Marcia Langton in The Australian:

“I imagine that most Australians who are non-Indigenous, if we lose the ­referendum, will not be able to look me in the eye,”

Uh huh.

“How are they going to ever ask an Indigenous person, a Traditional Owner, for a welcome to country? How are they ever going to be able to ask me to come and speak at their conference?

She hasn’t thought this one through. (She’s allegedly a sharp intellect)

If they have the temerity to do it, of course the answer is going to be no.”

Eh? What’s that you say, if the Voice vote is “No” there’ll be no more welcome to country or Marcia Langton speaking at conferences?
…. Got it, she’s undercover for the “No” case.

Giovanino Guareschi

I also have his reminisces of his time in the Italian army and as a German POW.
I think he mentioned in that that he wrote a traditional autobiography but he either destroyed it or simply never had it published.

If you haven’t had it by now, you’re never going to get it.

If that were true no-one would be currently be getting covid.
It’s now an endemic illness, as we knew it would become and some people will continue to be vulnerable, to covid and flu, as that season also approaches.
Over the last week, 27,742 cases of COVID-19 were reported across Australia, an average of 3,963 cases per day.

I should have added, being a “houso” I live in a street, almost, full of NDIS recipients, including 3 entire families over 16 .. the one thing they all have in common (except one wheelchair bound person) is the absence of a visible “disability” …

I see so many operators offering accredited NDIS services from taxi’s to garden care. No wonder its expenditure has now surpassed Medicare. Most of us could see it when it was passed (with ALP and LNP support) that it would become the greatest grift in Australian history.

I don’t know why people keep insisting that ‘they’ manufactured covid and the covid vaccines as part of some sort of depopulation or something something conspiracy.
‘They’ have had a very successful western depopulation method for decades heartily endorsed by the majority of the population.
It’s called high taxation,
the welfare state, contraception and abortion and it’s been working a treat.
Just look at any western nation’s year by year decrease in fertility for the last few decades.

Sending me to “Coventry”….

Now that would take some doing on a non verbal blog tho .. LOL!

Of course I am not threatening you Cranky. Geez.

Let me rephrase: please don’t make up lies about me.

There have been no lies told about you here, Camp guard.

Vote ‘No’ and you won’t get a welcome to country again’

Marcia Langton doesn’t mince words and now she’s really had enough. When Australians vote on the voice, she wants them to think hard about what’s at stake.

Is that all it will take? Seriously?

Oli London
@OliLondonTV

We need to take a hardline approach going forward so that we can stop this violent terrorist movement.

At least BJ sticks to what I actually say in his endlessly dull Reply Guy posts.

Endlessly dull? That is astonishing coming from a one trick pony/canned riff guy such as yourself.

As was once said of St Ruth here; you’re so boring you could bore an arsehole in a wooden horse.

Seriously, have you considered removing your manly tackle and popping on a frock?

Huh!

The Rapidly Expanding Transgender Cult Is The Product Of Cultural Marxism

Coal price has halved since oct last year.

https://ycharts.com/indicators/australia_coal_price

MIC DROP: Matt Walsh Debates Transgender EMT Who Ends Up Speechless

Terrified swimming champion Riley Gaines is ambushed by screaming trans activists and ‘hit twice by guy in a dress’ after Saving Women’s Sports speech at San Fran State University – as cops say there were NO arrests

Dr. Bhakdi: The Vaccine is the WORST Manmade Disaster in History

William Makis MD
@MakisMD

Spike protein accumulates in the brain and causes infarcts, bleeds, inflammation – Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause severe neurological injuries (spike kills brain cells)

New World Odor™
@hugh_mankind

It was developed to train the children not to think for themselves and follow orders” -Paul Chek

The PGA Tour’s arrogance for decades as a virtual monopoly is coming home to roost …

Yep. The destruction of the US PGA is about the best thing that could happen for the game of golf. The BCCI of golf.

Bourne1879 says:
April 8, 2023 at 8:16 am
From Michael Smith regarding Ken Wyatt

Joe Aston from the Financial Review reported 5 years ago that Wyatt has been trying to get out (to Labor (

Hey, being a government minister pays more than being just a shadow minister, if even that after defecting.

Lol thanks Salvatore for the Marcia Langton rubbish. She gave the game away didn’t she?
Can I just say, the ‘welcome’ should be only be performed by the men? Or not at all? Aboriginal society being patriarchal of course.

Vikki Campion on Teh Voice:

Like trainwreck reality show Married At First Sight where contestants are married and then asked to fall in love with people they have never met, we have been asked to marry and then fall in love with a new racial clause in the Constitution without ever being given the fine print.

The reason reality TV marriages rarely last more than a few weeks is because when the details do emerge, they realise the union is untenable.

In this situation, the Yes case is not what we want but it’s what we have waiting at the altar.

