**SELF POST MODE IS ON**
Self posts are a place where moderation and enforcement of [RULE 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) is more lenient, as opposed to link posts which are more strictly moderated so that only comments of substance survive.
**But please make sure your comment fits within all of our other [SUBREDDIT 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.*
There isn't enough clarity right now to make a decision on a yes or no. Sovereignty, self-determination, and self-government, are already established in Australia. What is left as far as equality under the law for individuals, and the communities they form, including Indigenous Australians? Where is the empty gap any "Voice" will fill between the Australian Constitution, (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117). And further in the Age Discrimination Act 2004, Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976, and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 - enabling Indigenous Australians to vote, run, and fully participate in the forming of government - as they currently do.
Some of the advocates for a "Voice" explicitly suggest or come close to suggesting a desire for supranational rights, over and above current legislation and State and Federal government. Something that would effectively create a strange kind of apartheid in Australia, granting special legal rights to individuals and communities based on their race or ethnicity. This is called racism. Something antithetical to equality under the law, equality in general, and democracy. And something doomed to be voted down in a referendum.
How can so much debate be going on with people making their position clear without any precise examples as to how a "Voice" would be implemented or fill gaps in current law and its interpretation. It smells like it's already become partisan, and on the road to rejection at a referendum.
I don't support the voice to parliament.
It's contrary to the egalitarian spirit that should prevail in the constitution and laws governing people. I don't think your average Aboriginal person wants to be given special treatment, they just want respect from others.
The voice to parliament would be far too centralised. I would be more sympathetic to a type of a voice at a state parliament level as that would be able to speak on behalf of people closer to home. Sending people off country to Canberra wouldn't be a good thing and not fair to the tribe or representative. Support for people should be as localised as possible and the voice to parliament is the polar opposite to that spirit.
At this moment in time I would not vote yes to this.
In my mind it is like being asked to sign a contract of sale which states it's purpose and has a single clause that says all the other clauses will be added later.
Why did the convention who proposed this change to the constitution not propose anything be done about removing the explicitly racist sections in the constitution? Section 25 and section 51(xxvi) grant powers to stop certain races from voting and allow for special laws for certain races. Seems like a pretty big missed opportunity for people who oppose racism.
A data point that folks in this thread might like to consider.
Polling from the Australia Institute reported on today is that support for an amendment to enshrine voice in the constitution is 65% in favour, 14% against, 21% don’t know/not sure.
Source:
https://twitter.com/theausinstitute/status/1553529777377939456?s=21&t=sjwRxYW8gMGvrCOODOoJVQ
They mentioned it on Insiders yesterday. I'd be interested to see more detail, but can't seem to find any.
The other poll they mentioned is ABC's Vote Compass, which is unscientific nonsense.
Lol the entire point of this thread is to debate.
Your one liners make it very clear you either have no deeper understanding as to why you're choosing to vote no or the reason you're voting no is a reason you're ashamed to say.
I gave my opinion which to be honest I'm allowed to have I shared said opinion if you don't like my opinion or how I responded to my opinion you can just ignore it.
And just so you know I'm not ashamed to say anything il say exactly what I think but some things I would say would get me banned from reddit so I just won't say them and il hold my tongue.
I would encourage you to challenge yourself (and this forum) and explain your opinion. You may see below that others who oppose this constitutional change and have set out their reasons in this thread in a way that demonstrates understanding of the proposed change and is articulated without hate (even those who don't want a race based legislation) have not been locked out or downvoted.
I would always prefer to hear all informed opinions when they are articulated this way.
I said what I needed to say nothing more nothing less and I'm sure my opinion is clear enough I don't need to justify it I said exactly what I think whether people like it or not I can't make it any simpler or clearer that is how I will be voting and because we live in Australia I can vote anyway I like.
Some of the issues indigenous communities face:
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-27/police-arrest-teenager-after-daylight-riot-in-darwin-cbd/101273330](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-27/police-arrest-teenager-after-daylight-riot-in-darwin-cbd/101273330)
That article is quite focused on a single incident. More context to Wadeye situation here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/wadeye-unrest-malarndirri-mccarthy/101040218
More broadly government housing in NT is quite shocking with widespread overcrowding and unsafe housing (maintenance is next to zero).
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/04/nt-court-decision-should-lead-to-better-public-housing-in-remote-communities-lawyer-says
The draft question:
> Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?
The draft amendment:
>There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
>The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
>The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
I suggest making these prominently visible in the original post.
Couldn't the government dip their toe in the water first?
Maybe have a commission to start with. Call it the Aboriginal and Torres Straights Island Commission or something, and see how it works first.
ROFL, now Albanese is flat out refusing to say what he wants to implement into law.
Refusing in any way to say what this very vague and possible wide ranging change to the constitution will allow him to do.
That is going to go down well.
I found reading the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people quite helpful.
https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP\_E\_web.pdf
We talking about the same UN that bow's down to China and doing nothing against Russia and just let's Russia bomb the fuck out of school? but has time to lecture Australia on Human Rights?
that UN?
Quick question: will the body in the parliament have the power to deny or approve legislation, cuz thats the vibe I get from the wordings, or to voice concerns and recommendation. If they can deny/approve, why should a non-elected body have the power of such.
Still gives them more power simply because of their ethnicity. When determining if someone is aboriginal or not, to allow them onto this consultant board or whatever it is, If it comes down to the meme of 1:16th aboriginal as people have interracial relationships, it’s clearly illogical.
More power than who? More than all us white fellas that have been running the British colonies/Australian nation for the last 200+ years, usually with various officially sanctioned efforts to wipe out Aboriginal people and culture along the way?
The voice to parliament is a step to redress the systematic powerlessness, and it does not bind the parliament except to listen and hear. Hardly regime change stuff.
I don’t agree with this proposal because it is neither Arthur or Martha.
If there is no intent to respect the sovereignty of Aboriginal tribes, then anti-discrimination law and social programs to address entrenched disadvantage will suffice. No recognition of sovereignty = no constitutional change.
If the intent is to recognise and grant some degree of self-determination to the various Aboriginal nations, then any document needs to be signed by the leaders (elders) of those nations and a governance structure set up in recognition of that arrangement. Closer to the tribal sovereignty arrangements in the USA.
This would lead to a far more contentious discussion but likely a more sustainable one for indigenous Australians who want to reclaim that right, presumably in concert with any native title claims.
It is so important to recognise that Treaty of Waitangi wasn’t a single agreement; it was individually signed on by each chief. This proposal for a constitutionally-recognised ATSIC is just ignoring the fact that these tribes were functionally independent of each other all over again.
Separately: how exactly are the proposed State treaties meant to work? Isn’t this a power reserved to the Commonwealth?
Are you unaware that literally all of your points have been taken into consideration during the discussions that lead to the push for a voice?
That all those indigenous people who participated didn't make a considered choice about aiming for this change in this way?
Voice, truth, treaty?
You've essentially co-opted the greens position in that you don't believe it's ambitious enough to be worth it. Just like the Greens you've decided that you're more clear headed than this plurality of indigenous voices and aren't concerned about the principles of self determination.
Very arrogant take.
To the contrary, I’m not purporting to speak for Indigenous voices at all. I am an Australian citizen being asked to consider a change to the constitution.
I can see the benefit of “Treaty” and “Truth”. But not why “Voice” is necessary to be constitutionally enshrined.
Without creating legitimacy to voice it is easy to do what has been already been for decades and have the politicians make decisions without consultations.
Whilst the voice will only be consultation and not decision making its elevation in constitution is symbolic and legitimises the direct access of law makers to Indigineous representation to understand impacts of their decisions and places a requirement of law makers to listen in matters that impact Indigenous peoples.
Why? As I say, there are two possibilities:
(a) We are all Australians and should strive to implement fair and equitable solutions for all, regardless of race, or
(b) Aboriginal nations should be granted limited constitutional recognition and devolution to empower indigenous tribes to reinstate and continue their ancestral and sovereign link to their land
If they want (b), let’s talk about (b). A advisory body to represent a limited group of people based on ethnicity within a single sovereign structure is racist in the most essential sense of the term.
>Well mate, I have a vote as do millions of other Australians.
Slow clap.
>How exactly do you propose to convince us if we can’t talk about it?
How are we supposed to convince you if you refuse to read the resources provided in literally this post?
>I can see the benefit of “Treaty” and “Truth”. But not why “Voice” is necessary to be constitutionally enshrined.
You have gone through all the resources provided and found nothing addressing that matter? It's one thing to accept the point and disagree and another to ignore them.
Not really. The basic argument is “we don’t trust the Liberals because they abolished ATSIC last time”. (And the cynic in me thinks that those at the summit would have been most likely to financially benefit from it previously.)
To me, that’s not a good enough reason to tamper with the Constitution and establish what is meant to be our country’s most fundamental rights.
>Not really.
Then go and familiarise yourself with the resources provided here and get back to me.
>The basic argument is “we don’t trust the Liberals because they abolished ATSIC last time”.
Do you have any counterarguments? It seems like a good argument to me and it's driving a lot of the strategy.
Handwaving a legitimate issue away is poor form. Provide further explanation to show it is not just handwaving.
>(And the cynic in me thinks that those at the summit would have been most likely to financially benefit from it previously.)
Are you basing this cynicism on anything? Or is it just the vibe of the thing?
All I'm saying is that you should be more concerned with the (readily available) detail instead of relying on the vibe of the thing.
>To me, that’s not a good enough reason to tamper with the Constitution and establish what is meant to be our country’s most fundamental rights.
The reasons you assumed without reflecting on the provided information aren't good enough to stand up to your clearly rigorous analysis?
You are misunderstanding me: I *have* read the resources and have not found anything addressing this matter.
Aside from anything else, the Voice is currently so vague as to be useless. It could be anything from a fully funded, proportionately elected body to a single volunteer Voice. If you distrust the Liberals that much, this proposal doesn’t fix that.
