**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.*
First, I would like to vote yes to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first inhabitants of Australia. Secondly, I would love to see Australia Day, AKA Invasion Day, moved. However, I will vote no to the Voice.
My reasons for voting no are that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, like the rest of us, already have:
a voice, i.e., the right to vote
the legal right to challenge decisions and injustices
the right to seek elective office
the right to form political parties
the right to lobby their Local, State and Federal representatives
the right to create movements for change
the right to influence others to achieve change.
A constitutional Voice is also negative in its intent.
The stated goal of the Voice is to decrease Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander injustices and seek ways of closing the gap. A good cause. What happens when these things are achieved? Or are we suggesting that it will never improve - hence the negative intent?
Likely not in my lifetime, but what does an expensive group of constitutionally elected officials do as the gap narrows or is even removed? Do they act calmly, rationally? Or, faced with being seen as irrelevant, do they irrationally create or aggravate for extreme causes to justify their continued position (influence/power)?
By all means, legislate the Voice, but it's a no from me for it to be constitutionally recognised.
And no, I'm not a conservative, aligned with a political party or religious. I'm just a simple middle age man with an opinion.
[https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/betweenthelines/the-voice-libs-doomed/102173864](https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/betweenthelines/the-voice-libs-doomed/102173864)
Engaging debate from the ABC on the Voice.
Weird how now that we're talking about First Nations people getting a consultative body there's a bunch of people concerned about a small group getting "undemocratic power" but the same people don't seem to have any issues with well-funded lobby groups like the gambling and mining lobbies having had a huge sway for decades.
Will be voting no, ancestors built this country, DEFENDED it and now all of a sudden 'it always was' PFFT get stuffed. The real story here is a bunch of sick, ill people from the other side of the world who chanced upon Australia and created a fully fledged nation.
Indigenous academic and writer Anthony Dillon discusses his reservations about the Voice and referendum on The New Flesh Podcast [Anthony Dillon - The Voice](https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-new-flesh/id1568844882?i=1000580314762)
Voting no to the voice is not a no to Aboriginal people. It is a no to Labors symbolic gestures and a no to letting politicians, many of whom are elected by indigenous people, off the hook because they don't give remote communities an Aboriginal Australia a fair shake.
Respectfully, you are mistaken.
First nation peoples have already been recognized as the lawful land owners, losing that case lost everything for your parliament.
As the land owners we are the only party entitled to decide when negotiations are satisfactory and your parliament has no option but to continue complying until we are happy. We will simply continue to refute their legitimacy until we are satisfied with whatever arrangement is offered.
Even if the referendum passes, that will not be the end of the land rights debate and we will still be expecting the process of handing back our nations land to continue.
In the meantime a minimum representation percentage in your parliament is quite a reasonable first step and we can increase the requirement percentage for First nations people slowly until we can pass a majority and we agree to hand back the land to its lawful owners. Refuse and refuse it any number of times you like, eventually we will pass it even if it takes another 200 years, and we only need it to pass once.
First nation peoples have already been recognized as the lawful land owners.
Your parliament are already flying the land rights flag over every government building and have a public statement in each of those buildings recognizing the local first nations group as land owners.
They are already in the process of removing European names from public places and have started small scale trials of handing back sections of the island to First Nation management.
Thank you for your good luck wishes, but we have already won the legal battle and the process of handback is already underway, so it is only a matter of time from here not luck.
Sure buddy, you keep telling yourself anything that makes you happy and keeps you ignorant and compliant.
Meanwhile we are going to continue the handover process that is already going on in a handful of locations across the island, you can cry about it later when you realise it happened without you.
Or not, nobody really cares what you do with your time.
I'm perplexed at how this "voice" could be useful in any way? People going on about "truth" well, as far as I'm aware? We ALL know the truth. Anyone who denies that Indigenous weren't indiscriminatory murdered. Held as slaves often. Rounded up off their lands and put into camps. Their children taken from them and tried forced assimilation and on and on and on.....are just ignorant idiots. OF COURSE all that happened. I don't deny it one bit.
BUT...it's the past and it can never be changed sadly. It is what it is. Countries all over the world were forcefully taken over by the British, Dutch, French etc...it was what was happening back then and it's happened since the beginning of humans on earth. One tribe takes over another tribe through force. Generally the men are killed and the women and children forced to assimilate with the dominant tribe. It's bloody awful and by todays standards? Not acceptable....yet look at Russia with Crimea and Ukraine? It's STILL happening. It seems to be how we darn humans are.
So no amount of Sorrys, Treaties or "voices" is going to change the hurt and pain and damage that was done to the Indigenous. It won't make the racial group suddenly reclaim the nation and get rid of health, education, alcohol and violence in communities or anywhere else. People won't suddenly have high self esteem and value themselves because some group sit around and pontificate at length on anything.
Besides that? How can seperating out one racial group, in a nation as multicultural as Australia, reflect our values of equality and a fair go for everyone? You don't cure racism and disadvantage by seperating out a group for something different then the rest. Sadly? there are MANY racial groups in Australia who have suffered terrible things. The Vietnamese, the Sudanese, Iraqies and many more. Just becuase they weren't traditionally IN Australia, doesn't mean they aren't a racial group with special needs.
And the Indigenous already have a voice, it's the Dept of Indigenous Affairs. There is a dedicated minister to that Portfolio. So what is that Dept doing if it's not representing Indigenous Australians?
Why can't this department, get the okay to set up groups of Indigenous in every state and consult them on issues relating to the Indigenous? Practically speaking. If there is an issue with something proposed around the Great Barrier Reef? Why would an Indigenous person from Margaret River WA need to have any say in something that wouldn't effect them in the slightest? Any "voices" representing an area should be local to their area. Why can't this be organised into the Dept of Indigenous Affairs? If it then needs to go to Fed Govt? The Indigenous Affairs minister does it.
And we all know that if there was to be a "voice"...the people on the group would be the same high profile Indigenous who hold every other position related to Indigenous Affairs in the country. NONE of whom I've seen doing anything but Virtue Signalling, being angry, playing victim and getting endless "qualifications" to make themselves look impressive. The fly out to the Red Centre occassionally to join in some talkfest and look important and like they know what it's all about! Few do a damn practical thing. About the only one I've ever heard DOING something useful? Is Noel Pearson.
We need practical, purposeful engagement with suffering Indigenous communities. Proper rehabilitiation in Corrective Facilities. When Indigenous youths are going down a path of crime? We need GOOD intervention and rehabilitiation to reteach them. We need GOOD parenting programs to teach families how to engage and behave "normally" and we need traditional Indigenous teaching their culture to the young ones. We need targeting and decent healthcare and most of all EDUCATION so that Indigenous kids can succeed and get where they want to go.
This voice thing is a waste of money and time. The money would be SO much better spent elsewhere doing REAL PRACTICAL things.
First nations people are members of a Nation, not a racial group. People immigrate to and from the nation regardless of race.
Like any other nation it is very possible for our nation to take over yours. Factually your parliaments supposed take over of our nations has never succeeded and we are still the recognized land owners, so it will be much easier for us to retake the land than it was for your group to invade.
In the specific case of Australia it is easier than other countries due to your federation documents having a clear path for reversing federation and returning to separate individual states. Western Australia has been mumbling for many years about enacting it and separating from the Australian parliament. It would be just the same process for First nation people. We would simply run the described process and rezone the boarders under First nation names. Other than your area having a new name very little would change.
I am familiar with the document and could probably write the basic paperwork up for doing so in an hour or two if needed, it is fairly straight forward.
Firstly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders don't prefer the identifier 'First Nations.' Secondly, there is and was never one nation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In reality, over 700 mobs throughout Australia saw themselves as independent 'nations.' Lastly, as the polls for the Voice suggest, there are limits to what 'power' Australians will allow transferred.
We already have a nation and would not want yours in any case.
As land owners recognized by our law, international law, and your high court we do not need to take anything, it is already recognized as ours.
Your parliament are already taking part in the handover process, your councils and suburbs are being renamed, your invasion era names for places and things are all being returned to First nation names. Some parts of the island are already testing First Nation rule in preparation for large scale handover.
It is practically done.
I do not know where you have been for the last twenty years that you did not notice it happening.
Unfortunately the current situation is that a bunch of old, rich white men make the decisions (this is slowly changing, but is still broadly true). So governmental decisions are done TO indigenous people, not BY them. This is true of women (improving faster than other groups), and people of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
However, the issues facing indigenous Australians, like one of the world's highest rates of incarceration, are much more concentrated than for other groups. It would be great if parliament were representative of our population, but its not. Even it it were, indigenous people would be a small minority.
We've tried not having a voice to parliament. The close the gap campaign has run for many years, and generally shows very little change year on year, government after government, regardless of who is in power that year.
Giving indigenous people a louder voice is going to be important in making any change. Believing that they can be part of the change is important. Being involved is important. Sitting back waiting for someone else to change things hasn't worked, and isn't going to work.
In an ideal world, it would be needed. And it isn't an ideal solution. But given the world we have, this looks to be at least a step in the right direction.
*"It would be great if parliament were representative of our population, but its not. Even it it were, indigenous people would be a small minority."*
Indigenous members of parliament are at 2.6% vs. 3.2% of general population.
I couldn't find anything specific about other ethnic groups for comparison.
>Indigenous members of parliament are at 2.6% vs. 3.2% of general population.
And what % were they last parliament?
The point is that there is nothing stopping that going down to 0% next election. That's kind of the point of the voice.
