The Voice

[rederob]

SG advice serves only to beg the question, why do we need to amend the constitution?

How many times does that need to be explained?
Why have Dutton's previous leaders on the Voice jumped ship to support the Constitutional change if it was not a good idea?

What will it do that isn't already in place now?

That's been explained many times as well.

Answer: nothing, except enrich the elites (and the legal profession), as has been my consistent arguement.

You answered your own question but have not demonstrated any understanding of the Voice.
You might also need to explain who your "elites" are, and how they are enriched.

 

[DaveTrade]

Should any group of Australians that are living in extremely difficult conditions have a Voice or is it only ATSI Australians that should have a Voice? If ATSI Australians get the Voice will their problems be addressed while other Australians living in extremely difficult conditions be left with minimal or no support?

 

[IFocus]

On the road ATM but still see the no vote thrashing around looking for an excuse to calm the shame and guilt to vote no against the most disadvantaged group in Australia with no shame to address the horrors of the past

 

[DaveTrade]

On the road ATM but still see the no vote thrashing around looking for an excuse to calm the shame and guilt to vote no against the most disadvantaged group in Australia with no shame to address the horrors of the past

Why should it be shameful and guilty to vote no. Anyone that votes no would be doing so because they were not sure if voting yes was the right thing to do, basically the same fundamental reason as people voting yes. The horrors of the past should be told so the same horrors are not repeated, but those things were done by other people not by current Australians. If any Australians still living have been involved in horrors then they should held to account.

 

[SirRumpole]

On the road ATM but still see the no vote thrashing around looking for an excuse to calm the shame and guilt to vote no against the most disadvantaged group in Australia with no shame to address the horrors of the past

Twice as much is spent on Aboriginal welfare per person than on other types of welfare.

The most disadvantaged are those with disabilities who thankfully are getting a hand up now.

Compensation has been paid for the past to Stolen Generations .

 

[Sean K]

On the road ATM but still see the no vote thrashing around looking for an excuse to calm the shame and guilt to vote no against the most disadvantaged group in Australia with no shame to address the horrors of the past

This is the totality of the Left's argument. To emotionally blackmail people to vote yes because of past 'horrors' committed 3 to 4 generations ago. What horrors are being committed now? Maybe over $30b to ATSI every year is horrifying.

 

[orr]

Why should it be shameful and guilty to vote no. Anyone that votes no would be doing so because they were not sure if voting yes was the right thing to do, basically the same fundamental reason as people voting yes. The horrors of the past should be told so the same horrors are not repeated, but those things were done by other people not by current Australians. If any Australians still living have been involved in horrors then they should held to account.

Still living...
There's horrors and there's horrors...
Just wondering DaveTrade ? on your take on 'the Stolen wages' .....and how that may effect any current position of those indisposed by that theft.
And that pilfering was going on into the 1970's... So not everyone directly effected is dead yet, let alone those indirectly.
The stolen Wgaes, Do you know anything of it at all?
I doubt by the tenor of your post.

So on the little you know; vote anyway you want......
"Ignorance is Strength"..... eric blair

 

[DaveTrade]

The stolen Wgaes, Do you know anything of it at all?

No I don't.

So not everyone directly effected is dead yet, let alone those indirectly

Are the people that did this crime still living, if so they should be to account.

vote anyway you want

I don't need your permission to vote, it is my right as an Australian, the same right as you have.

 

[Sean K]

I'm a bit confused about the release of the SG's advice to government. It looks like it's dated 21 April. Yesterday. Why is Albo hiding behind 'cabinet-in-confidence' in not releasing the original advice? If it was the same, why not clear it up once and for all?

 

[rederob]

Should any group of Australians that are living in extremely difficult conditions have a Voice or is it only ATSI Australians that should have a Voice? If ATSI Australians get the Voice will their problems be addressed while other Australians living in extremely difficult conditions be left with minimal or no support?

The Voice is not about "living in extremely difficult conditions".
It's about the levels of socioeconomic disadvantage ATSI people suffer that are not being addressed, as regularly reported by Closing the Gap.
If you can show other Australians to have similar levels of disadvantage across the board, then please do so.

Why should it be shameful and guilty to vote no. Anyone that votes no would be doing so because they were not sure if voting yes was the right thing to do, basically the same fundamental reason as people voting yes.

Actually you would be denying ATSI people of recognition in the Constitution. How would that be "right".
And you would also be saying to ATSI people that what they have already got is good enough.
In simple terms you are saying it's fine that ATSI people continue to suffer the levels of disadvantage they do, because they don't deserve a chance do better.