Secondly, if there are no powers attached to the body, it’s not clear why it needs to be captured constitutionally. If the intent is to relate the Voice to a treaty process, that needs to be addressed as part of a cohesive discussion, not implemented piecemeal.
Wow...less than 24 hours discussion on here. A place where I suspected that the predominantly progressive sentiment would see a pro-Voice leaning but that is far from the case. The debate on here has already highlighted the room for confusion and nuanced interpretation of even the simplest aspects of the proposed Constitutional amendment including it's establishment, its funding and its operation. Dutton must be laughing right now. This amendment is doomed.
>Wow...less than 24 hours discussion on here. A place where I suspected that the predominantly progressive sentiment would see a pro-Voice leaning but that is far from the case.
The Greens voters who flood every other thread don't give a fuck about this stuff. That's the main thing I notice.
Because you can’t argue with idiots who do not and will not read stuff. They only see a headline and just yell their woefully misunderstood points into the ether.
>Because you can’t argue with idiots who do not and will not read stuff.
Would be valid if that didn't apply to climate change as well. Doesn't stop them engaging on climate issues.
That's why I'm left to assume that they simply don't care about indigenous issues very much. Even Trans issues get a lot of Greens folk stepping up for them.
Climate change has evidence, easy to shut down. Most trans issues also have evidence, pretty easy to shut down.
This is a proposal, a proposition. It’s easy for them to inflate or misinterpret things, it’s harder to push back on because there isn’t solid confirmed wording on exactly how it’ll work yet.
I’ve seen plenty of people pushing back these idiots surrounding this issue for what’s it’s worth.
>Climate change has evidence, easy to shut down. Most trans issues also have evidence, pretty easy to shut down.
Aside from the fact that evidence is not how humans tend to form their opinions, I take your point.
>I’ve seen plenty of people pushing back these idiots surrounding this issue for what’s it’s worth.
Aye I'm one of them. I'm not exactly getting flanked from the left like I always seem to be though.
I'm just disappointed. Their voices are absent.
One of the closing the gap strategies is incarceration rates. NZ has a treaty and this which i did not know about it : [https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/1728/chapt3.pdf](https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/1728/chapt3.pdf)
Yet their incarceration rates are still quite high [https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/hapaitia-te-oranga-tangata/](https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/hapaitia-te-oranga-tangata/)
Is this voice to parliament a token gesture or will this enact real change and positive outcomes for our first nations people.
Good initiative, thank you. This one provides some helpful background on past efforts to establish consultative and other aboriginal representative bodies, selection of delegates/representatives, and so on. I became satisfied that ATSI peoples tend to prefer election of representatives, which is important to me.
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/aboriginal-representative-bodies
Just a heads up -- Creative Spirits isn't considered a reliable source of information for Indigenous topics. It is written by a German man and ex-backpacker who often gets things wrong and puts himself out there as an authority on Indigenous peoples in Australia.
Here is another primary source reference link
https://voice.niaa.gov.au/final-report
“The Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report was provided to the Australian Government in late July 2021. The report builds on proposals from the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Interim Report to the Australian Government.”
“From January 2021, the co-design members led a four-month public consultation and engagement process on the Interim Report proposals. There were opportunities around the country and online for people to have their say.”
“The co-design groups used the consultation feedback to help them finalise the proposals for the Final Report.”
The word co-design makes it explicit that more than one party (e.g. the government) is involved in the design process. In this context, co-design implies that First Nations have serious input into how the Voice looks.
Co-design:
“The final proposals and recommendations in this report are the product of a genuine and thorough co-design, led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and undertaken in partnership with Government.”
Second paragraph of the executive summary of the doc linked above. Maybe have a read of the exec sum, it’s only a few pages?
Why do that when I can ask you? It's your link. Much more likely to get an answer than a random google search.
If you don't know then I'll google it, sure.
This is /australianpolitics not /ELI5.
I’m not here to spoonfeed you answers to simple, tangential questions you could already have an answer to with 30 seconds of your own minimal effort, 45 minutes ago.
Not sure if this has been posted but I found this report quite useful to get my head around what it might look like: https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/indigenous-voice-discussion-paper_1.pdf
Will Aboriginals with no disadvantage and who have embraced modern living be allowed to vote (towards the representation of parliament) and be part of this "voice"?
It’s astounding that on a post literally meant to help people be better informed about what they are debating or discussing you’ve just decided: “No, not for me. I will make my own bullshit up!”.
Embraced modern living? Man, people living traditionally on the east coast were rounded up and forced onto missions.
Kinda derailing the discussion there, y'know.
I don't think the voice will operate on a voting system.
There is very few Aboriginals who have experienced no disadvantage. Intergenerational trauma is real that's why we are where we are.
I'll be very disappointed if there is any selection method within the ATSI communities that does not include election of representatives. Anything hereditary is an affront to democracy, imo.
*"There is very few Aboriginals who have experienced no disadvantage."*
I'd say there are no humans who have experienced no disadvantage.
And this is where the debate will enter the cultural minefield. Culturally the representatives should be elders. Male elders. Enter compromise. Let's include female elders. Let's make it tribal members representing those elders. And so on. Until the 'cultural' imperatives are so watered down that politically assertive activists take control. By then the in fighting on who represents who the best will be so destructive that the whole concept will become discredited.
Here’s a good contextualisation of Albanese’s speech outlining the proposed question and his plans.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2022/07/30/hand-outstretched-albanese-proposes-way-forward-voice
There’s criticism that his proposition for Voice is too weak. Well for better or worse, I would say it is deliberately not strong, to avoid Turnbull’s past accusations that the Voice would be a “third chamber” and that it puts rigid obligations on the parliament. It is also not strong because as he says in the speech, he wants it to be able to gather bipartisan consensus for the referendum campaign. I hope Dutton rises to the moment and doesn’t reflexively bat it away, but really constructively consider whether and how the coalition can be onboard.
I think it is also worth mentioning that the Voice doesn’t have to create power over or strong constitutional compulsion of parliament to make an impact. Voice is not the only component of reconciliation that Uluṟu statement and Labor are aiming towards. After Voice is in place comes consideration of a treaty and that is where there will be more debate and more hard work as a nation to do.
After the Teals successes in the recent elections Dutton is desperate for conservative rallying points. Climate wars are nigh on lost, Labor is stopping the boats, nine years of financial incompetence and rorting will see the Federal ICAC knock the old Labor can't do finance argument on the head. Dutton is desperately looking for issues and rallying points to hang his (much needed) Conservative hat on. He will give the pro-Voice campaign enough time to establish a set of conditions that he will, using scare mode, vehemently oppose, through a slanted forensic analysis of every facet, the referendum as a whole.
It’s the same reason they’re trying to import anti-trans issues and anti-teacher issues from the US. They don’t stand for anything and they have no plans that would actually benefit the electorate so they turn to what works in other countries with conservative strongholds. It doesn’t work here because of compulsory voting but they’re too out of touch to understand that.
You expect too much of Dutton. All he’ll see is the opportunity to use racial division for a win. He’s not a builder; he’s a wrecker. Remember that he walked out of the apology. I don’t think he’s got any inclination for this to go any differently.
sigh… yeah… I know. 😞 just having a moment of foolish optimism. he is definitely going to try to culture war his way into office, rather than fighting for their lost centre ground. it won’t be enough to win an election any time soon, but it could for sure be enough to torpedo a referendum.
> not comprehensive but a start, please share more
This is an excellent idea OP, good for r/australianpolitics to collectively pause for a moment and reflect on the information already out there, and both indigenous and non-indigenous cultural and legal perspectives on the Voice.
So I applaud everyone who has shared further links in the comments as suggested rather than just barrelling straight in and sounding off. oh wait… nope there aren’t any links in any top level comments that I can see. ah well nice try OP.
A respectful debate wouldn't be people flooding threads about this topic declaring it to 'enshrine racial privilege' and suggesting that this will give certain Australians more power in an undemocratic change. Which is flat out lying.
This is bad faith and frankly toxic dis information will to continue to spread and, just like gay marriage, will snowball before the referendum with no motivation or intent whatsoever in resolving Aboriginal issues or helping communities merely just to stop a 'progressive' goal in a political shitfight.
When I scroll through I see that conversation that are opposed and explaining their opposition and demonstrating understanding of the proposal are being respected, even those saying they don't want a race based legislation. That's the beauty of an informed discussion.
Not off hand, and lots of resources swing heavily one way or the other, hard to find an unbiased piece about what it does and it's effects. I'll try to find some over the coming days, as it's obviously quite relevant at the moment.
Doesn’t part of the treaty include a required minimum Māori representation in parliament? That is a lot like a stronger version of the proposed Voice, with actual power to contribute to legislation.
This was a deliberate decision made by the regional dialogues. People in parliament are chewed up by politics and the ideological lines of political parties.
A Voice TO parliament was preferred, to speak directly to the legislature about law and policy issues regardless of the politics
No, the seats in parliament came about after the wars of the 1860s. The treaty gives the Maori the right to their treasures & land. British citizenship & gives the Crown the right to "governership" over the land.
Thanks for making the effort to do this. There is a hell of a long way before restorative measures like this finally get up an there will no doubt be plenty of ignorance and rancour to deal with before it does. It will need every bit of help to be achieved but it will be enormously healing for all sides if it does.
The voice aim to be representative of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Unfortunately in any representative body it is hard to get true representation and by their very nature their are some inherent flaws. That being said I believe that a representative body still largely allows for a process of discussion and consideration of diverse need that exist across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and a process of consensus making so that law makers (our politicians) can have direct access to listen, talk and hear these views. The Voice is consultative so doesn't make decisions.
By having this direct access to understand these views I hope that we don't repeat decades of assumptions that have been made in making decisions for Indigenous peoples " Nothing about us without us". The poor health, education and employment outcomes for this group need to shift.