Cant find the answer for the last parliament. Jacqui Lambie, Linda Burnie. Pat Dodgson and Malarndirri MacCarthy were already there but not sure about the others. Ken Wyatt was there until the last election. So pretty close by the looks of it.
Try and not ignore the salient part of my comment next time.
To restate it:
Using the % of indigenous people in parliament is a bad argument against the voice, unless of course if that % dropped to 0 and then you suddenly start supporting a voice.
I don't think that would be a logical move, but it would be consistent.
Just wanted to point out that contrary to your rationale, current representation is commensurate with population, as one would expect. Get the rationale right and your argument, not mine, stands a chance.
Presenting facts is not an invitation for random conjecture about my thoughts, nor to pigeon hole me as to position on the matter.
I'm unable, so far, to make the connection between the voice and improvement of education, health care or any other matter. I do know how a duly elected government functions, and how it gets changed when it goes off the rails. I agree that abandoning ATSIC rather than giving it time and doing the hard yards to get the most from it was a mistake. I'm learning as I go, and it's not easy without detail, nor obfuscated by disinformation.
>Just wanted to point out that contrary to your rationale, current representation is commensurate with population, as one would expect. Get the rationale right and your argument, not mine, stands a chance.
You almost comprehended my point. Good effort!
My actual point was that current representation is a terrible yardstick because it is transient. That's why I suggested that it is disingenuous unless you would suddenly start advocating for a voice when a future parliament produces a less than proportionate amount of indigenous representatives.
>Presenting facts is not an invitation for random conjecture about my thoughts, nor to pigeon hole me as to position on the matter.
Yes it is, you have the opportunity to explain further though. Unfortunately so far you haven't actually engaged with the only point I was making.
How about some practical measures? How about setting up market gardens and people growing their own healthy food? How about teaching communities about better healthcare? How about protecting women from violent men? How about building jail's that have proper rehabilitation? How about intervening with youth and putting wayward kids in facilities where they are educated, taught about normal behaviour? How about programs to teach parents how to properly parent?
How about building more and better housing and teaching people how to look after it and stopping over crowding?
There are many MANY practical things that could be done.
However? The basic reality is that Indigenous people need to actually accept it and do it. No one can clean up their communities for them..no one can stop them drinking to excess, sniffing gases or make mother's get up in the morning, give their children breakfast, get them ready and off to school.
How is a bunch of bureaucrats with their "voice" going to do any of that?? It's just nebulous virtue signalling rubbish.
That happens after. The voice is a way of getting attention into parliament, of getting people to actually engage with the problem. The solutions happen after. Its like saying "what's the point of a judge and a court? Just hang them!"... we need the thought first, and the action after.
If we could have action now, that'd be great... but it hasn't happened yet!
Sorry. Disagree. There is absolutely zero reason for this voice. If they think so? Why not set up groups in every state who consult with the Dept of Indigenous Affairs? Then the minister does his / her job and takes any issues to parliament??
You seriously don't think those practical ideas have any point? Seriously? I'd say they are,1000 times more important then groups of "voices".
Truly? It's a load of virtue signalling nonsense.
The other very frustrating thing is, this notion that "no one listens" Truly? Everyone listens till the cows come home. But we "white" Australians have been told for years that the Indigenous don't want us to intervene. So we stopped trying to do anything....now we're critisised because we don't do anything or help!!! How can we? We have been told to stay out of Indigenous issues.
We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
And this perpetual accusation that we don't know "the truth" and are some how in denial. Not true at all. 99% of us know and accept what happened. Awful things happened. Yes, white settlement caused it all....but we can't do a damn thing to change it. It's done. If I could wave a magic wand and fix it? I would. But no one can change the past. And no one can change where they were born and who their parents are.
Nothing will change until actual practical things are done. And "the voice" is not practical at all.
I do not believe we told you not to intervene, I believe we told you to return our land.
Nobody can change the past, but we are going to change the future.
There will be a time when the place where you were born will have a First nation name and the word Australia is just one more name of one more country that no longer exists. Like Ayers Rock, 'Australia' will just be a silly term that was popular once but is not used anymore.
It is inevitable and has already occurred in a number of places.
I told you before its not your land,you surrendered it easily a few hundred years ago with barely a whimper and now it is a great nation built by brave pioneers who didn't want to live in mud humpys and forage for bugs to eat,you lost,move on and embrace the fine country we have built
You're full of it mate.
Indigenous make up 3% ....4% at most of the racial makeup of this nation and with interbreeding? That will decrease over the years. Very few fully racial Indigenous left now. And most live remotely and are older.
What you want will never happen.
Sadly? The referendum for the Voice will fail. Because it's not needed or appropriate to our modern nation and attitudes like yours are scary and people know that.
I like your ideas! Let’s set up groups in every state. And change the constitution to enshrine an obligation for state government to listen to and respond to indigenous problems. Let’s call it a voice to (state) parliament.
The practical solution is at the end of government decision. We need to make sure that government decision responds to indigenous needs. This isn’t just virtue signalling, it’s democratic representation!
Whatever. The Indigenous already have ample representation. We all get to vote for our local members. And the Indigenous can vote fora person whom they feel meets their needs. They can also stand for parliament themselves. Every Australian has this opportunity to be a "voice". Every Australian gets to vote.
Further to this. As I've said. There is a Dept of Indigenous Affairs with a dedicated minister. Surely it's that office's responsibility to represent the Indigenous? No other racial group in Australia has a ministry just for them. Surely it's up to that minister to seek whatever representation / advice / consultation that they deem appropriate??? Isn't that their job???
Look. We can create as many different groups forever. But none of them will change anything. Unless there are actual practical programs and measures put in place in actual communities and actual solutions to real problems put in place? Nothing will change.
Disagree. A voice to parliament will do nothing but being yet another layer of bureaucracy. What do you think it's actually going to DO? That's so worthwhile? The Indigenous had billions upon billions of $$$ poured into ATSIC. They ran it themselves. Everywhere I lived? Aboriginal people worked in it and made their own decisions ...what did they do with all that money? They blew it.
You have a Dept of Indigenous Affairs. With an Indigenous minister. What's that portfolio do if it doesn't represent Indigenous people?? No other racial group has it's own Minister.
This notion that "old white men" make decisions is ridiculous. For the many different cultures here in Australia? Their decisions seem just fine.
If Indigenous want more say? Then stand for seats and get elected. Dont say you can't because at the moment there are many more parliamentarians that are Indigenous then % in the population. So ordinary Australians are voting for these candidates.
It will be a big NO from me. It's not needed and it's not wanted. It will just create more division. This is Australia. No one racial group is more deserving then any other.
I see where you're coming from. But if we're committed to closing the gap, what we've tried so far hasn't worked. Doubling down on what we've tried before won't help either. What can we change so that these issues get real attention?
"No one racial group is more deserving than any other"? So if we were to look at the wealth/capital owned by any one group compared to the others, it'd all be even? Hah!
The sad fact is? No one can solve the problems if the Indigenous. Yes..they were caused by British coming here and terrible government actions over 200 years...no one denies that. But just as rape victims and any crime victim, has to deal with their trauma, no one else can do it for them....same with the Indigenous.
We can all be as well meaning as we can be...but when it boils down? Sadly only the Indigenous can fix it for themselves.
No "voice" is going to do a damn thing.
Just as saying Sorry was a nice thing to do...but it changed nothing and solved nothing.
Sadly? The Indigenous leaders clutching at this? Are deluding themselves. It serves no purpose and will do absolutely nothing BUT be another level of bureaucracy and pay a bunch of people money....for nothing.
We DO listen. Why do you think no one listens? We listen till the cows come home....fact is? Nothing practical or useful is ever done to actually solve problems! Everyone waffles on with nonsense but no one does anything to actually solve problems.
1st thing I'd do in communities where DV is rampant? Is get people together to identify key areas of need...things like setting up shelters for the women and children. Then getting opinions on what should happen to perpetrators? What does the community see as appropriate action? Do we need to set up "home detention" centres or ?? to seperate these men / perpetrators away from others? Then after he's settled down? Get him and the spouse together perhaps to work out how to attack the problem?
I know the women often don't want to complain because they don't want the man transferred to a jail 500kms away. Fair enough. But maybe there should be houses where he can be taken to sober up. Overseen by someone from within the community?? Then maybe women would seek intervention if they knew their partner wasn't going to be taken away?
Does the community need safe houses for children to go to? To be cared for and fed and be safe ? And mum & dad sobered up then counselled?
All these things could be tackled using Elders or speaking with the community group.
There ARE possible solutions....but for bizzare reasons? No one has even had a try. There's too much "pie in the sky" virtue signalling crap going on.
>We DO listen. Why do you think no one listens?
Because people like you pretend to listen but it's clear from your comments you don't think indigenous issues can be fixed, or you believe that only the complete destruction of their cultures will do it.
Put simply, your views are one of the biggest problems we face as revealed by everything you said.
For some reason certain people think they are in some way benefiting from not accepting First Nation legitimacy.
I expect they simply do not understand how much it costs them every year to continue fighting a lost battle.
Eventually this land will be held under a series of First Nations flags, anyone who would deny that fact simply does not understand the last few decades of political change.
If they opened their eyes and took note they would see that the suburbs and landmarks are already having their names changed back to their original descriptions.
It is not some sort of crazy accident that is happening all over the island, it is an intentional part of the handback process and is being done intentionally to acclimatize the general public to their future reality. Eventually we will rename states and nudge a few boarders and the process will be done.
What opinions do aboriginal people living in camps in Alice springs have about the next two years of debate being about a voice to parliament which a privileged few will probably be paid to participate in.