 

[JohnDe]

The Referendum Council Final Report​

In June 2017 the Referendum Council recommended (p. 2) that a referendum be held to provide in the Australian Constitution for a representative body to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a Voice to the Commonwealth Parliament, with its form to be decided by Parliament. They proposed that a specific function of such a body, to be set out in separate legislation, should be to monitor the use of the heads of power in section 51(xxvi) (the ‘race power’) and section 122 (the ‘territories power’) of the Constitution.

The Council also recommended that an extra-constitutional Declaration of Recognition be enacted by legislation passed by all Australian parliaments, ideally on the same day, to articulate a symbolic statement of recognition to unify Australians.

In October 2017, the Turnbull Government responded to the report, expressing the view that establishing an additional representative body to Parliament was not desirable or capable of winning acceptance in a referendum.

2018 Joint Select Committee​

In 2018, the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples was asked to consider the work of the 2012 Expert Panel, the previous Joint Select Committee, the Uluru Statement and the Referendum Council.

The committee acknowledged the broad stakeholder support for a Voice enshrined in the Constitution (p. 116) and recommended a co-design process to achieve a model that would best suit the needs and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (pp. 78–79). It recommended the co-design process should report, and the Voice be legislated, within the term of the 46th Parliament (p. 78). The committee also supported the process of truth-telling (p. 185). Finally, the committee recommended the establishment of a National Resting Place for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander remains, which could be a place of commemoration, healing and reflection (p. 185; this recommendation was subsequently acted on with the Morrison Government’s announcement of Ngurra, a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural precinct and resting place). The committee stated that it did not have time to deeply consider the proposal for a Makarrata Commission and agreement-making (p. 137) but did note that agreement-making was already occurring at local and regional levels (p. 144).

Indigenous Voice co-design process 2019–2021 and Final Report 2021​

In October 2019, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, announced a 2-stage Voice co-design process, with 2 co-design groups tasked with developing options at the local and regional and national levels. The process was overseen by a Senior Advisory Group chaired by eminent Aboriginal leaders Tom Calma and Marcia Langton . The terms of reference (pp. 239–245) made explicit that constitutional reform was out of scope. The National Co-design Group was tasked with developing ‘models to enhance local and regional decision-making and options to provide a voice for Indigenous Australians to government’.

The Indigenous Voice co-design process: final report was provided to the Australian Government in July 2021 and publicly released in December 2021. The Final report:

… presents the proposals and recommendations for an Indigenous Voice—a cohesive and integrated system comprised of Local & Regional Voices and a National Voice—with connections to existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander bodies. This Final Report also presents considerations for implementing an Indigenous Voice and details the consultation and engagement process. (p. 9)

Chapter 2 of the Final report discusses a National Voice, including:

• membership considerations for a National Voice (sections 2.3–2.6)
• links with Local and Regional Voices (section 2.7)
• proposed functions of a National Voice, examining in some detail the reasons for a National Voice to be a Voice to both Parliament and Government (section 2.8, pp. 151–153). This section also considered how a National Voice might interact with other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders, using the National Agreement on Closing the Gap as a potential case study (p. 158)
• the Australian Parliament and Government (section 2.9, discussed in text box below)
• how to ensure a National Voice is appropriately supported (sections 2.10–2.11).

A National Voice
The Australian Parliament and Government

Section 2.9 of the Final report (pp. 159–172) examines how the advice function of a National Voice to the Australian Parliament and Government might work. The National Co-design Group proposed a formal interface with Parliament and Government with:

• consultation standards- when and how to consult with the National Voice, including an obligation to consult on proposed laws which are ‘overwhelmingly relevant’ to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or which are designated ‘special measures’ under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975
• a set of transparency mechanisms modelled on existing parliamentary practices, including a statement on all Bills (explaining whether the National Voice should be consulted and, if so, whether this occurred) to be included in the Explanatory Memorandum (similar to the current statement of compatibility with human rights), the ability to table advice in Parliament, and establishing a new parliamentary joint standing committee related to the Voice.

The Final report emphasised that the Voice would not have a veto and would be non-justiciable, ‘meaning that there could not be a court challenge and no law could be invalidated based on whether there was alignment with the consultation standards or transparency mechanisms’ (p. 18; see also pp. 166–167).
When releasing the Final report, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, stated that work would begin on forming 35 Local and Regional Voice mechanisms, ‘as per the process set out in the Report’. The 2022–23 Budget provided $31.8 million under the Indigenous Voice – Local and Regional Voice Implementation measure to ‘commence establishment of 35 Local and Regional Voice bodies’ (p. 161). The Morrison Government did not comment on the options set out in the Final report for a National Voice.

While the Final report did not discuss constitutional reform, it did include a recommendation that the Australian Government:

… note the support for the enshrinement of the Indigenous Voice in the Constitution that was expressed particularly through the submissions received as part of the consultation process (Recommendation 6, p. 14).

