- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,635
- Reactions
- 24,522
Well that was a foregone conclusion and we are only just getting started on the reality of renewables, 2030 isn't far away.
You should put that one in the generation thread, so we don't lose it.
Well that was a foregone conclusion and we are only just getting started on the reality of renewables, 2030 isn't far away.Another example of what The Voice could do to needed development.
Fears pumped hydro dam will 'take away identity' of culturally significant mountain
Wiradjuri people around Lithgow in New South Wales are concerned about plans for a 40-metre-high concrete reservoir on top of a mountain that holds great importance to them.www.abc.net.au
Overall, 40 people would be elected and then 12 of those would form a statewide Voice that could speak on any bill before parliament.
Australia Institutewrote:
The Nordic Sami parliaments provide the indigenous people of Norway, Sweden and Finland with a voice in decisions affecting their communities. These parliaments provide an insight for attempts in Australia to provide a similar voice for Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The Sami (also Sámi or Saami) are indigenous peoples who originate from Sápmi, which encompasses the northern areas of Norway, Sweden and Finland, and the Russian Kola Peninsula. The Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian constitutions all recognise certain rights of the Sami, with Norway and Finland also constitutionally recognising their status as an indigenous people.[1]
The Sami parliaments (Sámediggi) of Finland, Sweden and Norway provide the Sami with a voice in decisions affecting their communities. They have their basis in international recognition of the rights of indigenous people by the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 27) and the ILO’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169). The latter includes provisions about states’ obligations to consult indigenous peoples and consider their customs when applying national laws.[2]
The Sami parliaments are not parliaments in the Westminster sense – they do not provide self-government and do not have a formal legislative function. They are mostly consultative bodies whose purpose is to promote and preserve cultural self-determination, covering matters such as language, traditional livelihood, land rights and social wellbeing. They are established by legislation and are elected bodies whose voters must be registered on a Sami electoral roll. The Sami parliaments also represent Sami interests internationally.
The three Sami parliaments have a similar structure with a national assembly elected every four years, an executive board and a committee system, and are housed in their own buildings.[3]
The Finnish Sami Parliament is the oldest. The Constitution of Finland recognises the Sami as an indigenous people and their right to self-regulation regarding their language and culture, including the right to use their own language when associating with authorities. Linguistic rights are also established in the Finnish Language Act.[4] The Act on the Sami Parliament (which also defines a Sami person and the Sami homeland), defines the Sami Parliament’s scope and relations with the Finnish Government.[5]
In safeguarding and promoting the constitutional objectives, the Act provides that the Sami Parliament may ‘make initiatives and proposals to the authorities’, adopt its own procedural rules and represent the Sami in national and international affairs. The Sami Parliament is also empowered to decide, without the right of appeal, the allocation of Sami-designated funds.
The Finnish Government also has obligations under the Act. It is ‘obliged’ to negotiate with the Sami on specific matters, including community planning; land and conservation management; applications for mining licences; the development, teaching and application of Sami languages; and legislative or administrative changes affecting Sami culture. However, the Act does not preclude government authorities from proceeding with matters that have not been negotiated.
The Sami parliaments vary in their ambit. Nordic academics assert that the Norwegian Sami Parliament has greater scope to decide the issues it will pursue and has closer ties to the Norwegian political system. This is because, in addition to Sami parties, national political parties can also put forward candidates for election to the Sami Parliament.[6]
Note the Russian Sami do not have a national Sami parliament. However, they are represented on the Sami Parliamentary Council which is the cooperative body for the Sami parliaments.[7]
“Although we, the Indigenous peoples of the world, live under very diverse conditions, we share a history of colonialism, suppression of language, loss of culture and lands. However, we also share experiences of emancipation, of empowerment, of revival of language and culture.”