We will be dragged down the aisle by Aunty Guilt and television producers forcing a guileless victim-villain narrative to live the rest of our lives in resentment.

But it’s a marriage we can never get a divorce from.

If we dare suggest that we don’t want to enshrine a political body that could be swiftly legislated into a risky, expensive and unnecessary constitutional change, we are cast as the shallow heartless villain who refuses to marry the philosopher, forever condemned.

The tone from the top drips down.

Every Question Time when the PM has been asked about Voice policy, he goes for character assassination of the questioner rather than being honest with details.

When Liberal leader Peter Dutton concluded that he would campaign against the Voice, the Yes case villainised him as quickly as a MAFS producer on their way to raise the ratings.

It would be great theatre, except our nation’s future hangs upon it.

What if Dutton had said this about senior Voice architect Noel Pearson as Pearson did about Dutton?

“I couldn’t sleep last night, I was troubled by dreams and the spectre of the Albanese Labor Party Judas betrayal of our country. I see the leader of the Labor Party, Mr Albanese, as an undertaker preparing the grave to bury all Australians being treated equally regardless of race.”

ABC commentators would be apoplectic on morning radio, calling for the immediate resignation of a divisive Opposition Leader as utterly unacceptable for our nation.

Yet for Pearson to say similar on the ABC about Peter Dutton? He gets a 16-minute armchair ride uninterrupted. It’s the Victim Edit, after all, spitting warranted rejection’s spite on the villain.

What if Dutton accused Pearson of being trapped in an “activist celebrity vortex” being used by left-wing think tanks to “punch down on white fellas” – as Pearson accused Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price of doing?

Pearson’s commentary spearheaded the Senator’s inbox being flooded with notes which are far too revolting and offensive to publish here.

Ah yes, the enlightened kind Yes case who wants to hear Indigenous voices. And you wonder why we are not busting to enshrine our union in the Constitution. As victims, the Yes case’s rudeness is virtuous, while the No case’s explained reasons are outrageous – of course, the basis for a fair appraisal of facts.

What if Dutton had said what Professor Marcia Langton, co-chair of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament design group, said about him: “I think they rely absolutely on deceit and misrepresentation and, I have to say, a great deal of ignorance. They want to sow confusion and doubt.”

Dutton would be obliterated from public discourse immediately.

That the proponents of the Yes case in the media and the Prime Minister’s office have been so quick to remove it from a debate requiring careful consideration of consequences, especially the impact on the executive – to name a few, cabinet ministers, the PM, the Governor-General, the Reserve Bank governor and the chief of the Defence Force – to a discussion as binary as a reality show edit, shows how much work they have to do.

Victim = Yes. Villain = No.

It just does not cut it.

Documents from the original working group released under Freedom of Information laws reveal that “any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process” and that treaty must include a “fixed percentage of Gross National Product. Rates/land tax/royalties”.

Meeting minutes also reveal changing the names on the map so that “Aboriginal names for places and things across Australia should be the norm, and used by wider Australia” and changing the flag because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”.

“The Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples,” the documents released by the National Indigenous Australian’s Agency said.

Treaty, too was discussed as requiring constitutional force.

Why should we have to rely on FOI to get this detail?

Why can’t the Yes case be clear rather than being deliberately evasive to the undecided?

If the Yes case is being honest that the Voice is an advisory body and not a precursor to treaty to take a percentage of GDP and GNP, why does it need constitutional power? Why not legislate it now?

And what is the point of a constitutional change when the Prime Minister and Yes case advocates within both Labor and the Coalition routinely fail to meet with Indigenous people who make an effort to come to Canberra, including former Minister Ken Wyatt, who flatly ignored a delegation who came to Parliament to call for action on their murdered sisters? Apparently, it wasn’t the Voice the then-minister wanted to hear. That edit doesn’t fit the narrative, so it inevitably ends up on the cutting room floor.

From the Oz – I’ve posted the whole article.

Indigenous voice to parliament will create co-government and cause policy chaos
Janet Albrechtsen Follow @jkalbrechtsen Janet Albrechtsen

12:00AM April 8, 2023
208 Comments

The declared aim of the Yes advocates who have led the drafting of the proposal to place the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice in the Constitution is co-government. Co-government is also what the words of the proposed amendment will achieve.

The day the voice is constituted, its lawyers will likely advise it to send a letter such as the one set out on this page, or take action to the same effect to establish joint sovereignty structures. I have been working with three of the nation’s most prominent constitutional and administrative lawyers to draft a letter the voice could send on day one to demand the rights that are given to it by the Constitution.

The Prime Minister plainly misunderstands the legal impact of his proposed wording, although it would seem the Solicitor-General does not. Anthony Albanese misled parliament – and the people – when he said parliament would retain primacy over how the voice operated and what it considered.
Read Next

He was immediately rebuked by professors George Williams and Anne Twomey, who said parliament would not be the final arbiter of the voice’s reach. Indeed, Williams said: “That’s the point of putting things in the Constitution, it puts them beyond the parliament.”

