Letter from Peter Dutton:
Yesterday the Liberal Party determined its position on the Voice.
We will oppose the Prime Minister’s model because it will enshrine in
the Constitution a Canberra-based bureaucracy.
It is a risky and divisive proposal that will not deliver practical outcomes.
Improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Australians requires a sensible and practical approach.
That’s why we reaffirm our commitment to local and regional advisory
bodies to provide grassroots advice.
We support the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
as Australia’s First People in our Constitution. But we would do so in
a responsible way that doesn’t create Constitutional uncertainty.
This is a case of doing what’s right for our country.
A referendum to enshrine the Albanese Government’s Voice in the
Constitution is a big decision with unknown consequences.
Our Constitution is our most important legal document. Every word can
have a meaning – and can be open to interpretation.
Once it’s in the Constitution, it is permanent. It won’t be changed.
The Government or Parliament cannot rectify any unintended consequences.
The facts matter. The details matter.
That’s why we asked 15 questions in January – questions that still
remain unanswered.
The way Mr Albanese’s Voice has been worded, and by enshrining it in
the Constitution, could open a legal can of worms.
The Prime Minister can’t guarantee its powers won’t lead to
intervention by an activist High Court.
And that it won’t significantly disrupt or delay effective decision
making by governments.
Constitutional lawyer Greg Craven has been a strong supporter of the
Voice in principle and was one of the experts behind the original
proposal of an Indigenous Voice.
But he now says: “It will be very, very difficult for government to
operate either because it will be constantly delayed and tied up in
knots, or indeed because the courts end up intervening directly in
decisions.”
For the Government it is not about the detail or the consequences.
It’s about the vibe.
In all good conscience, we cannot support that approach.
The Prime Minister has sought to divide Australians. We are seeking to
unite them.
Regards,
Peter Dutton
Leader of the Opposition.
Commonwealth Constitution of Australia 1901 Preamble
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania,
humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble
Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:
And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-
The last time we looked Aborigines were classed as people. Editor
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/preamble.html
www.cairnsnews.org 
old kodger
Your long held thoughts are that of many of us….There is absolutely No Lawful Authority in that place presented to us as a Parliament;
The French are onto what is proving to be the only solution of ridding Government/Corporate Tyranny from their lives…..
When the bully wants to instill his will onto the entire school and will not listen to reason or even bother reading The Rules of the yard (1901 Constitution), then the bully needs to FEEL the only language he seems to comprehend……
Treason is Treason and No Criminal volunteers themself to being held accountable no matter how much paper work they read;
The Criminal Codes Act 1914 dictates that We The People have the right and indeed OBLIGATION to arrest these Bastards….by any and all means necessary;
The Courts won’t play fair; The (Corporate) Policy Enforcers wont play fair; The only ones playing fair are The (common) People Of Australia;
Where’s that getting us?;
LikeLike
Dick,
I have long thought that, insofar as the “mob in Canberra” are not The Commonwealth of Australia Parliament, that they have no authority to even raise a referendum, let alone change OUR constitution, and that:-
After the war, when we chuck out all of them, along with their constitutions, we can dispense with all of their corrupt laws and go back to 1901.
LikeLike
Please note these words:
In 1998 Justice Merkel held in Shaw v Wolf that Aboriginal descent is “technical” rather than “real” – thereby eliminating a genetic requirement.”
This decision established that anyone can classify themself legally as an Aboriginal, provided they are accepted as such by their community.”
Two things and I not that smart but clearly if that was the ruling (even if fake because fake everything etc), ANYONE can be aboriginal in this country.
Second: Merkel what is his heritage? (can’t find a thing but recognise the surname).
LikeLike
And here is the wikipedia entry for the Tasmanian dam case, this individual refers to.
” Commonwealth v Tasmania (popularly known as the Tasmanian Dam Case)[1] was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 1 July 1983. The case was a landmark decision in Australian constitutional law, and was a significant moment in the history of conservation in Australia. The case centred on the proposed construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania, which was supported by the Tasmanian government, but opposed by the Australian federal government and environmental groups.”
and
Background to the case[edit]
Main article: Franklin Dam controversy
In 1978, the Hydro-Electric Commission, then a body owned by the Tasmanian government, proposed the construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Gordon River, below its confluence with the Franklin River, in Tasmania’s rugged south-west region. The dam would have flooded the Franklin River. In June 1981 the Labor state government created the Wild Rivers National Park in an attempt to protect the river. The boundaries would have allowed the construction of another dam lower on the Gordon River, below its confluence with the Olga River.
