Australian Politics
Voice referendum question likely ‘misleading, unconstitutional’, legal experts warn
What lies behind all the vagueness is that Albo is quietly aiming at something very big and controversial. He wants the body of "advisers" formed by the bill as someone he can negotiate a "treaty" with, following the very damaging NZ example. It is all about a creating a treaty with Aborigines, nothing else. And there is no knowing what a treaty will do. Some extreme ideas have been put forward. It is dangerous racism
The wording of the Voice referendum question being put to Australian voters could be fundamentally “misleading” and unconstitutional because it fails to state the core function of the proposed body, according to one of the nation’s leading silks.
At the upcoming referendum, likely to be held in October or November, Australians will be asked to vote yes or no on a single question, “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?”
Victorian barrister and constitutional law expert Stuart Wood KC, in a legal opinion for the conservative Institute of Public Affairs think tank published on Thursday, argued that the question “misleads and misinforms voters” and has a “serious deficiency” as it “fails to state the core function of the Voice”, and would be “open to challenge in the High Court of Australia”.
“In our view, the government’s proposed question misleads and misinforms voters about what they are being asked to approve at this year’s referendum,” Mr Wood said in the opinion, jointly written with barristers Paul Jeffreys and Jakub Patela.
“The central issue with the question is that, although it mimics the long title of the Bill, it fails to state the core function of the Voice, being to make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”
The question “instead, as presently framed, emphasises the notion of constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, with the establishing of the new body being only a symbolic step to achieve that aim”, they wrote.
“This is significant in circumstances where there is differential support amongst electors as to the concept of constitutional recognition, and the concept of a new constitutionally entrenched body,” the opinion said.
Assuming the proposed question remains deficient, they argue it would be “open to challenge by seeking relevant relief, such as a High Court declaration that an answer to the proposed question can not be taken to constitute approval of the proposed law, or an injunction preventing it being put to electors”.
The barristers suggested an alternative referendum question that could be put to voters instead.
“A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution by establishing a body to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice that, despite any Act of Parliament to the contrary, may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
Daniel Wild, the IPA’s deputy executive director, said in a statement that the legal opinion showed “fundamental questions now hang over the constitutional validity of the Voice to Parliament referendum”.
“The federal government has sought to prevent the release of detail on the Voice to Parliament proposal at all costs,” Mr Wild said.
“Mr Wood KC’s advice demonstrates the attempts to shroud the danger and divisiveness of the proposal have created a questionable and contestable legal scenario. Every step of the way, the Prime Minister, and Voice to Parliament advocates, have sought to deny Australians basic details, to stack the deck in favour of the Yes case, refused to answer rudimentary questions, and have admitted to not fully reading critical documentation on key legal matters.”
The IPA has called on the government to revise the question before the vote is held.
The legal opinion comes after Mr Wood earlier this year claimed that the “gravy train” of government work created a “big incentive” for barristers to support the Voice to Parliament.
“If you’re a sensible person making decisions about wanting to get onto the gravy train of government work, you’re not going to put sand in the gears,” he told Sky News.
“You’re going to tend to do the sort of things that make you more attractive to the biggest client in town.”
*******************************************************
Australia's Matildas are named 'one of the gayest teams at the World Cup' by leading LGBTQ news site
I had been told that female footballers are mostly butch Lesbians but I follow no sport so wondered if that was correct. Looks like it was. It may explain why play in their most recent match was pretty rough. It must be a first that a team of homosexuals received great public praise but one must wonder if many fans knew the full score about the team
The Matildas have been named one of the 'gayest' teams in the Women's World Cup, having the equal highest representations of lesbian players of all teams in the competition.
Pink News made the assessment ahead of Australia's semifinal against England on Wednesday night which the Matildas lost 3-1.
The UK-based news site said the Matildas had nine first-team players and three reserves who were in same-sex relationships, tying the squad with the Brazil team for the most openly lesbian players in the 2023 World Cup.
**************************************************
Top Voice No campaigner under fire for suggesting indigenous broadcaster Stan Grant has darkened his skin doubles down on his claim: 'There are many people who have said that'
Of course Grant uses fake tan. But he does have real aboriginal ancestry so not sure why he bothers
A prominent figure who opposes the Voice to Parliament has been slammed for suggesting indigenous journalist Stan Grant artificially darkens his skin in a series of vile tweets.