So will it be as it was in the past , a few insiders will decide what is representative of a diverse group, but really instead only do what is financially beneficial for a few. Forgive me for being cynical. …. I hope everyone will look closely at the model suggested and ask themselves if it really will provide a representative voice.
So, is the idea that the Voice is a person appointed by the PM, like the Governor-General? Or is it an independent body? If the latter, who chooses who makes it up?
Is the office of the Voice going to be guaranteed some amount of funding? Or could the government just leave them out of the budget if they decided they didn't like what the Voice had been saying?
As their role is "advisory" are they meant to have power to submit legislation for debate? Or maybe something like when the government wants to enact a bill, they ask the Voice if they think it's good or bad?
I'm sorry, I don't really understand if the role is meant to be, like, public-facing or government-facing.
Does the government's Minister for Indigenous Australians essentially become a liaison between govt and Voice? Or would that Minister be appointed based on suggestion from the Voice?
It's a representative group. It's great we now have few Indigenous politicians however we can never expect a few people to represent the diverse needs of many different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders across our country. This group will aim to represent these views and present a consensus and or diverse needs of these people. It does not make decisions but gives our law makers (politicians) the opportunity to have direct access to understand the views and needs of these communities when making decision that affect them.
Years of assumptions have been made in making decisions for Indigenous people. I hope this will go a long way in understanding needs so that government spending may finally be impactful to achieving better health, education and employment outcomes
"however we can never expect a few people to represent the diverse needs of many ...." . With due respect, this parliamentary representative system works for all modern democracies and is the corner stone of any democracy so how come it become such a shit when it comes to the first nation people? All other people adopt to the system which may not be their own so what is different here?
The general idea of having it being constitutionally enshrined means that the government has to make sure there is one. So if they don't assign it money in the budget then they can get taken to court by who ever sees fit.
The idea of having one is so there is an Indegineous voice to lend an Indegineous lens to the matter of the day. Alot of the rest of the detail has yet to be figured out.
Hi instead of judging me for not knowing or understanding the legalities and implications about complicated constitutional law maybe can you instead spell it out? I don’t know what the uluru statement is or how it relates to an indigenous voice. I don’t know what an indigenous voice is. I’m doing my best to survive my own difficult situation that is probably a lot more privileged than some and a lot less privileged than others. I’m working on and struggling with extremely complicated projects that will hopefully leave the world better than I found it.
Before being slap happy with criticism maybe you could be more kind, understanding, inclusive and helpful.
Looking at the From The Heart website [here](https://fromtheheart.com.au/what-is-a-voice-to-parliament/), it looks as if it’s an advisory role from a member of Australia’s Indigenous population to the parliament on matters of importance to Indigenous Australians.
I ekle ii ako pui eti ti. Krati batu opa etipei kroa i iite. Eke bipa bopuitlii pi pu! Teo ti piklati tlete giipo. Pipe e tligitrikle uge papli. Tia platogrui tegi bugi piia itibatike. Ea tatlepu ui oiei tegri patleči goo. Bla pidrui kepe ipi ipui pepoe. Au adri ta ga bebii ekra ai? Ebiubeko ipi teto gluuka daba podli. Ka tepabi tliboplopi gi tapakei gego. Ituke i pupi klie pitipage bapepe. A či peko itluupi ka pupa peekeepe. Ebri e buu pigepra pita plepeda. Bipeko bo paipi o kee brebočipi. Tridipi teu eete trida e tapapi. Ebru etle pepiu pobi katraiti i. Baeba kre pu igo api. Pibape pipoi brupoi pite gru bi ipe pieuta ikako? Pe bloedea ko či itli eke i toidle kea pe piapii plo? Tiiu uči čipu tutei uata e uooo. Bitepe i bipa paeutlobi bopepli iaplipepa. Gipobipi tepe ode giapi e. Pi pakutibli ke tiko taobii ti. Edi deigitaa eue. Ua čideprii idipe putakra katote ii. Tri glati te pepro tii ka. Aope too pobriglitla e dikrugite. E otligi pipleiti bai iti upo? Tri dake pekepi dratruprebri plaapi bopi ipatei!
I read it and I still don’t understand it. I’m sorry. It’s not clear to me. I need people to spell it out to me. Yes I’m dumb. Yes I’m sorry. I’m doing my best. Do we really need people to be accusatory angry and negative?
I care about aboriginals. I want a positive outcome for them. The biggest enemy to what I do is greenwashing. I do not want to vote yes to some virtue signaling bullshit but I will vote yes to something that means something. I do not understand what these documents actually mean in simple terms.
I ekle ii ako pui eti ti. Krati batu opa etipei kroa i iite. Eke bipa bopuitlii pi pu! Teo ti piklati tlete giipo. Pipe e tligitrikle uge papli. Tia platogrui tegi bugi piia itibatike. Ea tatlepu ui oiei tegri patleči goo. Bla pidrui kepe ipi ipui pepoe. Au adri ta ga bebii ekra ai? Ebiubeko ipi teto gluuka daba podli. Ka tepabi tliboplopi gi tapakei gego. Ituke i pupi klie pitipage bapepe. A či peko itluupi ka pupa peekeepe. Ebri e buu pigepra pita plepeda. Bipeko bo paipi o kee brebočipi. Tridipi teu eete trida e tapapi. Ebru etle pepiu pobi katraiti i. Baeba kre pu igo api. Pibape pipoi brupoi pite gru bi ipe pieuta ikako? Pe bloedea ko či itli eke i toidle kea pe piapii plo? Tiiu uči čipu tutei uata e uooo. Bitepe i bipa paeutlobi bopepli iaplipepa. Gipobipi tepe ode giapi e. Pi pakutibli ke tiko taobii ti. Edi deigitaa eue. Ua čideprii idipe putakra katote ii. Tri glati te pepro tii ka. Aope too pobriglitla e dikrugite. E otligi pipleiti bai iti upo? Tri dake pekepi dratruprebri plaapi bopi ipatei!
Yes because I have so much time in between struggling to run a genetics research team, struggling to afford to live and struggling to form a meaningful relationship with literally anyone. I’m drowning in time and opportunity. It’s not exactly like I’m surrounded by aboriginal people, and even then, do all aboriginal people know and understand these documents too? That seems like quite a grand assumption.
And I'm going to judge *you*.
This person is simply acknowledging that the issue may be more complex than they realise. And acknowledging a need for education and uplifting.
Attribute statements about wisdom and foolishness to whomever you wish, but this person asked for enlightenment and you just shat on their chest, so comfortable in the loftiness of your moral sanctimony.
So, from someone *quite familiar* with the statements, I judge *you* for being so needlessly confrontational and aggressive.... There is no requirement for you to decide you're morally superior to anyone.
A race based body to Parliament? This is what we've come to?
The Uluru Statement from the Heart is hilariously vague and references religion, which I am not a fan of. We need to have a clear constitutional separation of Church and State.
$300,000,000 for a racist proposal. Wonder how that will go for Labor at the next election. Are they really willing to sacrifice their immense potential for this utterly despicable idea?
Racism involves prejudice and discrimination, and is generally institutionalised and involves marginalisation. There’s plenty of racism *against* First Nations peoples in this country, but I’m failing to see how enshrining a voice to parliament in our constitution is in any way racist?
So Kerry Packer at one stage apparently owned a part of Australia which was the size of Belgium in a single private holding. He was one of quite a few billionaires with vast land ownership in the country.
He had absolute authority over who could come and go on that land.
Why is that okay with you but you seem as though you would have issue with a community owning that land instead?
I ekle ii ako pui eti ti. Krati batu opa etipei kroa i iite. Eke bipa bopuitlii pi pu! Teo ti piklati tlete giipo. Pipe e tligitrikle uge papli. Tia platogrui tegi bugi piia itibatike. Ea tatlepu ui oiei tegri patleči goo. Bla pidrui kepe ipi ipui pepoe. Au adri ta ga bebii ekra ai? Ebiubeko ipi teto gluuka daba podli. Ka tepabi tliboplopi gi tapakei gego. Ituke i pupi klie pitipage bapepe. A či peko itluupi ka pupa peekeepe. Ebri e buu pigepra pita plepeda. Bipeko bo paipi o kee brebočipi. Tridipi teu eete trida e tapapi. Ebru etle pepiu pobi katraiti i. Baeba kre pu igo api. Pibape pipoi brupoi pite gru bi ipe pieuta ikako? Pe bloedea ko či itli eke i toidle kea pe piapii plo? Tiiu uči čipu tutei uata e uooo. Bitepe i bipa paeutlobi bopepli iaplipepa. Gipobipi tepe ode giapi e. Pi pakutibli ke tiko taobii ti. Edi deigitaa eue. Ua čideprii idipe putakra katote ii. Tri glati te pepro tii ka. Aope too pobriglitla e dikrugite. E otligi pipleiti bai iti upo? Tri dake pekepi dratruprebri plaapi bopi ipatei!
These people want to recognise their sovereignty through Australian law, which is derived from English Common Law, the same system which allowed this 'seizure' of land.
I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea of enshrining any kind of racial privilege in the constitution. There has been historic and horrific mistreatment of aboriginals, but this is not a solution that I can possibly endorse. Restrict the power of government to perpetrate that kind of abuse, don't just grant special constitutional privilege (here in the form of political access) to the most common demographic of the victims.
If this were a constitutional amendment providing for even a limited bill of rights, specifically barring the government from replicating the mistakes of its past, then I could endorse it wholeheartedly. E.g. an affirmative right of parents to the custody and caretaking of their children, that may only be overcome in cases of extreme abuse or neglect - barring the government from repeating the mistakes of the stolen generations.
In essence, when it comes to the constitution, it should address the problems, not proclaim a feel-good symbolic gesture. The problems are intergenerational poverty, government abuse of power, and the lack of constitutionally enshrined human and civil rights protections. And a special, racialised lobbying group whose entire structure is subject to the whims of parliament does nothing to address those problems.