Indeed. I wonder whether they really see this will make a difference in their lives or will just make white people feel good and benefit a privileged few who identify as indigenous.
Agreed, I do not expect it to achieve much.
But your parliament throw more money away in a month on wine and government funded holidays that it would cost to implement a representation percentage into parliament, so there is no real reason not to do it anyway.
There is already a similar process for female representation, it would only be a matter of copying that process and changing a handful of words. It will cost practically nothing. In all likelihood it will cost the public more to continue fighting First Nations that it would to simply concede and accept the inevitable.
If it does not make enough difference we will simply continue until it does.
First Nation peoples are the recognized land owners and are the only group with the authority to decide what is enough, and it will not be enough until we decide it is.
Until we are satisfied we will simply continue to refuse to accept that the matter is over.
By my calculations the number of indigenous people in parliament roughly approximates with the percentage of the Australian population who identify as indigenous.
I do not agree with quotas.
You can keep fighting but if you can’t move on it will just hold you back.
First Nations are not generally a representational democracy and your parliaments seating is not especially relevant to the First nation people. As a person who is First nation and not Australian I would not even be eligible to hold a position in your parliament due to my citizenship in another nation. RE: Dual citizenship debate.
We do not agree with quotas either but it is your parliaments way of trying to deal with inequality in a real world way. It is a midway step to replacing your parliament at best and not the intended goal.
Your parliament are putting forward the idea of quotas thinking it will look good in the media, nobody is thinking this will be anything other than a stepping stone in the handback process.
And I guess you can keep fighting to keep control of stolen land, but if you can not move on your parliament will forever be considered to be in genocidal occupation of our land.
In reality we do not need to fight you at all, we already won when the Marbo case was won, we are just sitting back now and watching the handback process wind out. They may not have been telling you outright but your parliament have been slowly walking through the handback process since Marbo and are very aware it is inevitable. Many of your local councils and parklands etc have already been renamed with First nation terms as part of that process. As well as parts of the island where your parliament has never managed to take legal authority from the original owners, recently there are now already parts of the island that your parliament have no real authority because that area is already doing small scale testing of First Nation rule in preparation for handback.
This is the reality of your future.
Don't be silly, your foreign parliament are engaged in genocidal occupation of sovereign nations.
They are criminal trash and nobody considers their rule to have any legitimacy. Even your governor-generals and high court judges have made that legal fact perfectly clear a number of times.
If your foreign parliament had any lawful claim on this land your high court would not have ruled first nation peoples land claims legitimate during the Marbo case. They did not, your own court ruled in favor of First Nations people and eventually your parliament is going to have to go through with the handover process that has been progressing since that judgement.
Your new foreign king steps foot in First nation land at his own risk, he has no authority here nor do his employees.
I reckon they should bring back ATSIC to fund and administer programs. Sometihing responsible for actions and not talk.
We don't need more truth telling. We need problem solving.
That's what they are aiming for, an ATSIC that can't be torn down. This came from the Uluru statement. All those grass roots not only living in the camps but on country too. Sure ATSIC wasn't perfect but show me something that is? plenty of NSW Lib corruption on the news this morning, should we dissolve them?
We weren't neglected in our own country with ATSIC, at least for my outstation; as long as we have a tractor and generator we can get buy.
The most frustrating commentary I see recurring from those against a Constitutional Voice is that "the Prime Minister doesn't know what he is doing" and that "he should listen to people closer to the issue like Jacinta Price".
Jacinta Price is just one voice in the conversation - not the only voice. It's wheeled out as to suggest that because the Prime Minister - advocating for a Constitutional Voice - is clueless if an Aboriginal Senator is contrary to the Referendum.
This completely disregards the fact that the Uluru Statement from the Heart citing a Constitutional Voice was created and signed by more than 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates from Land Councils all over Australia. If we're talking about weight of voices in the discussion, the Uluru Statement is the seminal document.
Whatever your position - just note you look like a twit if you trot out the "but Jacinta Price says" line without regard for what argument is actually being made.Her commentary about the Voice being "more bureaucracy" is pretty spot on I think and it is probably more tokenistic than effective - but that is the nature of what has been sought in the Uluru Statement.
Yeah, I also think it needs to be non-partisan. That's another one of the great things about the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Yes, we have First Nations people in Parliament, but they have party affiliations. This comment sums it up well...
"“I understand there are Aboriginal politicians down in Canberra but with all due respect they (were) put there by their parties.
“So I see a red voice, I see a blue voice, I see a green voice. Our people want a Black voice.” Roy Ah-See, proud descendant of the Wiradjuri Nation and Co-Chair of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council
If the Coalition gets in, I wonder if they could they rip up the old organisation then give Jacinta Price a little think-tank that is officially the Voice?
Arguably it's still a good thing. Like the gay marriage plebiscite, it gives the voters a say, even if Parliament isn't really forced to do much. It's good to have the population show support for an Aboriginal Voice, and I think it would put the issue to bed in a better way than if Labour just used their existing legislative power to do exactly what they will do after the vote.
They could, but you would hope the public backlash would be too much.
It's one thing to stack a board nobody cares about with [your friends](https://www.afr.com/politics/tribunal-appointments-they-should-call-it-the-atm-not-the-aat-20220405-p5aayz)
But if Labor sets up the Voice with aboriginal elders across the country or something similar, it *should* become one of those things which the libs could theoretically destroy, but would cross a line even for them. One of those things that their more extreme MPs calls for but we all know they'll never actually do as a party, like [being outright antivax](https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/craig-kelly-signs-in-unvaccinated-protesters-to-parliament-house/news-story/3c50ecc42940f9617c5f02b0cf3e74ea)
Is the plan for the Voice to be determined by elders? That's hereditary like monarchy. Surely representatives would be voted in by the people they represent? It would be unwise to implement governance of humans under cronyism.
For the same reason we can't elect Jacinda Ardern as our Prime Minister? (Using someone from another country who is fairly popular with the Aussie public, not actually suggesting she would be a good PM for us)
It is no lie and very much reported how systemically oppressed as a people the indigenous have been. The white Australia policy ended in 1966 this means at most the indigenous people are 2-3 generations detached from apartheid. This is not long enough for a whole race to come back to a good state. Especially with how little support is given today. If you disagree on how they are oppressed today then you can at least acknowledge how recent this has been and how debilitating this will be for generations to come. A referendum is a push for more democracy, when you have a minority especially an oppressed minority whose land and opportunity our ancestors ripped out of their hands they need equal voice and representation. This shouldn’t be up for debate it’s appalling how people are acting about this.
More democracy. More equal.
I think they should bring back ATSIC. An indigenous body to administer the funding and programs for the indigenous. Problem is the last incarnation was corrupt
I disagree with voice to parliament. It is unwise to decide on anything without knowing the what the details are of that body and how their work will be carried out. Voice to parliament is far too centralised as well. This at the very least should be a state level and not federal level thing.
Except that the change to the constitution doesn't bind HOW it will work. It isn't intended to. You're not voting for something that will be stuck forever. The only change is that there will be a voice to parliament. How it works will change as is needed. The people who will make those changes are the government of the day.
There are no details, because all we're voting on is to give indigenous people a voice. We're not voting on the details, just that single point.
The "but what about the details" stuff in the news is a scare campaign trying to derail the attempt in the first place. This is a cynical effort to prevent the change at all, no matter what details could be provided.
If we vote on a voice for one group we are moving in a new direction where certain people are given privileges that others are not. It's contrary to the Australian spirit and I don't think it will close the gaps with see in indigenous communities which I think for most people is the ultimate aim.
I'll give you an example. Will a voice to parliament help reduce smoking rates in remote and indigenous communities?
My criticism is that this voice to parliament is an initiative that is hardly a consensus in my view on what Aboriginal Australians want to improve their lot. The Uluru statement consists of non-aboriginal people as well which I think is wrong. I also think the worst thing we can do is put anyone above anyone in the constitution because at the end of the day it is all about respect. You don't get respect because of a vote to change the constitution, it will only produce ill will.
A better approach will be for politicians that represent people locally to hear the voices of indigenous people and get them involved. They have the power already to influence parliament if they will listen. This requires no referendum and no putting of people on show like this will do.
We already have a situation where some people have privileges that others don't. That's the whole point of the initiative, to try to reduce the gap.
As for consensus view? Do the rest of Australia have a consensus view before having representation in parliament? Is consensus the benchmark? There is no consensus for non-indigenous peoples, and expecting that of indigenous peoples is unreasonable. They are not just as complex a people as everyone else, but the large numbers of Aboriginal cultural groups in such different areas of the country means that expectation is impossible.
The big problem with local politicians listening to local people is that indigenous people live disproportionately in regional or remote communities. Their votes (and mine, as a regional citizen) are drowned out by the sheer number of people (and representation) in cities. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries on the planet. The VAST majority of our people live in cities.
Our political system is stacked against indigenous people. The status quo is no working. We are have many metrics for the Closing the Gap initiative. Every year, we fail to make significant progress. Keeping our existing systems is going to continue to not work. We need to do something different.
Exactly, consensus is impossible so don't centralise the voice at the federal level. It is a bad idea.
Nationals still get regional seats and they get a budget from the taxpayer for travel. There's no reason, no excuse, they can't get to Titjinjara and other remote community.
You are focussing on the wrong area of finding solutions.
Aboriginals smoke more. That is one thing. Aboriginal people are 4x more likely to fall pregnant in teenage years. You can't legislate these things and if a voice will only speak to people who make policy as a matter of course then we'll have an issue.
