The Voice

[mullokintyre]

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.

Well Bas, you were the one who posted the link to Albos proposed draft, which is all we have.
In the context of the draft suggestion, that draft. distinctly says Powers.

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.

Well if that is the case, why does it need to be in the constitution at all?
Parliament can make as many laws and rules as it likes, without having it enshrined in the constitution.
If parliament can make laws, another Parliament can "un make" them if things go pear shaped.
Once it is in the constitution, you have to have another referendum to unmake them.

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.

Well first of all, you have to establish whether the rest of Australia wants to sign a treaty with the Aboriginal community.
That question has never been put to the non Aborignal Australian people.
Technically, a treaty is signed between nations. There was no Aborignal Nation, there were multiple Tribal groups with out any overiding National entity. There is a reason they are referred to as First Nations, plural.
I am happy for money to spent attempting to improve their health, their education, their housing, or their cultural pursuits.

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 ?

There are already sections of this land under the control of First nations groups that I cannot enter at all, or unless I have a permit.
The land rights debate has already been won and lost, with Mabo and many other High Court decisions. We do not need another layer of intervention.
Mick

 

[basilio]

Well Bas, you were the one who posted the link to Albos proposed draft, which is all we have.

Fair point. It does seems as if most posters on this thread aren't aware of the background and intentions of the proposal.
There was a good exposition made in August when Albo opened the conversation. This has been updated below. If anyone else has found another discussion that adds to the understanding of what is proposed post it.

What is the Indigenous voice to parliament and how would it work?​

Explainer: Here’s what we know so far about how the Albanese government hopes to enshrine an Indigenous voice in the constitution via a referendum

• This is an updated version of an explainer first published in August 2022
• The Albanese government has put forward a preferred form of words to insert into the constitution to enshrine an Indigenous voice to parliament, which would be voted on in a referendum.
  
  Here’s what we know so far.
  
  

  CONTENTS
  What has happened already?
  What is the voice and how would it work?
  How would it be structured?
  How would local and regional voices feed in?
  What would a voice not do?
  How would disputes be resolved?

  
  

  What has happened already?​

  
  The Albanese government has put forward a simple question for us all to vote on.
  
  
  
  What is an Indigenous treaty and how would it work in Australia?
  
  Read more
  “We should consider asking our fellow Australians something as simple as: ‘Do you support an alteration to the constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice?’” Anthony Albanese said in July during a landmark speech at the Garma festival in Arnhem Land.
  
  He also suggested three sentences be added to the constitution:
  • There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.
  • It may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
  • The parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.
  The government has promised a public education campaign ahead of the referendum, to answer the most commonly asked questions. But the prime minister and many others have said there is “already an extraordinary level of detail out there from the work that Marcia Langton and Tom Calma did”.
  
  The Indigenous voice co-design report was produced by professors Langton and Calma, who led a group appointed by the former Indigenous minister Ken Wyatt as part of a 2019 election promise to develop options for an Indigenous voice.
  
  Their report was the result of 18 months’ worth of consultation with 9,478 people and organisations, including 115 community consultations in 67 locations, 2,978 submissions, 1,127 surveys, 124 stakeholder meetings and 13 webinars.
  
  The government has also introduced reforms to the Referendum Machinery Act, which it said will bring the process into line with the electoral laws governing federal elections. The reforms will also include donation disclosure rules, and public funding for campaigns to mitigate misinformation around the voice and referendum process.
  
  
  

  What is the Indigenous voice to parliament, how would it work, and what happens next?

  Here’s what we know so far about how the Albanese government hopes to enshrine an Indigenous voice in the constitution via a referendum

  www.theguardian.com
  
  
  

 

[basilio]

Other current political perspectives on The Voice proposal

Why do the Nationals oppose the Indigenous voice and do their arguments stand up to scrutiny?

David Littleproud says the move would add more bureaucracy while Uluru campaigners believe it would mean practical improvements to lives

www.theguardian.com

Matt Kean urges federal Liberals to support Indigenous voice to parliament

NSW treasurer says referendum is an ‘opportunity to unite the nation’ and the party’s backing would ensure broad support for yes vote

www.theguardian.com

 

[basilio]

Other current political perspectives on The Voice proposal

Why do the Nationals oppose the Indigenous voice and do their arguments stand up to scrutiny?

David Littleproud says the move would add more bureaucracy while Uluru campaigners believe it would mean practical improvements to lives

www.theguardian.com

Matt Kean urges federal Liberals to support Indigenous voice to parliament

NSW treasurer says referendum is an ‘opportunity to unite the nation’ and the party’s backing would ensure broad support for yes vote

www.theguardian.com

 

[mullokintyre]

Fair point. It does seems as if most posters on this thread aren't aware of the background and intentions of the proposal.
There was a good exposition made in August when Albo opened the conversation. This has been updated below. If anyone else has found another discussion that adds to the understanding of what is proposed post it.

What is the Indigenous voice to parliament and how would it work?​

Explainer: Here’s what we know so far about how the Albanese government hopes to enshrine an Indigenous voice in the constitution via a referendum

• This is an updated version of an explainer first published in August 2022
• The Albanese government has put forward a preferred form of words to insert into the constitution to enshrine an Indigenous voice to parliament, which would be voted on in a referendum.
  
  Here’s what we know so far.
  
  

  CONTENTS
  What has happened already?
  What is the voice and how would it work?
  How would it be structured?
  How would local and regional voices feed in?
  What would a voice not do?
  How would disputes be resolved?

  
  

  What has happened already?​

  
  The Albanese government has put forward a simple question for us all to vote on.
  
  
  View attachment 150361
  What is an Indigenous treaty and how would it work in Australia?
  
  Read more
  “We should consider asking our fellow Australians something as simple as: ‘Do you support an alteration to the constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice?’” Anthony Albanese said in July during a landmark speech at the Garma festival in Arnhem Land.

As the government found in the last referendum on the republic, putting up a simple idea as to whether something is 'wanted', without explaining how that wanted thing is going to work, is doomed to failure.

• 
  
  He also suggested three sentences be added to the constitution:
  • There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.
  • It may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
  • The parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice.
  The government has promised a public education campaign ahead of the referendum, to answer the most commonly asked questions. But the prime minister and many others have said there is “already an extraordinary level of detail out there from the work that Marcia Langton and Tom Calma did”.
  
  The Indigenous voice co-design report was produced by professors Langton and Calma, who led a group appointed by the former Indigenous minister Ken Wyatt as part of a 2019 election promise to develop options for an Indigenous voice.
  
  Their report was the result of 18 months’ worth of consultation with 9,478 people and organisations, including 115 community consultations in 67 locations, 2,978 submissions, 1,127 surveys, 124 stakeholder meetings and 13 webinars.
  
  The government has also introduced reforms to the Referendum Machinery Act, which it said will bring the process into line with the electoral laws governing federal elections. The reforms will also include donation disclosure rules, and public funding for campaigns to mitigate misinformation around the voice and referendum process.
  
  
  

  What is the Indigenous voice to parliament, how would it work, and what happens next?

  Here’s what we know so far about how the Albanese government hopes to enshrine an Indigenous voice in the constitution via a referendum

  www.theguardian.com
  
  
  

I really don't see how one can take any credence at all from the above article.
It purports to know how the legislation mighrt work, without seeing anything other than a vague statement.
Its about as useful as something put up by the nationals as to how the legislation might fail.
i will not vote for any changes to the constitution, until i have seen the prosed legislation, and seen some analysis of the potential outcomes, both good and bad.
Mick

 

[basilio]

As the government found in the last referendum on the republic, putting up a simple idea as to whether something is 'wanted', without explaining how that wanted thing is going to work, is doomed to failure.

I really don't see how one can take any credence at all from the above article.
It purports to know how the legislation mighrt work, without seeing anything other than a vague statement.
Its about as useful as something put up by the nationals as to how the legislation might fail.
i will not vote for any changes to the constitution, until i have seen the prosed legislation, and seen some analysis of the potential outcomes, both good and bad.
Mick

Actually the article went at length to outline how The Voice would work, the areas it would address, the structures proposed across teh country, what it wouldn't be able to do and how any (inevitable) disputes would be resolved.

I posted it to show there is a substantial body of work behind the proposal. Most posters had no idea what the idea behind The Voice was about or the discussions and thinking about how it might work. It was a proposal that was started by the previous Government and the then Indigenous Affairs Minister.

 

[mullokintyre]

Actually the article went at length to outline how The Voice would work, the areas it would address, the structures proposed across teh country, what it wouldn't be able to do and how any (inevitable) disputes would be resolved.

I posted it to show there is a substantial body of work behind the proposal. Most posters had no idea what the idea behind The Voice was about or the discussions and thinking about how it might work. It was a proposal that was started by the previous Government and the then Indigenous Affairs Minister.

No the article showed how it COULD work, not how it WOULD work.
We have no legislation before us, we have no law precedents, and we don't know how far activists will try to push the concept.
Mick

 

[basilio]

No the article showed how it COULD work, not how it WOULD work.

Correct. And you will be equally correct even when the actual legislation is produced.

There are no guarantees about how a new program will work. The only safe way is to do absolutely nothing because that way nothing bad can happen. In fact nothing at all will happen.

 

[macca]

The point that is ignored in all the articles is that we have had numerous agencies over quite a few years pouring billions of dollars into the ATSIC area.

The voice will simply be Another group of city based people telling country based people how they should live their lives.

Unfortunately, city folk have got NFI what it is like to live out there and the reason we have had no success in helping them is that so many of the troublemakers are quite happy with their lifestyle and have no wish to change.

We go out there and apply our standards to them, "isn't that terrible that they live like that" but that is how some of them wish to live. This group of people then make life very difficult for everyone else.

As an example, recently in Fitzroy Crossing WA the rock throwing by children, at vehicles on the highway through town got so bad, that the Police were stopping traffic on the edge of town, forming them into a convoy and escorting the vehicles through town.

What sort of message is that ? FC used to be a pile of junk then a new group took over the Land Council and over a few years did a wonderful job, they built a new Tourist info centre, a new servo, a new supermarket and had rangers patrolling the town to keep everyone safe.

I have not been there for a few years because of Covid but when it makes the ABC news about how unsafe it is would I go back ?

 

[sptrawler]

As you say @macca it isn't as though avenues haven't been tried, from stolen generations to self managed businesses, another level of bureaucracy historically ends up being another level poorly managed operations, that takes years to uncover and expose due to bureaucratic tape..
Maybe this time will be different, I personally doubt it, how much money has already been thrown at the issue for no net improvement at the cliff face.
I personally think the Aboriginal issue should be decentralised away from Canberra, to a State level, as each State has different issues and different resources at their disposal to deal with it.
In W.A where mining is a big employer, companies should be required to employ and train aboriginal kids, as companies like FMG are doing.
That isn't practical in somewhere like Tasmania, but the State Government there has many national parks and tourism based employment, where a native component could be started and developed to open up employment opportunities.

As I said, I think the more centralised the management, development and control of the issue, the poorer the outcome will be.
I don't think telling people that they require a special place in the constitution, because they are different, actually furthers their expectations. IMO it's just admitting you have a too hard basket and that's what we're going to call it.

They aren't special needs, they are reasonable people and some bloody good workers, who need an opportunity and some self belief.
That may require some forced affirmative action on employment, not to be told you need to be treated and classed differently from every other Australian, god knows how that is going to have a positive effect, more likely just the opposite IMO.
My personal preference would be to do similar to Canada and New Zealand, apologies and pay compensation, over complicating it will just make matters worse IMO.
Time will tell.
https://www.fmgl.com.au/in-the-news/media-releases/2022/10/28/fortescue's-first-nations-employment-program-marks-15-years-of-creating-jobs.

New Zealand to pay colonial compensation

Kiwis wrap up three-decade long process to pay hundreds of millions to indigenous peoples for colonial injustice.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[SirRumpole]

My personal preference would be to do similar to Canada and New Zealand, apologies and pay compensation, over complicating it will just make matters worse IMO.

This has already been done. Rudd apologised and compensation was paid for 'stolen generations'.

You are right about overcomplicating things. The Voice could become a gigantic red tape machine if its not carefully handled.

 

[basilio]

This has already been done. Rudd apologised and compensation was paid for 'stolen generations'.

You are right about overcomplicating things. The Voice could become a gigantic red tape machine if its not carefully handled.

Certainly possible. For years Governments of all persuasions have talked and "thrown money" at fixing up indigenous people issues. I don't believe there is any simple answer to what is happening.

There are many thousands of indigenous people who are living good lives in the community and being as constructive a citizen as anyone else. Who are they and where are the ? Apart from more noticeable high profile people we probably wouldn't be aware of them because they are just living quiet everyday lives.

There are many thousands of indigenous people living shattered lives. It's easier to see them because the conditions they create and live in are obvious and appalling. Just throwing money at the issue is not going to solve the problem. In fact in some cases I think it would worsen the issue. I'd like to think, in determined hope, that a thoughtful constructive group of indigenous representatives in The Voice come up with ideas and implementation strategies that use current funds effectively and improve the lives of the indigenous communities they represent.

I can't imagine this will happen easily or quickly. I reckon many, many lives have been damaged irrevocably by drugs, alcohol and desperate living conditions. There won't be easy cookie cutter solutions. But doing nothing ? Or just repeating the same programs which havn't worked or have been rorted ?

 

[SirRumpole]

I'd like to think, in determined hope, that a thoughtful constructive group of indigenous representatives in The Voice come up with ideas and implementation strategies that use current funds effectively and improve the lives of the indigenous communities they represent.

I think you are correct, but they don't need a Constitutional guarantee to do it, just the will to be involved.

 

[basilio]

I think you are correct, but they don't need a Constitutional guarantee to do it, just the will to be involved.

Really ? The structures that are set up to ensure appropriate representaion are complex. They have to be. The concept of giving indigenous people a real voice to Parliament and being recognised in the Constitution is a way of saying we want this Voice to stay alive beyond the government of the day.

I think a decent structure is necessary to give The Voice project an opportunity to be effective. Lets give it a go.

 

[sptrawler]

I was wondering, if all human life originated from Africa, should Africans have a voice to paliament as well? It might well save having the same issue re surface at a later date.
Well realistically if Africa was the cradle of civilisation, they can lay the same claim on every country can't they?

 

[farmerge]

It has come to my attention that the @Garpal Gumnut post about the voice in Australian Politics was not aimed at a certain low grade talent show on Channel 7, but indeed relates to the concept of there being a separate voice to parliament that is representing First nations people.
Hence, I think we should have a new thread to discuss it.
I should point out that initial readings suggest that those who oppose the concept, are obviously racist white supremacists lacking in moral and ethical thinking.
Notwithstanding that, I can see one problem already.
Invoking the mathematical set theory premise, who will determine which members of the superset Australian residents will constitute the subset of people who can be counted as first nations people?

Mick

Would have thought that the so-called 1st people of this country had a pretty good representation in Parliament already.
Statistically, probably over represented.

 

[sptrawler]

Would have thought that the so-called 1st people of this country had a pretty good representation in Parliament already.
Statistically, probably over represented.

Whether they have a direct representation in Parliament, they have a very large representation in the media, at every public event and in most forms of acknowledgement that can be given.
I cant think of any other sector of the community that gets more recognition.

 

[farmerge]

Whether they have a direct representation in Parliament, they have a very large representation in the media, at every public event and in most forms of acknowledgement that can be given.
I cant think of any other sector of the community that gets more recognition.

I want to know how I can board the 1st Peoples gravy train. I can advise on sacred sites etc like the Swan and Emu Breweries for instance

 

[SirRumpole]

Would have thought that the so-called 1st people of this country had a pretty good representation in Parliament already.
Statistically, probably over represented.

The way is open for them to form their own political party and see how many votes they can get instead of expecting others to do it all for them.

 

[farmerge]

The way is open for them to form their own political party and see how many votes they can get instead of expecting others to do it all for them.

Would have thought that most would be too busy doing anti social things. The cargo cult is their way of life and we are the mugs that support it