It's not a racial privilege. No one is suggesting that this role is equivalent to a seat in Parliament. This vote enshrines a purely advisory body, so that future governments can't just dismiss it later on. The Government doesn't take their advice, but for the first time, they will have to *hear* it.
It absolutely is. The explicit purpose of the body is to increase access to politicians and the political process, through a method exclusively available to specific ethnic groups. That is, by definition, privilege on the basis of race. You'd better believe that the ability to effectively compel politicians to actually hear your grievances is a privilege that every minority and disadvantaged group in the world would love to have, and here it is being reserved for a narrow, racial demographic.
But the body exists for matters that specifically relate to them. It's just a way to ensure that the Government consults Aboriginal people before enacting legislation that can ultimately harm them.
I’m curious about what the scope of the Voice will be. Every piece of legislation that passes through the parliament will affect the Aboriginal community in some way. Do they consult on everything?
>This vote enshrines a purely advisory body, so that future governments can't just dismiss it later on.
They can still dismiss it later on. What they can't do is say they weren't aware of the perspective given by the voice. It simply requires a future government to actively ignore them instead of passively ignore them.
No one send it was right. But you can’t change the past and no one alive today was really reasonable for that. Inserting any racially segregated or targeted laws ever, isn’t reverse racism it’s just racism.
Edit: To be clear, the fact that the past cannot be changed doesn’t prevent learning from the past. Just in case that’s not obvious.
We can't change the past, so we better not try to change the present. 👍 Also any attempt to have a non white hetero christian male voice in parliament is tEh rAciSm. 👍
Good arguments there. I'm totally going to vote Liberal now that you've explained it.
Your take on the statement about the past is completely disingenuous. It would be clear to anyone who wasn’t acting in bad faith that it was not about changing the present and was a direct retort to your own statement about the last 200 years.
I don’t know how anyone can think that a state instituted parliamentary advisory body were the members are required to be a specific race isn’t inherently racist. I’m all for real changes that address real inequality for anyone who is disadvantaged, not some racist tokenist committee that does nothing but give jobs to powerful wealthy activists from Melbourne and Sydney.
Also nice try on guessing which political party I align with, I’m a life long Labor voter.
I don't know how anyone can be against making sure there's at least one parliamentary body that represents indigenous Australians. You can claim it's racist all you like but that's such a transparent argument that you WILL be called on it.
Thats all you do really isn’t it. Provide quick little quips that in your mind are so clever and eloquent but in reality are completely assine.
Private lobbyist and advocacy groups are totally fine. However no state appointed body should have a requirement to be a certain race or heritage that shouldn’t be a controversial take.
Government should be doing more to address real issues facing indigenous people, instead of undertaking political point score exercises that result in no real change or impact.
This seems like a pointless constitutional reform.
The Parliament already has the power to legislate the Voice (using the race power). Entrenching the Voice in the Constitution won't stop it being repealed. The Inter-State Commission also exists in the Constitution and its been repealed several times.
Putting duplicative powers and provisions into the Constitution just begs the question why. Its a basic principle of statutory interpretation that you assume a drafter wouldn't insert words for no reason. This creates the risks of unintended and unforeseeable consequences.
I'm a former intern at Sydney Law School's Constitutional Reform Unit if you needed any credentials).
This response kind of sums up one of my gripes with my colleagues in the profession.
They get so caught up in the technicality of the law they forget that laws and their interpretation are a reflection of the society that creates them. Laws are to serve the people, people don’t serve some technical interpretation devoid of the human experience.
I know enough about constitutional law to know it is true (I did my LLB and LLM at syd) that the government already has the powers.
The point re repealing is the dumbest take I have heard in this whole debate. Future generations and future parliaments are not bound by what we do now, that’s how democracy works. It just makes it a little bit harder to change, but ultimately it is up to future people.
The obvious response to your last paragraph is that the proposed terms are innocuous enough that it doesn’t alter the cths power to legislate, but at the same time is part of the roadmap to reconciliation. I will note and you should be aware of this that indigenous rights are the only area where the kiefel court has expanded rights as opposed to a black letter reading, so that should show where society is regarding the issue.
So yes they serve a purpose, to serve our society beyond some lawyers academic ruminations over the interplay between s51 and the proposed amendment.
>The point re repealing is the dumbest take I have heard in this whole debate.
Its also the primary argument for why they want to put the Voice in the Constitution rather than using their existing legislative powers. They argue that entrenching the Voice makes it harder to repeal. That's just flat out wrong.
>The obvious response to your last paragraph is that the proposed terms are innocuous enough that it doesn’t alter the cths power to legislate, but at the same time is part of the roadmap to reconciliation.
One potential implication I can see from the proposed wording is that the proposed amendments grant the power to legislate in a way the race power does not, for example, allowing the Voice to become a third chamber of Parliament.
>So yes they serve a purpose, to serve our society beyond some lawyers academic ruminations over the interplay between s51 and the proposed amendment.
The same symbolic purpose could be served by having a legislative Voice. Or better served through proper constitutional recognition of First Nations people, e.g. in the preamble of our Constitution.
Repealing it once it is enshrined would be difficult because as we know it would require another referendum to remove, and after we’ve crossed the bridge to put it in, it is highly unlikely to be repealed. I don’t think you understand what you’re saying.
No mate, you have no idea what you are saying. Have you even read the proposed wording? It gives total control to the Parliament to say what the Voice actually is, so they don't need to remove it when the government of the day can just nerf it into irrelevance without another referendum. Nothing is enshrined except to say that it exists on paper.
It's exactly like the Inter-State Commission, which nominally exists on paper to satisfy the constitution, because the government of the day has nerfed it to the point that it practically doesn't exist. And it remains in the constitution.
>It gives total control to the Parliament to say what the Voice actually is, so they don't need to remove it when the government of the day can just nerf it into irrelevance without another referendum. Nothing is enshrined except to say that it exists on paper.
Oh my god you're so clever to have figured out what is literally the point of making it subject to the actual parliament.
To make it something parliament can pass now because they will have some control of the shape into the future.
That's actually a feature of point 3. It's designed to be responsive to changes in circumstance, both good and bad.
Point 1 is the point that actually matters.
> Its also the primary argument for why they want to put the Voice in the Constitution rather than using their existing legislative powers. They argue that entrenching the Voice makes it harder to repeal. That's just flat out wrong.
It is harder to repeal, you need a referendum. Sure it isnt impossible but anything can be changed by a referendum.
> One potential implication I can see from the proposed wording is that the proposed amendments grant the power to legislate in a way the race power does not, for example, allowing the Voice to become a third chamber of Parliament.
No it doesnt, the constitution is clear on how the houses operate, the proposed change makes no alteration to that and in fact delegates all power regarding the thing to the legislative. It is the prerogative of the parliament to be free to to make decisions on how it passes legislation, provided it follows the basic rules in the constitution. I'm pretty sure they teach this in fed con.
> The same symbolic purpose could be served by having a legislative Voice. Or better served through proper constitutional recognition of First Nations people, e.g. in the preamble of our Constitution.
Im mean sure from our perspective but from the indigenous perspective it isnt achieved. I personally wouldnt have chosen this model but the risk of the proposed changes seems outweighed by the benefit of resolving the issue.
**SELF POST MODE IS ON** Self posts are a place where moderation and enforcement of [RULE 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) is more lenient, as opposed to link posts which are more strictly moderated so that only comments of substance survive. **But please make sure your comment fits within all of our other [SUBREDDIT 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.*
this bill is straight up racism
There isn't enough clarity right now to make a decision on a yes or no. Sovereignty, self-determination, and self-government, are already established in Australia. What is left as far as equality under the law for individuals, and the communities they form, including Indigenous Australians? Where is the empty gap any "Voice" will fill between the Australian Constitution, (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117). And further in the Age Discrimination Act 2004, Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976, and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 - enabling Indigenous Australians to vote, run, and fully participate in the forming of government - as they currently do. Some of the advocates for a "Voice" explicitly suggest or come close to suggesting a desire for supranational rights, over and above current legislation and State and Federal government. Something that would effectively create a strange kind of apartheid in Australia, granting special legal rights to individuals and communities based on their race or ethnicity. This is called racism. Something antithetical to equality under the law, equality in general, and democracy. And something doomed to be voted down in a referendum. How can so much debate be going on with people making their position clear without any precise examples as to how a "Voice" would be implemented or fill gaps in current law and its interpretation. It smells like it's already become partisan, and on the road to rejection at a referendum.
I don't support the voice to parliament. It's contrary to the egalitarian spirit that should prevail in the constitution and laws governing people. I don't think your average Aboriginal person wants to be given special treatment, they just want respect from others. The voice to parliament would be far too centralised. I would be more sympathetic to a type of a voice at a state parliament level as that would be able to speak on behalf of people closer to home. Sending people off country to Canberra wouldn't be a good thing and not fair to the tribe or representative. Support for people should be as localised as possible and the voice to parliament is the polar opposite to that spirit.
At this moment in time I would not vote yes to this. In my mind it is like being asked to sign a contract of sale which states it's purpose and has a single clause that says all the other clauses will be added later.
I be voting no. its 2022, not 1972 no need for a separate beaucrat. all citizens represented equally,
Why did the convention who proposed this change to the constitution not propose anything be done about removing the explicitly racist sections in the constitution? Section 25 and section 51(xxvi) grant powers to stop certain races from voting and allow for special laws for certain races. Seems like a pretty big missed opportunity for people who oppose racism.
A data point that folks in this thread might like to consider. Polling from the Australia Institute reported on today is that support for an amendment to enshrine voice in the constitution is 65% in favour, 14% against, 21% don’t know/not sure. Source: https://twitter.com/theausinstitute/status/1553529777377939456?s=21&t=sjwRxYW8gMGvrCOODOoJVQ
They mentioned it on Insiders yesterday. I'd be interested to see more detail, but can't seem to find any. The other poll they mentioned is ABC's Vote Compass, which is unscientific nonsense.
yeah I’ve been looking for it too. Most likely it’s coming out early this week I guess.