In May 1982, a Liberal state government was elected which supported the dam. The federal Liberal government at the time, led by Malcolm Fraser, made offers of compensation to Tasmania, however, they were not successful in stopping the dam’s construction.[2]
In November 1982, UNESCO declared the Franklin area a World Heritage Site after a nomination by the Labor government, forwarded by the Commonwealth, was accepted by the World Heritage Committee.[3] During the 1983 federal election, the Labor party under Bob Hawke had promised to intervene and prevent the construction of the dam. After winning the election, the Labor government passed the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, 1983 (Cth),[4] which, in conjunction with the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 enabled them to prohibit clearing, excavation and other activities within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area.
The Tasmanian government challenged these actions, arguing that the Australian Constitution gave no authority to the federal government to make such regulations. In May and June 1983, both governments put their case to the High Court of Australia.[5]”
and as a part of according to same site
“Definition of Aboriginality[edit]
Further information: Indigenous Australians § Definition
The case was later referred to in other cases regarding the definition of Aboriginality (Aboriginal Australian identity). Commonwealth v Tasmania had defined an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander as “a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives”. The ruling was a three-part definition comprising descent, self-identification and community identification. The first part – descent – was genetic descent and unambiguous, but led to cases where a lack of records to prove ancestry excluded some. Self- and community identification were more problematic as they meant that an Indigenous Australian person separated from their community due to a family dispute could no longer identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.[19][20] As a result, there arose court cases throughout the 1990s where excluded people demanded that their Aboriginality be recognised.
In 1998 Justice Merkel held in Shaw v Wolf that Aboriginal descent is “technical” rather than “real” – thereby eliminating a genetic requirement.”
This decision established that anyone can classify themself legally as an Aboriginal, provided they are accepted as such by their community.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v_Tasmania
LikeLike
Now more on the voice. Marcia Langdon. This article was free to read on my phone but not on desktop!! Please read. I expect many of you can tear this to shreds, but this is what we are fighting. BTW it mostly all about her. Just a little snippet from the article:
“There’s that word again – racism. Langton uses it often. “Racists don’t understand the horrible impact they have,” she says. “They don’t realise the wear and tear of constant racism is a huge factor in the suicide of young Indigenous Australians. So don’t say to an Aboriginal person ‘you’re too fair to be Aboriginal’, or ‘you’re too pretty to be Aboriginal’, or, ‘did you write that?’” Langton is astonished at the “mischievous” demands for a definition of Aboriginality that have emerged in the Voice debate. Being Aboriginal, she says, has nothing to do with race, but is “a cultural link, a claim of descent, an assertion or claim of identity, and acceptance by the community; it’s about being a member of a community by descent and culture”. She references the High Court decision in the 1983 Tasmanian dam case, which defined an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person as one of “Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives”.
She says the “terrible history” of the stolen generations continues for their descendants, some of whom are “as white as the driven snow”. “What they cop is, ‘you’re not dark enough to be Aboriginal’,” says Langton. “It’s a different kind of racism that they have to wear but it’s far removed from the racism you experience when you walk down the street in this country if you have dark skin. “
It is one of two articles I have seen in recent days featuring this individual, neither of them uniting, jHopefully you can all read this one from the link.
https://apple.news/AANE4EWZvTd-qRCEHmYTd2g
LikeLike
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria [esp Victoria], South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania [also Western Australia and Northern Territory] humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God do need a Constitutional determination. All persons living under this federation are included in the Commonwealth of Australia and are constituted as Australians.
The jurisprudence of the 1901 has been continuously under threat from the agencies and assets of the Communist Revolution throughout the 20th and now the 21st centuries to the extent that all branches of government are now subverted and operating in Yuri Bezmenov’s Stage Four of subversion: New Normal. This turns out to be the standard issue Communist genocide whether it is the class, tribal or in this case national ‘enemies’ ie ‘us’.
To amend the 1901 with a view to configuring our jurisprudence to the United [Communist] Nations through UNDRIP will work to extinguish the jurisprudence of the Commonwealth of Australia. If we as Australians are ever to restore our foundation, we must retain the Constitutional foundation.
This Voice amendment is about governance and configuration of Australian jurisprudence to the United [Communist] Nations.
The Aboriginal people as a specific demographic of Australians are recognized by the Australian High Court as a source of law, they have their own Ministry in Parliament, representation, franchise, corporate structure, land councils and a taxpayer subsidized industry. They have a Voice because they belong and are included in the Commonwealth of Australia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gerald P…Your post comes over as very suss..not well written, grammar bad.Almost like one of the scams we see on FB.