On 26 May 2022, the incoming Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney stated that the work done during the Voice co-design process would not be discarded by the incoming Labor Government:

It would be disrespectful and, quite frankly, stupid not to take into very deep consideration the work that’s been done by the expert advisory group … They have delivered their final report, and I am sure that parts of that report are very relevant for new discussion and new direction.

It should be noted that, according to the Referendum Council’s report accompanying the Uluru Statement from the Heart, only the existence of a Voice, not any particular form, would be entrenched in the Constitution (pp. 2; 36). The form of the Voice would be a matter for legislation.

2022 election platforms​

During the 2022 election campaign the Australian Labor Party committed to fully implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart, stating that it was the only political party committed to doing so. This was reaffirmed upon election. The Australian Labor Party has an existing First Nations Caucus Committee (established in 2016) that reviews legislation impacting First Nations people and is a platform for raising matters of concern for First Nations people to party members and leadership. In 2021, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy observed that ‘If we are talking about a First Nations Voice to the Parliament, we need to make sure we have a First Nations Voice within the practice of a party'.

The leader of the Greens, Adam Bandt, has stated that ‘The Australian Greens were the first party to support the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, and we still do’ and they would not block legislation for a Voice. The Greens campaigned for a national Truth and Justice Commission (p. 2), stating that this would lay the foundations for developing a Treaty or Treaties. At his address to the National Press Club during the election campaign, Mr Bandt, reaffirmed the Greens’ position that a Truth and Justice Commission should precede the creation of a Voice.

The Liberal Party’s Plan for Northern Australia restated its commitment to implementing of Local and Regional Voices (p. 9). During the campaign, when Prime Minister Morrison was asked whether a Coalition Government would hold a referendum on a constitutionally enshrined Voice, he replied ‘It’s not our policy to have a referendum on the Voice, so why would I be doing that?’. Since the election the new Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has stated that he is ‘open to discussion’ and ‘wants to see the detail’ of the proposal. Julian Leeser, the new Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians, was the co-chair of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and is a prominent supporter of a constitutionally enshrined Voice.

Potential next steps​

A Voice could be established by legislation with or without a constitutional amendment. However, a legislated Voice would be vulnerable to defunding or abolition by the government of the day, as were the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (1973–77), the National Aboriginal Conference (1977–85), the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (1989–2005), the National Indigenous Council (2005–07), the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples (2009–19) and the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council (2013–c. 2019).

Establishing a constitutionally enshrined Voice will require a referendum to amend the Constitution. A referendum requires a Bill to be passed by Parliament, which establishes the wording of the proposed amendment and the question to be put to voters. A number of options for an amendment are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ final report (pp. 79–119). This chapter also discusses the arguments over whether the form of a Voice should be determined before, or after, a referendum.

To successfully amend the Constitution, a majority of voters overall (including in territories) and a majority of voters in a majority of the states (at least 4 out of 6 states) must approve the proposed amendment. Referendums are overseen by the Australian Electoral Commission (see its detailed guide). Studies of opinion polls since the Voice was first proposed indicate that this level of support exists, but there are many ‘undecided’ voters, and levels of support in smaller states are difficult to determine. Whether an amendment has bipartisan support is likely to influence the chance of success. The Australian Reconciliation Barometer poll has indicated (in 2018 and 2020) that approximately 90% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people support a constitutionally protected Indigenous representative body.

Constitutional and representative structures for Indigenous peoples in comparable countries​

New Zealand has legislated reserved Maori seats in Parliament and the Treaty of Waitangi. The treaty has an uncertain legal status, but is commonly referred to as the ‘founding document’ of New Zealand, which does not have a single, codified constitution.

The US Constitution is held to recognise (via Supreme Court interpretation of Article I, Section 8) the status of ‘Indian Tribes’ as distinct, sovereign, but subordinate governments, to be governed at a federal rather than state level. There are approximately 374 (pre-20th century) ratified US treaties with Native American peoples, but Congress may unilaterally abrogate them. In fulfilment of a previously unexercised treaty right, the Cherokee Nation is seeking to seat a non-voting representative delegate in Congress.

In Canada, section 35(1) of the Constitution Act 1982 states that ‘The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognised and affirmed.’ This section gives historic and modern treaties, as well as native title (‘aboriginal rights’), the protection of constitutional law. Section 25 of the Constitution Act 1982 requires that other constitutional rights and freedoms are not interpreted in ways which abrogate or derogate from aboriginal rights and freedoms. The Canadian Government is also held by the courts to have a fiduciary duty to protect Aboriginal rights, which has not been established in Australia (see The honour of the crowns: state-indigenous fiduciary relationships and Australian exceptionalism). Canada does not have codified, indigenous-specific representation in or to its Parliament, but section 35.1 of the Constitution Act 1982 requires that ‘representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada’ must be consulted before any alteration to sections 25 or 35. The majority Inuit territory of Nunavut has a representative in the House of Commons.

