Numerous examples can be given of policies that affect Atsi people that also affect non Atsi people. In which case Atsi people get consulted and others don't. Why can't you see that ?
Numerous examples can be given of policies that affect Atsi people that also affect non Atsi people. In which case Atsi people get consulted and others don't. Why can't you see that ?
The voice will be able to speak to all parts of the government, including the cabinet, ministers, public servants, and independent statutory offices and agencies – such as the Reserve Bank, as well as a wide array of other agencies including, to name a few, Centrelink, the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority and the Ombudsman – on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This isn’t to be feared: as the Explanatory Memorandum says, the parliament will be able to set the procedure through which the voice’s representations are received, with the important caveat that the parliament won’t be able to stop the voice making those representations. It can’t shut the voice up.
It’s important that the voice speaks not just on matters that directly, or explicitly, affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but on matters that have an indirect but significant effect on them, so as to bring about the necessary connection.
This would include environmental and climate policies and laws, which, given First Nations’ connection to land and waters, have a particular significance for them. It would include matters relating to the conduct of elections, given the under-enrolment of First Nations people in our electoral system. It would include criminal matters, given the over-representation of First Nations in our criminal justice system.
It is you who has it back to front and don't seem to have much of an idea about the Voice despite what is available to learn more.Numerous examples can be given of policies that affect Atsi people that also affect non Atsi people. In which case Atsi people get consulted and others don't. Why can't you see that ?
It is you who has it back to front and don't seem to have much of an idea about the Voice despite what is available to learn more.
And that's probably because you keep writing what you think rather than what is actually being proposed.
So unless you are talking about Acts that are specific to ATSI such as the NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993, then their inherent policies are generally broad brush and affect all citizens.
Your idea that "Atsi people get consulted and others don't" is a sad reflection of your lack of knowledge of policy making in Australia.
Then you have equally ill informed people such as @Sean K totally confusing how the Voice will operate, no doubt based on inept reporting from MSM. I repeat that the Voice is to be an independent advisory body that would be empowered to make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This does not include:
Public ServantsThe Reserve BankCentrelink, orThe Ombudsman.The crap being written about the Voice, aka "disinformation," and spread into social media is astonishing to read about.
Completely untrue. I have read and listened to most of her commentary over the past year so I don't think you know what you are talking about.Your views are out of step with people like Megan Davis....
Also untrue. You simply have failed to understand what the Voice allows - including what I have outlined by referenced links - and appear to have been sucked in by false social media attributions and poor MSM reporting.She reckons it should be able to talk about and be consulted on anything the Voice wants to be consulted on, backed with Constitutional Right to be consulted that no other lobby group has.
You need to present facts. So far all you have done is present ill-informed opinions.Ignore facts if you want to. You say you worked for ATSIC and that ended in a complete fiasco, I have no confidence that any replacement body would fare any better.
The Voice can put submissions to government in the same way as any other representative body can, they don't need to be Constitutionally enshrined.Completely untrue. I have read and listened to most of her commentary over the past year so I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Also untrue. You simply have failed to understand what the Voice allows - including what I have outlined by referenced links - and appear to have been sucked in by false social media attributions and poor MSM reporting.
For a start, it's Parliament who decides on how the Voice operates, and not the Constitution. It seems this fact has not sunk in!
Second, the Voice will be an elected body enshrined in the Constitution and not a lobby group.
Third, unlike promoting self-interests like lobby groups do, the Voice will be a body that advises on how policies can be tweaked to accommodate the specific needs of disparate ATSI groups.
You need to present facts. So far all you have done is present ill-informed opinions.
Again you, like many others, seem intent on voting "no" based on a poor understanding of the Voice and personal bias. And the thing here is that the Voice is what the ATSI people have put together themselves through a comprehensive consultative process, believing it provides them a better chance of achieving necessary changes to their circumstances that have consistently failed in the past. Little wonder first nations people remain in the poor predicament they are today!
“The parliament shall, subject to this constitution,
That is a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the Voice and overlooks the many other aspects of what is being proposed.The Voice can put submissions to government in the same way as any other representative body can, they don't need to be Constitutionally enshrined.
The Constitution only outlines what there will be.That is the fly in the ointment, the Constitution has the final say, and the High Court decides what the Constitution wants, not the politicians.
What do the words "subject to this Constitution" mean to you ?That is a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the Voice and overlooks the many other aspects of what is being proposed.
The Constitution only outlines what there will be.
The Parliament will decide how the Voice operates, which in fact means politicians (as noted above by @Knobby22) are the arbiters of the powers of the Voice, which is the opposite of your claim.
You don't have a track record of understanding much about the Voice even after being informed, and appear to remain critical of it based on wilful ignorance. That seems to be a common theme here.
I think you need to learn what it means as I know and it has nothing to do with anything you have claimed to date.What do the words "subject to this Constitution" mean to you ?
huh, simple question that you cannot answer.I think you need to learn what it means as I know and it has nothing to do with anything you have claimed to date.
If you have a point then make it clearly, rather than hide it in a sense that you do not understand.
"It will be a matter for the parliament to determine whether the executive government is under any obligation in relation to representations made by the voice,” he said.That is the fly in the ointment, the Constitution has the final say, and the High Court decides what the Constitution wants, not the politicians.
It's a question that should not be asked given the info in this thread, and publically available.huh, simple question that you cannot answer.
Your bad.
The problem is, the high court does not always follow the intent, unless one reinvents the intent."It will be a matter for the parliament to determine whether the executive government is under any obligation in relation to representations made by the voice,” he said.
This is what the High Court has to follow. The High Court has to follow the intent of the people making the Constitutional change. which is what the High Court does now. If you watch Insiders you will get a better understanding as I am probably not making it clear. there are other sentences also that also make the intent clear and the wording is carefully chosen by top constitutional lawyers.
At the time of the enactment of the constitution, the concept of Britain being a "foreign Power", would have been laughable. The majority of its inhabitants would have been of British descent, and the fact that conte,mporary inhabitants referred to britain as 'mother England' shows a level of deference to the old country. There were final appeals to the Privvy council , royal ascent for bills, etc etc.In 1999, the High Court decided the case of Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462, a case which involved a Senator who held both Australian and British citizenship at the time of her nomination. In handing down its decision, the High Court not only affirmed the decision of Sykes v Cleary, it also extended the definition of “foreign power” to include Britain. This was a significant development, because by extending the definition of “foreign power” in this way, the High Court effectively set a precedent declaring the whole of the United Kingdom to be a “foreign power” for the purposes of Section 44(i) of the Constitution.
It is the reason why I have asked on many occasions why the whole voice concept could not have been already instituted under the law, without any recourse to the constitution.
I agree, it won't. That's why he has been pushing a treaty since 2014.Ideology vs reality
And how will a treaty fix that problem?I agree, it won't. That's why he has been pushing a treaty since 2014.
Mundine calls for Indigenous treaties
The PM's key adviser on Indigenous affairs wants the federal government to negotiate a series of treaties with Indigenous groups.www.sbs.com.au
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?