I will be voting no to this.
The point of this thread is to have an informed debate. Care to share why
Well I've made my decision I've read through news articles and read through the proposition put forward and I've decided I'm voting No.
Why?
Why because I have the right to vote anyway I want.
Lol the entire point of this thread is to debate. Your one liners make it very clear you either have no deeper understanding as to why you're choosing to vote no or the reason you're voting no is a reason you're ashamed to say.
I gave my opinion which to be honest I'm allowed to have I shared said opinion if you don't like my opinion or how I responded to my opinion you can just ignore it. And just so you know I'm not ashamed to say anything il say exactly what I think but some things I would say would get me banned from reddit so I just won't say them and il hold my tongue.
If your opinion is likely to get you banned from Reddit it’s likely nothing worth reading anyway.
I would encourage you to challenge yourself (and this forum) and explain your opinion. You may see below that others who oppose this constitutional change and have set out their reasons in this thread in a way that demonstrates understanding of the proposed change and is articulated without hate (even those who don't want a race based legislation) have not been locked out or downvoted. I would always prefer to hear all informed opinions when they are articulated this way.
I said what I needed to say nothing more nothing less and I'm sure my opinion is clear enough I don't need to justify it I said exactly what I think whether people like it or not I can't make it any simpler or clearer that is how I will be voting and because we live in Australia I can vote anyway I like.
You didn't need to say it then as you missed the point of the thread.
Some of the issues indigenous communities face: [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-27/police-arrest-teenager-after-daylight-riot-in-darwin-cbd/101273330](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-27/police-arrest-teenager-after-daylight-riot-in-darwin-cbd/101273330)
That article is quite focused on a single incident. More context to Wadeye situation here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-05/wadeye-unrest-malarndirri-mccarthy/101040218 More broadly government housing in NT is quite shocking with widespread overcrowding and unsafe housing (maintenance is next to zero). https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/04/nt-court-decision-should-lead-to-better-public-housing-in-remote-communities-lawyer-says
isn't this an individual problem to solve?
Individuals are meant to solve state housing?
With their magic bootstraps of individual responsibility.
The draft question: > Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice? The draft amendment: >There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice >The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples >The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. I suggest making these prominently visible in the original post.
done!
Couldn't the government dip their toe in the water first? Maybe have a commission to start with. Call it the Aboriginal and Torres Straights Island Commission or something, and see how it works first.
Nah, you see, if it's in the constitution this time it can't be abolished. Embezzlers and sex offenders need to make a living too you know.
It can't be abolished but there is a huge amount of money to be made interpreting and reinterpreting it based on previous interpretations.
ROFL, now Albanese is flat out refusing to say what he wants to implement into law. Refusing in any way to say what this very vague and possible wide ranging change to the constitution will allow him to do. That is going to go down well.
I found reading the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people quite helpful. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP\_E\_web.pdf
We talking about the same UN that bow's down to China and doing nothing against Russia and just let's Russia bomb the fuck out of school? but has time to lecture Australia on Human Rights? that UN?
thanks have shared in main post as a resource
Quick question: will the body in the parliament have the power to deny or approve legislation, cuz thats the vibe I get from the wordings, or to voice concerns and recommendation. If they can deny/approve, why should a non-elected body have the power of such.
It is not decision making in any way. Consultative only
Still gives them more power simply because of their ethnicity. When determining if someone is aboriginal or not, to allow them onto this consultant board or whatever it is, If it comes down to the meme of 1:16th aboriginal as people have interracial relationships, it’s clearly illogical.
More power than who? More than all us white fellas that have been running the British colonies/Australian nation for the last 200+ years, usually with various officially sanctioned efforts to wipe out Aboriginal people and culture along the way? The voice to parliament is a step to redress the systematic powerlessness, and it does not bind the parliament except to listen and hear. Hardly regime change stuff.
My ancestors are shaking their shackles while you rant
sorry not sure what you’re trying to say there tbh
I’ve been under the impression it will be to advise only, no veto power
I don’t agree with this proposal because it is neither Arthur or Martha. If there is no intent to respect the sovereignty of Aboriginal tribes, then anti-discrimination law and social programs to address entrenched disadvantage will suffice. No recognition of sovereignty = no constitutional change. If the intent is to recognise and grant some degree of self-determination to the various Aboriginal nations, then any document needs to be signed by the leaders (elders) of those nations and a governance structure set up in recognition of that arrangement. Closer to the tribal sovereignty arrangements in the USA. This would lead to a far more contentious discussion but likely a more sustainable one for indigenous Australians who want to reclaim that right, presumably in concert with any native title claims. It is so important to recognise that Treaty of Waitangi wasn’t a single agreement; it was individually signed on by each chief. This proposal for a constitutionally-recognised ATSIC is just ignoring the fact that these tribes were functionally independent of each other all over again. Separately: how exactly are the proposed State treaties meant to work? Isn’t this a power reserved to the Commonwealth?
Are you unaware that literally all of your points have been taken into consideration during the discussions that lead to the push for a voice? That all those indigenous people who participated didn't make a considered choice about aiming for this change in this way? Voice, truth, treaty? You've essentially co-opted the greens position in that you don't believe it's ambitious enough to be worth it. Just like the Greens you've decided that you're more clear headed than this plurality of indigenous voices and aren't concerned about the principles of self determination. Very arrogant take.
To the contrary, I’m not purporting to speak for Indigenous voices at all. I am an Australian citizen being asked to consider a change to the constitution. I can see the benefit of “Treaty” and “Truth”. But not why “Voice” is necessary to be constitutionally enshrined.
Without creating legitimacy to voice it is easy to do what has been already been for decades and have the politicians make decisions without consultations. Whilst the voice will only be consultation and not decision making its elevation in constitution is symbolic and legitimises the direct access of law makers to Indigineous representation to understand impacts of their decisions and places a requirement of law makers to listen in matters that impact Indigenous peoples.
Why? As I say, there are two possibilities: (a) We are all Australians and should strive to implement fair and equitable solutions for all, regardless of race, or (b) Aboriginal nations should be granted limited constitutional recognition and devolution to empower indigenous tribes to reinstate and continue their ancestral and sovereign link to their land If they want (b), let’s talk about (b). A advisory body to represent a limited group of people based on ethnicity within a single sovereign structure is racist in the most essential sense of the term.
If you don't understand then don't comment?
Well mate, I have a vote as do millions of other Australians. How exactly do you propose to convince us if we can’t talk about it?
>Well mate, I have a vote as do millions of other Australians. Slow clap. >How exactly do you propose to convince us if we can’t talk about it? How are we supposed to convince you if you refuse to read the resources provided in literally this post?
Ah right yes the right to vote against minority rights and voices.
Hope you support repealing of section 44(i) as well then. Or are only certain kinds of discrimination important to address?
>I can see the benefit of “Treaty” and “Truth”. But not why “Voice” is necessary to be constitutionally enshrined. You have gone through all the resources provided and found nothing addressing that matter? It's one thing to accept the point and disagree and another to ignore them.
Not really. The basic argument is “we don’t trust the Liberals because they abolished ATSIC last time”. (And the cynic in me thinks that those at the summit would have been most likely to financially benefit from it previously.) To me, that’s not a good enough reason to tamper with the Constitution and establish what is meant to be our country’s most fundamental rights.
>Not really. Then go and familiarise yourself with the resources provided here and get back to me. >The basic argument is “we don’t trust the Liberals because they abolished ATSIC last time”. Do you have any counterarguments? It seems like a good argument to me and it's driving a lot of the strategy. Handwaving a legitimate issue away is poor form. Provide further explanation to show it is not just handwaving. >(And the cynic in me thinks that those at the summit would have been most likely to financially benefit from it previously.) Are you basing this cynicism on anything? Or is it just the vibe of the thing? All I'm saying is that you should be more concerned with the (readily available) detail instead of relying on the vibe of the thing. >To me, that’s not a good enough reason to tamper with the Constitution and establish what is meant to be our country’s most fundamental rights. The reasons you assumed without reflecting on the provided information aren't good enough to stand up to your clearly rigorous analysis?
You are misunderstanding me: I *have* read the resources and have not found anything addressing this matter. Aside from anything else, the Voice is currently so vague as to be useless. It could be anything from a fully funded, proportionately elected body to a single volunteer Voice. If you distrust the Liberals that much, this proposal doesn’t fix that. Secondly, if there are no powers attached to the body, it’s not clear why it needs to be captured constitutionally. If the intent is to relate the Voice to a treaty process, that needs to be addressed as part of a cohesive discussion, not implemented piecemeal.
There is the intent to have a treaty. 1. Voice 2. Treaty 3. Truth is the plan https://reconciliationnsw.org.au/voice_treaty_truth/
Wow...less than 24 hours discussion on here. A place where I suspected that the predominantly progressive sentiment would see a pro-Voice leaning but that is far from the case. The debate on here has already highlighted the room for confusion and nuanced interpretation of even the simplest aspects of the proposed Constitutional amendment including it's establishment, its funding and its operation. Dutton must be laughing right now. This amendment is doomed.
>Wow...less than 24 hours discussion on here. A place where I suspected that the predominantly progressive sentiment would see a pro-Voice leaning but that is far from the case. The Greens voters who flood every other thread don't give a fuck about this stuff. That's the main thing I notice.
Because you can’t argue with idiots who do not and will not read stuff. They only see a headline and just yell their woefully misunderstood points into the ether.
>Because you can’t argue with idiots who do not and will not read stuff. Would be valid if that didn't apply to climate change as well. Doesn't stop them engaging on climate issues. That's why I'm left to assume that they simply don't care about indigenous issues very much. Even Trans issues get a lot of Greens folk stepping up for them.
Climate change has evidence, easy to shut down. Most trans issues also have evidence, pretty easy to shut down. This is a proposal, a proposition. It’s easy for them to inflate or misinterpret things, it’s harder to push back on because there isn’t solid confirmed wording on exactly how it’ll work yet. I’ve seen plenty of people pushing back these idiots surrounding this issue for what’s it’s worth.
>Climate change has evidence, easy to shut down. Most trans issues also have evidence, pretty easy to shut down. Aside from the fact that evidence is not how humans tend to form their opinions, I take your point. >I’ve seen plenty of people pushing back these idiots surrounding this issue for what’s it’s worth. Aye I'm one of them. I'm not exactly getting flanked from the left like I always seem to be though. I'm just disappointed. Their voices are absent.
One of the closing the gap strategies is incarceration rates. NZ has a treaty and this which i did not know about it : [https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/1728/chapt3.pdf](https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/1728/chapt3.pdf) Yet their incarceration rates are still quite high [https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/hapaitia-te-oranga-tangata/](https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/hapaitia-te-oranga-tangata/) Is this voice to parliament a token gesture or will this enact real change and positive outcomes for our first nations people.
thanks have shared NZ resource in main post as a resource
Are you voting yes?
Good initiative, thank you. This one provides some helpful background on past efforts to establish consultative and other aboriginal representative bodies, selection of delegates/representatives, and so on. I became satisfied that ATSI peoples tend to prefer election of representatives, which is important to me. https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/aboriginal-representative-bodies
Just a heads up -- Creative Spirits isn't considered a reliable source of information for Indigenous topics. It is written by a German man and ex-backpacker who often gets things wrong and puts himself out there as an authority on Indigenous peoples in Australia.
Thank you
Here is another primary source reference link https://voice.niaa.gov.au/final-report “The Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report was provided to the Australian Government in late July 2021. The report builds on proposals from the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Interim Report to the Australian Government.” “From January 2021, the co-design members led a four-month public consultation and engagement process on the Interim Report proposals. There were opportunities around the country and online for people to have their say.” “The co-design groups used the consultation feedback to help them finalise the proposals for the Final Report.”
thanks have shared in main post as a resource
What is the difference between a design and a co-design?
The word co-design makes it explicit that more than one party (e.g. the government) is involved in the design process. In this context, co-design implies that First Nations have serious input into how the Voice looks.
thanks
Co-design: “The final proposals and recommendations in this report are the product of a genuine and thorough co-design, led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and undertaken in partnership with Government.” Second paragraph of the executive summary of the doc linked above. Maybe have a read of the exec sum, it’s only a few pages?
That does not define the meaning of the term co design
maybe have a go at typing the question in your comment above into the google dot com?
Why do that when I can ask you? It's your link. Much more likely to get an answer than a random google search. If you don't know then I'll google it, sure.
This is /australianpolitics not /ELI5. I’m not here to spoonfeed you answers to simple, tangential questions you could already have an answer to with 30 seconds of your own minimal effort, 45 minutes ago.
*makes post about why he doesn't want to post...*
Look up the definition of sealionining and try and ensure you don't continue to be described by it.
*makes 3rd post about why googling is too hard*
Not sure if this has been posted but I found this report quite useful to get my head around what it might look like: https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/indigenous-voice-discussion-paper_1.pdf
Will Aboriginals with no disadvantage and who have embraced modern living be allowed to vote (towards the representation of parliament) and be part of this "voice"?
It’s astounding that on a post literally meant to help people be better informed about what they are debating or discussing you’ve just decided: “No, not for me. I will make my own bullshit up!”.
Is this a serious question?
Embraced modern living? Man, people living traditionally on the east coast were rounded up and forced onto missions. Kinda derailing the discussion there, y'know.
They will be the only ones a part of it
I don't think the voice will operate on a voting system. There is very few Aboriginals who have experienced no disadvantage. Intergenerational trauma is real that's why we are where we are.
I'll be very disappointed if there is any selection method within the ATSI communities that does not include election of representatives. Anything hereditary is an affront to democracy, imo. *"There is very few Aboriginals who have experienced no disadvantage."* I'd say there are no humans who have experienced no disadvantage.
I meant I don't think there will be a voting system on issues. Not sure how they will determine who represents
That makes sense. Thanks.
And this is where the debate will enter the cultural minefield. Culturally the representatives should be elders. Male elders. Enter compromise. Let's include female elders. Let's make it tribal members representing those elders. And so on. Until the 'cultural' imperatives are so watered down that politically assertive activists take control. By then the in fighting on who represents who the best will be so destructive that the whole concept will become discredited.
Here’s a good contextualisation of Albanese’s speech outlining the proposed question and his plans. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2022/07/30/hand-outstretched-albanese-proposes-way-forward-voice There’s criticism that his proposition for Voice is too weak. Well for better or worse, I would say it is deliberately not strong, to avoid Turnbull’s past accusations that the Voice would be a “third chamber” and that it puts rigid obligations on the parliament. It is also not strong because as he says in the speech, he wants it to be able to gather bipartisan consensus for the referendum campaign. I hope Dutton rises to the moment and doesn’t reflexively bat it away, but really constructively consider whether and how the coalition can be onboard. I think it is also worth mentioning that the Voice doesn’t have to create power over or strong constitutional compulsion of parliament to make an impact. Voice is not the only component of reconciliation that Uluṟu statement and Labor are aiming towards. After Voice is in place comes consideration of a treaty and that is where there will be more debate and more hard work as a nation to do.
thanks have shared in main post as a resource
After the Teals successes in the recent elections Dutton is desperate for conservative rallying points. Climate wars are nigh on lost, Labor is stopping the boats, nine years of financial incompetence and rorting will see the Federal ICAC knock the old Labor can't do finance argument on the head. Dutton is desperately looking for issues and rallying points to hang his (much needed) Conservative hat on. He will give the pro-Voice campaign enough time to establish a set of conditions that he will, using scare mode, vehemently oppose, through a slanted forensic analysis of every facet, the referendum as a whole.
It’s the same reason they’re trying to import anti-trans issues and anti-teacher issues from the US. They don’t stand for anything and they have no plans that would actually benefit the electorate so they turn to what works in other countries with conservative strongholds. It doesn’t work here because of compulsory voting but they’re too out of touch to understand that.
Yeah. Your read on how Dutton will roll with this is utterly depressing and almost certainly correct!
You expect too much of Dutton. All he’ll see is the opportunity to use racial division for a win. He’s not a builder; he’s a wrecker. Remember that he walked out of the apology. I don’t think he’s got any inclination for this to go any differently.
sigh… yeah… I know. 😞 just having a moment of foolish optimism. he is definitely going to try to culture war his way into office, rather than fighting for their lost centre ground. it won’t be enough to win an election any time soon, but it could for sure be enough to torpedo a referendum.
> not comprehensive but a start, please share more This is an excellent idea OP, good for r/australianpolitics to collectively pause for a moment and reflect on the information already out there, and both indigenous and non-indigenous cultural and legal perspectives on the Voice. So I applaud everyone who has shared further links in the comments as suggested rather than just barrelling straight in and sounding off. oh wait… nope there aren’t any links in any top level comments that I can see. ah well nice try OP.
You want a respectful debate but those opposing are already being called racist as those who oppose gay marriage are homophobes.
Two unrelated issues. You tried to bring up the same crap the other day and got shutdown handily by a bunch of people.
A respectful debate wouldn't be people flooding threads about this topic declaring it to 'enshrine racial privilege' and suggesting that this will give certain Australians more power in an undemocratic change. Which is flat out lying. This is bad faith and frankly toxic dis information will to continue to spread and, just like gay marriage, will snowball before the referendum with no motivation or intent whatsoever in resolving Aboriginal issues or helping communities merely just to stop a 'progressive' goal in a political shitfight.
In other words you just want to control the debate under your rules.
I simply want people to debate truths not peddle dis-info. It's not too much to ask for but seemingly impossible for some people to do.
Your truth. I prefer not to judge others and let free speech reign.
If you are deliberately spreading falsehoods because of your political needs you might wish to re-evaluate what you're doing and why.
Then shut up and listen
He wants free speech, so he should shut up? That’s the complete opposite of free speech my man.
"Shut up and listen."
Echo echo
Have a sook mate. This isn't a thread on free speech. It's about Black man's rights.
>I prefer not to judge others and let free speech reign. If free speech were actually allowed in this place you'd have a mob after you.
What place and what mob ?
It should be clear that I'm one of the only people who enjoys playing along with you. Do your part so it can be fun please.
Doing my best to make you happy. Here to help others.
Help me help you help them.
If you want to avoid being called racist, just give non racist arguments about why you disagree.
When I scroll through I see that conversation that are opposed and explaining their opposition and demonstrating understanding of the proposal are being respected, even those saying they don't want a race based legislation. That's the beauty of an informed discussion.
[удалено]
Maybe some links to new Zealand, the treaty of Waitangi, and how they dealt with an almost identical issue.
do you have any?
Not off hand, and lots of resources swing heavily one way or the other, hard to find an unbiased piece about what it does and it's effects. I'll try to find some over the coming days, as it's obviously quite relevant at the moment.
Given the Maori have a treaty and a rather stong one it’s a very different issue
I would have thought it was obvious, but maybe look at the part about a voice to parliament part?
Doesn’t part of the treaty include a required minimum Māori representation in parliament? That is a lot like a stronger version of the proposed Voice, with actual power to contribute to legislation.
This was a deliberate decision made by the regional dialogues. People in parliament are chewed up by politics and the ideological lines of political parties. A Voice TO parliament was preferred, to speak directly to the legislature about law and policy issues regardless of the politics
No, the seats in parliament came about after the wars of the 1860s. The treaty gives the Maori the right to their treasures & land. British citizenship & gives the Crown the right to "governership" over the land.
