正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

The referendum amendment will establish a body that can be changed by parliament when necessary to meet the circumstances that Indigenous people and the rest of the community find themselves in. #TheVoice #Yes23 #Berowra4yes

16,510 次观看 • 2 年前 •via X (Twitter)

9 条评论

HaFu 的头像
HaFu2 年前

The Parliament will not be able to abolish the Voice. The "There shall be" clause means it is perpetual. It means the Parliament will have to sustain it and listen to it. Since it is in a separate chapter, it is constitutionally equal to ParliamentParliamentParliamentParliament. There is no place for a racist body in the Australian Constitution. Vote NO!

Anthony Butt 的头像
Anthony Butt2 年前

C’mon Lib voters. Listen to one of the few sensible ones. Dutton’s call is political, first and foremost but he also has a racist streak in him we’ve seen before. The Voice is just an advisory committee, nothing more. The only change is that politicians can disband it on a whim.

Lucinda Lea ✝️ 的头像
Lucinda Lea ✝️2 年前

I’ve never heard you say a single conservative thing, ever. I voted No.

I'm right 😎 🇦🇺 的头像
I'm right 😎 🇦🇺2 年前

You're a traitor to the Liberal Party. Why don't you join the Greens, Julian? Even 40% of Labor voters know this Voice isn't the solution.

Julie 的头像
Julie2 年前

Traitor Leeser!

Ian Walton 的头像
Ian Walton2 年前

U seriously underestimate the cultural hegemony & vicious tenacity of the "progressive" left @JulianLeeser. Open your eyes man! They are religious in their zeal for their self-defined moral superiority and virtuous feelings. They will use every tool they have to maintain control!

LCHF Matt 的头像
LCHF Matt2 年前

What if the body gives advice to the govt NOT to make changes? How will the high court interpret such a conflict in the constitution? Will the high court consider that 21st century Aussies voted for the voice & hence give more weight to the new 4th chamber? No one knows. #VoteNo

Anni-J 的头像
Anni-J2 年前

I am heading out to vote no, today.

LifeWasMeantToBeEasier💉💉💉💉💉 5 x Covid Jabs 的头像
LifeWasMeantToBeEasier💉💉💉💉💉 5 x Covid Jabs2 年前

Thanks Julian but Australians are not interested in your referendum amendment.

相关视频

President Emmerson Mnangagwa's spokesman George Charamba, who is also the Deputy Chief Secretary, Presidential Communications in the Office of the President and Cabinet, has provoked a storm of controversy by claiming that parliament trumps a national referendum on constitutional amendment issues currently being debated through a legislative public consultation process. Mnangagwa and his party are using parliament to amend the constitution to extend his rule to 2030 and introduce a raft of other significant changes without going through a referendum, which civil society and opposition activists insist is a requirement in terms of the constitution. The 2013 constitution mandates that any extension of presidential term limits or removal of two five-year term limits must be approved by voters through a referendum. Critics say extending terms from five to seven years, or changing the electoral system constitutes a major subversion of this clause, requiring a referendum. However, Mnangagwa and his allies say a referendum is not needed as they are not removing term limits, but elongating the term lengths and changing the electoral cycle. Zanu PF says the amendment is not a change to the limit of two terms, but rather the length of each term (five to seven years), meaning a referendum is not constitutionally mandated. They say the amendments are meant to ensure political stability and remove "election mode toxicity," disrupting peace, governance and development. The debate centres over holding a referendum on the proposed amendments, specifically Constitution Amendment Bill No.3, which proposes extending Mnangagwa's tenure by two years andpresidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years as well as changing the presidential election system from direct voting through popular franchise to indirect selection via parliament. The ruling Zanu PF party controls parliament, leading to calls for a popular referendum to approve these significant changes, which critics argue violate the 2013 constitution's democratic intent. Charamba said: “Those who were old enough to participate and follow proceedings of 2013 will know that even after the referendum, that outcome of the referendum still had to be processed through Parliament. What that means is that, a referendum does not usurp the power of Parliament. It simply provides a popular basis for legislative action. Otherwise, at law, the body which is recognized as responsible for any changes, be they at the level of the primary law or at the level of subsidiary laws, is Parliament. Right? So, really, you can't place the referendum in apposition to Parliament. You can't. You just cannot because the referendum does not give you a result that writes the constitution. It is parliament which is mandated to do so in terms of our law. So, really, there shouldn't be any argument at all in respect of that matter. Right?.”

TheNewsHawks

16,579 次观看 • 3 个月前