Even more powerfully, last weekend in these pages, voice ­advocates professors Megan Davis and Gabrielle Appleby told the PM the “question of when the voice will speak and to whom” was not for parliament but for the voice ­itself. Parliament, they said, “can’t shut the voice up”.

The true purpose of the amendment is to transfer power from parliament and government to the courts, allowing the voice to hogtie (to borrow Greg Craven’s colourful but accurate word) parliament and the executive government.

The power of the voice to delay executive action by use of its rights to be heard and to litigate will mean every executive body of government must negotiate with the voice on everything it plans to do, in advance, if it is caught in the wide net of any “matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”. This creates co-sovereignty between our organs of government on the one hand, and the voice on the other.

This is not my assertion. This is the explicit aim of the Uluru Statement. Read the work of legal academics who have master­minded this theory of split sovereignty. An academic paper earlier this year by Professor Appleby and her colleagues Ron Levy and Helen Whalan laid out the blueprint for all to see.

The academics describe the belief of non-Indigenous people that “the Australian state’s sovereignty is ultimate and exclusive” as a mere “assumption”. They claim that Australia suffers from a crisis of “constitutional legitimacy”.

This would likely surprise the vast majority of Australians.

While the authors may find “disagreement with the authority of our constitutional order”, the accepted position on sovereignty was laid out by then chief justice Anthony Mason in Coe v Commonwealth (No 2) in 1993. Mason said the High Court in the Mabo decision clearly rejected “the notion that there resides in the Aboriginal people a limited kind of sovereignty embraced in the notion that they are a ‘domestic dependent nation’ entitled to self-government”.

Too little attention has been focused on the fact the Uluru Statement explicitly rejects the sole sovereignty of the Australian Crown. Moreover, there is a vast and flourishing industry of legal academics represented by Appleby and co, but also many others in our law schools, and applauded by the legal profession, which seeks, or at least waves through, this radical change. The change desired, to borrow from Appleby’s blueprint, is constitutional change which “may allow the voice, working with parliament, to be an alternative site for decision-making about how settler and First Nations communities can manage their shared (or conflicting) resources, institutions and spaces in ways that accommodate each community to the other”. The aim here is clearly not parliamentary primacy, Prime Minister, but rather shared power.

Including the power to make representations to “executive government” in the proposed constitutional amendment is critical to this co-sovereignty. Those few words brings with them an enormous body of public administrative law governing the way courts will be able to interpret the voice’s powers, offering the voice power to delay government decisions. This body of law will be used by the High Court, cannot be ousted by parliament and will give the voice rights of procedural fairness.

These rights include, but are by no means limited to, the right to be given advance notice of matters within the voice’s remit; the right to be given sufficient time and resources to consider the matter; and proper consideration of any representation it makes.

The voice will, if properly advised, demand all these rights on the first day it is constituted.

The letter in the accompanying box is but one example. The voice will have many other ways to enforce its rights if it chooses. The methodology could vary but the result will be the same: a radically different form of government for the country, where, across large swathes of executive government, there is co-government.

–

A letter the voice could write to bureaucrats

Dear (insert name of head of relevant department/agency/government business enterprise),

As you know, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice has been given a constitutional right by the Australian people to make representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

That right is not limited to making representations about matters that have a direct or special or substantial or different effect on ATSI people. The voice has a constitutional right to make representations about any matters that may relate even indirectly to ATSI people and about matters that affect all Australians.

The voice hereby advises that we will make representations to you on the following matters, at least: (insert matters relevant to the bureaucrat/department/agency/, for example, in the letter to Treasury, APRA or the RBA this will include any change in interest rate policy, bank lending and consumer credit policy or policies concerning regulation of financial services entities.

In the letter to the Dept of the Environment, it will cover every proposal for development of any mineral, mining or hydrocarbon project, or any dam or other infrastructure. In the letter to the Department of Health it will include every proposal to build, replace or renew any health facility, every proposal for expenditure on health policy, and every alteration of health policy).

For the voice’s constitutional right to make representations to have practical effect, the voice must be given advance notice by your (department/agency/body) of any proposed decision, evaluation, assessment, expenditure, policy change, or any other matter that may relate to ATSI people.

Advance notice of decisions is essential so that the voice has the opportunity to obtain information about the matter and then make a representation if appropriate. This view is reflected in the voice design principles released by the government, which provide (among other things) that:

• The voice will be able to make representations proactively.

• The voice will have its own resources to allow it to research, develop and make representations.

• The parliament and executive government should seek representations in writing from the voice early in the development of proposed laws and policies.

Accordingly, in addition to the specific matters listed above, the voice hereby requires you to give us advance notice of any proposed decision, evaluation, assessment, expenditure, policy change, or any other matter that may relate to ATSI people.

Given that the voice’s constitutional right to make representations is not limited by reference to the size or importance of a matter relating to ATSI people, you must not censor or filter matters upon which we may wish to make a representation. While we may not wish to pursue minor or trivial matters, we wish to make that judgment, not have you make it for us.

In order to give the voice adequate time to consider such matters and formulate any representations, we require you to give us notice of all relevant matters as soon as such matter arises and, in any event, at least 90 days before the decision, evaluation, assessment, expenditure, policy change, or other matter is made.

You must provide all documents, and access to all your personnel, which the voice considers appropriate to enable it to effectively make representations … this means that any material that is before a decision maker, or during the development of a policy must be made available to the voice if the voice requests it.

We put you on notice that you must not implement any such matters unless the voice has been given the time to make proper representations and discuss them with you.

The voice is in the process of hiring qualified professionals to enable it to exercise properly our right to make representations in every area of government which affects ATSI people. In the interim we will have (insert number) voice officers dedicated to monitoring matters that arise in your (department/agency/body), and we propose at least (number) will be permanently embedded in your offices to enable the voice to work effectively.

We envisage that in the fullness of time there will be a voice agency within your (department/agency/body) so that effective oversight of your policy development, policies and decision making can be carried out by the voice on a continuous and ongoing basis.

Please note that failure to comply with the requirements contained in this letter or to give proper consideration to any representations made by the voice may render any action taken by you liable to challenge by the voice in the courts, with the real risk that any decision taken will be rendered invalid until we have been given time to exercise our constitutional right to make representations.

Where we deem necessary, we will not hesitate to prosecute the constitutional guarantee which has been afforded to us by the Australian people, including seeking injunctive relief to prevent the making of a decision which affects ATSI people, to ensure that our right to make representations has been provided in a way that is both substantive and practical.

Moreover, you will be aware that s 75(v) of the Constitution provides an irremovable right to judicial review of any unlawful decision made by an officer of the commonwealth affecting that person’s interests. Please be aware that the voice takes the view that s75(v) protects it, or any other persons affected by any final decisions made by an officer of the commonwealth relating to ATSI people.

Please be advised that if your department makes a final decision which affects ATSI people and during the process of making that decision fails to give due consideration, does not provide the voice procedural fairness, or considers the representations in an unreasonable way (in other words, if you do anything which provides the basis for a constitutional writ under s 75(v) of the Constitution) we will not hesitate to commence action in the Federal Court of Australia to invalidate that decision.

We are in the process of establishing a Voice Legal Affairs unit which will be equipped to provide legal advice to staff in your (department/agency/body) so that they may better understand their legal obligations and the broader administrative law implications of our constitutional right to make representations. We will advise you when the VLA is established and look forward to working with your (department/agency/body) so that the representations of the voice are received in a way that conforms with the Constitution.

In the meantime, we suggest that your staff undergo legal training concerning the obligations on them to take due consideration of any representations by the voice which are constitutionally mandated for consideration.

Your sincerely,
(insert name)
CEO, The Voice,
Canberra

Rob
57 minutes ago
‘Vote ‘No’ and you won’t get a welcome to country again’

Can we get that written down and signed ?
Jonno
58 minutes ago
“Vote ‘No’ and you won’t get a welcome to country again”

How I would welcome the day I didn’t have to endure another ‘welcome’ to my own country.

From the Oz article on Marcia Langton – 29 comments so far, none in support of Marcia.

And what is the point of a constitutional change when the Prime Minister and Yes case advocates within both Labor and the Coalition routinely fail to meet with Indigenous people who make an effort to come to Canberra, including former Minister Ken Wyatt, who flatly ignored a delegation who came to Parliament to call for action on their murdered sisters?

As Ken Wyatt said after tendering his resignation from the Liberal Party, “Aboriginal people are reaching out to be heard but the Liberals have rejected their invitation.”

Erm…what was that about rejection, Ken?

His current gig is on the government’s referendum working group, btw.

No doubt he sees a role for himself in The Voice should it get up.

I can only state positive treatment from the “Cancer Treatment Industry”, in fact I would regard my treatment by the Cancer/Hospital System over 22 years as living proof of an Excellent System

Have to agree .. after being admitted to Nepean Hospital almost dead (3 weeks prediction) following a missed diagnosis of Non Hodgins Lymphoma … and only my Medicare card as back-up after ..
“Don’t worry”, the local quack said, “your just getting old, it’ll pass” .. FFS! ..
operated on (exploratory) within hours, 2 weeks in-hospital intensive chemo and then 3 months out-patient fortnightly chemo I made a complete recovery .. that was back in 2012 (64) and now at 75 I’m fitter & healthier than I was at 30 ..
shame about the head but ya can’t have it all .. it seems! .. LOL!