ( and we have never ever ever had to produce ID to vote, why does this moron think he should need to now ?) it could possibly affect the outcome and need to be redone at a seat, but luckily we haven't had so many idiots, though we seem to be getting more by the day.

Yep, they are using electronic rolls for pre-polling.

If someone did try to vote more than once or vote under another person's name, they would more than likely get caught. Not only it is electoral fraud, but they end up being classed as a "designated voter" to be watched and scrutinised at all future elections and referendums to prevent them trying to cheat ever again. Meaning they would need to do a declaration vote every single time and witnessed by a senior electoral officer (a DRO or OIC) at the voting centre.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yep, they are using electronic rolls for pre-polling.

If someone did try to vote more than once or vote under another person's name, they would more than likely get caught. Not only it is electoral fraud, but they end up being classed as a "designated voter" to be watched and scrutinised at all future elections and referendums to prevent them trying to cheat ever again. Meaning they would need to do a declaration vote every single time and witnessed by a senior electoral officer (a DRO or OIC) at the voting centre.

The rolls are all scanned.
So if you went to five different polling places and voted at each one ( or someone else did in your name ) they would know at the end that the vote was wrong by 5 votes.
If that was the only discrepancy in that electorate ( and in reality there are heaps ) no-one would care unless the count came to within 5 votes.
If it did its back to the polls for that electorate, but in reality most seats are a much bigger margin.
And like you said the name becomes a designated voter after that.

You could do it maliciously i guess , organise a heap of people to vote in the name of someone they didn't like just to annoy them.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Love that he's a Corporate Advisor based in.....Albury.

also an undischarged bankrupt that’s probably cost the taxpayer millions of dollars in ATO legals and court resources.

Paradise papers: The Cook Islands millionaire who never has to pay his debts

Meet Mr Teflon: Assets don't stick to him. And neither does debt -- just ask the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

www.afr.com

 

[SaintsSeptember]

also an undischarged bankrupt that’s probably cost the taxpayer millions of dollars in ATO legals and court resources.

Paradise papers: The Cook Islands millionaire who never has to pay his debts

Meet Mr Teflon: Assets don't stick to him. And neither does debt -- just ask the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

www.afr.com

Associated with a huge government fraud deal.