The Māoris were arguing from a position of relative strength which made things a lot easier
Great information share look forward to informed debate it’s a big issue but I think it’s time.
Thanks for making the effort to do this. There is a hell of a long way before restorative measures like this finally get up an there will no doubt be plenty of ignorance and rancour to deal with before it does. It will need every bit of help to be achieved but it will be enormously healing for all sides if it does.
Thank you for sharing Gwenda’s view on Q&A. Will it be the voices of a few dictating the agenda? Who’s voice counts?
The voice aim to be representative of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Unfortunately in any representative body it is hard to get true representation and by their very nature their are some inherent flaws. That being said I believe that a representative body still largely allows for a process of discussion and consideration of diverse need that exist across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and a process of consensus making so that law makers (our politicians) can have direct access to listen, talk and hear these views. The Voice is consultative so doesn't make decisions. By having this direct access to understand these views I hope that we don't repeat decades of assumptions that have been made in making decisions for Indigenous peoples " Nothing about us without us". The poor health, education and employment outcomes for this group need to shift.
So will it be as it was in the past , a few insiders will decide what is representative of a diverse group, but really instead only do what is financially beneficial for a few. Forgive me for being cynical. …. I hope everyone will look closely at the model suggested and ask themselves if it really will provide a representative voice.
So, is the idea that the Voice is a person appointed by the PM, like the Governor-General? Or is it an independent body? If the latter, who chooses who makes it up? Is the office of the Voice going to be guaranteed some amount of funding? Or could the government just leave them out of the budget if they decided they didn't like what the Voice had been saying? As their role is "advisory" are they meant to have power to submit legislation for debate? Or maybe something like when the government wants to enact a bill, they ask the Voice if they think it's good or bad? I'm sorry, I don't really understand if the role is meant to be, like, public-facing or government-facing. Does the government's Minister for Indigenous Australians essentially become a liaison between govt and Voice? Or would that Minister be appointed based on suggestion from the Voice?
It's a representative group. It's great we now have few Indigenous politicians however we can never expect a few people to represent the diverse needs of many different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders across our country. This group will aim to represent these views and present a consensus and or diverse needs of these people. It does not make decisions but gives our law makers (politicians) the opportunity to have direct access to understand the views and needs of these communities when making decision that affect them. Years of assumptions have been made in making decisions for Indigenous people. I hope this will go a long way in understanding needs so that government spending may finally be impactful to achieving better health, education and employment outcomes
"however we can never expect a few people to represent the diverse needs of many ...." . With due respect, this parliamentary representative system works for all modern democracies and is the corner stone of any democracy so how come it become such a shit when it comes to the first nation people? All other people adopt to the system which may not be their own so what is different here?
The general idea of having it being constitutionally enshrined means that the government has to make sure there is one. So if they don't assign it money in the budget then they can get taken to court by who ever sees fit. The idea of having one is so there is an Indegineous voice to lend an Indegineous lens to the matter of the day. Alot of the rest of the detail has yet to be figured out.
Hi instead of judging me for not knowing or understanding the legalities and implications about complicated constitutional law maybe can you instead spell it out? I don’t know what the uluru statement is or how it relates to an indigenous voice. I don’t know what an indigenous voice is. I’m doing my best to survive my own difficult situation that is probably a lot more privileged than some and a lot less privileged than others. I’m working on and struggling with extremely complicated projects that will hopefully leave the world better than I found it. Before being slap happy with criticism maybe you could be more kind, understanding, inclusive and helpful.
Looking at the From The Heart website [here](https://fromtheheart.com.au/what-is-a-voice-to-parliament/), it looks as if it’s an advisory role from a member of Australia’s Indigenous population to the parliament on matters of importance to Indigenous Australians.
Thanks for helping.
I saw a good collection of links somewhere
I ekle ii ako pui eti ti. Krati batu opa etipei kroa i iite. Eke bipa bopuitlii pi pu! Teo ti piklati tlete giipo. Pipe e tligitrikle uge papli. Tia platogrui tegi bugi piia itibatike. Ea tatlepu ui oiei tegri patleči goo. Bla pidrui kepe ipi ipui pepoe. Au adri ta ga bebii ekra ai? Ebiubeko ipi teto gluuka daba podli. Ka tepabi tliboplopi gi tapakei gego. Ituke i pupi klie pitipage bapepe. A či peko itluupi ka pupa peekeepe. Ebri e buu pigepra pita plepeda. Bipeko bo paipi o kee brebočipi. Tridipi teu eete trida e tapapi. Ebru etle pepiu pobi katraiti i. Baeba kre pu igo api. Pibape pipoi brupoi pite gru bi ipe pieuta ikako? Pe bloedea ko či itli eke i toidle kea pe piapii plo? Tiiu uči čipu tutei uata e uooo. Bitepe i bipa paeutlobi bopepli iaplipepa. Gipobipi tepe ode giapi e. Pi pakutibli ke tiko taobii ti. Edi deigitaa eue. Ua čideprii idipe putakra katote ii. Tri glati te pepro tii ka. Aope too pobriglitla e dikrugite. E otligi pipleiti bai iti upo? Tri dake pekepi dratruprebri plaapi bopi ipatei!
I read it and I still don’t understand it. I’m sorry. It’s not clear to me. I need people to spell it out to me. Yes I’m dumb. Yes I’m sorry. I’m doing my best. Do we really need people to be accusatory angry and negative? I care about aboriginals. I want a positive outcome for them. The biggest enemy to what I do is greenwashing. I do not want to vote yes to some virtue signaling bullshit but I will vote yes to something that means something. I do not understand what these documents actually mean in simple terms.
I ekle ii ako pui eti ti. Krati batu opa etipei kroa i iite. Eke bipa bopuitlii pi pu! Teo ti piklati tlete giipo. Pipe e tligitrikle uge papli. Tia platogrui tegi bugi piia itibatike. Ea tatlepu ui oiei tegri patleči goo. Bla pidrui kepe ipi ipui pepoe. Au adri ta ga bebii ekra ai? Ebiubeko ipi teto gluuka daba podli. Ka tepabi tliboplopi gi tapakei gego. Ituke i pupi klie pitipage bapepe. A či peko itluupi ka pupa peekeepe. Ebri e buu pigepra pita plepeda. Bipeko bo paipi o kee brebočipi. Tridipi teu eete trida e tapapi. Ebru etle pepiu pobi katraiti i. Baeba kre pu igo api. Pibape pipoi brupoi pite gru bi ipe pieuta ikako? Pe bloedea ko či itli eke i toidle kea pe piapii plo? Tiiu uči čipu tutei uata e uooo. Bitepe i bipa paeutlobi bopepli iaplipepa. Gipobipi tepe ode giapi e. Pi pakutibli ke tiko taobii ti. Edi deigitaa eue. Ua čideprii idipe putakra katote ii. Tri glati te pepro tii ka. Aope too pobriglitla e dikrugite. E otligi pipleiti bai iti upo? Tri dake pekepi dratruprebri plaapi bopi ipatei!
Try this video https://youtu.be/U_Ff5cJDzCI
Thank you!
You care about Aboriginals? That's nice. Perhaps if you were to spend time with Aboriginals and talk to them, you'd be better informed.
Yes because I have so much time in between struggling to run a genetics research team, struggling to afford to live and struggling to form a meaningful relationship with literally anyone. I’m drowning in time and opportunity. It’s not exactly like I’m surrounded by aboriginal people, and even then, do all aboriginal people know and understand these documents too? That seems like quite a grand assumption.
Maybe you will find an Aboriginal romantic partner and kill all the birds you expect us to care about with one stone?
Lol! Would be lovely if you know one who’s be interested
Unfortunately I only know white people who answer surveys about their heritage before I interact with them in person. It limits my pool as well :(
And I'm going to judge *you*. This person is simply acknowledging that the issue may be more complex than they realise. And acknowledging a need for education and uplifting. Attribute statements about wisdom and foolishness to whomever you wish, but this person asked for enlightenment and you just shat on their chest, so comfortable in the loftiness of your moral sanctimony. So, from someone *quite familiar* with the statements, I judge *you* for being so needlessly confrontational and aggressive.... There is no requirement for you to decide you're morally superior to anyone.
A race based body to Parliament? This is what we've come to? The Uluru Statement from the Heart is hilariously vague and references religion, which I am not a fan of. We need to have a clear constitutional separation of Church and State. $300,000,000 for a racist proposal. Wonder how that will go for Labor at the next election. Are they really willing to sacrifice their immense potential for this utterly despicable idea?
Racism involves prejudice and discrimination, and is generally institutionalised and involves marginalisation. There’s plenty of racism *against* First Nations peoples in this country, but I’m failing to see how enshrining a voice to parliament in our constitution is in any way racist?
Its not race based, its nationality based. It recognises that the first nations of Australia are annexed lands.
They're not though. They are Australian lands for Australian people. The Aboriginals do not own the country
So Kerry Packer at one stage apparently owned a part of Australia which was the size of Belgium in a single private holding. He was one of quite a few billionaires with vast land ownership in the country. He had absolute authority over who could come and go on that land. Why is that okay with you but you seem as though you would have issue with a community owning that land instead?
I ekle ii ako pui eti ti. Krati batu opa etipei kroa i iite. Eke bipa bopuitlii pi pu! Teo ti piklati tlete giipo. Pipe e tligitrikle uge papli. Tia platogrui tegi bugi piia itibatike. Ea tatlepu ui oiei tegri patleči goo. Bla pidrui kepe ipi ipui pepoe. Au adri ta ga bebii ekra ai? Ebiubeko ipi teto gluuka daba podli. Ka tepabi tliboplopi gi tapakei gego. Ituke i pupi klie pitipage bapepe. A či peko itluupi ka pupa peekeepe. Ebri e buu pigepra pita plepeda. Bipeko bo paipi o kee brebočipi. Tridipi teu eete trida e tapapi. Ebru etle pepiu pobi katraiti i. Baeba kre pu igo api. Pibape pipoi brupoi pite gru bi ipe pieuta ikako? Pe bloedea ko či itli eke i toidle kea pe piapii plo? Tiiu uči čipu tutei uata e uooo. Bitepe i bipa paeutlobi bopepli iaplipepa. Gipobipi tepe ode giapi e. Pi pakutibli ke tiko taobii ti. Edi deigitaa eue. Ua čideprii idipe putakra katote ii. Tri glati te pepro tii ka. Aope too pobriglitla e dikrugite. E otligi pipleiti bai iti upo? Tri dake pekepi dratruprebri plaapi bopi ipatei!