Who are you and what are you trying to sell here on Cairns News?
Personally, I would not have a bar of whatever you are selling?
I leave it to other discerning folk to correct me if I’m wrong.
LikeLike
Albo is pulling some of our well known First nations people, (some controversial) to his “yes campaign”. In addition, yet again our national carrier QANTAS. From the article:
“Tennis legend Ash Barty, Olympic sprinter Cathy Freeman and AFL star Buddy Franklin are set to be recruited to sell the Yes vote with Qantas also preparing to join the campaign for constitutional recognition.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has revealed his plans for a team of Indigenous superstars to sell Australians on a Yes vote for a Voice to parliament.
While Cathy Freeman had long been a supporter of the Yes vote, a number of sports stars are in the Prime Minister‘s sights, including NBA star Patty Mills and footballer Jonathan Thurston.
Long-time Voice supporter Adam Goodes, a former Australian of the Year, has been working behind the scenes to build support for several months.
Qantas is also expected to emblazon some planes with Yes signs to urge Australians to vote Yes when the referendum is held later this year.”
and also the timing of the referendum from article
“The referendum will be held in the final three months of the year with the AFL and NRL finals expected to showcase support for recognition.”
So sporting codes also promoting this. Wouldn’t it be nice if people stopped going to the footy?
See article here: https://www.news.com.au/national/anthony-albanese-to-recruit-indigenous-superstars-to-yes-vote/news-story/0dd230f62403a8cf6e445a98294a8d11
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have just signed a contract to buy a motor vehicle slight problem .I do not know what it is suv sedan wagon van off road engine size power plant diesal unleaded electric manual automatic limited colours 3 unsure of cost but informed life time guarantee non refundable cannot be changed ever assured it will be a good deal and according to the dealer no problems ever.Cannot wait to sign and dealerships Australia mainland every state. For making a purchase contact ALBO Motors assured you will not regret it by ALBO himself built on TRUST closing soon .That about covers it buy in haste regret a lifetime to come and enjoy.THANKS ALBO..
LikeLike
A Please Explain Moment has arisen. So how is it that the Aboriginal People do not constitute a part of the ‘the people of New South Wales, Victoria…’ etc? T
The High Court of the Commonwealth of Australia recognizes them as a ‘source of law’ in this Commonwealth. An Aboriginal Industry worth 4.5 billion has been created by the corporate assets impersonating the government of the Commonwealth of Australia and has delivered about as much value to Aboriginal people and their communities as the current corporate assets making rulz for the UN governance has delivered to non-Aboriginal Australians.
That is to say : Not Much.
The Aboriginal Industry of Box Tickers and the Corporate Assets posing as the government of the Commonwealth of Australia (all levels) must go.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Peter Dutton said – “A referendum to enshrine the Albanese Government’s Voice in the Constitution is a big decision with unknown consequences.”
In fact, we don’t even need referendums to make HUGE changes which effectively ditch the Constitution and flush it down the toilet – never have before, so why start now?
In fact, Mr. Peter Dutton, seeing as how you’re a fake politician working fist-in-arse for an American-registered corporation, any referendum you choose to endorse or not is a fake referendum just like all Australian elections are fake elections, and just like all your legislation and laws are fake legislation and fake laws.
So why don’t you and all your treasonous Luciferian paedophilic arsehole genocidal Globalist comrades do us all a favour and go jump off a very tall building? At the very least, that will save us the trouble of dragging you out into the streets and stringing every last one of you up to lamp posts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Editor Members of Political Parties, each under their own Party’s Constitution and policies, have deceived us and our Constitutional Sovereign and Monarch, by creating under a progressive evolutionary process, Corporations that control all entities inside Parliaments, Governments and Courts “of Australia”, with NO Separation of Powers and with purported “Governor-Generals” and “Governors” under their control also.
The Voice
Anthony Sleesy statement.
3/ The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws
with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Voice.
this Constitution = Political Party Constitution not ours
AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY
ALP National Constitution
*Objectives *
(m) reform of the Australian Constitution and other political institutions to ensure
that they reflect the will of the majority of Australian citizens and the existence of
Australia as an independent republic;
Not one Political Party sits under Our * Primary Law, Commonwealth of Australia *
Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted.
Constitutional lawyer Greg Cravenhad a brain would know that the
Treasonous Political Parties don’t consolidate the Preamble and the Clauses.
Dick
LikeLiked by 2 people