- Aili Keskitalo, President of the Sami Parliament of Norway[8]
Sami representation through their parliaments is not without its challenges or limitations, as explained by Professor Bertrus de Villiers from the Curtin Law School in evidence to the parliamentary inquiry into constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.[9] However, they do offer examples and provide ideas about how a future voice for Australia’s Indigenous peoples might work. This voice is now being explored through the Australian Government’s Indigenous Voice co-design process to establish a national representative body and regional representative bodies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.[10]
Well that IMO is a better outcome than a beige over encompassing change to the constitution, that affects all States, as I said each State has different indigenous issues, I doubt Canberra has any.So it looks like the definition of "any matter that affects them" has been broadened to "anything that the government wants to do".
Well if they already have a template, put it up, simple ain't it?Sami parliaments of Norway, Sweden and Finland, which our proposed Indigenous Voice is quite similar in nature to
First of all, you have done extremely well to read the lot.I've just finished reading the many hundreds of pages of background information for the Voice and the key element missing is that just about everything is simply proposed. It is not a plan. In a military sense/analogy, what they've produced are many courses of action that require a decision. What I think the general population should have when going to a referendum and a change to the constitution is a detailed plan. We're being asked to go with 'the vibe' on this.
This is why for me just like any merits or otherwise of a case for The Voice, it's a hard no from me.I've just finished reading the many hundreds of pages of background information for the Voice and the key element missing is that just about everything is simply proposed. It is not a plan. In a military sense/analogy, what they've produced are many courses of action that require a decision. What I think the general population should have when going to a referendum and a change to the constitution is a detailed plan. We're being asked to go with 'the vibe' on this.
As you say Sean K - a detailed plan..is it too much to ask for, given a proposed Constitutional change?I've just finished reading the many hundreds of pages of background information for the Voice and the key element missing is that just about everything is simply proposed. It is not a plan. In a military sense/analogy, what they've produced are many courses of action that require a decision. What I think the general population should have when going to a referendum and a change to the constitution is a detailed plan. We're being asked to go with 'the vibe' on this.
Are you in the right thread wayne ?For the luvvies
Oops, no.Are you in the right thread wayne ?
That seems to be a complete misunderstanding of both the process and intent.First of all, you have done extremely well to read the lot.
But its not a draft of legislation, or even something debated inParliament.
Draw up a bill, put it to parliament and if it gets passed well and good.
If then they activists want it described in the Constitution, let them have the referendum.
If people see that the voice as legislated does not do all the bad things that some people have suggested it will, there will be no issue.
But its all about the politics of wedging the opposition.
The first nations people are merely the vehicle for the politics.
Mick
ATSIC was a similar advisory body and look what happened to it.That seems to be a complete misunderstanding of both the process and intent.
The ideal first step is to put the principle of a Voice to a Referendum.
This would be done via Bill for a referendum that outlines the wording of the Voice and, separately, provide all parties - First Nations, the Parliament, the Executive, the States and the Australian people - sufficient certainty about the process by which the Voice will be designed should it succeed.
Again, for those taking the time to do some basic reading, "politics" is not involved. The idea that wedge politics is at play only exists if you think the Voice is a political institution, rather than an advisory framework.
This thread continues to present a notion that until we know how the Voice works in intricate detail, we can't agree that it's a good idea. The folly of this idea is that Parliaments can and should effect changes to advisory processes in order to achieve the best possible framework for receiving and considering such advice.
The Voice is also an important extension to "Closing the Gap" which is not an enforceable framework, but does show that there is an existing infrastructure for formal partnership arrangements.
Those who vote "no" are really saying that it's wrong to recognise our First Nations people in our Constitution and they should have no representation of their concerns beyond the party political system that has failed them since before Federation. And if you are going to vote "no" because you want more detail, or you think the bi-partisan process leading to enshrining the principles of the Voice in our democracy was a sham, then you are voting against mitigating a problem that is somewhat obvious, as presently demonstrated by events in Alice Springs.
ATSIC was a similar advisory body and look what happened to it.
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?