The Voice

[JohnDe]

Pretty much my concern -

​

A proper Indigenous voice may benefit Australia, but Anthony Albanese’s unseriousness and dissembling have likely ruined this attempt. Before starting again, hopefully he sought advice on Wednesday from New Zealand​

​

The courts also have helped Maori aspirations, simply by applying ordinary statute and common law. It’s not one-way. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Maori claims the government couldn’t sell minority stakes in state-owned hydro-electricity generators.​

​

70 per cent of Kiwis considered the treaty a living document relevant to most government decision-making, or at least New Zealand’s founding document demanding historic injustices be resolved and Maori interests protected. Just 20 per cent rejected it as a historic irrelevance. ​

​

Albanese’s handling of his voice proposal, especially if passed narrowly, makes such legitimacy unattainable. Unlike the Maori seats, the voice lacks 156 years of prescription. Unlike MPs for those seats, the voice will remain separate from the existing system. Neither will it have quasi-judicial status like the Waitangi Tribunal.​

​

Unlike the Maori Council, Albanese’s proposal is top-down, launching a peak organisation before saying exactly who it is for, how urban and remote Aboriginal voices will be balanced and how representatives will be appointed. Existing Indigenous processes should be used, but voters deserve those details in advance.​

​

Worse, Albanese is disingenuous when he claims the voice won’t evolve into something like the 2017 Uluru Statement’s Makarrata Commission, including a truth and reconciliation process, treaties and reparations, plus unforeseeable change.​

​

Conversations are about parties reaching new and unimagined destinations, and a voice will slowly change Australia and its state.​

​

Evolution will be across decades but Indigenous Australians, even more than Maori, take a long-term perspective. Managed respectfully and cautiously, Australia will change at the pace the majority accepts. Otherwise, what’s the point?​

Maori experience offers crucial lessons on ‘top down’ Indigenous voice to parliament model

A proper Indigenous voice may benefit Australia, but Anthony Albanese’s unseriousness and dissembling have likely ruined this attempt. Before starting again, hopefully he sought advice on Wednesday from New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins.

Don’t confuse reports of so-called Maorification with New Zealand’s half-century of reconciliation with Maori tribes. The former is usually virtue signalling by inner-city white liberals. The serious business of resolving historic injustices, including land theft, and recognising contemporary Maori property rights has near-universal political and public support.

If the Australian Prime Minister is serious, bipartisanship is mandatory. For New Zealanders, it’s inexplicable he has turned Australians off.

Maori have had a guaranteed voice in New Zealand’s parliament since 1867, choosing between voting in Maori or general electorates. The Maori seats initially addressed the problem of Maori land being collectively owned under a property-based franchise. Mostly held by Labour, the seats historically helped National by removing a chunk of Labour voters from general rolls. Under proportional representation, they assure Maori representation without affecting which major party governs.

National periodically calls for their abolition, but half-heartedly. New Zealand’s constitution is unwritten but, after 156 years, it surely includes the Maori seats. The consensus is they’ll remain until Maori say otherwise. Similarly voice-like is New Zealand’s Maori Council, legislated for by National in 1962 with Labour’s support.

With 48 members, it’s the peak organisation for 16 district Maori councils and 120-plus Maori committees, seeking and then voicing consensus to the government and courts. In 1975, Labour established the quasi-judicial Waitangi Tribunal to examine contemporary breaches of 1840s Treaty of Waitangi, with National’s support.

Ten years later, Labour allowed the tribunal to consider injustices back to 1840. National was opposed, with a then-youthful National MP, Winston Peters, leading its attack. Yet National kept the 1840 rule and outperforms Labour in settling claims.

The courts also have helped Maori aspirations, simply by applying ordinary statute and common law. It’s not one-way. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Maori claims the government couldn’t sell minority stakes in state-owned hydro-electricity generators.

Judicial decisions have been accepted by Maori litigants, the public and National and Labour governments. Wobbliest was Helen Clark, who legislated to overrule a unanimous 2003 Court of Appeal judgment that tribes could explore residual property rights in the foreshore and seabed. John Key reversed Clark’s disgrace, respecting ancient English common law.

Fears white New Zealanders would be banned from beaches never materialised. The shemozzle is mostly forgotten.

More than 50 historic claims have been resolved, mostly by National but all with bipartisan support. Most tribes invested settlement funds wisely, becoming major economic players. The few that invested poorly accepted responsibility.

More important are formal apologies and the return of stolen land, if still government owned. Private land, even if originally stolen, is off limits. Some tribes have had land returned by the government, only to immediately give it back for all New Zealanders. The return was enough to settle the historic hurt.

Even among Kiwis irritated by things such as television weather reports using Maori rather than English placenames, most support the reconciliation process.

Polling by Talbot Mills suggested in May that more than 70 per cent of Kiwis considered the treaty a living document relevant to most government decision-making, or at least New Zealand’s founding document demanding historic injustices be resolved and Maori interests protected. Just 20 per cent rejected it as a historic irrelevance. Albanese’s handling of his voice proposal, especially if passed narrowly, makes such legitimacy unattainable. Unlike the Maori seats, the voice lacks 156 years of prescription. Unlike MPs for those seats, the voice will remain separate from the existing system. Neither will it have quasi-judicial status like the Waitangi Tribunal.

Unlike the Maori Council, Albanese’s proposal is top-down, launching a peak organisation before saying exactly who it is for, how urban and remote Aboriginal voices will be balanced and how representatives will be appointed. Existing Indigenous processes should be used, but voters deserve those details in advance.

Insufficient legitimacy would deprive the voice’s conversations with the federal parliament of similar public acceptance to court judgments and negotiated settlements in New Zealand.

Worse, Albanese is disingenuous when he claims the voice won’t evolve into something like the 2017 Uluru Statement’s Makarrata Commission, including a truth and reconciliation process, treaties and reparations, plus unforeseeable change.

Conversations are about parties reaching new and unimagined destinations, and a voice will slowly change Australia and its state.

Evolution will be across decades but Indigenous Australians, even more than Maori, take a long-term perspective. Managed respectfully and cautiously, Australia will change at the pace the majority accepts. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Matthew Hooton is a political commentator in New Zealand who has previously worked for the National and Act parties and the mayor of Auckland.

MATTHEW HOOTON​

 

[TimeISmoney]

I do enjoy seeing people who cannot sustain an argument resort to continuous distractions and scaremongering.

It's the denialist's playbook in groundhog day.

It's not my job to do govt but it's never them that are on the receiving end, they should have brought out the treaty facts into the public forum way before all of this.

Maybe tell this bloke it's fear mongering.

 

[sptrawler]

Your point was about how explaining the Voice to indigenous people would apparently make a difference. The obvious rebuttal is that 3% of the population are almost inconsequential to the 97% that will also vote.

My point was no body could be bothered making the effort to actually go out to the communities and explain what the voice was about, yet the voting public is expected to take it seriously because it will allow those in the communities to be heard, how fkn bizarre is that talk about hypocrisy.
If you can't see how ludicrous that is, it explains your fanatical support for anything Labor, which is commendable, but some what scary

That's not how referendums work. I think you are relying on the media to warp you view of reality.

I think your fanaticism toward anything Labor or anti coalition, borders on obsession and completely destroys any objectivity on your part. So we aren't much different, I distrust most politicians and media, you believe in all things labor, your prerogative same as mine.

The process for the Voice has been going on for many years, and you have no idea how much is known. Furthermore, you are assuming that nothing is in place from the campaigners, and you would be wrong.
Aside from that, it's amusing that you believe a matter of long-standing AEC policy would be "racist" given that this policy affect everyone the same way. In other words, you are again lost in your poor comprehension skills.

As I've already stated over and over, I think there is a better way forward than changing the constitution, that IMO is a last resort.
IMO It may lead to skewed outcomes, that may well put the remote aboriginals at a huge disadvantage to the urbanised ones as there is very clear lines between them.
IMO the urbanised ones will take over the stage and drive the agenda, which will be very difficult to stop once it has to be done through the high court.

That's my opinion and I'm not a great believer in the ability of the Canberra muppet show to stop the ball rolling once it starts, as happened with the downward spiral of our education sytem, in the name of producing better outcomes.(For who is the question that should have been asked).

As I've said in the past IMO most politicians and Canberra based bureaucrats are manipulated by self interested pressure groups running their own agenda, which very seldom is what the politicians think it is, but are too smug and self opinionated to realise it.

Then by the time the agenda has arrived and is realised, it is too late to change the outcome and it takes generations to fix it. As is being proven as we speak with the education brain fart, that labor started and are currently trying to fix.
This will prove to be another massive brain fart as usual IMO, anyway I think we have done the issue to death and no one is changing their opinion.
Time will tell as usual

 

[TimeISmoney]

I'll put this here for people to further educate themselves also.

North Stradbroke Island racial segregation claims​

It is the literal line in the sand literally dividing one of Stradbroke Island’s most beloved campgrounds over allegations of racial segregation limiting access to non-Indigenous visitors.

The Blakesleys Slip area, about 10km south of Dunwich on North Stradbroke (or Minjerribah in the local Indigenous language), has been a popular camping and fishing spot for decades, but new rules from Queensland Parks and Wildlife have angered many, including a stipulation part of the site should now be reserved for exclusive use of the Quandamooka people.
Some, including former local federal MP Andrew Laming, have called the move reverse racism, while Queensland Parks and Wildlife says it is about protecting and managing the site for everyone.
Blakesley’s Slip, formed by shifting sands during sand mining in the area about 40 years ago, has been a popular – albeit unofficial, camping spot for years, but attempts to regulate overnight visitation to the area have raised tensions.

While many have accepted the introduction of camping fees and a formal booking system limiting numbers, some feel a move to divide the area into two distinct sections – one for general campers and one for the exclusive use of Quandamooka traditional owners – has crossed the line. Luke Seaborne, a local resident who has been camping and fishing at the popular spot for 30 years, has launched a petition calling on supporters to challenge the changes.
“They’re literally drawing a line in the sand and saying who can or can’t go where,” he said.
“I think we can all respect each other and learn from each other, but what they’re doing here is just plain divisive.”
The area is jointly managed by QPWS and the Quandamooka Yoolooburrabee Aboriginal Corporation, which was awarded native title rights over parts of the island several years ago.

 

[TimeISmoney]

I wonder whose voice is 'the voice' representing?

 

[IFocus]

I see the fear mongering has ramped up

 

[JohnDe]

I see the fear mongering has ramped up

Yes, on both sides. What have you and rederob been saying “Other nations won’t deal with Australia, all No votes are racist, ignorant, fear mongers, unintelligent…”

 

[TimeISmoney]

Yes, on both sides. What have you and rederob been saying “Other nations won’t deal with Australia, all No votes are racist, ignorant, feet mongers, unintelligent…”

I put the examples up to prove that it's happening because they try to deny everything, it's an actual thing that's happening and it's splitting Australia. The stupidity of this govt really amazes me, no amount of legislation is going to force people to think less emotionally.

 

[IFocus]

Yes, on both sides. What have you and rederob been saying “Other nations won’t deal with Australia, all No votes are racist, ignorant, fear mongers, unintelligent…”

The arguments being put up against are consistently fear mongering, based on falsehoods (your example above) or what ifs directly appealing to the dark side which is replicated consistently in this thread.

I don't deny its a winning strategy feeds straight into the racist that dwells within all plus is giving a free kick to the increased racist attacks on ASTI public commentators.

Its really nasty stuff such is politics carry on.

 

[wayneL]

The arguments being put up against are consistently fear mongering, based on falsehoods (your example above) or what ifs directly appealing to the dark side which is replicated consistently in this thread.

I don't deny its a winning strategy feeds straight into the racist that dwells within all plus is giving a free kick to the increased racist attacks on ASTI public commentators.

Its really nasty stuff such is politics carry on.

What a knob

 

[TimeISmoney]

The arguments being put up against are consistently fear mongering, based on falsehoods (your example above) or what ifs directly appealing to the dark side which is replicated consistently in this thread.

I don't deny its a winning strategy feeds straight into the racist that dwells within all plus is giving a free kick to the increased racist attacks on ASTI public commentators.

Its really nasty stuff such is politics carry on.

Prove that they're falsehoods, enlighten us all.

 

[Sean K]

Pat Farmer is doing a 'Run for the Voice'. He's running around Australia (for a second time for another reason - he's a sadist) to raise awareness for the Voice and ostensibly promoting it as a good thing. Today he was interviewed and asked what he had learnt from his run so far. His answer - 'no one knows the detail. Tell us what it's all about.'

 

[rederob]

My point was no body could be bothered making the effort to actually go out to the communities and explain what the voice was about,

This is completely false.
Go and do some research.

yet the voting public is expected to take it seriously because it will allow those in the communities to be heard,

You have confused a voting process with the role of agencies who would be involved if the Voice were to get up.
You have put the fart ahead of the horse.

If you can't see how ludicrous that is, it explains your fanatical support for anything Labor, which is commendable, but some what scary

I can recommend a therapist. But you sound too far gone.

I think your fanaticism toward anything Labor or anti coalition, borders on obsession and completely destroys any objectivity on your part.

I think very poorly of Albo and have zero affinity with Labor. Are you posting in the right thread. This is about the Voice... you know, a once bipartisan proposal that was flipped by the only politician in Canberra who has a track record of deliberate ignorance of ATSI issues.

So we aren't much different, I distrust most politicians and media, you believe in all things labor, your prerogative same as mine.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I take no notice of the media or politicians except to point out when they stuff up.

As I've already stated over and over, I think there is a better way forward than changing the constitution, that IMO is a last resort.

You might think that, but I know how Canberra works, and I know the Voice can make a huge difference.

IMO It may lead to skewed outcomes, that may well put the remote aboriginals at a huge disadvantage to the urbanised ones as there is very clear lines between them.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the Voice.
The Voice aims to view issues from the perspective of where they exist, and wants to remove the broad brush approach to policy. Moreover, the cultural concerns of a tribe in one area may prevent a solution to the same problem from working for another tribe. This is the "listening" that's proposed.

IMO the urbanised ones will take over the stage and drive the agenda,

Your opinion will not trump practice. The framework for the Voice does not allow that to happen. You should join @SirRumpole, @TimeISmoney and their other ill informed colleagues in the library where I can supply you all with the background material that explains what you haven't come to grips with.

which will be very difficult to stop once it has to be done through the high court.

Provide an example.

As I've said in the past IMO most politicians and Canberra based bureaucrats are manipulated by self interested pressure groups running their own agenda, which very seldom is what the politicians think it is, but are too smug and self opinionated to realise it.

Given the Voice will operate completely independently of government your opinion seems out of order.

Then by the time the agenda has arrived and is realised, it is too late to change the outcome and it takes generations to fix it. As is being proven as we speak with the education brain fart, that labor started and are currently trying to fix.

I probably can't cure your illness, but you are describing a policy framework driven by bureaucrats and assuming it will be the same as one which will be both grass roots focussed and iterative.

 

[TimeISmoney]

I can recommend a therapist. But you sound too far gone.

 

[Sean K]

Go and do some research.

You have put the fart ahead of the horse.

I can recommend a therapist. But you sound too far gone.

deliberate ignorance of ATSI issues.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I know how Canberra works.

You should join @SirRumpole, @TimeISmoney and their other ill informed colleagues in the library where I can supply you all with the background material that explains what you haven't come to grips with.

Given the Voice will operate completely independently of government your opinion seems out of order.

I probably can't cure your illness.

Oh dear.

 

[SirRumpole]

Given the Voice will operate completely independently of government your opinion seems out of order.

Anything funded by government is not independent of it.

 

[rederob]

Anything funded by government is not independent of it.

You prove yourself clueless on a regular basis.
How about the High Court as just one of hundreds of examples, but at least one you might have heard about.

 

[SirRumpole]

You prove yourself clueless on a regular basis.
How about the High Court as just one of hundreds of examples, but at least one you might have heard about.

Huh. Politicians appoint judges of their own political leanings so while there is a veneer of impartiality it's not necessarily the case.

 

[Sean K]

Albo: this is a modest change.
Albo: this is not about Treaty.

Davis:

The Uluru Statement from the Heart called for a constitutionally protected voice to parliament, treaty and truth. The reforms are listed in a sequence. The sequence is deliberate, and understanding the order is central to the message of the Uluru statement. It was based on recognition that public institutions, politicians and political parties rarely listen to what Indigenous peoples say about their lives and aspirations. Too often these bodies rewrite, reinterpret and rearrange the things that First Peoples themselves say on matters of reform.

The process was predicated on an amendment to the text of the Australian Constitution through a referendum of the Australian people. The voice to parliament is that reform. A treaty does not require constitutional amendment, nor does “truth-telling”, at least in the way treaty and truth were contemplated by those involved in the dialogues.

The voice to parliament is a structural reform. It is a change to the structure of Australia’s public institutions and would redistribute public power via the Constitution, Australia’s highest law. The reform will create an institutional relationship between governments and First Nations that will compel the state to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in policy and decision-making.

The next phase of the sequence of the Uluru reforms is a makarrata, a process of agreement-making and truth-telling. Treaty has been a long-time aspiration for Aboriginal people. Negotiating a treaty is a nation-to-nation process that requires leverage and resources. Having a voice to parliament will increase the likelihood that treaty negotiations will be productive and successful.

The voice will be an enabling mechanism for First Nations people in any treaty negotiations. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are in a poor negotiating position compared with the state. The voice would create the commission that will support First Nations in those negotiations. Without the voice, a treaty is vulnerable because of the considerable legal power of the commonwealth. State treaty processes are also particularly vulnerable, including those that are ongoing in Australia. Each runs the risk of being undermined by the commonwealth.

 

[SirRumpole]

Albo: this is a modest change.
Albo: this is not about Treaty.

Davis:

View attachment 160229

The Uluru Statement from the Heart called for a constitutionally protected voice to parliament, treaty and truth. The reforms are listed in a sequence. The sequence is deliberate, and understanding the order is central to the message of the Uluru statement. It was based on recognition that public institutions, politicians and political parties rarely listen to what Indigenous peoples say about their lives and aspirations. Too often these bodies rewrite, reinterpret and rearrange the things that First Peoples themselves say on matters of reform.

The process was predicated on an amendment to the text of the Australian Constitution through a referendum of the Australian people. The voice to parliament is that reform. A treaty does not require constitutional amendment, nor does “truth-telling”, at least in the way treaty and truth were contemplated by those involved in the dialogues.

The voice to parliament is a structural reform. It is a change to the structure of Australia’s public institutions and would redistribute public power via the Constitution, Australia’s highest law. The reform will create an institutional relationship between governments and First Nations that will compel the state to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in policy and decision-making.

The next phase of the sequence of the Uluru reforms is a makarrata, a process of agreement-making and truth-telling. Treaty has been a long-time aspiration for Aboriginal people. Negotiating a treaty is a nation-to-nation process that requires leverage and resources. Having a voice to parliament will increase the likelihood that treaty negotiations will be productive and successful.

The voice will be an enabling mechanism for First Nations people in any treaty negotiations. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are in a poor negotiating position compared with the state. The voice would create the commission that will support First Nations in those negotiations. Without the voice, a treaty is vulnerable because of the considerable legal power of the commonwealth. State treaty processes are also particularly vulnerable, including those that are ongoing in Australia. Each runs the risk of being undermined by the commonwealth.

Yes, the Voice i s a Trojan Horse.