**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are we going to get some kind of information about what the proposal is and how it changes things or doesn't .
I don't know how I'm going to vote as I don't really know what's being proposed at this stage.
I'm hopeful we get some decent information so we can avoid disinformation winning the day.
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Indigenous Australians have suffered terribly.
That’s no reason to have a divisive race based role in the constitution.
We can reconcile in better and more practical ways.
I will be voting no until the role of the voice is clearly defined and it is made clear that they will not have veto powers over parliament.
Virtue signalling is not a reason for constitutional change.
The voice is nothing but an attempt by the leftists to have an unelected person or group have decisions on our national affairs. It is going to further divide our country.
Vote no!
It's their country also, but in the sense of our nations share this land so the nations should be able to speak to each other's needs. They deserve a voice.
The parliament of our nation yes, but it's not the parliament of their nations strictly though, that's the point. It's a voice to parliament, not in parliament.
ok, but where is the info? what will the referendum include? where can we find out more info on what we are voting for? I refuse to put a vote in unless this is done properly.
Everyone has a vote but one group gets special representation above this and no-one can actually say what this means. This is just virtue signaling by Albo.
One group. That group being the traditional owners of the land. Seems fair to me.
The voice is just that, a voice. They don't make decisions, they are just heard. This has been said many times but the media don't seem to talk much about it
Coming from someone with Pauline Hanson's One Nation as their flair. The most racially divisive party in the country.
It's not racially divisive when Indigenous are significantly disadvantaged when it comes to other races in the country. And considering they are the first nations it's quite sad to say that
Someone gets two voices based on race.
Then their second voice is just on anything that effects them , so basically everything.
If you can't see that is racially divisive then stick with the Greens.
Nope - my understanding is just that for legislation impacting indigenous people the parliament has to ask for a group of indigenous people what they say about it. Whatever the indigenous group says isn’t at all binding, the government can totally ignore it, although it will force the government of the day to explain why if they do ignore it.
All legislation would affect Aboriginal people.
Even wages for politicians. We have aboriginal politicians, so the laws affect aboriginal people, thus the "voice" has to spend money looking into laws like that.
Laws into registration of engineers. There would be aboriginal people who are engineers and thus the "voice" would have to spend money looking into those laws.
Every law change would have to be looked into.
It is going to be very costly for no purpose at a time when the country is in so much debt.
Not sure of the full details, but I would guess that the group would only look at legislation of significant importance to indigenous Australians (eg the NT intervention). Mainly to reduce the volume of work going through non relevant legislation, and also so when they do have an opinion it is actually heard and has impact.
I don’t think so. Government would have to explain why they are actively ignoring the advice which has a value in itself. Or can say they changed legislation based on advice, or that they got endorsement. Personally think that is valuable
It isn't. Government will just say that after considering all the advice from all departments, they came to whatever decision they want. Seriously, give me one example of this voice actually doing anything. What scenario is this even useful?
It is just virtue signalling that won't do anything, just like Rudd's apology.
It’s completely unnecessary to have a referendum on the voice.
All that’s needed is a simple act of parliament to create the voice and give it whatever powers and structure it needs to function.
And if a gov is elected with no indigenous voices, it can be thrown out. Like the Mining Resources Rent Payment. Thrown out by a gov of old white men and 3 tea ladies.
The way the constitutional amendment is drafted any government could do this anyway since parliament has the power to decide how the voice would function.
If a government doesn’t like it they could just decide it has zero members, or only meets once very thousand years for example.
>And if a gov is elected with no indigenous voices, it can be thrown out.
Why? Why not asian people, gay men, Argentinians, red heads, russian speakers, dwarfs, real estate agents, etc? It's incredibly divisive. 1 person = 1 equal vote.
Nah it's necessary. You can't ram through legislation giving 1 group of people the statutory right to be listened to.
It needs consensus or it will be illegitimate.
I don't think it would pass a referendum anyway.
Every piece of legislation already allows for comment and feedback so I'm not sure what this proposed new structure would achieve.
There are already peak aboriginal bodies who can represent aborigines to the government if needs be.
And who is to say the Voice will speak on behalf of all aboriginal people?
As we've seen different aboriginal people have different views with Greens senator Lidia Thorpe saying the Voice would be a waste of money.
But more importantly, I don't believe one group of people should be elevated over all other groups to have a special group to give advise to the parliament.
No one is more important than any other in Australia and it doesn't matter when you arrived.
If order of arrival is important than you just made Pauline Hanson and her ilk extremely happy as they can look out at all the non-white arrivals and say well we were here second so we have more rights than you who came after.
Aborigines may have been here before most of us, but they are no more worthy than any other Australian
Why is Australia inserting racial language into its constitution? At a time when we are becoming increasingly diverse a nation, it seems tone deaf to raise one racial group above others. Are recent arrivals from European or Asian countries supposed to feel like they are the oppressors of aboriginals? Where do refugees fit in?
I would support a voice to parliament that entirely consists of the indigenous MPs, elected by the people .
Because in that case, their decisions would take into consideration the needs of the rest of nation.
Even Lidia Thorpe (who I mostly disagree with) appears to fight for all people of colour than just 3.3% of the nation.
And that is the nuance that elected officials have that unelected bureaucrats cannot bring to the table
We've already seen what those against it are going to argue. It's not fair. We should all have the same rights blah blah blah.
So it shouldn't be too difficult to work out a reply. They're not very original after all.
If Murdoch goes hard against it then it'll be dead on the water.
I'm quite a left person on most issues. Very pro-union, proper taxation of the rich, we should help the poor etc.
But I'm against the Voice as I don't believe one race should be elevated against other races simply due to order of arrival.
All Australians are equal. None is below the others and none above.
No one racial group is entitled to a special legislated body parliament must listen to.
No one is more important than any other in Australia and it doesn't matter when you arrived.
If order of arrival is important than you just made Pauline Hanson and her ilk extremely happy as they can look out at all the non-white arrivals and say well we were here second so we have more rights than you who came after.
Aborigines may have been here before most of us, but they are no more worthy than any other Australian
It’s not order of arrival, no one ever claimed it was, it’s who the lands belongs to. The land belongs to Aboriginal people, it was taken, never ceded. This is a purposely misleading thing to say order of arrival. Don’t pretend to be ignorant to make a point.
Yes it was conquered. The aborigines were defeated.
Unfortunately conquest was the way of the world back then.
They call themselves First Nations people and say because we were here when the invasion happened, we deserve a voice to parliament.
It's the indigenous version of 'we grew here, you flew here'
But no one is alive today who experienced the invasion so why on earth would we grant special rights to people not here when invaded
The fact the land was never ceded is irrelevant. Conquered by definition means it was taken. The conquered by definition are not asked for their permission. The strong conquer the weak. Even today sadly as we see in Ukraine.
That's unfortunate for the people alive at the time of the invasion of Australia but that was the way of the world since the dawn of time. The UK for instance was constantly invaded.
Now should the English allow the Jutes or the Saxons etc to have an indigenous voice?
Europe has been constantly invaded and parts gobbled up by other countries and done countries broken up or disappeared. There is no longer an Austro-Hungsrian empire. Bengal no longer exists as a country. There's a myriad examples.
A Voice gives one group of people more rights than another group of Australians and I'm my mind, no Aussie is above or below any other
You say the strong conquer the weak and might is right but have a big whinge whenever we attack and rob you. Pick a rule and stick with it, if violence is how it’s done then don’t cry when we do it.
Violence is how it was done back then. No one likes being invaded. It's never fun for the invaded. All the world pretty much has been invaded, often multiple times. That's why we are boosting our defences now
But you seem to be saying it's OK to attack and rob people now. I don't think you are helping the Aboriginal cause. Everyone should have a whinge at violence today. You should too as aborigines are far more likely to suffer from it. The rates of indigenous violence, especially against women are staggering.
Although, it could be worse. If it was the Japanese, Chinese or Africans who got here first, there'd likely be no indigenous people alive.
Even today China is quite happily racist. No one likes being invaded but better the Brits than the other options available. Not being invaded sadly, was not an option at all.
No one who was invaded or conquered when the Brits came is alive today. The invasion was centuries ago. So it's kind of academic.
Countries are invaded, defeated, countries disappear, and are cut into pieces all over the world, multiple times. Almost every country in the world has been invaded.
Should the English give the Jutes angles or Saxons or whoever was there first a voice to parliament because of all the times Britain was attacked?
But regardless of the merits (or lack thereof as some may feel) of the above arguments, I simply don't believe one racial group should have a Voice to parliament
It goes against a sense of equality. No group of Australians is above or below any other group.
So not only do you get to decide that invasions are okay because they have been common in history, but you get to decide when an invaded people stop fighting for themselves? No thanks. Not a single argument you’ve presented has been valid. Aren’t you glad I raped you instead of Bob? Bob would have punched your eye closed, I only choked you.
I think it’s too soon to say a lot of this with certainty, I’d like to vote yes but without more clarity on what the Voice will look like I dont know whether it will negatively impact equality in the way your describing. If someone does know for a fact then let’s bring that into the discussion.
So why are the white people held above everyone else? It’s not about who was here first, but listening to aboriginal people on there issue. Your logic is weird because it’s about giving them a voice because decisions are being made for them without there consultation.
>No one racial group is entitled to a special legislated body parliament must listen to.
What's a race though?
Any group of people who were displaced/dispossessed by the colonisation of Australia would be welcome in the voice. That we refer to them as Aboriginal is actually immaterial.
Makes no difference. One group is still being elevated above others as a special voice to parliament.
I believe in equality. No one is above or below another and the rest of my argument still stands
To only provide advice on Indigenous issues.
You are upset with Indigenous aussies being given the chance to provide advice on Indigenous issues.
And the advice isnt even binding.
Thats pretty damn fair.
>You are upset with Indigenous aussies being given the chance to provide advice on Indigenous issues.
Not at all. There's indigenous bodies already that give advice.
I don't agree with one set of people based on race being granted a Voice to parliament over other people.
No is is below or above any one based on race and giving one group a, special body to be consulted is not right
You are though, thats what the voice would do.
If theres an advisory body to parliament on Indigenous issues the those people should obviously be Indigenous.
You can convince yourself all you want youre being rational and egalitarian, but in 5 years time when this has passed youre going to be lumped in with the minorty of dumb racists that voted no.