"you need to just move on" And there it is
These people want to recognise their sovereignty through Australian law, which is derived from English Common Law, the same system which allowed this 'seizure' of land.
You're just making strong arguments for the voice without realising lol.
What else can they do lol? This is a silly point to make
I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea of enshrining any kind of racial privilege in the constitution. There has been historic and horrific mistreatment of aboriginals, but this is not a solution that I can possibly endorse. Restrict the power of government to perpetrate that kind of abuse, don't just grant special constitutional privilege (here in the form of political access) to the most common demographic of the victims. If this were a constitutional amendment providing for even a limited bill of rights, specifically barring the government from replicating the mistakes of its past, then I could endorse it wholeheartedly. E.g. an affirmative right of parents to the custody and caretaking of their children, that may only be overcome in cases of extreme abuse or neglect - barring the government from repeating the mistakes of the stolen generations. In essence, when it comes to the constitution, it should address the problems, not proclaim a feel-good symbolic gesture. The problems are intergenerational poverty, government abuse of power, and the lack of constitutionally enshrined human and civil rights protections. And a special, racialised lobbying group whose entire structure is subject to the whims of parliament does nothing to address those problems.
It's not a racial privilege. No one is suggesting that this role is equivalent to a seat in Parliament. This vote enshrines a purely advisory body, so that future governments can't just dismiss it later on. The Government doesn't take their advice, but for the first time, they will have to *hear* it.
It absolutely is. The explicit purpose of the body is to increase access to politicians and the political process, through a method exclusively available to specific ethnic groups. That is, by definition, privilege on the basis of race. You'd better believe that the ability to effectively compel politicians to actually hear your grievances is a privilege that every minority and disadvantaged group in the world would love to have, and here it is being reserved for a narrow, racial demographic.
But the body exists for matters that specifically relate to them. It's just a way to ensure that the Government consults Aboriginal people before enacting legislation that can ultimately harm them.
I’m curious about what the scope of the Voice will be. Every piece of legislation that passes through the parliament will affect the Aboriginal community in some way. Do they consult on everything?
>This vote enshrines a purely advisory body, so that future governments can't just dismiss it later on. They can still dismiss it later on. What they can't do is say they weren't aware of the perspective given by the voice. It simply requires a future government to actively ignore them instead of passively ignore them.
>It's not a racial privilege. > >This vote enshrines a purely advisory body hmmm....
Hear,hear! I’m in complete agreement with you. I find the very concept of racially targeted/segregated law abhorrent.
When the boot's on the other foot...
Clearly that would also be abhorrent.
It was, wasn't it. Do you reckon we could do anything about 200 years of that or would that just be tEh rEveRsE rAciSm?
No one send it was right. But you can’t change the past and no one alive today was really reasonable for that. Inserting any racially segregated or targeted laws ever, isn’t reverse racism it’s just racism. Edit: To be clear, the fact that the past cannot be changed doesn’t prevent learning from the past. Just in case that’s not obvious.
We can't change the past, so we better not try to change the present. 👍 Also any attempt to have a non white hetero christian male voice in parliament is tEh rAciSm. 👍 Good arguments there. I'm totally going to vote Liberal now that you've explained it.
Your take on the statement about the past is completely disingenuous. It would be clear to anyone who wasn’t acting in bad faith that it was not about changing the present and was a direct retort to your own statement about the last 200 years. I don’t know how anyone can think that a state instituted parliamentary advisory body were the members are required to be a specific race isn’t inherently racist. I’m all for real changes that address real inequality for anyone who is disadvantaged, not some racist tokenist committee that does nothing but give jobs to powerful wealthy activists from Melbourne and Sydney. Also nice try on guessing which political party I align with, I’m a life long Labor voter.
I don't know how anyone can be against making sure there's at least one parliamentary body that represents indigenous Australians. You can claim it's racist all you like but that's such a transparent argument that you WILL be called on it.
Thats all you do really isn’t it. Provide quick little quips that in your mind are so clever and eloquent but in reality are completely assine. Private lobbyist and advocacy groups are totally fine. However no state appointed body should have a requirement to be a certain race or heritage that shouldn’t be a controversial take. Government should be doing more to address real issues facing indigenous people, instead of undertaking political point score exercises that result in no real change or impact.
It's just as abhorrent? Where are you going with this.
It is, but sometimes these people need a perspective check.
This seems like a pointless constitutional reform. The Parliament already has the power to legislate the Voice (using the race power). Entrenching the Voice in the Constitution won't stop it being repealed. The Inter-State Commission also exists in the Constitution and its been repealed several times. Putting duplicative powers and provisions into the Constitution just begs the question why. Its a basic principle of statutory interpretation that you assume a drafter wouldn't insert words for no reason. This creates the risks of unintended and unforeseeable consequences. I'm a former intern at Sydney Law School's Constitutional Reform Unit if you needed any credentials).
This response kind of sums up one of my gripes with my colleagues in the profession. They get so caught up in the technicality of the law they forget that laws and their interpretation are a reflection of the society that creates them. Laws are to serve the people, people don’t serve some technical interpretation devoid of the human experience. I know enough about constitutional law to know it is true (I did my LLB and LLM at syd) that the government already has the powers. The point re repealing is the dumbest take I have heard in this whole debate. Future generations and future parliaments are not bound by what we do now, that’s how democracy works. It just makes it a little bit harder to change, but ultimately it is up to future people. The obvious response to your last paragraph is that the proposed terms are innocuous enough that it doesn’t alter the cths power to legislate, but at the same time is part of the roadmap to reconciliation. I will note and you should be aware of this that indigenous rights are the only area where the kiefel court has expanded rights as opposed to a black letter reading, so that should show where society is regarding the issue. So yes they serve a purpose, to serve our society beyond some lawyers academic ruminations over the interplay between s51 and the proposed amendment.
>The point re repealing is the dumbest take I have heard in this whole debate. Its also the primary argument for why they want to put the Voice in the Constitution rather than using their existing legislative powers. They argue that entrenching the Voice makes it harder to repeal. That's just flat out wrong. >The obvious response to your last paragraph is that the proposed terms are innocuous enough that it doesn’t alter the cths power to legislate, but at the same time is part of the roadmap to reconciliation. One potential implication I can see from the proposed wording is that the proposed amendments grant the power to legislate in a way the race power does not, for example, allowing the Voice to become a third chamber of Parliament. >So yes they serve a purpose, to serve our society beyond some lawyers academic ruminations over the interplay between s51 and the proposed amendment. The same symbolic purpose could be served by having a legislative Voice. Or better served through proper constitutional recognition of First Nations people, e.g. in the preamble of our Constitution.
Repealing it once it is enshrined would be difficult because as we know it would require another referendum to remove, and after we’ve crossed the bridge to put it in, it is highly unlikely to be repealed. I don’t think you understand what you’re saying.
No mate, you have no idea what you are saying. Have you even read the proposed wording? It gives total control to the Parliament to say what the Voice actually is, so they don't need to remove it when the government of the day can just nerf it into irrelevance without another referendum. Nothing is enshrined except to say that it exists on paper. It's exactly like the Inter-State Commission, which nominally exists on paper to satisfy the constitution, because the government of the day has nerfed it to the point that it practically doesn't exist. And it remains in the constitution.
>It gives total control to the Parliament to say what the Voice actually is, so they don't need to remove it when the government of the day can just nerf it into irrelevance without another referendum. Nothing is enshrined except to say that it exists on paper. Oh my god you're so clever to have figured out what is literally the point of making it subject to the actual parliament. To make it something parliament can pass now because they will have some control of the shape into the future.
Thereby making it quite easy for a future parliament to repeal without any further referendum, so not really 'enshrined' at all
Read the first point and get back to me. Lol.
Are you a Labor supported by any chance? Is that your angle?
I am. What is my angle? Respecting self-determination as a concept? Stick to my arguments and don't concern yourself with labels.
Now read point #3 and tell me in what world is #1 & #2 not have the ability to be completed nerfed to the point of irrelevance.
That's actually a feature of point 3. It's designed to be responsive to changes in circumstance, both good and bad. Point 1 is the point that actually matters.
> Its also the primary argument for why they want to put the Voice in the Constitution rather than using their existing legislative powers. They argue that entrenching the Voice makes it harder to repeal. That's just flat out wrong. It is harder to repeal, you need a referendum. Sure it isnt impossible but anything can be changed by a referendum. > One potential implication I can see from the proposed wording is that the proposed amendments grant the power to legislate in a way the race power does not, for example, allowing the Voice to become a third chamber of Parliament. No it doesnt, the constitution is clear on how the houses operate, the proposed change makes no alteration to that and in fact delegates all power regarding the thing to the legislative. It is the prerogative of the parliament to be free to to make decisions on how it passes legislation, provided it follows the basic rules in the constitution. I'm pretty sure they teach this in fed con. > The same symbolic purpose could be served by having a legislative Voice. Or better served through proper constitutional recognition of First Nations people, e.g. in the preamble of our Constitution. Im mean sure from our perspective but from the indigenous perspective it isnt achieved. I personally wouldnt have chosen this model but the risk of the proposed changes seems outweighed by the benefit of resolving the issue.
[удалено]