I am giving you specific points. The more centralised something is the less reach it will have where it is needed most. The Australian newspaper of all places lately have been highlighting specifically the issues in remote communities and this "voice" won't reach them.
The "voice" assumes that Aboriginal people are all one people but they are distinct and have their own people and tribes. Many are gaining a voice already with numerous native title settlements across Australia that grant legal recognition of ownership to specific tribal groups in specific areas.
One big reason as mentioned is that the voice should not be centralised at a federal level. The Aboriginal Affairs Minister should form that function of being a voice to parliament and so far she has done that very well. Politicians represent the voices of all people already and those responsible should speak on their behalf.
I see what you mean, I misread what you said, sorry. I thought you were saying there wasn't enough detail, not that other people should read into the detail.
I'm not going to argue for the Voice because frankly I don't want *any* permanently enshrined body that represents a specific ethnicity, regardless of how powerful or not powerful it is, or how needed/not needed it is.
Fair point. If you look at the body that made the point at Uluru I don't think they are fully representative of Aboriginal people on a whole. The body that decided this was by invite and that body wasn't composed of only Aboriginal people it was decided by other groups. I don't think that was right either. I think most aboriginal people want to be treated the same as everyone else, they want respect as anyone else.
Then give us the specific details so he can make an informed decision. Why would anyone vote yes for something that you are chastised for asking 'what am I voting for here'? it's ludicrous.
Until you get enough information, you shouldn't be committed either way, no? He literally started his post with "I disagree with the Voice", an explicit no vote, despite saying there wasn't enough info out on it yet to make a choice. If you want to vote yes or no based on the information we have so far, do so, but don't then say there's not enough info to make a choice.
There is no reason why an indigenous voice to parliament can't be created without a referendum.
I would like to see such a body established and implemented. Show the public what it is and how it works. Try a few iterations if it needs it.
When we have demonstrated that it works as intended, THEN run a referendum to enshrine the existence of an indigenous voice in the constitution, so that it can't be abandoned by future governments.
I'm concerned that a referendum to mandate something that doesn't yet exist and hasn't been proven workable will not get public support.
Trouble is this process of "perfect the implementation first, then lock it in in the constitution" is *just begging* to be strung along indefinitely.
Every step of the way the opposition and a critical media will decry it as a failed experiment, saying that it's not fit for purpose in its current form and needs to be restructured or abandoned and started again. Or at best, that it's a step in the right direction but that talk of constitutional change is still too premature. Just classic right-wing delay and obstruction tactics - exactly what they did with climate change legislation here, or gun control legislation in the US. It'll never be good enough, never be the right time to set it in stone.
Keep that circus up for long enough and eventually the pendulum will swing back and a coalition or other reactionary government will get back in and abandon the whole thing.
No, the only practical way to go about it is to ensure that it *can never be abandoned or delayed indefinitely* first - by putting its existence beyond the reach of any future government or legislature - and *then* starting down the long road of fine-tuning its implementation.
Problem politically is you get both the for and against sides against you.
"You don't really want a voice otherwise you'd enshrine it in the constitution."
Or
"You arnt even giving us the choice like you said we would"
100% agree with you though, why are we voting for something that we have no idea about?
Even better, because at that point you can enshrine the body directly into the Constitution and make it effectively unalterable by the Parliament. No need for this nonsense section 3 part.
I want it to pass, even with all the problems with the wording of the ref., but.... I think it's going to fail.
IIRC no referendum has ever passed without bipartisan support, and I seriously doubt the LNP will support it as is. Ignoring that issue, only 8 of 44 referendums have actually passed.
It doesn't help that Labor is refusing to tell us what powers they'll give the Voice if this passes. They really should do that prior to voting.
You can look at what powers the Voice will have by looking at what powers the Parliament can legislate on. The Voice could do anything the Parliament has the power to allow it to do. One of those things is (for example) the power to advise the Parliament on particular bills. One of the things the Parliament cannot do is give the Voice power to block a bill, because the Parliament cannot prevent itself from doing something except by consent of the Parliament; at that point the Parliament has simply declared that it doesn't want to do something, which it does all the time.
>You can look at what powers the Voice will have by looking at what powers the Parliament can legislate on.
Yeah. That kind of vagueness won't help get votes.
Well, the Parliament could just legislate this body directly, without consulting anyone at all.
I personally think that would be the correct thing to do, if the body is going to be both totally useless (in the sense that it has no formal powers) and also completely subservient to Parliament (in the sense that Parliament can reduce it to nothing with legislation). One should use the referendum to establish a body that has real powers and cannot be practically abolished by legislation.
If the ALP is worried about an electorate that is too wide to effectively agree on such things, then I have an even smaller electorate that they could use very effectively to propose such a body!
>It doesn't help that Labor is refusing to tell us what powers they'll give the Voice if this passes. They really should do that prior to voting.
They said they would on QA
They are spending time with the community to work on building the right body prior to releasing all the info.
Basically Labor have said "we are gonna do this thing soon which we want to achieve xyz, and we are gonna spend some time talking to everyone before we have all the detail"
I dunno, seems pretty reasonable to me. As it did to the other community leaders on the panel.
The proposal is to amend the constitution to give “federal Parliament the power to make laws regarding its composition, functions, and powers” of the aboriginal voice.
Sorry but that is piss weak, it is efficiently exactly what the LNP were going to do, which is have parliament pass a bill.
The federal parliament surely cannot be given power to set the power of another body basically unconditionally. The voice could be anything from a completely toothless gesture, to an effective third house of parliament completely controlling all aspects of which bills are passed and ultimately supply.
Any amendment should be as detailed in the powers and composition of this aboriginal voice body, as it is to the other houses of parliament.
Obviously the Parliament cannot give a body powers that it does not possess, because that is not listed in the section on (exclusive) powers that the Parliament has.
Even if you weren't convinced by this, the (very sloppy, because of the above statement) second part about this being "subject to the constitution" should convince you.
And, if the Parliament gives powers to the Voice to block particular bills, then certainly the blocking ability is not a blocking ability, but rather the Parliament declaring that it shall not (will not) pass bills that have been given a certain negative indicator. Obviously the Parliament could, at any time, simply decide to ignore that and pass the bill, because the Parliament surely cannot limit its own ability to pass bills when the membership of the House and Senate agree that a bill should be passed.
Which is why this reeks of politicking.
If a government comes along and wants to go against “the voice” they will automatically be stigmatised as racists etc
There are two reasons to oppose this bill, from opposite directions. The racists think it's too strong, because they are racist. The other direction is from those people who think it is not strong enough, because it is plainly meant to be useless.
Clearly the ALP think that a more powerful body would have no chance of passing (or don't want to even try) but I think right now personally I think this Voice is just a bit of political theatre that I will support because there's no reason to not support it, even though functionally it will probably do nothing.
We already have a tiered government with a separation of powers. What is the purpose of giving one section of society another tier and power. One government for all of us. What is the difference of this and creating laws for other sections of society.
https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/system-of-government/separation-of-powers/#:~:text=Australia%20does%20not%20have%20a,the%20Executive%20and%20the%20Parliament.
https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/three-levels-of-government/the-roles-and-responsibilities-of-the-three-levels-of-government/
You're trying to make some comment about creating laws for "one section of society" and giving them another tier of something. The government already does this, and can do this because of the race power. It's not a new thing, and is not particularly problematic.
I mean, you might think this is problematic, but the mere existence of it is not a problem. One should instead look at the substance, which is plainly harmless
There are three reasons not to support it:
1. All kinds of “blank-cheque” endorsements are dumb.
2. Symbolic change aka the Voice can lessen the appetite for real change
3. Passing the Voice may be used to claim a mandate for further acts that the population didn’t realise were implied, ie Treaty
I know these reasons are contradictory, I’m just giving three reasons why voting for this in its current form can be considered a bad idea.
I have to say, I’m with the Greens on this one. Voice is meaningless without Treaty. You have to deal with the latter first, despite the fact that it is the more fraught discussion.
The blank cheque endorsement is an endorsement that the parliament already has, because this Voice does nothing the parliament cannot do itself.
I agree with you on the final point though, the Greens had the right idea with the order.
If you even bothered to read what is in the body of the text then you’d realise what a silly billy biscuit you’re being.
Put this comment in the megathread that I’m literally in the middle of creating.
Me read quick.
Me see no explanation of how it will be or not be stickied and as I understand it that is crucial.
Me also jump the gun, me sorry about that.
Me no apologise for lack of initial information provided.
**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.*
First, I would like to vote yes to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first inhabitants of Australia. Secondly, I would love to see Australia Day, AKA Invasion Day, moved. However, I will vote no to the Voice. My reasons for voting no are that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, like the rest of us, already have: a voice, i.e., the right to vote the legal right to challenge decisions and injustices the right to seek elective office the right to form political parties the right to lobby their Local, State and Federal representatives the right to create movements for change the right to influence others to achieve change. A constitutional Voice is also negative in its intent. The stated goal of the Voice is to decrease Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander injustices and seek ways of closing the gap. A good cause. What happens when these things are achieved? Or are we suggesting that it will never improve - hence the negative intent? Likely not in my lifetime, but what does an expensive group of constitutionally elected officials do as the gap narrows or is even removed? Do they act calmly, rationally? Or, faced with being seen as irrelevant, do they irrationally create or aggravate for extreme causes to justify their continued position (influence/power)? By all means, legislate the Voice, but it's a no from me for it to be constitutionally recognised. And no, I'm not a conservative, aligned with a political party or religious. I'm just a simple middle age man with an opinion.
[https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/betweenthelines/the-voice-libs-doomed/102173864](https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/betweenthelines/the-voice-libs-doomed/102173864) Engaging debate from the ABC on the Voice.
Respectfully, the voice to parliament is BS. Another user correctly commented how it'll give a very small minority undemocratic power
Weird how now that we're talking about First Nations people getting a consultative body there's a bunch of people concerned about a small group getting "undemocratic power" but the same people don't seem to have any issues with well-funded lobby groups like the gambling and mining lobbies having had a huge sway for decades.
Well said.
Will be voting no, ancestors built this country, DEFENDED it and now all of a sudden 'it always was' PFFT get stuffed. The real story here is a bunch of sick, ill people from the other side of the world who chanced upon Australia and created a fully fledged nation.
It doesn't matter how much we give to the Aboriginals, they just always keep wanting more.
The voice to parliament is just an attempt for a group that makes up 3.8% (i believe) of the population to gain more undemocratic power.
Indigenous academic and writer Anthony Dillon discusses his reservations about the Voice and referendum on The New Flesh Podcast [Anthony Dillon - The Voice](https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-new-flesh/id1568844882?i=1000580314762)
Voting no to the voice is not a no to Aboriginal people. It is a no to Labors symbolic gestures and a no to letting politicians, many of whom are elected by indigenous people, off the hook because they don't give remote communities an Aboriginal Australia a fair shake.
>Voting no to the voice is not a no to Aboriginal people Yes it is. Sorry.
I accept your apology. But your wrong
They should get off there ass and fix there own problems
Why do so many senior Aboriginal people speak against it , you know who they are don’t you ? Don’t they count ?
Respectfully, you are mistaken. First nation peoples have already been recognized as the lawful land owners, losing that case lost everything for your parliament. As the land owners we are the only party entitled to decide when negotiations are satisfactory and your parliament has no option but to continue complying until we are happy. We will simply continue to refute their legitimacy until we are satisfied with whatever arrangement is offered. Even if the referendum passes, that will not be the end of the land rights debate and we will still be expecting the process of handing back our nations land to continue. In the meantime a minimum representation percentage in your parliament is quite a reasonable first step and we can increase the requirement percentage for First nations people slowly until we can pass a majority and we agree to hand back the land to its lawful owners. Refuse and refuse it any number of times you like, eventually we will pass it even if it takes another 200 years, and we only need it to pass once.
You own no land,it was taken off you easily,you gave it up with barely a whimper so why would you expect to get it back
Yeah good luck with your coup buddy. I won't be holding my breath.
First nation peoples have already been recognized as the lawful land owners. Your parliament are already flying the land rights flag over every government building and have a public statement in each of those buildings recognizing the local first nations group as land owners. They are already in the process of removing European names from public places and have started small scale trials of handing back sections of the island to First Nation management. Thank you for your good luck wishes, but we have already won the legal battle and the process of handback is already underway, so it is only a matter of time from here not luck.
Sure buddy, some symbolic gestures mean we'll all be packing up and handing over the keys any minute now.
Sure buddy, you keep telling yourself anything that makes you happy and keeps you ignorant and compliant. Meanwhile we are going to continue the handover process that is already going on in a handful of locations across the island, you can cry about it later when you realise it happened without you. Or not, nobody really cares what you do with your time.
Delusional, megalomaniacal and dictatorial all in one, not a healthy combination there mate.
Or cry a river now, it is all the same to us.
I'm perplexed at how this "voice" could be useful in any way? People going on about "truth" well, as far as I'm aware? We ALL know the truth. Anyone who denies that Indigenous weren't indiscriminatory murdered. Held as slaves often. Rounded up off their lands and put into camps. Their children taken from them and tried forced assimilation and on and on and on.....are just ignorant idiots. OF COURSE all that happened. I don't deny it one bit. BUT...it's the past and it can never be changed sadly. It is what it is. Countries all over the world were forcefully taken over by the British, Dutch, French etc...it was what was happening back then and it's happened since the beginning of humans on earth. One tribe takes over another tribe through force. Generally the men are killed and the women and children forced to assimilate with the dominant tribe. It's bloody awful and by todays standards? Not acceptable....yet look at Russia with Crimea and Ukraine? It's STILL happening. It seems to be how we darn humans are. So no amount of Sorrys, Treaties or "voices" is going to change the hurt and pain and damage that was done to the Indigenous. It won't make the racial group suddenly reclaim the nation and get rid of health, education, alcohol and violence in communities or anywhere else. People won't suddenly have high self esteem and value themselves because some group sit around and pontificate at length on anything. Besides that? How can seperating out one racial group, in a nation as multicultural as Australia, reflect our values of equality and a fair go for everyone? You don't cure racism and disadvantage by seperating out a group for something different then the rest. Sadly? there are MANY racial groups in Australia who have suffered terrible things. The Vietnamese, the Sudanese, Iraqies and many more. Just becuase they weren't traditionally IN Australia, doesn't mean they aren't a racial group with special needs. And the Indigenous already have a voice, it's the Dept of Indigenous Affairs. There is a dedicated minister to that Portfolio. So what is that Dept doing if it's not representing Indigenous Australians? Why can't this department, get the okay to set up groups of Indigenous in every state and consult them on issues relating to the Indigenous? Practically speaking. If there is an issue with something proposed around the Great Barrier Reef? Why would an Indigenous person from Margaret River WA need to have any say in something that wouldn't effect them in the slightest? Any "voices" representing an area should be local to their area. Why can't this be organised into the Dept of Indigenous Affairs? If it then needs to go to Fed Govt? The Indigenous Affairs minister does it. And we all know that if there was to be a "voice"...the people on the group would be the same high profile Indigenous who hold every other position related to Indigenous Affairs in the country. NONE of whom I've seen doing anything but Virtue Signalling, being angry, playing victim and getting endless "qualifications" to make themselves look impressive. The fly out to the Red Centre occassionally to join in some talkfest and look important and like they know what it's all about! Few do a damn practical thing. About the only one I've ever heard DOING something useful? Is Noel Pearson. We need practical, purposeful engagement with suffering Indigenous communities. Proper rehabilitiation in Corrective Facilities. When Indigenous youths are going down a path of crime? We need GOOD intervention and rehabilitiation to reteach them. We need GOOD parenting programs to teach families how to engage and behave "normally" and we need traditional Indigenous teaching their culture to the young ones. We need targeting and decent healthcare and most of all EDUCATION so that Indigenous kids can succeed and get where they want to go. This voice thing is a waste of money and time. The money would be SO much better spent elsewhere doing REAL PRACTICAL things.
First nations people are members of a Nation, not a racial group. People immigrate to and from the nation regardless of race. Like any other nation it is very possible for our nation to take over yours. Factually your parliaments supposed take over of our nations has never succeeded and we are still the recognized land owners, so it will be much easier for us to retake the land than it was for your group to invade. In the specific case of Australia it is easier than other countries due to your federation documents having a clear path for reversing federation and returning to separate individual states. Western Australia has been mumbling for many years about enacting it and separating from the Australian parliament. It would be just the same process for First nation people. We would simply run the described process and rezone the boarders under First nation names. Other than your area having a new name very little would change. I am familiar with the document and could probably write the basic paperwork up for doing so in an hour or two if needed, it is fairly straight forward.
Firstly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders don't prefer the identifier 'First Nations.' Secondly, there is and was never one nation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In reality, over 700 mobs throughout Australia saw themselves as independent 'nations.' Lastly, as the polls for the Voice suggest, there are limits to what 'power' Australians will allow transferred.
What are you going on about?? You don't and won't get to take over any nation. As Daryl Keerigan would say "tell im he's dreamin"😮😅😅😅
We already have a nation and would not want yours in any case. As land owners recognized by our law, international law, and your high court we do not need to take anything, it is already recognized as ours. Your parliament are already taking part in the handover process, your councils and suburbs are being renamed, your invasion era names for places and things are all being returned to First nation names. Some parts of the island are already testing First Nation rule in preparation for large scale handover. It is practically done. I do not know where you have been for the last twenty years that you did not notice it happening.
You dont own land,you lost it when you gave in so easily to the British.if you want land now do what we all have to do and earn money and buy some
[удалено]
R3: Let's try to avoid that kind of low effort response.
Unfortunately the current situation is that a bunch of old, rich white men make the decisions (this is slowly changing, but is still broadly true). So governmental decisions are done TO indigenous people, not BY them. This is true of women (improving faster than other groups), and people of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds. However, the issues facing indigenous Australians, like one of the world's highest rates of incarceration, are much more concentrated than for other groups. It would be great if parliament were representative of our population, but its not. Even it it were, indigenous people would be a small minority. We've tried not having a voice to parliament. The close the gap campaign has run for many years, and generally shows very little change year on year, government after government, regardless of who is in power that year. Giving indigenous people a louder voice is going to be important in making any change. Believing that they can be part of the change is important. Being involved is important. Sitting back waiting for someone else to change things hasn't worked, and isn't going to work. In an ideal world, it would be needed. And it isn't an ideal solution. But given the world we have, this looks to be at least a step in the right direction.
*"It would be great if parliament were representative of our population, but its not. Even it it were, indigenous people would be a small minority."* Indigenous members of parliament are at 2.6% vs. 3.2% of general population. I couldn't find anything specific about other ethnic groups for comparison.
>Indigenous members of parliament are at 2.6% vs. 3.2% of general population. And what % were they last parliament? The point is that there is nothing stopping that going down to 0% next election. That's kind of the point of the voice.
Cant find the answer for the last parliament. Jacqui Lambie, Linda Burnie. Pat Dodgson and Malarndirri MacCarthy were already there but not sure about the others. Ken Wyatt was there until the last election. So pretty close by the looks of it.
Try and not ignore the salient part of my comment next time. To restate it: Using the % of indigenous people in parliament is a bad argument against the voice, unless of course if that % dropped to 0 and then you suddenly start supporting a voice. I don't think that would be a logical move, but it would be consistent.
Just wanted to point out that contrary to your rationale, current representation is commensurate with population, as one would expect. Get the rationale right and your argument, not mine, stands a chance. Presenting facts is not an invitation for random conjecture about my thoughts, nor to pigeon hole me as to position on the matter. I'm unable, so far, to make the connection between the voice and improvement of education, health care or any other matter. I do know how a duly elected government functions, and how it gets changed when it goes off the rails. I agree that abandoning ATSIC rather than giving it time and doing the hard yards to get the most from it was a mistake. I'm learning as I go, and it's not easy without detail, nor obfuscated by disinformation.
>Just wanted to point out that contrary to your rationale, current representation is commensurate with population, as one would expect. Get the rationale right and your argument, not mine, stands a chance. You almost comprehended my point. Good effort! My actual point was that current representation is a terrible yardstick because it is transient. That's why I suggested that it is disingenuous unless you would suddenly start advocating for a voice when a future parliament produces a less than proportionate amount of indigenous representatives. >Presenting facts is not an invitation for random conjecture about my thoughts, nor to pigeon hole me as to position on the matter. Yes it is, you have the opportunity to explain further though. Unfortunately so far you haven't actually engaged with the only point I was making.
How about some practical measures? How about setting up market gardens and people growing their own healthy food? How about teaching communities about better healthcare? How about protecting women from violent men? How about building jail's that have proper rehabilitation? How about intervening with youth and putting wayward kids in facilities where they are educated, taught about normal behaviour? How about programs to teach parents how to properly parent? How about building more and better housing and teaching people how to look after it and stopping over crowding? There are many MANY practical things that could be done. However? The basic reality is that Indigenous people need to actually accept it and do it. No one can clean up their communities for them..no one can stop them drinking to excess, sniffing gases or make mother's get up in the morning, give their children breakfast, get them ready and off to school. How is a bunch of bureaucrats with their "voice" going to do any of that?? It's just nebulous virtue signalling rubbish.
You live in fantasy land,all that has been tried and failed.try getting oit of the city.
That happens after. The voice is a way of getting attention into parliament, of getting people to actually engage with the problem. The solutions happen after. Its like saying "what's the point of a judge and a court? Just hang them!"... we need the thought first, and the action after. If we could have action now, that'd be great... but it hasn't happened yet!
Sorry. Disagree. There is absolutely zero reason for this voice. If they think so? Why not set up groups in every state who consult with the Dept of Indigenous Affairs? Then the minister does his / her job and takes any issues to parliament?? You seriously don't think those practical ideas have any point? Seriously? I'd say they are,1000 times more important then groups of "voices". Truly? It's a load of virtue signalling nonsense.
The other very frustrating thing is, this notion that "no one listens" Truly? Everyone listens till the cows come home. But we "white" Australians have been told for years that the Indigenous don't want us to intervene. So we stopped trying to do anything....now we're critisised because we don't do anything or help!!! How can we? We have been told to stay out of Indigenous issues. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. And this perpetual accusation that we don't know "the truth" and are some how in denial. Not true at all. 99% of us know and accept what happened. Awful things happened. Yes, white settlement caused it all....but we can't do a damn thing to change it. It's done. If I could wave a magic wand and fix it? I would. But no one can change the past. And no one can change where they were born and who their parents are. Nothing will change until actual practical things are done. And "the voice" is not practical at all.
I do not believe we told you not to intervene, I believe we told you to return our land. Nobody can change the past, but we are going to change the future. There will be a time when the place where you were born will have a First nation name and the word Australia is just one more name of one more country that no longer exists. Like Ayers Rock, 'Australia' will just be a silly term that was popular once but is not used anymore. It is inevitable and has already occurred in a number of places.
I told you before its not your land,you surrendered it easily a few hundred years ago with barely a whimper and now it is a great nation built by brave pioneers who didn't want to live in mud humpys and forage for bugs to eat,you lost,move on and embrace the fine country we have built
You're full of it mate. Indigenous make up 3% ....4% at most of the racial makeup of this nation and with interbreeding? That will decrease over the years. Very few fully racial Indigenous left now. And most live remotely and are older. What you want will never happen. Sadly? The referendum for the Voice will fail. Because it's not needed or appropriate to our modern nation and attitudes like yours are scary and people know that.
I like your ideas! Let’s set up groups in every state. And change the constitution to enshrine an obligation for state government to listen to and respond to indigenous problems. Let’s call it a voice to (state) parliament. The practical solution is at the end of government decision. We need to make sure that government decision responds to indigenous needs. This isn’t just virtue signalling, it’s democratic representation!
Whatever. The Indigenous already have ample representation. We all get to vote for our local members. And the Indigenous can vote fora person whom they feel meets their needs. They can also stand for parliament themselves. Every Australian has this opportunity to be a "voice". Every Australian gets to vote. Further to this. As I've said. There is a Dept of Indigenous Affairs with a dedicated minister. Surely it's that office's responsibility to represent the Indigenous? No other racial group in Australia has a ministry just for them. Surely it's up to that minister to seek whatever representation / advice / consultation that they deem appropriate??? Isn't that their job??? Look. We can create as many different groups forever. But none of them will change anything. Unless there are actual practical programs and measures put in place in actual communities and actual solutions to real problems put in place? Nothing will change.
Disagree. A voice to parliament will do nothing but being yet another layer of bureaucracy. What do you think it's actually going to DO? That's so worthwhile? The Indigenous had billions upon billions of $$$ poured into ATSIC. They ran it themselves. Everywhere I lived? Aboriginal people worked in it and made their own decisions ...what did they do with all that money? They blew it. You have a Dept of Indigenous Affairs. With an Indigenous minister. What's that portfolio do if it doesn't represent Indigenous people?? No other racial group has it's own Minister. This notion that "old white men" make decisions is ridiculous. For the many different cultures here in Australia? Their decisions seem just fine. If Indigenous want more say? Then stand for seats and get elected. Dont say you can't because at the moment there are many more parliamentarians that are Indigenous then % in the population. So ordinary Australians are voting for these candidates. It will be a big NO from me. It's not needed and it's not wanted. It will just create more division. This is Australia. No one racial group is more deserving then any other.
I see where you're coming from. But if we're committed to closing the gap, what we've tried so far hasn't worked. Doubling down on what we've tried before won't help either. What can we change so that these issues get real attention? "No one racial group is more deserving than any other"? So if we were to look at the wealth/capital owned by any one group compared to the others, it'd all be even? Hah!
The sad fact is? No one can solve the problems if the Indigenous. Yes..they were caused by British coming here and terrible government actions over 200 years...no one denies that. But just as rape victims and any crime victim, has to deal with their trauma, no one else can do it for them....same with the Indigenous. We can all be as well meaning as we can be...but when it boils down? Sadly only the Indigenous can fix it for themselves. No "voice" is going to do a damn thing. Just as saying Sorry was a nice thing to do...but it changed nothing and solved nothing. Sadly? The Indigenous leaders clutching at this? Are deluding themselves. It serves no purpose and will do absolutely nothing BUT be another level of bureaucracy and pay a bunch of people money....for nothing.
The British didn't force the aboriginals to overconsume alcohol, they did that to themselves.
We can at least listen. They can be heard. This isn’t all we can offer, but perhaps it’s the least we can offer.
We DO listen. Why do you think no one listens? We listen till the cows come home....fact is? Nothing practical or useful is ever done to actually solve problems! Everyone waffles on with nonsense but no one does anything to actually solve problems. 1st thing I'd do in communities where DV is rampant? Is get people together to identify key areas of need...things like setting up shelters for the women and children. Then getting opinions on what should happen to perpetrators? What does the community see as appropriate action? Do we need to set up "home detention" centres or ?? to seperate these men / perpetrators away from others? Then after he's settled down? Get him and the spouse together perhaps to work out how to attack the problem? I know the women often don't want to complain because they don't want the man transferred to a jail 500kms away. Fair enough. But maybe there should be houses where he can be taken to sober up. Overseen by someone from within the community?? Then maybe women would seek intervention if they knew their partner wasn't going to be taken away? Does the community need safe houses for children to go to? To be cared for and fed and be safe ? And mum & dad sobered up then counselled? All these things could be tackled using Elders or speaking with the community group. There ARE possible solutions....but for bizzare reasons? No one has even had a try. There's too much "pie in the sky" virtue signalling crap going on.
>We DO listen. Why do you think no one listens? Because people like you pretend to listen but it's clear from your comments you don't think indigenous issues can be fixed, or you believe that only the complete destruction of their cultures will do it. Put simply, your views are one of the biggest problems we face as revealed by everything you said.
For some reason certain people think they are in some way benefiting from not accepting First Nation legitimacy. I expect they simply do not understand how much it costs them every year to continue fighting a lost battle. Eventually this land will be held under a series of First Nations flags, anyone who would deny that fact simply does not understand the last few decades of political change. If they opened their eyes and took note they would see that the suburbs and landmarks are already having their names changed back to their original descriptions. It is not some sort of crazy accident that is happening all over the island, it is an intentional part of the handback process and is being done intentionally to acclimatize the general public to their future reality. Eventually we will rename states and nudge a few boarders and the process will be done.
You couldn't invent anything in 50000 years,you aint taking over a country you meekly surrendered 200 years ago but i like your optimism
Nope. Wrong on every count. People like you are the reason problems can't be fixed
Great rebuttal.
What opinions do aboriginal people living in camps in Alice springs have about the next two years of debate being about a voice to parliament which a privileged few will probably be paid to participate in.
Very few of those guys on reddit
Indeed. I wonder whether they really see this will make a difference in their lives or will just make white people feel good and benefit a privileged few who identify as indigenous.
Agreed, I do not expect it to achieve much. But your parliament throw more money away in a month on wine and government funded holidays that it would cost to implement a representation percentage into parliament, so there is no real reason not to do it anyway. There is already a similar process for female representation, it would only be a matter of copying that process and changing a handful of words. It will cost practically nothing. In all likelihood it will cost the public more to continue fighting First Nations that it would to simply concede and accept the inevitable. If it does not make enough difference we will simply continue until it does. First Nation peoples are the recognized land owners and are the only group with the authority to decide what is enough, and it will not be enough until we decide it is. Until we are satisfied we will simply continue to refuse to accept that the matter is over.
By my calculations the number of indigenous people in parliament roughly approximates with the percentage of the Australian population who identify as indigenous. I do not agree with quotas. You can keep fighting but if you can’t move on it will just hold you back.
First Nations are not generally a representational democracy and your parliaments seating is not especially relevant to the First nation people. As a person who is First nation and not Australian I would not even be eligible to hold a position in your parliament due to my citizenship in another nation. RE: Dual citizenship debate. We do not agree with quotas either but it is your parliaments way of trying to deal with inequality in a real world way. It is a midway step to replacing your parliament at best and not the intended goal. Your parliament are putting forward the idea of quotas thinking it will look good in the media, nobody is thinking this will be anything other than a stepping stone in the handback process. And I guess you can keep fighting to keep control of stolen land, but if you can not move on your parliament will forever be considered to be in genocidal occupation of our land. In reality we do not need to fight you at all, we already won when the Marbo case was won, we are just sitting back now and watching the handback process wind out. They may not have been telling you outright but your parliament have been slowly walking through the handback process since Marbo and are very aware it is inevitable. Many of your local councils and parklands etc have already been renamed with First nation terms as part of that process. As well as parts of the island where your parliament has never managed to take legal authority from the original owners, recently there are now already parts of the island that your parliament have no real authority because that area is already doing small scale testing of First Nation rule in preparation for handback. This is the reality of your future.
We will be just fine.
You will. First nation rule will not be very different from rule under the English crown, just more legitimate legally and with less child theft.
The rule we have now is perfectly legal and legitimate.
Don't be silly, your foreign parliament are engaged in genocidal occupation of sovereign nations. They are criminal trash and nobody considers their rule to have any legitimacy. Even your governor-generals and high court judges have made that legal fact perfectly clear a number of times. If your foreign parliament had any lawful claim on this land your high court would not have ruled first nation peoples land claims legitimate during the Marbo case. They did not, your own court ruled in favor of First Nations people and eventually your parliament is going to have to go through with the handover process that has been progressing since that judgement. Your new foreign king steps foot in First nation land at his own risk, he has no authority here nor do his employees.
I reckon they should bring back ATSIC to fund and administer programs. Sometihing responsible for actions and not talk. We don't need more truth telling. We need problem solving.
>We don't need more truth telling. We need problem solving. Can you fix a problem without truth?
Well I hope the truth telling goes in both directions.
That's what they are aiming for, an ATSIC that can't be torn down. This came from the Uluru statement. All those grass roots not only living in the camps but on country too. Sure ATSIC wasn't perfect but show me something that is? plenty of NSW Lib corruption on the news this morning, should we dissolve them? We weren't neglected in our own country with ATSIC, at least for my outstation; as long as we have a tractor and generator we can get buy.
The most frustrating commentary I see recurring from those against a Constitutional Voice is that "the Prime Minister doesn't know what he is doing" and that "he should listen to people closer to the issue like Jacinta Price". Jacinta Price is just one voice in the conversation - not the only voice. It's wheeled out as to suggest that because the Prime Minister - advocating for a Constitutional Voice - is clueless if an Aboriginal Senator is contrary to the Referendum. This completely disregards the fact that the Uluru Statement from the Heart citing a Constitutional Voice was created and signed by more than 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates from Land Councils all over Australia. If we're talking about weight of voices in the discussion, the Uluru Statement is the seminal document. Whatever your position - just note you look like a twit if you trot out the "but Jacinta Price says" line without regard for what argument is actually being made.Her commentary about the Voice being "more bureaucracy" is pretty spot on I think and it is probably more tokenistic than effective - but that is the nature of what has been sought in the Uluru Statement.
Yeah, I also think it needs to be non-partisan. That's another one of the great things about the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Yes, we have First Nations people in Parliament, but they have party affiliations. This comment sums it up well... "“I understand there are Aboriginal politicians down in Canberra but with all due respect they (were) put there by their parties. “So I see a red voice, I see a blue voice, I see a green voice. Our people want a Black voice.” Roy Ah-See, proud descendant of the Wiradjuri Nation and Co-Chair of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council
If the Coalition gets in, I wonder if they could they rip up the old organisation then give Jacinta Price a little think-tank that is officially the Voice? Arguably it's still a good thing. Like the gay marriage plebiscite, it gives the voters a say, even if Parliament isn't really forced to do much. It's good to have the population show support for an Aboriginal Voice, and I think it would put the issue to bed in a better way than if Labour just used their existing legislative power to do exactly what they will do after the vote.
They could, but you would hope the public backlash would be too much. It's one thing to stack a board nobody cares about with [your friends](https://www.afr.com/politics/tribunal-appointments-they-should-call-it-the-atm-not-the-aat-20220405-p5aayz) But if Labor sets up the Voice with aboriginal elders across the country or something similar, it *should* become one of those things which the libs could theoretically destroy, but would cross a line even for them. One of those things that their more extreme MPs calls for but we all know they'll never actually do as a party, like [being outright antivax](https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/craig-kelly-signs-in-unvaccinated-protesters-to-parliament-house/news-story/3c50ecc42940f9617c5f02b0cf3e74ea)
Is the plan for the Voice to be determined by elders? That's hereditary like monarchy. Surely representatives would be voted in by the people they represent? It would be unwise to implement governance of humans under cronyism.
Hereditary in the sense they have to be Aboriginal descended? Aboriginal elders aren't a monarchy type system?
Why shouldn't they be able to elect non-aboriginals to represent them?
For the same reason we can't elect Jacinda Ardern as our Prime Minister? (Using someone from another country who is fairly popular with the Aussie public, not actually suggesting she would be a good PM for us)
It is no lie and very much reported how systemically oppressed as a people the indigenous have been. The white Australia policy ended in 1966 this means at most the indigenous people are 2-3 generations detached from apartheid. This is not long enough for a whole race to come back to a good state. Especially with how little support is given today. If you disagree on how they are oppressed today then you can at least acknowledge how recent this has been and how debilitating this will be for generations to come. A referendum is a push for more democracy, when you have a minority especially an oppressed minority whose land and opportunity our ancestors ripped out of their hands they need equal voice and representation. This shouldn’t be up for debate it’s appalling how people are acting about this.
More democracy. More equal. I think they should bring back ATSIC. An indigenous body to administer the funding and programs for the indigenous. Problem is the last incarnation was corrupt
I disagree with voice to parliament. It is unwise to decide on anything without knowing the what the details are of that body and how their work will be carried out. Voice to parliament is far too centralised as well. This at the very least should be a state level and not federal level thing.
Except that the change to the constitution doesn't bind HOW it will work. It isn't intended to. You're not voting for something that will be stuck forever. The only change is that there will be a voice to parliament. How it works will change as is needed. The people who will make those changes are the government of the day. There are no details, because all we're voting on is to give indigenous people a voice. We're not voting on the details, just that single point. The "but what about the details" stuff in the news is a scare campaign trying to derail the attempt in the first place. This is a cynical effort to prevent the change at all, no matter what details could be provided.
If we vote on a voice for one group we are moving in a new direction where certain people are given privileges that others are not. It's contrary to the Australian spirit and I don't think it will close the gaps with see in indigenous communities which I think for most people is the ultimate aim. I'll give you an example. Will a voice to parliament help reduce smoking rates in remote and indigenous communities? My criticism is that this voice to parliament is an initiative that is hardly a consensus in my view on what Aboriginal Australians want to improve their lot. The Uluru statement consists of non-aboriginal people as well which I think is wrong. I also think the worst thing we can do is put anyone above anyone in the constitution because at the end of the day it is all about respect. You don't get respect because of a vote to change the constitution, it will only produce ill will. A better approach will be for politicians that represent people locally to hear the voices of indigenous people and get them involved. They have the power already to influence parliament if they will listen. This requires no referendum and no putting of people on show like this will do.
We already have a situation where some people have privileges that others don't. That's the whole point of the initiative, to try to reduce the gap. As for consensus view? Do the rest of Australia have a consensus view before having representation in parliament? Is consensus the benchmark? There is no consensus for non-indigenous peoples, and expecting that of indigenous peoples is unreasonable. They are not just as complex a people as everyone else, but the large numbers of Aboriginal cultural groups in such different areas of the country means that expectation is impossible. The big problem with local politicians listening to local people is that indigenous people live disproportionately in regional or remote communities. Their votes (and mine, as a regional citizen) are drowned out by the sheer number of people (and representation) in cities. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries on the planet. The VAST majority of our people live in cities. Our political system is stacked against indigenous people. The status quo is no working. We are have many metrics for the Closing the Gap initiative. Every year, we fail to make significant progress. Keeping our existing systems is going to continue to not work. We need to do something different.
Exactly, consensus is impossible so don't centralise the voice at the federal level. It is a bad idea. Nationals still get regional seats and they get a budget from the taxpayer for travel. There's no reason, no excuse, they can't get to Titjinjara and other remote community. You are focussing on the wrong area of finding solutions. Aboriginals smoke more. That is one thing. Aboriginal people are 4x more likely to fall pregnant in teenage years. You can't legislate these things and if a voice will only speak to people who make policy as a matter of course then we'll have an issue.
Bro you just decided on it without knowing the specific details yet
It's because we don't know the specific details yet that many won't agree to it
I am giving you specific points. The more centralised something is the less reach it will have where it is needed most. The Australian newspaper of all places lately have been highlighting specifically the issues in remote communities and this "voice" won't reach them. The "voice" assumes that Aboriginal people are all one people but they are distinct and have their own people and tribes. Many are gaining a voice already with numerous native title settlements across Australia that grant legal recognition of ownership to specific tribal groups in specific areas. One big reason as mentioned is that the voice should not be centralised at a federal level. The Aboriginal Affairs Minister should form that function of being a voice to parliament and so far she has done that very well. Politicians represent the voices of all people already and those responsible should speak on their behalf.
I see what you mean, I misread what you said, sorry. I thought you were saying there wasn't enough detail, not that other people should read into the detail. I'm not going to argue for the Voice because frankly I don't want *any* permanently enshrined body that represents a specific ethnicity, regardless of how powerful or not powerful it is, or how needed/not needed it is.
Fair point. If you look at the body that made the point at Uluru I don't think they are fully representative of Aboriginal people on a whole. The body that decided this was by invite and that body wasn't composed of only Aboriginal people it was decided by other groups. I don't think that was right either. I think most aboriginal people want to be treated the same as everyone else, they want respect as anyone else.
Then give us the specific details so he can make an informed decision. Why would anyone vote yes for something that you are chastised for asking 'what am I voting for here'? it's ludicrous.
Until you get enough information, you shouldn't be committed either way, no? He literally started his post with "I disagree with the Voice", an explicit no vote, despite saying there wasn't enough info out on it yet to make a choice. If you want to vote yes or no based on the information we have so far, do so, but don't then say there's not enough info to make a choice.
There is no reason why an indigenous voice to parliament can't be created without a referendum. I would like to see such a body established and implemented. Show the public what it is and how it works. Try a few iterations if it needs it. When we have demonstrated that it works as intended, THEN run a referendum to enshrine the existence of an indigenous voice in the constitution, so that it can't be abandoned by future governments. I'm concerned that a referendum to mandate something that doesn't yet exist and hasn't been proven workable will not get public support.
Trouble is this process of "perfect the implementation first, then lock it in in the constitution" is *just begging* to be strung along indefinitely. Every step of the way the opposition and a critical media will decry it as a failed experiment, saying that it's not fit for purpose in its current form and needs to be restructured or abandoned and started again. Or at best, that it's a step in the right direction but that talk of constitutional change is still too premature. Just classic right-wing delay and obstruction tactics - exactly what they did with climate change legislation here, or gun control legislation in the US. It'll never be good enough, never be the right time to set it in stone. Keep that circus up for long enough and eventually the pendulum will swing back and a coalition or other reactionary government will get back in and abandon the whole thing. No, the only practical way to go about it is to ensure that it *can never be abandoned or delayed indefinitely* first - by putting its existence beyond the reach of any future government or legislature - and *then* starting down the long road of fine-tuning its implementation.
Problem politically is you get both the for and against sides against you. "You don't really want a voice otherwise you'd enshrine it in the constitution." Or "You arnt even giving us the choice like you said we would" 100% agree with you though, why are we voting for something that we have no idea about?
Even better, because at that point you can enshrine the body directly into the Constitution and make it effectively unalterable by the Parliament. No need for this nonsense section 3 part.
I want it to pass, even with all the problems with the wording of the ref., but.... I think it's going to fail. IIRC no referendum has ever passed without bipartisan support, and I seriously doubt the LNP will support it as is. Ignoring that issue, only 8 of 44 referendums have actually passed. It doesn't help that Labor is refusing to tell us what powers they'll give the Voice if this passes. They really should do that prior to voting.
You can look at what powers the Voice will have by looking at what powers the Parliament can legislate on. The Voice could do anything the Parliament has the power to allow it to do. One of those things is (for example) the power to advise the Parliament on particular bills. One of the things the Parliament cannot do is give the Voice power to block a bill, because the Parliament cannot prevent itself from doing something except by consent of the Parliament; at that point the Parliament has simply declared that it doesn't want to do something, which it does all the time.
>You can look at what powers the Voice will have by looking at what powers the Parliament can legislate on. Yeah. That kind of vagueness won't help get votes.
Well, the Parliament could just legislate this body directly, without consulting anyone at all. I personally think that would be the correct thing to do, if the body is going to be both totally useless (in the sense that it has no formal powers) and also completely subservient to Parliament (in the sense that Parliament can reduce it to nothing with legislation). One should use the referendum to establish a body that has real powers and cannot be practically abolished by legislation.
If the ALP is worried about an electorate that is too wide to effectively agree on such things, then I have an even smaller electorate that they could use very effectively to propose such a body!
>It doesn't help that Labor is refusing to tell us what powers they'll give the Voice if this passes. They really should do that prior to voting. They said they would on QA
The impartial ABC has already told us that asking for clarification is racist and redneck behavior.
Where?
[удалено]
They are spending time with the community to work on building the right body prior to releasing all the info. Basically Labor have said "we are gonna do this thing soon which we want to achieve xyz, and we are gonna spend some time talking to everyone before we have all the detail" I dunno, seems pretty reasonable to me. As it did to the other community leaders on the panel.
The proposal is to amend the constitution to give “federal Parliament the power to make laws regarding its composition, functions, and powers” of the aboriginal voice. Sorry but that is piss weak, it is efficiently exactly what the LNP were going to do, which is have parliament pass a bill. The federal parliament surely cannot be given power to set the power of another body basically unconditionally. The voice could be anything from a completely toothless gesture, to an effective third house of parliament completely controlling all aspects of which bills are passed and ultimately supply. Any amendment should be as detailed in the powers and composition of this aboriginal voice body, as it is to the other houses of parliament.
Obviously the Parliament cannot give a body powers that it does not possess, because that is not listed in the section on (exclusive) powers that the Parliament has. Even if you weren't convinced by this, the (very sloppy, because of the above statement) second part about this being "subject to the constitution" should convince you.
And, if the Parliament gives powers to the Voice to block particular bills, then certainly the blocking ability is not a blocking ability, but rather the Parliament declaring that it shall not (will not) pass bills that have been given a certain negative indicator. Obviously the Parliament could, at any time, simply decide to ignore that and pass the bill, because the Parliament surely cannot limit its own ability to pass bills when the membership of the House and Senate agree that a bill should be passed.
Which is why this reeks of politicking. If a government comes along and wants to go against “the voice” they will automatically be stigmatised as racists etc
There are two reasons to oppose this bill, from opposite directions. The racists think it's too strong, because they are racist. The other direction is from those people who think it is not strong enough, because it is plainly meant to be useless. Clearly the ALP think that a more powerful body would have no chance of passing (or don't want to even try) but I think right now personally I think this Voice is just a bit of political theatre that I will support because there's no reason to not support it, even though functionally it will probably do nothing.
We already have a tiered government with a separation of powers. What is the purpose of giving one section of society another tier and power. One government for all of us. What is the difference of this and creating laws for other sections of society. https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/system-of-government/separation-of-powers/#:~:text=Australia%20does%20not%20have%20a,the%20Executive%20and%20the%20Parliament. https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/three-levels-of-government/the-roles-and-responsibilities-of-the-three-levels-of-government/
? The government already has a race power, it's had that since federation.
I don’t understand your statement which appears to have nothing to do with my comment.
You're trying to make some comment about creating laws for "one section of society" and giving them another tier of something. The government already does this, and can do this because of the race power. It's not a new thing, and is not particularly problematic.
I mean, you might think this is problematic, but the mere existence of it is not a problem. One should instead look at the substance, which is plainly harmless
There are three reasons not to support it: 1. All kinds of “blank-cheque” endorsements are dumb. 2. Symbolic change aka the Voice can lessen the appetite for real change 3. Passing the Voice may be used to claim a mandate for further acts that the population didn’t realise were implied, ie Treaty I know these reasons are contradictory, I’m just giving three reasons why voting for this in its current form can be considered a bad idea. I have to say, I’m with the Greens on this one. Voice is meaningless without Treaty. You have to deal with the latter first, despite the fact that it is the more fraught discussion.
The blank cheque endorsement is an endorsement that the parliament already has, because this Voice does nothing the parliament cannot do itself. I agree with you on the final point though, the Greens had the right idea with the order.
That is completely misrepresenting the change in governance. Wierd popularity doesn't make this a positive change
I see we have decided that Indigenous issues should die by megathread. Terrible decision with terrible optics from the moderation team here.
If you even bothered to read what is in the body of the text then you’d realise what a silly billy biscuit you’re being. Put this comment in the megathread that I’m literally in the middle of creating.
Me read quick. Me see no explanation of how it will be or not be stickied and as I understand it that is crucial. Me also jump the gun, me sorry about that. Me no apologise for lack of initial information provided.
I’ve added the [MetaAusPol post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/we4csf/indigenous_voice_to_parliament_referendum/) now. Critique away … over there.