David Adler, who is head of the Australian Jewish Association, uploaded photos of Grant on social media in May - just days after he stepped down from his role as host of ABC panel program Q&A due to ongoing racial abuse.
Dr Adler is also on the advisory board for the right-wing lobby group, Advance - which runs a major 'No' campaign against the Voice.
The tweets, which were still on Dr Adler's Twitter profile on Tuesday morning, comprise photos of Grant throughout his career.
'Stan Grant's complexion seems to have changed,' he captioned the post.
'Look at the 3 pics. Can anyone explain?'
In March, Dr Adler posted the same images with the caption: 'Is Stan Grant doing black face? If so, why?'
He also raised questions about independent indigenous senator Lidia Thorpe's Aboriginal heritage on four occasions last year, according to the Sydney Morning Herald.
In March 2022, he said: 'What % Aboriginal are you? You appear quite white.'
'Not so sure she's Blak (or Black).'
In January, he tweeted: 'What is 'racist' is allowing people to drink themselves to death they bash/rape/murder the women/children & turning a blind eye to it because they are Aboriginal!'
Referring to the ABC, he wrote: 'If you self-identify as a black lesbian you'll get the job'.
In another tweet on Tuesday morning, Dr Adler stood by his comments about Grant and Thorpe - insisting they were 'not racist'.
'Both these people have put race as central to their political statements,' he wrote.
'So raising questions, even uncomfortable non PC questions, is legitimate, not racist.'
He also told the SMH he did not recall the comments directed at Thorpe, and did not apologise for the comments about Grant.
'I asked a question; I haven't made any accusations. I was given material and there are many people who hae said that (Grant's) complexion has changed,' he told the publication.
'I am 100 per cent zero racism. I have Aboriginal friends, the most prominent being Warren Mundine, and you'll see photos of me with him,'.
Mr Mundine, a highly-influential indigenous businessman and No campaigner, told Radio National on Tuesday morning that Dr Adler's comments about Grant's complexion were 'bizarre'.
'Stan Grant and I went to university together, we've been mates for over 30 years - brothers, in fact, we consider ourselves - so there is no question about where he comes from and no question about his Aboriginality at all,' he said.
'Over the years, I have seen silly tweets saying he got dark skin or he's pale - that is absolute nonsense.'
Mr Mundine acknowledged both he and Dr Adler are united in their opposition to the Voice, but pointed out they do not belong to the same lobby groups: 'He's not at my board meetings, he's not at our campaign meetings'.
He said it was 'disgusting' that anyone would question the percentage of someone's indigenous heritage - slamming it as a 'racist attack'
Thorpe, who also opposes the Voice, told the publication the No campaign should be ashamed to work with Advance.
'I called it out early that there is a racist No campaign that is encouraging racists and hurting our people,' she said.
'The government created this space for them and has failed in its responsibility to deal with the rise in racism.'
Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council chairman, Mark Leibler, slammed Dr Adler as an 'unrepresented extremist' whose comments were 'grotesque'.
'The notion that someone who leads a so-called 'Jewish organisation' could post such disgusting comments about anyone from another minority group, in this case the highly regarded journalist and author Stan Grant, is nothing short of grotesque,' he told the newspaper.
***************************************************
A mushroom cook and her killer family lunch that left three dead: The mysterious case gripping Australia
Not sure why this is a mystery. It was clearly an attempted murder of her ex -- who wisely stayed away after previous bad experience of her cookery. The fact that she herself was alone unaffected is also grounds for grave suspicion
It was supposed to be a family meal where differences could be reconciled and future plans made for the sake of the estranged couple’s children.
Instead, it kicked off events that could have come straight out of a murder mystery novel or the board game Clue.
Four of the five people sat around the table fell gravely ill, three of them later dying with the fourth left fighting for his life.
The fifth, meanwhile, appeared to escape unscathed – curiously the very same person who prepared and cooked the meal for the other four guests.
What has since emerged is a bizarre case that continues to enthrall people all across the globe – involving mushroom poisoning, a series of deaths, a tearful interview and now reports of a past mystery illness.
It all began one fateful day on 29 July, when Erin Patterson prepared a special meal of beef Wellington with “lots of mushrooms” for lunch at her home in Leongatha, a rural town in the Australian state of Victoria.
