This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Voice

Yes @wayneL I've noticed they have started referring to Jacinta Price as the Warlpiri/Celtic woman, with an emphasis on the Celtic now. ?
 
I see this type of assistance as far more important to help break the cycle of negativity and victim hood than another bunch of snouts in the trough in Canberra

Indigenous ownership​

Offering a wide variety of affordable fruit and vegetables, dairy, meat, fuel and white goods, as well as a chef and a place to sit, the Normanton supermarket had earned its name as one of the "flashest joints" in town, according to Mr Pascoe

The building has also been designed to outlast cyclones and runs on solar energy.

Ninety per cent of the employees are Indigenous and the store itself is owned equally by Aboriginal organisation Bynoe Community Advancement Cooperative Society (CACS) and the Gulf Regional Economic Aboriginal Trust (GREAT).

 

That's actually very disingenuous from Jacinta saying this "We don’t even have details on Albo’s Voice to Parliament" then condemning it.
 
That's actually very disingenuous from Jacinta saying this "We don’t even have details on Albo’s Voice to Parliament" then condemning it.
Not really, as an analogy, one can be against the idea of a republic without knowing the details of any proposal.
 
She has called herself that for as long as she's been in the media/politics.
I don't remember the commentators emphasising that, when she was first elected, whereas now it seems to be used on a more regular basis.
But I am only going from memory, so I will stand corrected, my apologies.
 
That's actually very disingenuous from Jacinta saying this "We don’t even have details on Albo’s Voice to Parliament" then condemning it.

I think she's mainly condemning the lack of detail and that it's undemocratic, which it is.

We don't really know how influential this unelected body is going to be in changing legislation to suit Aboriginal concerns on just about anything. And, how is any government going to oppose suggested changes and additions to laws to suit this body? Too many known unknowns for me.

I'd like to see how anything similar to this has gone through other governments. Not sure if Canada, US or NZ have already tried this and how it's gone.
 
I don't remember the commentators emphasising that, when she was first elected, whereas now it seems to be used on a more regular basis.
But I am only going from memory, so I will stand corrected, my apologies.

She's been popping up on Kenny fairly regularly for the past 2-3 years and she's always called herself half Celtic. You probably needed to be a Kenny watcher...
 
She's been popping up on Kenny fairly regularly for the past 2-3 years and she's always called herself half Celtic. You probably needed to be a Kenny watcher...
ARGGGH, they Killed Kenny.
(have to be a South park watcher).
Mick
 
Yes, the only Kenny I've seen, was the portable toilet bloke.

It's funny, Chris Kenny was on the panel as one of the architects of The Voice, and he loves Jacinta Price. Still gets her on to talk about it but completely disagrees with her. Kenny is pretty much the last centrist on Sky News during the day before it gets dark.
 
Oh, I don't watch Sky news, or any other news, other than some SBS. Never heard of Chris Kenny, but I do agree with your take on the voice subject, it is difficult to rubber stamp a blank piece of paper.
Also it seems counter productive to cause a deliberate division in the general population, when the goal is to assimilate, accept, integrate and be inclusive of all members of society.
Time will tell, as usual.
 
Might be worth checking out The Voice website.

I can totally understand a reflex attitude that rejects the idea of First Nation people being recognised in the Constitution as having an opportunity to formally speak to the Parliament and Executive.

Just as start from the website consider this.

0th Jul 2022

News Article

In his address to the Garma Festival on 30 July 2022, the Prime Minister, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, proposed a referendum question and constitutional amendments, as the next step in the discussion about constitutional change.

 
There are concerns that this public conversation about whether First Nation people (or other colloquialism . ) should have a direct voice to government will end up like the marriage equality plebiscite. That wasn't very edifying.

‘Toxic rhetoric’: marriage equality plebiscite offers ugly lessons for Indigenous voice to parliament referendum​

Support and self-care will be vital during the campaign, which could stir up ‘perfect storm for fear and hate’

Professor of Indigenous Studies at Macquarie University, Sandy O’Sullivan, says the 2017 marriage equality plebiscite offers some ugly lessons for the nation’s future referendum.

“It split up families, it affected people in their workplaces. There was this absolutely toxic, nasty rhetoric that we could easily see happen in exactly the same way,” the Wiradjuri person says.

They say for queer First Nations people, who have already been part of a national debate with painful homophobic and hate speech, disagreements and harmful comments take a big toll.

O’Sullivan, who has a strong online presence, was overwhelmed by the vitriol directed towards them for their stance during the same-sex marriage plebiscite.

“We were facing a whole lot of negative misinformation. All this misinformation from mostly non-Indigenous people and all this negative criticism. It was absolutely toxic. It was incessant, and it was pushing the no vote,” they say.

 
I haven't heard much about the voice at all, maybe there will be some educational advertising done to enlighten those who don't watch a lot of T.V?
As for identifying as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander,my youngest son says he does, but I don't know where he came up with the connection from.
So IMO, the first thing would have to be some way of actually identifying those who are and those who just say they are.
 
The difference is the Marriage equality bill was a simple question, whether the law should be changed to remove the words " marriage shall be between a man and a woman". It did not require any constitutional change, and was pretty much immune from judicial interpretation.
There was never any requirement for a plebiscite, the law could have been altered in the same way Howard did to create the problem in the first place.
The Voice(TM) may or may not require changes to the constitution, we do not know any details of how The Voice (TM) is to be choses, whether by vote, by appointment, or some other mechanism.l we do not know how the subset of citizens known as First nationswill be determined, and who will verify their First Nationhood.
the biggest problem I see is in the wording of the third sentence from Albo.
  1. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
This sentence gives Parliament greater powers in the makeup and execution of the voice than it gives parliament over the rest of the citizens.
Once it is enshrined in the constitution, it gives parliament unfettered powers to incrementally increase the power and infleunce of "the Voice(TM) over time, without any recourse to the constitution.
mick
 
That is a very open ended and far reaching statement IMO, who draws the line as to the amount the power the 'Voice', has over current civil laws and their application? Or could it override our current civil laws, to say something like private land ownership?
Or aren't the two connected at all and the 'Voice' is only a honourary recognition of term of residence, not of original ownership?
Interesting subject IMO.
 
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

Now the talk is about power, when we all thought it was about consultation.

Of course indigenous people should be consulted about matters that effect them (although that seems a fairly wide definition, almost all legislation affects everyone in the community), but consultation should be a normal part of government. eg if you change legislation affecting business they are consulted and sometimes consumer groups aren't.

So will the indigenous community have rights to be consulted when others don't have that right ?

We will see.
 
Well that has moved quickly. So somehow posters have taken a draft suggestion from the PM extracted the word "powers" from it shortened it to "power" (quite a different meaning in that context) and are concerned that the First Nations community will now have POWER over the country.

In the context of the draft suggestion Parliament will decide on the structure of The Voice. These are the procedural issues that need to be addressed whenever a new body is constituted.

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

Australia never signed a treaty with the Aboriginal community. We just come in, took over the country and knocked off anyone who stood in our way. I suggest this idea is meant to formally recognise the fact that Australia was originally and still is the home of the Aboriginal community and that this original community should have a legally recognised voice in the country.

The difference between the Aboriginal community and any other section of our society is the matter of prior ownership. No other group in our society can make that claim.

Is that a reasonable idea ?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...