While in the US and New Zealand all treaties date to the era of colonisation and frontier expansion, in some provinces of Canada ‘modern’ treaty negotiation is an ongoing process, particularly in British Columbia. This may offer some insights into the kinds of agreements that might be overseen by a Makarrata Commission, if one were to be established.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...genousConstitutionalRecognitionRepresentation

 

[rederob]

This is the totality of the Left's argument. To emotionally blackmail people to vote yes because of past 'horrors' committed 3 to 4 generations ago. What horrors are being committed now? Maybe over $30b to ATSI every year is horrifying.

Stop using labels.
The Voice had bipartisan support until Dutton decided that political gamesmanship was more important than advancing ATSI peoples.
If you don't understand what Closing the Gap is about, then please continue with your baseless ideas and show us how those uninformed opinions condition your thinking.

I'm a bit confused about the release of the SG's advice to government. It looks like it's dated 21 April. Yesterday. Why is Albo hiding behind 'cabinet-in-confidence' in not releasing the original advice? If it was the same, why not clear it up once and for all?

That was already explained in this thread. Cabinet advice is provided in-confidence and Mark Dreyfus, on this matter, made it clear that SG's opinions directly to the AG are not released as a matter of government convention.

What is apparent is that no voters have to invent conspiratorial ideas to matters that have been explained in order to distract from the substantive information available. A rational person would examine what has been presented and comment on that, rather than cast aspersions on a process they refuse to appreciate.

When it comes to being uninformed you are consistent, so I look forward to debunking your next pathetic attempt to scaremonger.

 

[wayneL]

For your consideration:

 

[rederob]

For your consideration:

Absolute load of codswallop from Bolt.
Another person who has no idea what he's talking about.
Every point made has been debunked, time and again, so what is @wayneL's reason for including it?

Scaremongers rule the no vote.

 

[SirRumpole]

Absolute load of codswallop from Bolt.
Another person who has no idea what he's talking about.
Every point made has been debunked, time and again, so what is @wayneL's reason for including it?

Scaremongers rule the no vote.

You heard what Marcia Langton said ?

Court cases if The Voice hasn't spoken and been heard.

Sort of refutes what you have been saying about the Voice having no power.

 

[rederob]

You heard what Marcia Langton said ?

I understand how the Voice operates, but you have consistently shown you have no idea, confusing existing legislation with an advisory capacity of the Voice.

Court cases if The Voice hasn't spoken and been heard.

That was debunked many times and again by the SG yesterday. There is no requirement for the Voice to make a representation and no requirement for the government to receive a representation.
So what would a court case be about?

Sort of refutes what you have been saying about the Voice having no power.

Totally inept @SirRumpole. Explain what power the Voice will have as I have asked many times and you confuse a power to operate as an entity with an power that would have a force of law.

 

[DaveTrade]

For your consideration:

This is exactly what I'm concerned about, thanks for putting this up.

 

[SirRumpole]

So what would a court case be about?

Marcia will think of something.

 

[DaveTrade]

The Voice is not about "living in extremely difficult conditions".
It's about the levels of socioeconomic disadvantage ATSI people suffer that are not being addressed

@rederob I have used the phase "living in extremely difficult conditions" to have exactly the same meaning as the phase "socioeconomic disadvantage". Again I say that I want these problems of the ATSI people heard and action taken to improve their situation, I just don't want the constitution changed in this way.

Actually you would be denying ATSI people of recognition in the Constitution. How would that be "right".
And you would also be saying to ATSI people that what they have already got is good enough.
In simple terms you are saying it's fine that ATSI people continue to suffer the levels of disadvantage they do, because they don't deserve a chance do better.

I am not saying this at all, I'm NOT say that what they already have is good enough, I'm NOT saying that it's fine that ATSI people continue to suffer the levels of disadvantage that they do. I am strongly in favour of helping these people, I just don't agree with changing the constitution.

 

[rederob]

@rederob I have used the phase "living in extremely difficult conditions" to have exactly the same meaning as the phase "socioeconomic disadvantage".

Except there is no other socioeconomic disadvantage for non-ATSI people, so I do not understand your point.

Again I say that I want these problems of the ATSI people heard and action taken to improve their situation, I just don't want the constitution changed in this way.

I get you do not want to recognise ATSI people, but as I said, how is that "right"?

I am not saying this at all, I'm NOT say that what they already have is good enough, I'm NOT saying that it's fine that ATSI people continue to suffer the levels of disadvantage that they do. I am strongly in favour of helping these people, I just don't agree with changing the constitution.

Then a no vote achieves what I said and you confine ATSI people to their present disadvantage, as without the Constitutional change you get the status quo.