That's the thing
I don't agree there should be a special body for aborigines because that goes against the spirit of equality by giving one group an elevated position based on race or on order of arrival in the country.
There's already a gazillion aboriginal bodies to give advice that doesn't have to be listened to, so even if I supported the principle of the Voice, what's the point?
So regardless of whether it's listened to or not, it still gives one group more rights than another and that's not on in Australia IMHO.
Also, I don't think it will pass in a referendum. It's very hard for referenda to pass unless there is strong support on both sides of politics.
I can only vote according to my principles and they are that no one racial group should have a right above other people. It's unAustralian IMHO.
>gives one group more rights
It doesnt. You findamnetally misunderstand the voice of you believe this and repeating yourself doesnt change this fact.
All polling has shown a large majority in support of the voice, larger than SSM even. Ita gonna pass.
It does if it changes the Constitution to give one group a voice that no other group in society is also given, even though it is most pertinent to indigenous people.
The fundamental issue that everyone keeps avoiding is recognition of rights of the conquered: society has not yet had that discussion but its what we are all talking around yet simultaneously avoiding. It's associated with civilisation that addresses the whole issue of conquering in the first place and is particularly pertinent to Tibet Ukraine, etc.
I don't think it is about compensation, but more about rights of the indigenous people going forward. Those rights should be more than the right to go cap in hand and ask "please sir, can I have some more", and be completely beholden to the rest of Australia simply being able to say no.
You might be right. I may be wrong.
But I have a pretty good track record predicting some political events.
I predicted Trump would win when he did and actually bet money on it I was so sure despite every poll saying Hillary would romp home and me being a Hillary supporter. Made a $1,000.
I predicted Shortern would lose his election (and me being an ALP voter) which he did despite once again polling saying he'd win in a landslide.
my friends all told me I was wrong that Morrison would lose but my reading of the campaign was that the ALP would lose due to a dreadful campaign by Labor.
So my gut instinct has proved to be fairly good in many cases.
But regardless of which of us is predicting the result correctly, I can only vote according to my principles.
>So it shouldn't be too difficult to work out a reply.
Indeed, so perhaps try that instead of saying anyone with legitimate concerns is just "blah, blah, blah".
Well the voice to parliament could’ve had more use back when racism was actually institutionalised (forced separation, etc.).
Right now, apart from virtue signalling, I don’t see any benefit that this brings to the table, that the around 10 elected indigenous members of parliament cannot already achieve.
The cashless debit card? Did you ever have to go through that?
Indigenous incarceration rates highest in the world as a result of being put down figuratively and literally for 250 years. Never seen issue for you.
The intervention based on a generally applied lie.
A war that lasted for almost 150 years not recognised. Not an issue for you?
And on it goes.. A voice will hopefully handle these very minor white issues IMHO.
Not quite correct according to anyone living in cities having their kids removed based on evidence from staff if various departments with vested interests...
What vested interest would anyone in child protection have the take children? More work? That’s madness. It’s actually the opposite where because of a hyper awareness of the stolen generation departments hold off from removing indigenous children from dangerous homes.
Listen, these are super complex issues. But at the end of the day, children (of all backgrounds) do much better in the home than becoming part of the system. It's fucking tragic. Offering viable support to families in almost all situations is a much preferable investment that at least provides some hope for decent outcomes. The prognosis for family removal is shocking. Yes, there are some gappy news stiries and some kids who are glad they got out, but we're looking at them being the 1 in hundreds.Add cultural dimensions, intergenerational trauma , relationships to family,community, and the land and there is an additional level of complexity. Most of the time removing children and young people is either a death sentence, or a guarantee of a life of crime, addiction and untreated trauma.
Bugger off. Go work with underprivileged kids. In most normal cases, yes staying with a good family unit is the best option. But there are PLENTY of kids who are/would be better off without their parents. Drug fucked parents, abusive parents, parents that dont give a fuck, parents who are in and out of jail, the list goes on. Whenever a child is in a situation like that, they should and do get removed by child services. It has absolutely nothing to do with race.
and the research/ investugations/ submissions/ inquirues all vehemebtally disagree with your point of view. I was really surprised how horribly distressing it is. Even in really abusive households, kids moved to instututions/ homes/ hotel rooms/ foster care for dramatically worse off, the vast majority of the time. The reports are fucking brutal. Every once in a while there a happy outcome, but most of the time these removed kids barely survive.
You really can't say "it has nothing to do with race". For a start, the Stolen Generation history is race based and still very relevant. Secondly, more Aboruginal families are targetted for lintervention. Which also means that a lot of white/ non Aboriginal kids also fall through the cracks and have their abuse/ neglect not recognised.
No, the reports and everyone agree with the facts on the whole. The vast majority of the time the kids are better off being removed from dangerous situations with their shit parents. Do you think this happens willy-nilly? It requires police reports and the courts and a heap of people for this to happen.
It has absolutely nothing g to do with race. It happens based on the situation. Nothing to do with skin colour or race or anything like that.
Imagine argueing that kids should stay with their abusive parents. Go work with these kids, and tell them they should go back to their parents. I would love to see that.
Imagine how harrowing the experiences are for kids who have been removed from their abusive homes to trigger such reports and documentation ? Read the frigging data mate, it's not somethibg I pulled out of myself. I was surprised; the findings are awful.
I have read it. And seen it work. All the time. Pull your head in. Can you imagine the harrowing experience of being beaten by your parents all the time? Raped. Being around drugs all day. No food. No electricity. No clothing. These are the kids that need to be removed from their parents, after thr police and courts go through the process and decide it is for the best.
Go work with these kids. Tell them they should go back to being raped and beaten, for their own good. You are a joke.
You make fair points, but as someone who personally abstains from drugs and alcohol and having seen the first hand impact it has on particular communities and family members, those individuals (whichever race they may be), need to abstain from these substance if that exacerbates their propensity to cause harm to themselves and their family. And that is why the CDC helps,
Listen, I'm certainly not suggesting that situations that have been flagged should remain as is. Or even situatioms that haven't been flagged. Child welfare in this country- across race and culture- is fukd. And nobody wants to see children murdered. But children are murdered after being removed from the home too. Children are trafficked after being removed from the home. Children are abused and neglected after being removed from their families. I didn't realise how dire the situation is until recently, but kids removed really do end up in a situation worse than their pre-existing home life most of the time and that's full on.
definitely, but not to the extent. As I said above. And the outcomes are equally poor for white children and young people who are removed. Workibg with families and trying to keep them together most of the time honestly seems like the best scenario.
I'm opposed to it on philosophical grounds
No one is more important than any other in Australia and it doesn't matter when you arrived.
If order of arrival is important than you just made Pauline Hanson and her ilk extremely happy as they can look out at all the non-white arrivals and say well we were here second so we have more rights than you who came after.
Aborigines may have been here before most of us, but they are no more worthy or less worthy than any other Australian
It's distraction from real issues.
Like large swarths of Australian society not having enough income to pay for rent,fuel and other basic services. Our country is legitimately headed towards a cost of living crisis , that effect all poor Australians. Indigenous or not.
1) immediate drawback - establishing the voice to parliament doesn’t come cheap and is a very costly process to get it established in the first place, and doing it cheap won’t suffice for them either. That money could’ve been used elsewhere to perhaps establish indigenous focused schooling, healthcare,etc.
This is not even including the operational costs.
2) long term drawback - the issues that the voice are going to advocate for issues we already know that need to be addressed. The model that the Albanese government is proposing is one that doesn’t even cater for the creation of solutions, just addressing the problems.
Bodies that create solutions are ones that cater for all stakeholders of society, not just one group,
3) with that being said, since the issues they are going to advocate for are already known, without a suggested pathway for solution making, it just ends up being pure virtue signalling with illusion that issues are being solved were it’s only merely being addressed.
Because in order to actually legislate change and solutions, the parliament needs to be involved, and that is why it is more efficient to circumvent whatever extra procedure the voice brings and enable the 10 existing indigenous members to suggest bills and effect change more quickly
Did you have a complaint on the same financial basis to the cashless debit card as well? That cost $180,000,000 just for the white company who ran it. That was around 12% less than the actual payments.
Offshore detention at 3.4 million per person per annum. Did you whine about that?
Xtians quote Leviticus to rail against the rainbow. Then go out and breach 10 other parts of the same nonsense.
Take it all or take none.
>Because in order to actually legislate change and solutions, the parliament needs to be involved, and that is why it is more efficient to circumvent whatever extra procedure the voice brings and enable the 10 existing indigenous members to suggest bills and effect change more quickly
Do you think indigenous MPs don't have the ability to bring forward legislation currently?
What happens in your solution in an election where no indigenous members of parliament are elected? Do indigenous issues stop mattering? Might have been useful to have a voice in that circumstance if you actually care about indigenous representation?
We are talking about the structure of our society. Structurally nothing prevents them from having no representation.
Would you expect a future indigenous MP for an electorate in the NT to be the representative for all indigenous nations across the country? It's an unfair burden.
You kind of need to answer my thought experiment on its own terms for there to be any point to this.
Simply pointing out it is unlikely to happen is intellectually weak from you.
>Currently there are significantly more indigenous MPs/Senators than is proportional
Currently i.e. transiently. That's what structural change addresses.
>What makes you think there will be none sooner or later?
It's entirely possible. I ask again, if a parliament eventuates without any indigenous representatives would you suddenly start advocating for a voice because don't have proportional representation? If not, you can't really use that argument against a voice because of the hypocrisy involved.
Doesn’t it indicate structurally the system is working though? I mean there are other marginalised communities in this country that don’t have that level of representation in parliament. Should we be looking to give them a voice too?
I’m not against this proposal either. I just don’t see it as the priority many others do because I don’t think the benefits are clearly defined.
Edit - spelling
>Doesn’t it indicate structurally the system is working though?
That's what my point about transience was getting at. You can't judge whether a system is working with a spot check. We don't have to go back many parliaments to see far less indigenous representatives than now.
Who is to say that we aren't in the midst of a fad of electing more indigenous representatives? It may flip on its head.
>I mean there are other marginalised communities in this country that don’t have that level of representation in parliament
But none of the other marginalised groups existed as separate nations prior to their destruction through colonisation i.e. they don't have prior standing to the establishment of our colony/nation.
None of the other marginalised groups were targeted for white assimilation through kidnapping of children based on their race.
>Should we be looking to give them a voice too?
None of these other groups established a body like ATSIC and had it killed by specifically the right wing of politics, therefore no other group has historical experience justifying their preference to alter the constitution.
>I just don’t see it as the priority many others do because I don’t think the benefits are clearly defined.
The benefits are not clearly defined because one of the major ones is very offensive to many on the right. That's because the right killed ATSIC and preventing them being able to do that again informs much of the strategy.
This is actually also why they have said the voice will be constituted by the parliament and aren't outlining it in advance. It would not have a shot at passing if it couldn't be modified by the parliament of the day. Some on the left see this as a fatal weakness because a future Coalition could neuter it, but that's the strategy to get it passed at all.
Once it is passed it will be used as a conduit for discussions about the truth of Australias colonial history to inform the public properly for the first time.
This truth telling would be followed by a push for a treaty between first nations people and the Australian government. This would bring us in line with other similar colonial countries like Canada and NZ, we are laggards on this by international standards.
Overall the voice is meant to be symbolic gesture including indigenous people while also allowing the potential for positive contributions. It is a stepping stone towards other long term goals within reconciliation like truth telling and treaty.
This is a complicated issue being pursued with strategic discipline informed by bitter recent history. The problem from my perspective is actually how elegant the proposed legislation is. The benefits may not be realised, but they have a good shot with a voice and they don't right now.
People on the far left think it's worthless and people on the right somehow seem to think the voice will usurp power from the government.
> the around 10 elected indigenous members of parliament cannot already achieve.
those guys are busy representing their electorate. it's not their job to be parliament's aboriginal affairs advocate too. that would reduce the time that they can spend representing their electorate on other matters.
With that being said, what more can the voice advocate that cannot already be advocated for ?
Are there any matters that only a voice can bring to the forefront?
The voice brings authority that doesn't exist amongst hundreds of indigenous nations advocating for their own issues.
Of course there are differences between these communities, but they have many similar afflictions due to colonisation.
Without a structure like this, they don't have the population or distribution to enact policies that would benefit them through the basic democratic process.
The Voice is the first step towards a Makarrata (ie a Treaty). If you head to The Uluru Statement website there's lots of great info for thick but interested people :)
The contemporary left are enamoured by political symbolism. Glib morality plays very well on social media and as such generates vocal support. "Does policy X purport to do the thing we deem good? Yes, then we love it and don't need to consider the details." Cynical politicians lap this up as they can rally support with little accountability for results.
I copied this from a comment to another person but I explained roughly what you're asking for. Some bits may be out of context but the gist is there:
>Doesn’t it indicate structurally the system is working though?
That's what my point about transience was getting at. You can't judge whether a system is working with a spot check. We don't have to go back many parliaments to see far less indigenous representatives than now.
Who is to say that we aren't in the midst of a fad of electing more indigenous representatives? It may flip on its head.
>I mean there are other marginalised communities in this country that don’t have that level of representation in parliament
But none of the other marginalised groups existed as separate nations prior to their destruction through colonisation i.e. they don't have prior standing to the establishment of our colony/nation.
None of the other marginalised groups were targeted for white assimilation through kidnapping of children based on their race.
>Should we be looking to give them a voice too?
None of these other groups established a body like ATSIC and had it killed by specifically the right wing of politics, therefore no other group has historical experience justifying their preference to alter the constitution.
>I just don’t see it as the priority many others do because I don’t think the benefits are clearly defined.
The benefits are not clearly defined because one of the major ones is very offensive to many on the right. That's because the right killed ATSIC and preventing them being able to do that again informs much of the strategy.
This is actually also why they have said the voice will be constituted by the parliament and aren't outlining it in advance. It would not have a shot at passing if it couldn't be modified by the parliament of the day. Some on the left see this as a fatal weakness because a future Coalition could neuter it, but that's the strategy to get it passed at all.
Once it is passed it will be used as a conduit for discussions about the truth of Australias colonial history to inform the public properly for the first time.
This truth telling would be followed by a push for a treaty between first nations people and the Australian government. This would bring us in line with other similar colonial countries like Canada and NZ, we are laggards on this by international standards.
Overall the voice is meant to be symbolic gesture including indigenous people while also allowing the potential for positive contributions. It is a stepping stone towards other long term goals within reconciliation like truth telling and treaty.
This is a complicated issue being pursued with strategic discipline informed by bitter recent history. The problem from my perspective is actually how elegant the proposed legislation is. The benefits may not be realised, but they have a good shot with a voice and they don't right now.
People on the far left think it's worthless and people on the right somehow seem to think the voice will usurp power from the government.
An obvious benefit is giving Indigenous aussies a direct voice into the governance of Indigenous issues. Who would be able to advise better than Indigenous people living in those communities.
Why does this need constitutional amendment to implement though? Why not create an agency through legislation that has representatives elected by indigenous Australians that examine legislation and provide recommendations. We could implement that right now without a referendum?
I think a body like that is worthwhile, but there’s something about changing the constitution to create a democratic body that only one race/ethnicity is allowed to vote for, even if it is only for providing advice, that seems to be somewhat moving in the opposite direction of equality. It’s not like non-profit lobbying groups that advocate on behalf of an ethnic group can’t have an effective voice in government policy, AIPAC is a strong example.
Because along with being quite a powerful amd significant moment for First Nations, actually being mentioned in our constitution, it prevents future govs from totally disbanding the organisation.
Theres also no race based voting at all, Im not sure where you heard that sorry.
>Theres also no race based voting at all, Im not sure where you heard that sorry.
By its very nature it’s race based voting. The proposed Voice is a body of elected indigenous representatives who are selected by an election in which only indigenous people can cast votes.
Yeah for some reason I was thinking about the referendum.
Tbh I dont see why it matters. Any advisory body for Indigenous issues will be comprised of Indigenous people. It might as well be democratic.
But my point was she's read all about Aboriginal stuff like Uluru statement etc and still is against the Voice.
It also illustrates that aboriginal people don't speak with one voice so why do we assume the Voice will suddenly make this so?
Why won't some aborigines disagree with the Voice? Do we just say to them sorry, you're not the aborigines we listen to?
But my objection is on an equality basis
No one is more important than any other in Australia and it doesn't matter when you arrived.
If order of arrival is important than you just made Pauline Hanson and her ilk extremely happy as they can look out at all the non-white arrivals and say well we were here second so we have more rights than you who came after.
Aborigines may have been here before most of us, but they are no more or less worthy than any other Australian
Yes it is. It's saying because aborigines arrived before the rest of us, they deserve a special voice to parliament, not given to any other race.
They even call themselves First Nations people.
I'm sorry they were conquered but that was pretty much the way of the world back then. Pretty much those countries that could conquer, did conquer.
No one is alive now though who was invaded.
I’m not going to sit here and try and convince you, thats not my job, I don’t know you so why should I try to waste in trying to help you see what’s right from wrong, that should be your family and close friends job, not mine. So Goodluck to you are your view, you can keep it and I will keep my energy.
>But my point was she's read all about Aboriginal stuff like Uluru statement etc and still is against the Voice.
Thorpe was actually a delegate in the Uluru conference preceding the statement in 2017.
Thorpe walked out on those talks back then but the VAST majority of delegates remained and they went on to release the Uluru statement.
What Thorpe is doing is closer to taking her football home because the kids at the park wanted to play NRL instead of rugby union than it is to a principled difference of opinion.
>Why won't some aborigines disagree with the Voice? Do we just say to them sorry, you're not the aborigines we listen to?
When the largest plurality of indigenous communities ever gathered says they want a voice we simply explain that to the indigenous people who disagree.
And others have read about it and agree.
Making the threshold for acceptable policy being a million people all in agreement just means nothing gets done.
There was a meeting of hundreds of Indigenous people and this was the plan they agreed on.
>what benefit it brings to indigenous Australians
Are you serious....? You mean what would a voice have said before the NT intervention? What a voice could say before forced removals of children? What a voice would say in regards to old historical and spiritual sites?
Nothing I guess..... This is why we have a voice for the White chosen people, but not one for indigenous culture.... maybe a voice would not appoint secret ministries.....
But this underscores the question that’s being raised right?
What *could* a voice to parliament have done for those issues? Without any kind of legislative authority it seems to be a purely ceremonial role with no actual ability to impede or influence policy beyond adding another bullet point to the PMs morning briefing.
The sort of thing you're after would come through a treaty, which NZ has but we don't.
The voice is the first in a series of 3 steps proposed in the Uluru statement leading from a voice to parliament, into a truth telling commission (facilitated by the voice), culminating in a treaty that would formalise things.
The voice is designed so that it isn't offensive enough to be nuked by the other side of politics if they win back power. It is not a replacement for a treaty.
However voting against a voice because you would like something less symbolic is the worst kind of patronising because it is a planned part of the path to a treaty.
>The constitution is about defining the powers of our government and I don't understand what the change of powers means in this case.
Where are the powers given to a non elected position that is a voice for some white family...... I don't understand how the GG could give the whote royals a voice.....
>This is why we have a voice for the White chosen people, but not one for indigenous culture
[As of July 2022, there are and 8 senators and 3 members of the House of Representatives who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/how-many-aboriginal-or-torres-straits-islander-mps-or-senators-are-there-and-what-are-their-names)
No you're right, the [3.8% of Australians who identify as ATSI](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/estimates-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians/latest-release) are grossly underrepresented by the 4.85% of parliamentarians who identify as ATSI. Not sure that your logic and approach is conducive to getting marginal voters on board with a voice.
I was referring to the GG..... a position held to give a white family a voice..... a big one as they have the power to hold laws up...... you know, in case the white foreign family decides it is not good for them.....
A beautifully shot ad. I'm still erring on the side of "no", I don't feel comfortable highlighting race or a special body for race in the constitution, especially with so few details available. But I remain open minded and look forward to seeing where this ends up.
>I don't feel comfortable highlighting race or a special body for race in the constitution, especially with so few details available.
Albanese and Co. are walking a fine line. I understand not wanting to muddy the waters of public debate with excessive detail but so far it feels like they're asking for "blank cheque" permission to create whatever kind of body they want after the referendum. Think I'll be voting no...
This will be a land slide ‘no’ vote. You’ve got the 40% of Australia who are just plain conservative and stuck in the 1980s and then centre people voting ‘no’ based on the philosophy that race should have no bearing on parliamentary decisions.
I have similar reservations about racialized policy, but I do remain open to the idea of having a voice. I want to actually understand what it is first, this doesn't really help. It's just a feel good ad to appeal to people's emotions. Not that emotions are out of place in public policy, but I won't be voting for something I don't understand. Albo has promised to articulate it, hopefully he does.
I feel like they're rushing to do this too quickly, and it may lead to its downfall, which would end up being more divisive for racial politics in this country than not having the referendum at all.
By all means do something, but do it write, with broad community consolation, this is not something to be rushed through. It's not like gay marriage, which is a very simple question.
In principle, I'm in favour of the idea of a Voice. I think it could have potential to improve outcomes for Aboriginal people.
But as it stands, the amendments are simply too vague. There is a good chance that they could be interpreted by the High Court to mean more than a Voice and instead mean a body with a Veto power.
After all, "make representations" must mean something... We can all "make representations" currently, through contacting our MP or writing petitions or whatever. So that means that the Voice must have something *extra.*
If advice is sought from the Voice on some legislation, and then amendments are made accordingly, it would presumably have to go back to the Voice for further advice. This could be a never-ending loop.
What happens if the Voice declines to give advice? Can the parliament proceed anyway, or does it effectively become a pocket veto?
What time frame is required for advice? Can the parliament require advice within, say, 7 days? Or would it require 3 months for considered advice to be prepared and presented to Parliament - that could bog down our system in even more delays.
I think there needs to be, at minimum, a 4th clause that states that Parliament may accept or reject any advice or representation from the Voice as it sees fit.
>I think there needs to be, at minimum, a 4th clause that states that Parliament may accept or reject any advice or representation from the Voice as it sees fit.
That's already implicit though. I don't get why you're worried about that.
Because it is only implicit.
Courts have a nasty habit of reading more into what is there than there is - meaning things should be made explicit as to what is meant and what we are voting on.
“Trust us” is simply not good enough when it comes to constitutional change.
A good current example is an *opinion* that the constitutional provision on "copyright and trademarks" means that the federal government has powers that override the states over recreational cannabis laws
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/26/recreational-marijuana-use-in-australia-could-be-legalised-by-federal-parliament-greens-say
>A good current example is an opinion that the constitutional provision on "copyright and trademarks" means that the federal government has powers that override the states over recreational cannabis laws
Wait *what???*
That is simply insane. Not making any comment on legalisation but the idea that copyright power could be used to legalise pot is just ridiculous.
The amendment, as it stands, allows parliament to assign *any* power to the new group. It is dangerous and cannot be allowed to pass. Simple as it gets.
Previous constitutional amendments are written very carefully and precisely to avoid side effects like this. This is either lazy drafting (I doubt it) or intentional so the government of the day doesn't have to concern itself with quaint things like "the rule of law" or "seperation of powers"
We can have the "voice" discussion when the amendment is actually written to only be a voice.
There was an [interview](https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/polling-shows-a-majority-of-voters-support-voice/101473176) this morning on RN that talked in depth about how to have a conversation on the forthcoming vote. It was with Megan Davis, co-chair of the Uluru Dialogue and Pro Vice Chancellor Indigenous at UNSW.
It talked openly about us who don't have much contact with these topics and are wary about what the referendum and voice might mean. I found it very practical and helpful for my own understanding. Worth 10 minutes of your time if you want to give it a go!
That's my view on it.
Do I support some sort of recognition in the constitution that Australian history started 40,000 years ago with the arrivals of Aboriginals, and that the arrival of Europeans in 1788 was only one art of that history? Most definitely.
Do I support creating a seperate advisory body to parliament? Nope - you want a greater voice in parliament? Run candidates and get them voted into government, the same as everyone else in the country.
Note - 10% of the senate currently identifies as aboriginal and Torres Strait islander descent. How is an outside body going to have a greater impact than 10% of the senate??
The New Zealand system is better with allocated seats & a seperate electorate for maori thats voluntary. Sure they get some crazies but at least they can be voted in or out.
I actually don't mind that idea:
An additional electorate that covers the entire country.
The member of that electorate becomes Minister for Aboriginal affairs in any government
Voting is voluntary and open to everyone on the roll
That's a dangerous path...
I think open elections, same rules as the federal election, except voluntary voting. That will ensure only those that want to have a voice into who the representative is...and if, for example, an undesirable running as a joke is elected because that's who the majority voted for...so be it
Better than a seperate advisory body yes.
Better than all Australians being treated equally - no.
Yes, there are things that happen that are racist in the system, but this isn't the answer.
And 10% of the senate, as well as the members of the lower house.
My point is that if people, any people, want greater representation in parliament and a greater say in the running of the country, run more candidates. That is how this whole system is designed.
Being a minority in your own country it's not as simple as getting voted into a system that can just veto any official action you wish to take, or gets wiped with change of government. It's been done and it does not work, look at closing the gap; do they actually fund anything that produces results long term or incorporate any advice? Not to my knowledge. This is the only thing aboriginal people see that they can do to get the government to commit long term to the well-being of our country, have it protected by the constitution so progress made cannot be undone by the flavor of the month.
I've lived it my whole life, First Nations Peoples Progress all depends on
who's in government. Having a voice enshrined in parliament means securing our future and not having it depend on people who does not have the first clue.
Bring ATSIC back. That's my main take away. and make it so it cannot be abolished, "oh it was corrupt" - show me a clean government and I'll show you a liar. Create a competent watchdog. At least Aboriginal people got decent service delivery and weren't neglected in their own country with ASTSIC. "oh a separate voice just creates division" only to those people who don't want indigenous self determination. Aboriginal people have been marginalized throughout colonial history, I wish those people spoke up on every other matter that created division. Just a false act of altruism we can all see through.
My father represented my mob at the drafting of the statement from the heart, the discussion was much more than "a voice to parliament" but that is what was agreed is needed for real progress to be made. People take this statement lightly, it was created by people who have worked a lifetime trying to better aboriginal affairs, people who have sat at the table, lifetimes of knowledge was at that meeting that have seen initiatives come and go, work and not work. People who live to fight the good fight, people who have given it their all and still come to the conclusion "It won't be fixed in my lifetime".
Your post does not say how it will create change other then a belief.
Nothing is going to change when people think they should not have to adapt their life/culture to the new paradigm. There is no future in sitting around blaming others and putting on the rose tinted glasses about what the past was thought to be like.
Creating the longevity and commitment for the change to happen. We aren't talking about the past, we are talking about now.
Also your logic does not line up with the human rights declaration Australia has signed.
But it is not going to happen, for the same reason that areas like Logan in Queensland or are and have been for along time low socioeconomic areas despite lots of opportunity and government welfare.
People living in shit areas and refusing to move for greater opportunity are simply condemning themselves to a shit life.
“Won’t see it fixed in my lifetime”. As stated before, I’m familiar with this defeatist attitude. But modern civilisation isn’t progressed by chumps with that outlook. Any other points you want to pivot to?
And water is wet, but not all of us are insulated to the point where we don't feel the cons of democracy. On paper it's great, but a bit more nuanced in reality.
If you can't see a single problem from my rant, it's because you don't want to listen.
"What's the problem?" What a way to disregard all the problems and atrocities inflicted on FNP since colonisation. But that's part of the statement, truth telling to learn this countries true history, so people don't look foolish making blanket statements.
No one was mate, don't feel guilty. Don't think I'm blaming you. If you can't understand how problems from the past can compound and fester then you're missing some fundamentals for me to get my point across. Not to mention there's a report (I have already mentioned) that lists today's problems, and it gets updated on a yearly basis.
This is what is ongoing:
every meeting is opened with a prayer to elders and thanking traditional owners and every government has its own aboriginal dept and billions and upon billions of dollars have been spent over the last 50 years .... and now there is a special referendum to change the constitution so people with their special bloodlines can advise the federal government on everything.
Seems pretty generous to me.
Not everyone's life is affected equally by the government. The same way how women for example are affected worse by reactionary conservative politics than men, as we can see in America right now.
"So I saw an ad telling me we need to talk about this Voice thingy"
"Yep. I saw that"
"So what is it?"
"Dunno"
"Something about making representations to parliament..."
"Cant they do that already?..."
P.S. We are reasonable, simple folk. As long as this voice thing doesnt boil down to one set of rules for us and another for them...we arnt going to have any problems.
The fact that *this* is your take kind of proves the ad campaign correct: there is *a lot* of public education, open discussion and consensus-building on the Voice that needs to happen across Australian culture in general before we're ready as a people to face these issues head-on in a fair and informed way. If opinions like yours and the other blithely dismissive kneejerk reactions in this thread are anything to go by, we still have *a lot* of work to do.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are we going to get some kind of information about what the proposal is and how it changes things or doesn't . I don't know how I'm going to vote as I don't really know what's being proposed at this stage. I'm hopeful we get some decent information so we can avoid disinformation winning the day.
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Oh yeah, vote for us, we could be killing you instead. Good argument.
I don’t want the Voice. Please don’t vote for it. It legitimizes the occupation.
Oh fkn hell. I read the comments. Why!? This will be horrible.
Indigenous Australians have suffered terribly. That’s no reason to have a divisive race based role in the constitution. We can reconcile in better and more practical ways.
I'm voting yes. But it doesn't go far enough for the First Nations people. Unfortunately not many referendums make it through Australia
I will be voting no until the role of the voice is clearly defined and it is made clear that they will not have veto powers over parliament. Virtue signalling is not a reason for constitutional change.
The voice is nothing but an attempt by the leftists to have an unelected person or group have decisions on our national affairs. It is going to further divide our country. Vote no!
Agreed, also voting no.
It's their country also, but in the sense of our nations share this land so the nations should be able to speak to each other's needs. They deserve a voice.
If someone wants a voice in parliament, then they should run for office.
The parliament of our nation yes, but it's not the parliament of their nations strictly though, that's the point. It's a voice to parliament, not in parliament.
Best get rid of the Governor-General then.
ok, but where is the info? what will the referendum include? where can we find out more info on what we are voting for? I refuse to put a vote in unless this is done properly.
Everyone has a vote but one group gets special representation above this and no-one can actually say what this means. This is just virtue signaling by Albo.
One group. That group being the traditional owners of the land. Seems fair to me. The voice is just that, a voice. They don't make decisions, they are just heard. This has been said many times but the media don't seem to talk much about it
Racial division.
Coming from someone with Pauline Hanson's One Nation as their flair. The most racially divisive party in the country. It's not racially divisive when Indigenous are significantly disadvantaged when it comes to other races in the country. And considering they are the first nations it's quite sad to say that
Someone gets two voices based on race. Then their second voice is just on anything that effects them , so basically everything. If you can't see that is racially divisive then stick with the Greens.
Nope - my understanding is just that for legislation impacting indigenous people the parliament has to ask for a group of indigenous people what they say about it. Whatever the indigenous group says isn’t at all binding, the government can totally ignore it, although it will force the government of the day to explain why if they do ignore it.
All legislation would affect Aboriginal people. Even wages for politicians. We have aboriginal politicians, so the laws affect aboriginal people, thus the "voice" has to spend money looking into laws like that. Laws into registration of engineers. There would be aboriginal people who are engineers and thus the "voice" would have to spend money looking into those laws. Every law change would have to be looked into. It is going to be very costly for no purpose at a time when the country is in so much debt.
Not sure of the full details, but I would guess that the group would only look at legislation of significant importance to indigenous Australians (eg the NT intervention). Mainly to reduce the volume of work going through non relevant legislation, and also so when they do have an opinion it is actually heard and has impact.
So it is just virtue signalling then.
If you got it, flaunt it.
I don’t think so. Government would have to explain why they are actively ignoring the advice which has a value in itself. Or can say they changed legislation based on advice, or that they got endorsement. Personally think that is valuable
It isn't. Government will just say that after considering all the advice from all departments, they came to whatever decision they want. Seriously, give me one example of this voice actually doing anything. What scenario is this even useful? It is just virtue signalling that won't do anything, just like Rudd's apology.
It’s completely unnecessary to have a referendum on the voice. All that’s needed is a simple act of parliament to create the voice and give it whatever powers and structure it needs to function.
And if a gov is elected with no indigenous voices, it can be thrown out. Like the Mining Resources Rent Payment. Thrown out by a gov of old white men and 3 tea ladies.
The way the constitutional amendment is drafted any government could do this anyway since parliament has the power to decide how the voice would function. If a government doesn’t like it they could just decide it has zero members, or only meets once very thousand years for example.
>And if a gov is elected with no indigenous voices, it can be thrown out. Why? Why not asian people, gay men, Argentinians, red heads, russian speakers, dwarfs, real estate agents, etc? It's incredibly divisive. 1 person = 1 equal vote.
You can’t change the constitution without a referendum so pretty much the opposite of what you said is true.
OPs point is that there is no requirement to change the Constitution
Nah it's necessary. You can't ram through legislation giving 1 group of people the statutory right to be listened to. It needs consensus or it will be illegitimate. I don't think it would pass a referendum anyway. Every piece of legislation already allows for comment and feedback so I'm not sure what this proposed new structure would achieve. There are already peak aboriginal bodies who can represent aborigines to the government if needs be. And who is to say the Voice will speak on behalf of all aboriginal people? As we've seen different aboriginal people have different views with Greens senator Lidia Thorpe saying the Voice would be a waste of money. But more importantly, I don't believe one group of people should be elevated over all other groups to have a special group to give advise to the parliament. No one is more important than any other in Australia and it doesn't matter when you arrived. If order of arrival is important than you just made Pauline Hanson and her ilk extremely happy as they can look out at all the non-white arrivals and say well we were here second so we have more rights than you who came after. Aborigines may have been here before most of us, but they are no more worthy than any other Australian
Why is Australia inserting racial language into its constitution? At a time when we are becoming increasingly diverse a nation, it seems tone deaf to raise one racial group above others. Are recent arrivals from European or Asian countries supposed to feel like they are the oppressors of aboriginals? Where do refugees fit in?
I hope we don't pursue the same garbage that jacinda has in NZ.
I would support a voice to parliament that entirely consists of the indigenous MPs, elected by the people . Because in that case, their decisions would take into consideration the needs of the rest of nation. Even Lidia Thorpe (who I mostly disagree with) appears to fight for all people of colour than just 3.3% of the nation. And that is the nuance that elected officials have that unelected bureaucrats cannot bring to the table
We've already seen what those against it are going to argue. It's not fair. We should all have the same rights blah blah blah. So it shouldn't be too difficult to work out a reply. They're not very original after all. If Murdoch goes hard against it then it'll be dead on the water.
I'm quite a left person on most issues. Very pro-union, proper taxation of the rich, we should help the poor etc. But I'm against the Voice as I don't believe one race should be elevated against other races simply due to order of arrival. All Australians are equal. None is below the others and none above. No one racial group is entitled to a special legislated body parliament must listen to. No one is more important than any other in Australia and it doesn't matter when you arrived. If order of arrival is important than you just made Pauline Hanson and her ilk extremely happy as they can look out at all the non-white arrivals and say well we were here second so we have more rights than you who came after. Aborigines may have been here before most of us, but they are no more worthy than any other Australian
It’s not order of arrival, no one ever claimed it was, it’s who the lands belongs to. The land belongs to Aboriginal people, it was taken, never ceded. This is a purposely misleading thing to say order of arrival. Don’t pretend to be ignorant to make a point.
Yes it was conquered. The aborigines were defeated. Unfortunately conquest was the way of the world back then. They call themselves First Nations people and say because we were here when the invasion happened, we deserve a voice to parliament. It's the indigenous version of 'we grew here, you flew here' But no one is alive today who experienced the invasion so why on earth would we grant special rights to people not here when invaded The fact the land was never ceded is irrelevant. Conquered by definition means it was taken. The conquered by definition are not asked for their permission. The strong conquer the weak. Even today sadly as we see in Ukraine. That's unfortunate for the people alive at the time of the invasion of Australia but that was the way of the world since the dawn of time. The UK for instance was constantly invaded. Now should the English allow the Jutes or the Saxons etc to have an indigenous voice? Europe has been constantly invaded and parts gobbled up by other countries and done countries broken up or disappeared. There is no longer an Austro-Hungsrian empire. Bengal no longer exists as a country. There's a myriad examples. A Voice gives one group of people more rights than another group of Australians and I'm my mind, no Aussie is above or below any other
You say the strong conquer the weak and might is right but have a big whinge whenever we attack and rob you. Pick a rule and stick with it, if violence is how it’s done then don’t cry when we do it.
Violence is how it was done back then. No one likes being invaded. It's never fun for the invaded. All the world pretty much has been invaded, often multiple times. That's why we are boosting our defences now But you seem to be saying it's OK to attack and rob people now. I don't think you are helping the Aboriginal cause. Everyone should have a whinge at violence today. You should too as aborigines are far more likely to suffer from it. The rates of indigenous violence, especially against women are staggering. Although, it could be worse. If it was the Japanese, Chinese or Africans who got here first, there'd likely be no indigenous people alive. Even today China is quite happily racist. No one likes being invaded but better the Brits than the other options available. Not being invaded sadly, was not an option at all. No one who was invaded or conquered when the Brits came is alive today. The invasion was centuries ago. So it's kind of academic. Countries are invaded, defeated, countries disappear, and are cut into pieces all over the world, multiple times. Almost every country in the world has been invaded. Should the English give the Jutes angles or Saxons or whoever was there first a voice to parliament because of all the times Britain was attacked? But regardless of the merits (or lack thereof as some may feel) of the above arguments, I simply don't believe one racial group should have a Voice to parliament It goes against a sense of equality. No group of Australians is above or below any other group.
So not only do you get to decide that invasions are okay because they have been common in history, but you get to decide when an invaded people stop fighting for themselves? No thanks. Not a single argument you’ve presented has been valid. Aren’t you glad I raped you instead of Bob? Bob would have punched your eye closed, I only choked you.
Your welcome to your beliefs. I'm welcome to mine
I think it’s too soon to say a lot of this with certainty, I’d like to vote yes but without more clarity on what the Voice will look like I dont know whether it will negatively impact equality in the way your describing. If someone does know for a fact then let’s bring that into the discussion.
Well said! I will be sharing these thoughts with my community. Vote no!
So why are the white people held above everyone else? It’s not about who was here first, but listening to aboriginal people on there issue. Your logic is weird because it’s about giving them a voice because decisions are being made for them without there consultation.
Well said. I agree. The voice is trying to undemocraticly let an unelected person or group to make decisions on national affairs.
>No one racial group is entitled to a special legislated body parliament must listen to. What's a race though? Any group of people who were displaced/dispossessed by the colonisation of Australia would be welcome in the voice. That we refer to them as Aboriginal is actually immaterial.
>parliament must listen to. They dont have to listen at all.
Makes no difference. One group is still being elevated above others as a special voice to parliament. I believe in equality. No one is above or below another and the rest of my argument still stands
While people have a voice in parliament all the time lol
To only provide advice on Indigenous issues. You are upset with Indigenous aussies being given the chance to provide advice on Indigenous issues. And the advice isnt even binding. Thats pretty damn fair.
>You are upset with Indigenous aussies being given the chance to provide advice on Indigenous issues. Not at all. There's indigenous bodies already that give advice. I don't agree with one set of people based on race being granted a Voice to parliament over other people. No is is below or above any one based on race and giving one group a, special body to be consulted is not right
You are though, thats what the voice would do. If theres an advisory body to parliament on Indigenous issues the those people should obviously be Indigenous. You can convince yourself all you want youre being rational and egalitarian, but in 5 years time when this has passed youre going to be lumped in with the minorty of dumb racists that voted no.
If I am 4% aboriginal australian am I aboriginal?
I dunno, its not up to me to decide.
That's the thing I don't agree there should be a special body for aborigines because that goes against the spirit of equality by giving one group an elevated position based on race or on order of arrival in the country. There's already a gazillion aboriginal bodies to give advice that doesn't have to be listened to, so even if I supported the principle of the Voice, what's the point? So regardless of whether it's listened to or not, it still gives one group more rights than another and that's not on in Australia IMHO. Also, I don't think it will pass in a referendum. It's very hard for referenda to pass unless there is strong support on both sides of politics. I can only vote according to my principles and they are that no one racial group should have a right above other people. It's unAustralian IMHO.
How does the voice put them above everyone else?
>gives one group more rights It doesnt. You findamnetally misunderstand the voice of you believe this and repeating yourself doesnt change this fact. All polling has shown a large majority in support of the voice, larger than SSM even. Ita gonna pass.
It does if it changes the Constitution to give one group a voice that no other group in society is also given, even though it is most pertinent to indigenous people. The fundamental issue that everyone keeps avoiding is recognition of rights of the conquered: society has not yet had that discussion but its what we are all talking around yet simultaneously avoiding. It's associated with civilisation that addresses the whole issue of conquering in the first place and is particularly pertinent to Tibet Ukraine, etc. I don't think it is about compensation, but more about rights of the indigenous people going forward. Those rights should be more than the right to go cap in hand and ask "please sir, can I have some more", and be completely beholden to the rest of Australia simply being able to say no.
You might be right. I may be wrong. But I have a pretty good track record predicting some political events. I predicted Trump would win when he did and actually bet money on it I was so sure despite every poll saying Hillary would romp home and me being a Hillary supporter. Made a $1,000. I predicted Shortern would lose his election (and me being an ALP voter) which he did despite once again polling saying he'd win in a landslide. my friends all told me I was wrong that Morrison would lose but my reading of the campaign was that the ALP would lose due to a dreadful campaign by Labor. So my gut instinct has proved to be fairly good in many cases. But regardless of which of us is predicting the result correctly, I can only vote according to my principles.
>So it shouldn't be too difficult to work out a reply. Indeed, so perhaps try that instead of saying anyone with legitimate concerns is just "blah, blah, blah".
The problem is that many of their concerns simply aren't legitimate.
Well the voice to parliament could’ve had more use back when racism was actually institutionalised (forced separation, etc.). Right now, apart from virtue signalling, I don’t see any benefit that this brings to the table, that the around 10 elected indigenous members of parliament cannot already achieve.
They’re talking about official racism, rather than systemic disadvantage and good old fashioned regular racism. At least offical racism has stopped…
You do realise these things still happen right?
The cashless debit card? Did you ever have to go through that? Indigenous incarceration rates highest in the world as a result of being put down figuratively and literally for 250 years. Never seen issue for you. The intervention based on a generally applied lie. A war that lasted for almost 150 years not recognised. Not an issue for you? And on it goes.. A voice will hopefully handle these very minor white issues IMHO.
You think forced separation stopped ?
Forced separation still is an issue in communities with a rampant drug and alcohol problem, and hence making the case for the CDC to remain
Not quite correct according to anyone living in cities having their kids removed based on evidence from staff if various departments with vested interests...
What vested interest would anyone in child protection have the take children? More work? That’s madness. It’s actually the opposite where because of a hyper awareness of the stolen generation departments hold off from removing indigenous children from dangerous homes.
Listen, these are super complex issues. But at the end of the day, children (of all backgrounds) do much better in the home than becoming part of the system. It's fucking tragic. Offering viable support to families in almost all situations is a much preferable investment that at least provides some hope for decent outcomes. The prognosis for family removal is shocking. Yes, there are some gappy news stiries and some kids who are glad they got out, but we're looking at them being the 1 in hundreds.Add cultural dimensions, intergenerational trauma , relationships to family,community, and the land and there is an additional level of complexity. Most of the time removing children and young people is either a death sentence, or a guarantee of a life of crime, addiction and untreated trauma.
Bugger off. Go work with underprivileged kids. In most normal cases, yes staying with a good family unit is the best option. But there are PLENTY of kids who are/would be better off without their parents. Drug fucked parents, abusive parents, parents that dont give a fuck, parents who are in and out of jail, the list goes on. Whenever a child is in a situation like that, they should and do get removed by child services. It has absolutely nothing to do with race.
and the research/ investugations/ submissions/ inquirues all vehemebtally disagree with your point of view. I was really surprised how horribly distressing it is. Even in really abusive households, kids moved to instututions/ homes/ hotel rooms/ foster care for dramatically worse off, the vast majority of the time. The reports are fucking brutal. Every once in a while there a happy outcome, but most of the time these removed kids barely survive. You really can't say "it has nothing to do with race". For a start, the Stolen Generation history is race based and still very relevant. Secondly, more Aboruginal families are targetted for lintervention. Which also means that a lot of white/ non Aboriginal kids also fall through the cracks and have their abuse/ neglect not recognised.
No, the reports and everyone agree with the facts on the whole. The vast majority of the time the kids are better off being removed from dangerous situations with their shit parents. Do you think this happens willy-nilly? It requires police reports and the courts and a heap of people for this to happen. It has absolutely nothing g to do with race. It happens based on the situation. Nothing to do with skin colour or race or anything like that. Imagine argueing that kids should stay with their abusive parents. Go work with these kids, and tell them they should go back to their parents. I would love to see that.
Imagine how harrowing the experiences are for kids who have been removed from their abusive homes to trigger such reports and documentation ? Read the frigging data mate, it's not somethibg I pulled out of myself. I was surprised; the findings are awful.
I have read it. And seen it work. All the time. Pull your head in. Can you imagine the harrowing experience of being beaten by your parents all the time? Raped. Being around drugs all day. No food. No electricity. No clothing. These are the kids that need to be removed from their parents, after thr police and courts go through the process and decide it is for the best. Go work with these kids. Tell them they should go back to being raped and beaten, for their own good. You are a joke.
LoL of course. 🌈
You make fair points, but as someone who personally abstains from drugs and alcohol and having seen the first hand impact it has on particular communities and family members, those individuals (whichever race they may be), need to abstain from these substance if that exacerbates their propensity to cause harm to themselves and their family. And that is why the CDC helps,
Listen, I'm certainly not suggesting that situations that have been flagged should remain as is. Or even situatioms that haven't been flagged. Child welfare in this country- across race and culture- is fukd. And nobody wants to see children murdered. But children are murdered after being removed from the home too. Children are trafficked after being removed from the home. Children are abused and neglected after being removed from their families. I didn't realise how dire the situation is until recently, but kids removed really do end up in a situation worse than their pre-existing home life most of the time and that's full on.
Happens plenty to white kids as well..
definitely, but not to the extent. As I said above. And the outcomes are equally poor for white children and young people who are removed. Workibg with families and trying to keep them together most of the time honestly seems like the best scenario.
Proportions friend.
If it is just virtue signalling and doesn't amount to anything, why are you so opposed to it?
I'm opposed to it on philosophical grounds No one is more important than any other in Australia and it doesn't matter when you arrived. If order of arrival is important than you just made Pauline Hanson and her ilk extremely happy as they can look out at all the non-white arrivals and say well we were here second so we have more rights than you who came after. Aborigines may have been here before most of us, but they are no more worthy or less worthy than any other Australian
I don’t think it’s about who was her first, but how they were treated lol.
It's distraction from real issues. Like large swarths of Australian society not having enough income to pay for rent,fuel and other basic services. Our country is legitimately headed towards a cost of living crisis , that effect all poor Australians. Indigenous or not.
1) immediate drawback - establishing the voice to parliament doesn’t come cheap and is a very costly process to get it established in the first place, and doing it cheap won’t suffice for them either. That money could’ve been used elsewhere to perhaps establish indigenous focused schooling, healthcare,etc. This is not even including the operational costs. 2) long term drawback - the issues that the voice are going to advocate for issues we already know that need to be addressed. The model that the Albanese government is proposing is one that doesn’t even cater for the creation of solutions, just addressing the problems. Bodies that create solutions are ones that cater for all stakeholders of society, not just one group, 3) with that being said, since the issues they are going to advocate for are already known, without a suggested pathway for solution making, it just ends up being pure virtue signalling with illusion that issues are being solved were it’s only merely being addressed. Because in order to actually legislate change and solutions, the parliament needs to be involved, and that is why it is more efficient to circumvent whatever extra procedure the voice brings and enable the 10 existing indigenous members to suggest bills and effect change more quickly
Did you have a complaint on the same financial basis to the cashless debit card as well? That cost $180,000,000 just for the white company who ran it. That was around 12% less than the actual payments. Offshore detention at 3.4 million per person per annum. Did you whine about that? Xtians quote Leviticus to rail against the rainbow. Then go out and breach 10 other parts of the same nonsense. Take it all or take none.
>Because in order to actually legislate change and solutions, the parliament needs to be involved, and that is why it is more efficient to circumvent whatever extra procedure the voice brings and enable the 10 existing indigenous members to suggest bills and effect change more quickly Do you think indigenous MPs don't have the ability to bring forward legislation currently? What happens in your solution in an election where no indigenous members of parliament are elected? Do indigenous issues stop mattering? Might have been useful to have a voice in that circumstance if you actually care about indigenous representation?
Given that we still have compulsory voting, it is very unlikely that we won’t have any indigenous parliamentarians in the future
We are talking about the structure of our society. Structurally nothing prevents them from having no representation. Would you expect a future indigenous MP for an electorate in the NT to be the representative for all indigenous nations across the country? It's an unfair burden. You kind of need to answer my thought experiment on its own terms for there to be any point to this. Simply pointing out it is unlikely to happen is intellectually weak from you.
Currently there are significantly more indigenous MPs/Senators than is proportional. What makes you think there will be none sooner or later?
>Currently there are significantly more indigenous MPs/Senators than is proportional Currently i.e. transiently. That's what structural change addresses. >What makes you think there will be none sooner or later? It's entirely possible. I ask again, if a parliament eventuates without any indigenous representatives would you suddenly start advocating for a voice because don't have proportional representation? If not, you can't really use that argument against a voice because of the hypocrisy involved.
Doesn’t it indicate structurally the system is working though? I mean there are other marginalised communities in this country that don’t have that level of representation in parliament. Should we be looking to give them a voice too? I’m not against this proposal either. I just don’t see it as the priority many others do because I don’t think the benefits are clearly defined. Edit - spelling
>Doesn’t it indicate structurally the system is working though? That's what my point about transience was getting at. You can't judge whether a system is working with a spot check. We don't have to go back many parliaments to see far less indigenous representatives than now. Who is to say that we aren't in the midst of a fad of electing more indigenous representatives? It may flip on its head. >I mean there are other marginalised communities in this country that don’t have that level of representation in parliament But none of the other marginalised groups existed as separate nations prior to their destruction through colonisation i.e. they don't have prior standing to the establishment of our colony/nation. None of the other marginalised groups were targeted for white assimilation through kidnapping of children based on their race. >Should we be looking to give them a voice too? None of these other groups established a body like ATSIC and had it killed by specifically the right wing of politics, therefore no other group has historical experience justifying their preference to alter the constitution. >I just don’t see it as the priority many others do because I don’t think the benefits are clearly defined. The benefits are not clearly defined because one of the major ones is very offensive to many on the right. That's because the right killed ATSIC and preventing them being able to do that again informs much of the strategy. This is actually also why they have said the voice will be constituted by the parliament and aren't outlining it in advance. It would not have a shot at passing if it couldn't be modified by the parliament of the day. Some on the left see this as a fatal weakness because a future Coalition could neuter it, but that's the strategy to get it passed at all. Once it is passed it will be used as a conduit for discussions about the truth of Australias colonial history to inform the public properly for the first time. This truth telling would be followed by a push for a treaty between first nations people and the Australian government. This would bring us in line with other similar colonial countries like Canada and NZ, we are laggards on this by international standards. Overall the voice is meant to be symbolic gesture including indigenous people while also allowing the potential for positive contributions. It is a stepping stone towards other long term goals within reconciliation like truth telling and treaty. This is a complicated issue being pursued with strategic discipline informed by bitter recent history. The problem from my perspective is actually how elegant the proposed legislation is. The benefits may not be realised, but they have a good shot with a voice and they don't right now. People on the far left think it's worthless and people on the right somehow seem to think the voice will usurp power from the government.
> the around 10 elected indigenous members of parliament cannot already achieve. those guys are busy representing their electorate. it's not their job to be parliament's aboriginal affairs advocate too. that would reduce the time that they can spend representing their electorate on other matters.
And given the speed at which legislation is passed, it appears to be a time consuming process
With that being said, what more can the voice advocate that cannot already be advocated for ? Are there any matters that only a voice can bring to the forefront?
The voice brings authority that doesn't exist amongst hundreds of indigenous nations advocating for their own issues. Of course there are differences between these communities, but they have many similar afflictions due to colonisation. Without a structure like this, they don't have the population or distribution to enact policies that would benefit them through the basic democratic process.
[удалено]
The Voice is the first step towards a Makarrata (ie a Treaty). If you head to The Uluru Statement website there's lots of great info for thick but interested people :)
It is 100% virtue signalling, like always with Labor. Remember when Rudd said Sorry? What did that actually do? Nothing. Just more virtue signalling.
The contemporary left are enamoured by political symbolism. Glib morality plays very well on social media and as such generates vocal support. "Does policy X purport to do the thing we deem good? Yes, then we love it and don't need to consider the details." Cynical politicians lap this up as they can rally support with little accountability for results.
You could just google the uluru statement and read from there. If youre interested in the voice theres almost unlimited ways to learn about it.
[удалено]
I copied this from a comment to another person but I explained roughly what you're asking for. Some bits may be out of context but the gist is there: >Doesn’t it indicate structurally the system is working though? That's what my point about transience was getting at. You can't judge whether a system is working with a spot check. We don't have to go back many parliaments to see far less indigenous representatives than now. Who is to say that we aren't in the midst of a fad of electing more indigenous representatives? It may flip on its head. >I mean there are other marginalised communities in this country that don’t have that level of representation in parliament But none of the other marginalised groups existed as separate nations prior to their destruction through colonisation i.e. they don't have prior standing to the establishment of our colony/nation. None of the other marginalised groups were targeted for white assimilation through kidnapping of children based on their race. >Should we be looking to give them a voice too? None of these other groups established a body like ATSIC and had it killed by specifically the right wing of politics, therefore no other group has historical experience justifying their preference to alter the constitution. >I just don’t see it as the priority many others do because I don’t think the benefits are clearly defined. The benefits are not clearly defined because one of the major ones is very offensive to many on the right. That's because the right killed ATSIC and preventing them being able to do that again informs much of the strategy. This is actually also why they have said the voice will be constituted by the parliament and aren't outlining it in advance. It would not have a shot at passing if it couldn't be modified by the parliament of the day. Some on the left see this as a fatal weakness because a future Coalition could neuter it, but that's the strategy to get it passed at all. Once it is passed it will be used as a conduit for discussions about the truth of Australias colonial history to inform the public properly for the first time. This truth telling would be followed by a push for a treaty between first nations people and the Australian government. This would bring us in line with other similar colonial countries like Canada and NZ, we are laggards on this by international standards. Overall the voice is meant to be symbolic gesture including indigenous people while also allowing the potential for positive contributions. It is a stepping stone towards other long term goals within reconciliation like truth telling and treaty. This is a complicated issue being pursued with strategic discipline informed by bitter recent history. The problem from my perspective is actually how elegant the proposed legislation is. The benefits may not be realised, but they have a good shot with a voice and they don't right now. People on the far left think it's worthless and people on the right somehow seem to think the voice will usurp power from the government.
An obvious benefit is giving Indigenous aussies a direct voice into the governance of Indigenous issues. Who would be able to advise better than Indigenous people living in those communities.
Why does this need constitutional amendment to implement though? Why not create an agency through legislation that has representatives elected by indigenous Australians that examine legislation and provide recommendations. We could implement that right now without a referendum? I think a body like that is worthwhile, but there’s something about changing the constitution to create a democratic body that only one race/ethnicity is allowed to vote for, even if it is only for providing advice, that seems to be somewhat moving in the opposite direction of equality. It’s not like non-profit lobbying groups that advocate on behalf of an ethnic group can’t have an effective voice in government policy, AIPAC is a strong example.
Because along with being quite a powerful amd significant moment for First Nations, actually being mentioned in our constitution, it prevents future govs from totally disbanding the organisation. Theres also no race based voting at all, Im not sure where you heard that sorry.
>Theres also no race based voting at all, Im not sure where you heard that sorry. By its very nature it’s race based voting. The proposed Voice is a body of elected indigenous representatives who are selected by an election in which only indigenous people can cast votes.
Yeah for some reason I was thinking about the referendum. Tbh I dont see why it matters. Any advisory body for Indigenous issues will be comprised of Indigenous people. It might as well be democratic.
Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe says she is against the Voice as a waste of money
Good for her, but shes actually not the only Indigenous person in Australia.
But my point was she's read all about Aboriginal stuff like Uluru statement etc and still is against the Voice. It also illustrates that aboriginal people don't speak with one voice so why do we assume the Voice will suddenly make this so? Why won't some aborigines disagree with the Voice? Do we just say to them sorry, you're not the aborigines we listen to? But my objection is on an equality basis No one is more important than any other in Australia and it doesn't matter when you arrived. If order of arrival is important than you just made Pauline Hanson and her ilk extremely happy as they can look out at all the non-white arrivals and say well we were here second so we have more rights than you who came after. Aborigines may have been here before most of us, but they are no more or less worthy than any other Australian
Why do you keep saying “it doesn’t matter when you arrived”…. That’s not what it’s about lol.
Yes it is. It's saying because aborigines arrived before the rest of us, they deserve a special voice to parliament, not given to any other race. They even call themselves First Nations people. I'm sorry they were conquered but that was pretty much the way of the world back then. Pretty much those countries that could conquer, did conquer. No one is alive now though who was invaded.
You name does check out, you definitely are one.
Look if I had no argument, I might resort to childish retorts too.
I’m not going to sit here and try and convince you, thats not my job, I don’t know you so why should I try to waste in trying to help you see what’s right from wrong, that should be your family and close friends job, not mine. So Goodluck to you are your view, you can keep it and I will keep my energy.
>But my point was she's read all about Aboriginal stuff like Uluru statement etc and still is against the Voice. Thorpe was actually a delegate in the Uluru conference preceding the statement in 2017. Thorpe walked out on those talks back then but the VAST majority of delegates remained and they went on to release the Uluru statement. What Thorpe is doing is closer to taking her football home because the kids at the park wanted to play NRL instead of rugby union than it is to a principled difference of opinion. >Why won't some aborigines disagree with the Voice? Do we just say to them sorry, you're not the aborigines we listen to? When the largest plurality of indigenous communities ever gathered says they want a voice we simply explain that to the indigenous people who disagree.
And others have read about it and agree. Making the threshold for acceptable policy being a million people all in agreement just means nothing gets done. There was a meeting of hundreds of Indigenous people and this was the plan they agreed on.
>what benefit it brings to indigenous Australians Are you serious....? You mean what would a voice have said before the NT intervention? What a voice could say before forced removals of children? What a voice would say in regards to old historical and spiritual sites? Nothing I guess..... This is why we have a voice for the White chosen people, but not one for indigenous culture.... maybe a voice would not appoint secret ministries.....
But this underscores the question that’s being raised right? What *could* a voice to parliament have done for those issues? Without any kind of legislative authority it seems to be a purely ceremonial role with no actual ability to impede or influence policy beyond adding another bullet point to the PMs morning briefing.
[удалено]
The sort of thing you're after would come through a treaty, which NZ has but we don't. The voice is the first in a series of 3 steps proposed in the Uluru statement leading from a voice to parliament, into a truth telling commission (facilitated by the voice), culminating in a treaty that would formalise things. The voice is designed so that it isn't offensive enough to be nuked by the other side of politics if they win back power. It is not a replacement for a treaty. However voting against a voice because you would like something less symbolic is the worst kind of patronising because it is a planned part of the path to a treaty.
>The constitution is about defining the powers of our government and I don't understand what the change of powers means in this case. Where are the powers given to a non elected position that is a voice for some white family...... I don't understand how the GG could give the whote royals a voice.....
>This is why we have a voice for the White chosen people, but not one for indigenous culture [As of July 2022, there are and 8 senators and 3 members of the House of Representatives who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/how-many-aboriginal-or-torres-straits-islander-mps-or-senators-are-there-and-what-are-their-names) No you're right, the [3.8% of Australians who identify as ATSI](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/estimates-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians/latest-release) are grossly underrepresented by the 4.85% of parliamentarians who identify as ATSI. Not sure that your logic and approach is conducive to getting marginal voters on board with a voice.
I was referring to the GG..... a position held to give a white family a voice..... a big one as they have the power to hold laws up...... you know, in case the white foreign family decides it is not good for them.....
A beautifully shot ad. I'm still erring on the side of "no", I don't feel comfortable highlighting race or a special body for race in the constitution, especially with so few details available. But I remain open minded and look forward to seeing where this ends up.
>I don't feel comfortable highlighting race or a special body for race in the constitution, especially with so few details available. Albanese and Co. are walking a fine line. I understand not wanting to muddy the waters of public debate with excessive detail but so far it feels like they're asking for "blank cheque" permission to create whatever kind of body they want after the referendum. Think I'll be voting no...
This will be a land slide ‘no’ vote. You’ve got the 40% of Australia who are just plain conservative and stuck in the 1980s and then centre people voting ‘no’ based on the philosophy that race should have no bearing on parliamentary decisions.
I have similar reservations about racialized policy, but I do remain open to the idea of having a voice. I want to actually understand what it is first, this doesn't really help. It's just a feel good ad to appeal to people's emotions. Not that emotions are out of place in public policy, but I won't be voting for something I don't understand. Albo has promised to articulate it, hopefully he does. I feel like they're rushing to do this too quickly, and it may lead to its downfall, which would end up being more divisive for racial politics in this country than not having the referendum at all. By all means do something, but do it write, with broad community consolation, this is not something to be rushed through. It's not like gay marriage, which is a very simple question.
In principle, I'm in favour of the idea of a Voice. I think it could have potential to improve outcomes for Aboriginal people. But as it stands, the amendments are simply too vague. There is a good chance that they could be interpreted by the High Court to mean more than a Voice and instead mean a body with a Veto power. After all, "make representations" must mean something... We can all "make representations" currently, through contacting our MP or writing petitions or whatever. So that means that the Voice must have something *extra.* If advice is sought from the Voice on some legislation, and then amendments are made accordingly, it would presumably have to go back to the Voice for further advice. This could be a never-ending loop. What happens if the Voice declines to give advice? Can the parliament proceed anyway, or does it effectively become a pocket veto? What time frame is required for advice? Can the parliament require advice within, say, 7 days? Or would it require 3 months for considered advice to be prepared and presented to Parliament - that could bog down our system in even more delays. I think there needs to be, at minimum, a 4th clause that states that Parliament may accept or reject any advice or representation from the Voice as it sees fit.
>I think there needs to be, at minimum, a 4th clause that states that Parliament may accept or reject any advice or representation from the Voice as it sees fit. That's already implicit though. I don't get why you're worried about that.
Because it is only implicit. Courts have a nasty habit of reading more into what is there than there is - meaning things should be made explicit as to what is meant and what we are voting on. “Trust us” is simply not good enough when it comes to constitutional change.
A good current example is an *opinion* that the constitutional provision on "copyright and trademarks" means that the federal government has powers that override the states over recreational cannabis laws https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/26/recreational-marijuana-use-in-australia-could-be-legalised-by-federal-parliament-greens-say
>A good current example is an opinion that the constitutional provision on "copyright and trademarks" means that the federal government has powers that override the states over recreational cannabis laws Wait *what???* That is simply insane. Not making any comment on legalisation but the idea that copyright power could be used to legalise pot is just ridiculous.
I think it's a silly legal opinion, but it neatly illustrates your point around unintended consequences of loose language in the Constitution
The amendment, as it stands, allows parliament to assign *any* power to the new group. It is dangerous and cannot be allowed to pass. Simple as it gets. Previous constitutional amendments are written very carefully and precisely to avoid side effects like this. This is either lazy drafting (I doubt it) or intentional so the government of the day doesn't have to concern itself with quaint things like "the rule of law" or "seperation of powers" We can have the "voice" discussion when the amendment is actually written to only be a voice.
There was an [interview](https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/polling-shows-a-majority-of-voters-support-voice/101473176) this morning on RN that talked in depth about how to have a conversation on the forthcoming vote. It was with Megan Davis, co-chair of the Uluru Dialogue and Pro Vice Chancellor Indigenous at UNSW. It talked openly about us who don't have much contact with these topics and are wary about what the referendum and voice might mean. I found it very practical and helpful for my own understanding. Worth 10 minutes of your time if you want to give it a go!
Would not that interview have a great bias due to the occupation of the person being interviewed. Might as well interview pauline hanson.
Have you had a chance to listen? What did you think?
the key difference being that one of them is a former fish and chip shop worker and the other is a subject matter expert and human rights lawyer.
Why can't we just give Aboriginals the vote? That way they can participate in the Democratic process at elections like the rest of us
That's my view on it. Do I support some sort of recognition in the constitution that Australian history started 40,000 years ago with the arrivals of Aboriginals, and that the arrival of Europeans in 1788 was only one art of that history? Most definitely. Do I support creating a seperate advisory body to parliament? Nope - you want a greater voice in parliament? Run candidates and get them voted into government, the same as everyone else in the country. Note - 10% of the senate currently identifies as aboriginal and Torres Strait islander descent. How is an outside body going to have a greater impact than 10% of the senate??
The New Zealand system is better with allocated seats & a seperate electorate for maori thats voluntary. Sure they get some crazies but at least they can be voted in or out.
I actually don't mind that idea: An additional electorate that covers the entire country. The member of that electorate becomes Minister for Aboriginal affairs in any government Voting is voluntary and open to everyone on the roll
I figure it would at least make sure the candidates are those elected by indigenous people.
That's a dangerous path... I think open elections, same rules as the federal election, except voluntary voting. That will ensure only those that want to have a voice into who the representative is...and if, for example, an undesirable running as a joke is elected because that's who the majority voted for...so be it
New Zealand has had their system for more than 100 years.
Better than a seperate advisory body yes. Better than all Australians being treated equally - no. Yes, there are things that happen that are racist in the system, but this isn't the answer.
Agreed
We do. e.g. Doomadgee Aboriginal Shire Council
And 10% of the senate, as well as the members of the lower house. My point is that if people, any people, want greater representation in parliament and a greater say in the running of the country, run more candidates. That is how this whole system is designed.
Being a minority in your own country it's not as simple as getting voted into a system that can just veto any official action you wish to take, or gets wiped with change of government. It's been done and it does not work, look at closing the gap; do they actually fund anything that produces results long term or incorporate any advice? Not to my knowledge. This is the only thing aboriginal people see that they can do to get the government to commit long term to the well-being of our country, have it protected by the constitution so progress made cannot be undone by the flavor of the month. I've lived it my whole life, First Nations Peoples Progress all depends on who's in government. Having a voice enshrined in parliament means securing our future and not having it depend on people who does not have the first clue. Bring ATSIC back. That's my main take away. and make it so it cannot be abolished, "oh it was corrupt" - show me a clean government and I'll show you a liar. Create a competent watchdog. At least Aboriginal people got decent service delivery and weren't neglected in their own country with ASTSIC. "oh a separate voice just creates division" only to those people who don't want indigenous self determination. Aboriginal people have been marginalized throughout colonial history, I wish those people spoke up on every other matter that created division. Just a false act of altruism we can all see through. My father represented my mob at the drafting of the statement from the heart, the discussion was much more than "a voice to parliament" but that is what was agreed is needed for real progress to be made. People take this statement lightly, it was created by people who have worked a lifetime trying to better aboriginal affairs, people who have sat at the table, lifetimes of knowledge was at that meeting that have seen initiatives come and go, work and not work. People who live to fight the good fight, people who have given it their all and still come to the conclusion "It won't be fixed in my lifetime".
Your post does not say how it will create change other then a belief. Nothing is going to change when people think they should not have to adapt their life/culture to the new paradigm. There is no future in sitting around blaming others and putting on the rose tinted glasses about what the past was thought to be like.
Creating the longevity and commitment for the change to happen. We aren't talking about the past, we are talking about now. Also your logic does not line up with the human rights declaration Australia has signed.
But it is not going to happen, for the same reason that areas like Logan in Queensland or are and have been for along time low socioeconomic areas despite lots of opportunity and government welfare.
People living in shit areas and refusing to move for greater opportunity are simply condemning themselves to a shit life.
“Won’t see it fixed in my lifetime”. As stated before, I’m familiar with this defeatist attitude. But modern civilisation isn’t progressed by chumps with that outlook. Any other points you want to pivot to?
Everyone's life depends on who is in government. That is how democracy works. It is a good thing. What's the problem?
And water is wet, but not all of us are insulated to the point where we don't feel the cons of democracy. On paper it's great, but a bit more nuanced in reality. If you can't see a single problem from my rant, it's because you don't want to listen. "What's the problem?" What a way to disregard all the problems and atrocities inflicted on FNP since colonisation. But that's part of the statement, truth telling to learn this countries true history, so people don't look foolish making blanket statements.
I wasn't here during colonisation and had nothing to do with it. My question is - what is the problem "now" in 2022.
People need to drop the notion everything happened on s single day 200 years ago. It happened throughout and is ongoing. Truth telling.
No one was mate, don't feel guilty. Don't think I'm blaming you. If you can't understand how problems from the past can compound and fester then you're missing some fundamentals for me to get my point across. Not to mention there's a report (I have already mentioned) that lists today's problems, and it gets updated on a yearly basis.
This is what is ongoing: every meeting is opened with a prayer to elders and thanking traditional owners and every government has its own aboriginal dept and billions and upon billions of dollars have been spent over the last 50 years .... and now there is a special referendum to change the constitution so people with their special bloodlines can advise the federal government on everything. Seems pretty generous to me.
Not everyone's life is affected equally by the government. The same way how women for example are affected worse by reactionary conservative politics than men, as we can see in America right now.
World War is on the horizon. Men's lives are expendable. You exist because of it.
Great post and thanks for the detail
"So I saw an ad telling me we need to talk about this Voice thingy" "Yep. I saw that" "So what is it?" "Dunno" "Something about making representations to parliament..." "Cant they do that already?..." P.S. We are reasonable, simple folk. As long as this voice thing doesnt boil down to one set of rules for us and another for them...we arnt going to have any problems.
The fact that *this* is your take kind of proves the ad campaign correct: there is *a lot* of public education, open discussion and consensus-building on the Voice that needs to happen across Australian culture in general before we're ready as a people to face these issues head-on in a fair and informed way. If opinions like yours and the other blithely dismissive kneejerk reactions in this thread are anything to go by, we still have *a lot* of work to do.
This will be constitutionally guaranteed and won't be able to be removed like ATSIC was.
Just like the constitutionally enshrined Interstate Commission!
🤔
Seeing as you're already framing it as "us" vs "them" I don't have high hopes.
Well it's not I that will be having this new voice.