Present at the church-mediated lunch — set up to sort out visitation rights for her two children — were her in-laws Gail and Don Patterson, both 70, Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, 66, and her husband Ian, 68.
All four of her elderly in-laws fell violently ill that night from suspected mushroom poisoning.
Gail, Don and Heather, all teachers, died in hospital days later, while Ian, a local pastor, has been left fighting for his life.
Erin’s estranged husband Simon Patterson had skipped out on the meal at the last moment, while the couple’s two children had also left their mother’s home to see a movie just before the meat and pastry dish was served.
Victoria Police have since launched a homicide investigation, and at a press conference last week confirmed Ms Patterson is a suspect in the killings.
Erin, an experienced wild mushroom forager, reportedly told investigators she used dried fungi that she had purchased months earlier from an Asian grocery store and a fresh button variety bought recently from a local supermarket.
She later admitted lying to investigators about dumping a food dehydrator used to prepare the meal in a local refuse site after the deaths, according to the ABC.
In a statement obtained by the Australian public broadcaster, she said she was at the hospital with her children “discussing the food dehydrator” when her former husband asked: “Is that what you used to poison them?”
The 48-year-old mother-of-two has vehemently maintained her innocence, and in an interview this week claimed she is unfairly being painted as an “evil witch”.
As the poisoning mystery has shaken the small rural community 136kms southeast of Melbourne, and gripped Australian and international media, more disturbing details continue to emerge – with Simon Patterson now claiming that he once spent 16 days in an induced coma from a mystery gastro illness after eating food prepared by his wife.
Deadly dinner party
In a police statement obtained by the ABC, Erin reportedly told investigators that she had prepared a meal of beef Wellington with a “lot of mushrooms”.
Erin claimed she had purchased dried mushrooms from an Asian grocer several months ago, and button mushrooms from a local supermarket recently – using both in the dish.
Yet she reportedly could not remember exactly where she had bought them, according to the ABC.
She stated that she stored the dried mushrooms at a home she owns in Melbourne, before bringing them to the home in Leongatha.
“I used the dried mushrooms as they been in my cupboard for some time and I wanted to use them up. I rehydrated them and put them into the dish with the mushrooms that I had bought at [the supermarket],” according to the ABC.
Don and Gail Patterson died after eating poisoned mushrooms at Erin Patterson’s home in Victoria, Australia, on 29 July.
— (Supplied)
Erin said she served the others and allowed them to select their own plates, before taking the last plate.
**********************************************
The Barrier reef: A very expensive false alarm
In 2018, the Coalition government gifted $444 million of other people’s money to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. The money was apparently not even asked for by the foundation, but the Decider in Chief, then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his profligate offsider Josh Frydenberg, signed off on ‘… the record funding agreement without an open tender.’ Said Turnbull at the time: ‘So this is a wonderful investment in ensuring that we maintain the health of the Great Barrier Reef.’
The purpose of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, according to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation is to: ‘To find and grow the best solutions to protect the world’s greatest reef.’
Meanwhile, reported this week from the Australian Institute of Marine Science’s Annual Summary Report on Coral Reef Condition: ‘In 2022, the GBR (Great Barrier Reef) continues to recover, registering the highest levels of coral cover yet recorded in the Northern and Central regions over the past 36 years of monitoring.’
To repeat. The highest level of coral cover in 36 years of monitoring across two-thirds of the reef.
This begs the question… For what was $444 million of public money provided by the Coalition government? Either the Great Barrier Reef Foundation was absolutely brilliant at saving the reef or it achieved very little and the reef repaired itself. Was this another Coalition waste of money? Looks like the latter rather than the former.
According to Peter Ridd, someone with some familiarity of the subject: ‘The reef now has twice as much coral as in 2012 when it hit a low point after being smashed by major cyclones.’ Then Ridd added: ‘The truth is we have been scammed for decades, and the perpetrators have been caught out. Once-trusted science institutions have become untrustworthy. It is time they are subjected to serious scrutiny.’
Over 4 years, we have burned through approximately $245 million to achieve … what? Whatever it is, it is difficult to quantify. With this spending you’d think this project was part of the Department of Defence!
The final and most important question to ask then is … can we have the money back?
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/can-we-have-that-444-million-back/
************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment