The Voice

basilio · 11 April 2023

Julian Lessor has resigned from the Liberal ministry to campaign for a yes vote on The Voice.

Leeser: “I intend to campaign for a yes vote”

The Shadow Attorney General and Shadow Minister of Indigenous Affairs Julian Leeser has resigned from cabinet over the Liberal party’s opposition to the Indigenous Voice to parliament.
In a statement on Facebook, he said “because I intend to campaign for a yes vote I have resigned from the Shadow Ministry”:

Earlier today I resigned from the Shadow Cabinet.
I want to explain to you why.

Almost ten years ago, I sat down with a small group of constitutional conservatives and Indigenous leaders and worked on a proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

The idea we developed was different, it was organic, it was consistent with our constitutional heritage, and it was a uniquely Australian idea designed for Australian conditions.

The proposal was called the Voice.

It was about creating a new structure to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians – and it was about finding common ground.

Over the past year I have had many respectful discussions with my parliamentary colleagues about the Voice. I have listened to their views and they have heard mine, but ultimately I have not been able to persuade them.

Our tradition in the Liberal Party is grounded in a belief in conscience and freedom.

While Shadow Ministers are bound by the decisions of the Shadow Cabinet and the Party Room, backbenchers are free to vote on every piece of legislation according to their own conscience.

Unlike almost any other party in the parliament, the Liberal Party gives backbenchers the freedom to champion the ideas they believe in.

Because I intend to campaign for a yes vote I have resigned from the Shadow Ministry.

I want to assure you that I remain a proud Liberal committed to my party, the people of Berowra, and the leadership of Peter Dutton.

My resignation as a frontbencher is not about personality, it’s about keeping faith with an issue that I have been working on for almost a decade.

IFocus · 11 April 2023

Borrowed this from some where else

"Enshrining racial prejudice in the Constitution?

s 51(xxvi) gives the Federal Parliament power to make laws for "The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws".

Edmund Barton, who would become Australia's first Prime Minister no less, said ‘Questions which relate to the whole body of the people, to the purity of race, to the preservation of the racial character of the white population, are Commonwealth questions and should be so exclusively’.

Also, the race clause when it came into force specifically excluded the ‘people of the Aboriginal race’.
That exemption was removed by the 1967 constitutional referendum which also repealed section 127, which provided that ‘aboriginal natives’ should not be counted in calculating the number of people of the Commonwealth or the states.
That particular measure was designed to ensure that South Australia (which then included the Northern Territory) and Western Australia did not have their numbers in the House of Representatives greatly boosted by the large number of Aboriginal people within their borders."

IFocus · 11 April 2023

Sean K said:
The argument for the yes case has been nothing more than 'it's the right thing to do.' The vibe and emotional blackmail permeate every justification for it. Langton saying we won't get a Welcome to Country if we vote no as an example is past comical.

Albo has completely cocked this up. IMO, they should have legislated something first, put it into practice, and then monitored the results over time before going anywhere near the constitution.

Again the conservatives (former high court judges / academics) that contributed to the voice completely disagree with you.

Polls ATM are saying it will carry both majority and majority of states exception of Queensland's I guess there will be a safe haven there for you (joke).

mullokintyre · 11 April 2023

IFocus said:
Polls ATM are saying it will carry both majority and majority of states exception of Queensland's I guess there will be a safe haven there for you (joke).

Seeing as the yes camp completely blames the old racist conservative baby boomers, perhaps it highlights how many aging baby boomers have retired to Queensland.
mick

Sean K · 11 April 2023

IFocus said:
Polls ATM are saying it will carry both majority and majority of states exception of Queensland's I guess there will be a safe haven there for you (joke).

Yeah, looks like it might get up at the moment.

Though, there's probably a lot of 'quiet Australians' who haven't made their vote known for fear of having the head chopped off by the rabid Left.

IFocus · 11 April 2023

mullokintyre said:
Seeing as the yes camp completely blames the old racist conservative baby boomers, perhaps it highlights how many aging baby boomers have retired to Queensland.
mick

Certainly true I believe for the rise of Pauline Hanson getting elected playing the race card, parts of QLD are very conservative regardless.

SirRumpole · 11 April 2023

I won't be voting yes until the government releases the Solicitor General's advice in full.

Whenever he's asked about this the PM has looked shifty which indicates he has something to hide.

If the SG says everything is ok, what's the problem with releasing the advice ?

Dona Ferentes · 11 April 2023

The Aboriginal artist seeking a donated body 'of British descent'

Nathan Maynard wants non-Indigenous Australians to ask themselves an awkward question.

www.bbc.com

Maybe his great grandfather?

Knobby22 · 11 April 2023

Federal Shadow Attorney General Julian Leesor has resigned and possibly ended his career as he supports the Voice.

The fact he was the Shadow Attorney General who would have a clear understanding of the Referendum and still supports it, to the point of losing his plum job for the backbench is a major statement.

wayneL · 11 April 2023

Knobby22 said:
Federal Shadow Attorney General Julian Leesor has resigned and possibly ended his career as he supports the Voice.

The fact he was the Shadow Attorney General who would have a clear understanding of the Referendum and still supports it, to the point of losing his plum job for the backbench is a major statement.

Yeah, it's saying "I should be in the Labor Party"

IFocus · 11 April 2023

Knobby22 said:
Federal Shadow Attorney General Julian Leesor has resigned and possibly ended his career as he supports the Voice.

The fact he was the Shadow Attorney General who would have a clear understanding of the Referendum and still supports it, to the point of losing his plum job for the backbench is a major statement.

Yes and he still supports the Liberal party and note the Liberal party room meeting talking points also supported the Voice.

JohnDe · 11 April 2023

I agree with most of this -

“There are also many good, conscientious people who think the voice would help Aboriginal Australians and benefit race relations. But every bit of evidence we have internationally tells us the reverse is true.

“A constitutional voice changes the nature of citizenship for all Australians because it creates a different category of citizenship according to race. That repudiates liberalism, which always tries to eradicate race from civic status. We were ashamed of the historical treatment of Aboriginal Australians because they were singled out by race. We put an end to race-based immigration. Every advance of liberalism rejects race as an element of civic status. The voice would institutionalise a new and destructive emphasis on race.

“The whole idea of constitutional recognition ignores the nature of the Australian Constitution. Statements of sentiment are completely misplaced in our Constitution. Federal members of parliament are given booklets to distribute to schoolchildren to explain the Constitution. The booklet says: “Australia’s Constitution contains little of the soaring rhetoric which is familiar in the constitutions of many other lands. That is one of its strengths. It is a practical, matter-of-fact, unpretentious but effective document. As such, it reflects the pragmatic, no-nonsense attitude which we like to think is among the most attractive features of the Australian character.”

“The Constitution doesn’t mention the office of prime minister. It works on the basis of its strictly limited, almost mechanical provisions on things such as the composition of the Senate and the House of Representatives. And it works because for 123 years it has been used in practice and has evolved more or less sensibly.

“The voice is all about power. Identity politics is always about power. No one opposes giving local Aboriginal communities greater say in the policies that affect their communities. There are already a million consultative mechanisms. There’s not a speck of evidence the voice would do any better. But it would enable big power plays on the national stage.

“This is entirely undemocratic. It proceeds from the fatally flawed proposition that liberal democracy and the universal franchise are inherently incapable of serving the interests of a particular minority. But if that’s the case for one minority, why not conclude the same for any other minority? Undermining liberal democracy and the universal franchise is the irresponsible path of all identity politics. And if the majority ever concludes that liberal democracy and the universal franchise don’t serve its needs, that’s when you get authoritarianism.

“This nation is right to celebrate, admire and esteem Aboriginal culture and history. It’s a great thing there are 11 members of parliament with Aboriginal backgrounds. They’re not elected purely to serve Aboriginal constituents but they certainly bring their Aboriginal lived experience to the nation’s decision-making table.

“Our society richly acknowledges and pays homage to Aboriginal culture and heritage at every civic function and in countless institutions. And there has been no lack of financial commitment.

“The most dispiriting element so far has been the vicious verbal thuggery of numerous proponents of the Yes case, a blatant attempt to intimidate people out of the debate. That will be the enduring character of our politics if we get the voice.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/forget-the-haters-dutton-right-to-oppose-voice/news-story/37398fec58a9bf5bef387e9a1a979546

SirRumpole · 11 April 2023

Paywalled so I. Couldn't get the author. May I ask who wrote it ? (Guess : Greg Sheridan).

rederob · 12 April 2023

JohnDe said:
“There are also many good, conscientious people who think the voice would help Aboriginal Australians and benefit race relations. But every bit of evidence we have internationally tells us the reverse is true.

Zero evidence offered.

JohnDe said:
“A constitutional voice changes the nature of citizenship for all Australians because it creates a different category of citizenship according to race.

Completely false and astoundingly stupid.

JohnDe said:
The voice would institutionalise a new and destructive emphasis on race.

Utter nonsense. It's about recognition.

JohnDe said:
“The voice is all about power.

It's about being heard and having an input into change that comes from unique cultures.
If it's about power, what is being claimed?

JohnDe said:
“This is entirely undemocratic. It proceeds from the fatally flawed proposition that liberal democracy and the universal franchise are inherently incapable of serving the interests of a particular minority.

It's the total opposite. It offers a grass roots approach to problem solving, not a top down approach which has failed for over 2 centuries,

JohnDe said:
“The most dispiriting element so far has been the vicious verbal thuggery of numerous proponents of the Yes case, a blatant attempt to intimidate people out of the debate. That will be the enduring character of our politics if we get the voice.

The most dispiriting aspect to date has been blatant lies and misinformation. This hit piece is a classic example of bias, bigotry and BS.

It does not matter how many times it is said, this referendum is not about race.
If a white culture were first peoples then they too could be enshrined as such in the Constitution as recognition.

What the "no" voters want is no change. Many "no" voters suffer a delusional belief that ATSI people get rights that others don't have, but they cannot say what these rights are. They confuse existing lawful powers with a body that can only offer advice. Worse, they don't care that ATSI peoples came up with idea for improving their situation as they prefer the status quo - mostly "out of sight, out of mind."

JohnDe · 12 April 2023

rederob said:
It does not matter how many times it is said, this referendum is not about race.
If a white culture were first peoples then they too could be enshrined as such in the Constitution as recognition.

The past cannot be changed and must not be repeated. Only the future can be changed, Laws must be equal for all.

It is sad what colonisation has done to the original inhabitants of lands across the globe and on our continent. Emotions run wild.

I was born in this land, my children born on this land. I want equal representation in the laws and constitution of this country for all.

My voting decision has not been decided yet, but the more I think about it the more I don't like the idea of creating clauses in our constitution for different citizens. I think that I'll make up my mind on the day of the vote.

JohnDe · 12 April 2023

We should not fear change but when change is required, we must ensure that it is fair and for all.

"This year Australians will be asked to vote on the most significant change to our system of government since Federation – a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice to parliament."

This year Australians will be asked to vote on the most significant change to our system of government since Federation – a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice to parliament.

It’s the voice to everyone on everything that will expose every government decision and policy to delay and/or judicial challenge and influence the lives of not just Aboriginal people, but all Australians. Before Australians vote whether to up-end our democratic system, we should understand the nature of the beast. Although he won’t discuss the details, Anthony Albanese intends to implement the 2021 Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Report to the Australian government by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton.

The report is 270 pages long and stands almost 3cm high on my desk. Because the concept is so complicated it takes many, many words to explain it. It’s so impenetrable, I know highly educated people who’ve struggled to get through it.

Yet it’s this document Albanese has told people to read if they want to know how the voice will work. He seems to have stopped this lately – perhaps he finally looked at it himself and thought twice about encouraging anyone else near it. It’s dense, complex, padded with bureaucratese and hard to decipher. An abomination is a better word.

It’s entirely unsuitable to inform ordinary Australians about such a fundamental change to our democracy and system of government. The report introduces the voice concept as “an urgent solution to the ongoing predicament of Indigenous Australians” with “a robust and feasible means of producing outcomes”. Nowhere in this report are these desirable outcomes described, in any detail or by reference whatsoever.

The report assumes Indigenous people want “a greater say on the laws, policies and programs that affect our lives” and that “non-Indigenous Australians support that call”. What laws? What policies and programs? I can’t think of any that treat Aboriginal people unfairly or were designed without extensive consultation with Indigenous people. The opposite. And there’s no indication of how this will alleviate Aboriginal disadvantage.

The report claims Indigenous people have been calling for a national-level mechanism to have a greater say in Australian government laws, policies and decisions. Really? I think this call comes from a small minority of Aboriginal people from community organisations and academia who already advise government and have been amply funded over years to deliver improvements with little to show for it. Those groups will become the iceberg to the voice’s tip in a complex local, regional and national apparatus.

It’s the responsibility of the Australian parliament to legislate and of public servants to develop and implement policy at relevant ministers’ direction. And within that existing framework, we’ve had a huge increase in Indigenous participation over recent decades. Indigenous Australians are now a significant minority in the federal parliament, above parity.

Indigenous communities, organisations and individuals enjoy a close relationship with local members and a formal, integrated role in advising relevant ministers. Importantly, governments remain the largest employers of Indigenous people and these Indigenous public servants are right now administering the very policies and programs that impact Indigenous communities.

Indigenous people already have a voice, many voices. The report ignores the real gains made in incorporating Indigenous people into the democratic political process that serves all Australians well. The report has so many assumptions, but so little real data.

Firstly, it’s built on the assumption that having Aboriginal people speaking to parliament and government and having their say on legislation and policy will somehow address the “ongoing predicament” of Indigenous Australians. I can’t see this happening at all.

There’s also an assumption that this ongoing predicament will somehow be solved by the workings of government, when it is government policy and programs that figure most prominently in Aboriginal peoples’ lives already. The report never considers that may, in fact, be the root of the problem.

It’s evident, in these pages, that the voice process will create chaos and is likely to be unmanageable. How many different Indigenous voices will be heard on any particular legislation, decision or policy? There will be conflicting voices within “the voice” and competing agendas. Will Bills have to be drafted and re-drafted in response to the concerns of the voice? Will Ministerial decisions and policies need a voice sign off. And what if there is a dissenting or minority position within the voice?

Blackfellas aren’t all the same. We can’t speak for each other’s countries. And even within our own country, we don’t always see eye-to-eye. No one expects this of non-Aboriginal people. Australia’s system of government has a process for reaching decisions in a large, diverse society, built on nearly a thousand years of precedent and tradition in the Westminster system. There’s no proposed process for decision-making in the report.

The voice is predicated on an assumption of wholesale failure and crisis in Aboriginal communities. It’s true some communities are in crisis, but the suggestion a voice could have prevented problems like those we’ve seen recently in Alice Springs is just plain wrong.

A national voice couldn’t respond adequately even in a preventive manner. And, fundamentally, those problems stem from too many Aboriginal people not participating in the real economy. Being so tied to the public purse, the voice won’t have the first clue how to tackle that.

The voice as articulated by the Calma-Langton report is fatally flawed: flawed in its claim this is what Aboriginal people want, flawed in its proposed structure and flawed in its approach to representation.

Warren Mundine is a businessman and advocate for Indigenous economic participation. Research by Vicki Grieves Williams, academic, historian and Warraimaay woman, also contributed to this article.

WARREN MUNDINE

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/voice-report-shows-plenty-of-flaws-but-no-real-solutions/news-story/c740b04af68cf96252680dae44951180

rederob · 12 April 2023

JohnDe said:
The past cannot be changed and must not be repeated. Only the future can be changed, Laws must be equal for all.

No laws are changed.

JohnDe said:
I was born in this land, my children born on this land. I want equal representation in the laws and constitution of this country for all.

You have it. The Voice has no effect on your representational rights. Moreover, they don't change the representational rights of anyone, not even ATSI peoples. The hope is that if it's the Voice putting forward ideas for betterment then it is more likely to get a fair hearing.
What are you reading into the proposed changed that is not actually there?

JohnDe said:
My voting decision has not been decided yet, but the more I think about it the more I don't like the idea of creating clauses in our constitution for different citizens.

Please show where that is the case.
People keep making claims here which are fanciful at best and ignorant at worst.
Matters in a legal piece linked by @wayneL yesterday were debunked last year by the Australian Law Council, so why are they still being recycled if not to scaremonger?

sptrawler · 12 April 2023

Obviously confusion reigns supreme, I guess the " trust me I know what I'm doing" message isn't resonating with those most affected. Also it from our most trusted source. Lol
Not the evil press, because then it would just be called rubbish.

Remote community leaders in NT, WA call for more information about Voice to Parliament

'What does it mean?': Remote communities call for explanation about Voice to Parliament

Community leaders in remote parts of the NT and WA say they are unclear on what the Voice to Parliament is and want face-to-face meetings with federal government representatives ahead of the upcoming referendum.

www.abc.net.au

IFocus · 13 April 2023

Hey SP it actually backs the Voice

"Usually, in the past, we've had to go to bureaucrats," he said.

"And, of course, bureaucrats, they really don't know what they're talking about in Aboriginal affairs.

"If the Voice gets through, we can have a direct line to the top to get our opinions up there.

farmerge · 13 April 2023

IFocus said:
Hey SP it actually backs the Voice

"Usually, in the past, we've had to go to bureaucrats," he said.

"And, of course, bureaucrats, they really don't know what they're talking about in Aboriginal affairs.

"If the Voice gets through, we can have a direct line to the top to get our opinions up there.

Hmm I thought that's what the elected Representatives were supposed to be doing.

The Voice

basilio

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

mullokintyre

Sean K

Moderator

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

SirRumpole

Dona Ferentes

Pengurus pengatur

The Aboriginal artist seeking a donated body 'of British descent'

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

JohnDe

La dolce vita

SirRumpole

rederob

JohnDe

La dolce vita

JohnDe

La dolce vita

rederob

sptrawler

'What does it mean?': Remote communities call for explanation about Voice to Parliament

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

farmerge

Similar threads

The Voice

You are arguing with a Galah

You are arguing with a Galah

Moderator

You are arguing with a Galah

Pengurus pengatur

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

You are arguing with a Galah

La dolce vita

La dolce vita

La dolce vita

You are arguing with a Galah

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency