Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament

[Gethelred]

Link to the proposed Referendum, from the Referendum Working Group:

(Edited 6 April 2023)

These are the words that will be put to the Australian people in the upcoming referendum as agreed by the Referendum Working Group (made up of representatives of First Nations communities from around Australia):

"A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

As well as that, it will be put to Australians that the constitution be amended to include a new chapter titled "Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples".

The details would be:


View attachment 1636890

The Prime Minister has committed to the government introducing legislation with this wording to parliament on 30 March 2023 and to establishing a joint parliamentary committee to consider it and receive submissions on the wording, providing ALL members of Parliament with the opportunity to consider and debate the full details of the proposal.

Parliament will then vote on the wording in June in the lead up to a National Referendum.

The ANU has issued a paper responding to common public concerns expressed in relation to the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice here:

Indigenous Voice to Parliament | Australian National University

Responding to common concerns about an aboriginal and torres strait islander voice First Nations portfolio Background

www.anu.edu.au

Summary details of the key points from this paper may be found in Chief post here:

The Uluru Statement from the Heart:

Not specifically No. In any case it does not form part of the Referendum proposal.

View attachment 1769742

Seeing as things have gotten a bit toxic in here, let's try to return things to a more civil tone.

The following will result in warnings to begin with, and if said behaviour continues will be escalated:

• referring to another poster as racist without direct provocation.
• dismissing or deriding another poster's lived experience.
• personal attacks or one line posts designed solely to insult or deride.

You might notice that the final rule is from the board rules. Thought we should probably remember that this is against the rules in case it's been forgotten.

Let's play nicely from here, people.

 

[Gough]

Since Dutton went to Alice Springs it's been almost impossible to argue that there's not a significant level of racism associated with the no case. Instead of talking about the risks of Constitutional change or what sort of representation the Voice might bring Dutton went both feet, studs up on the these people are not like you they abuse their kids. No amount of Warren Mundine or Jacinta Price apologism can remove that sort bigotry from the debate now.

 

[Kyptastic]

Solicitor-General advice is out



Who ever would have thought that Spud was being disingenuous about the SG's lack of support for the Voice?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Solicitor-General advice is out



Who ever would have thought that Spud was being disingenuous about the SG's lack of support for the Voice?

The delay to release seems odd as in it gave duttons crap oxygen and time.

 

[Festerz]

The delay to release seems odd as in it gave duttons crap oxygen and time.

The delay was based on debate around breaking a long held tradition of governments not releasing Solicitor General's legal advice and what breaking that protocol might mean for the privacy of future advice to governments. And how breaking that protocol might see SG advice being used by future governments for political capital - rendering the Office of the SG reluctant to provide fearless and frank advice in the future.

Dutton using this protocol for political gain has not only backfired on him politically but has also trashed an important tenet of Cabinet and government decision making. The implications go much further than just this referendum.

The Libs are all about preserving protocols and procedures, except when it suits their political agenda.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The delay was based on debate around breaking a long held tradition of governments not releasing Solicitor General's legal advice and what breaking that protocol might mean for the privacy of future advice to governments. And how breaking that protocol might see SG advice being used by future governments for political capital - rendering the Office of the SG reluctant to provide fearless and frank advice in the future.

Dutton using this protocol for political gain has not only backfired on him politically but has also trashed an important tenet of Cabinet and government decision making. The implications go much further than just this referendum.

The Libs are all about preserving protocols and procedures, except when it suits their political agenda.

I'm obviously a weird person. I find it difficult to not give frank advice. Usually unsolicited and probably unwanted if I am going to be completely honest.

 

[worldlylizard19]

Solicitor-General advice is out



Who ever would have thought that Spud was being disingenuous about the SG's lack of support for the Voice?

If the 64 submissions to the committee are anything to go by, there is going to be plenty of litigation in the high courts in the future.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Do you actually believe that is legit? It is one of the most obvious fraudulent documents I've ever seen.

Canberra cafe ‘find’ sparks flurry of voice misinformation

Social media posts claim notes allegedly found in a cafe show a federal Indigenous agency has big plans if the voice referendum is successful.

www.aap.com.au

So let's recap this story. A random person in Canberra finds a "secret list", and then anonymously sends an email about that list, not the actual list itself, to none other than Hanson's office several months after those supposedly found it. They included no name or return contact details, nor any evidence of the original document. And this random person who found it happened to be Canberra's only Pauline Hanson supporter?

How gullible can you be?

Lets look at the list. Anyone who knows government agencies knows lists like that are way more wordy and indepth than poorly written notes. Grammar and spelling have numerous errors.

Plus repeated use of the word "tribe". Indigenous Australians would use "mob" or "clan" before "Tribe", which is what someone who has learned about Indigenous peoples via mass media would tend to call them.

That "list" is exactly what a One Nation supporter would fear Indigenous people would demand. It is obviously fake and fabricated, a One Nation supporter fabricated it and sent it Pauline anonymously and she was dumb enough to fall for it and news.com.au and the Daily Mail are racist enough to publish her crap.




Again "tribe" is not what Indigenous Australians would primarily refer to themselves as. Mabo, not the Voice, as determined by the High Court is what determines Native Title and access. The Voice is a completely separate issue. The only place this has happened is in a small section of Burrum Heads in Queensland, apart from a Daily Mail article with some complaints from residents and nothing from the other side there's not enough info to make a judgement, but it isn't widespread at all. It was fearmonger that Mabo would lead to Australians being kicked out of their homes en masse but it never happened. If after 30 years it's been limited to one small section of beach then it is a non issue.

As the Voice is advisory and can only make representations to Parliament, then it will not affect Native Title.

Yes I think use of the word "tribe" is telling for origin. Agreed. I did use the terms 'if' and 'purpoetedly' both of which should have given hint at my own suspicions. As often occurs in this thread there seems to be instantaneous knee jerk reaction. Very amusing to watch. I digress.

What is to happen is negotiation of treaties. That's step 2 after voice. It's fair to assume that treaties will surpass mabo and native titles rights. Almost guaranteed it will. I have no idea what the list might entail. I wouldn't be surprised if all or most of the 11 are on that list are demands that will then be negotiated successfully or unsuccessfully. Of course the starting point of any negotiation is native title rights. I would envisage that treaties would provide a national apparatus to determine a indigenous mobs rights governing all manner of things such as water use licences, mining royalties, beach use, fishing quota licences and so on. Those that emanate as corollary from native titles are easily determined. Those that seek to extend boundaries more difficult. To suggest that my concern there will be such shopping list for activists as an absurd proposition is extremely naive. Of course there will be. I'm not going to do the legal analysis to determine each and every possibility. The example I gave of beaches to my understanding save one beach (I was advised) isn't currently governed by native titles so it's a stretch I agree. Suffice to say there most definitely will be a shopping list and it will exceed what's currently guaranteed as native title rights.

 

[Festerz]

I'm obviously a weird person. I find it difficult to not give frank advice. Usually unsolicited and probably unwanted if I am going to be completely honest.

It is not about being unable or unwilling to provide honest and frank advice. But how that advice might be used for nefarious or overt political purposes.

Key in Dr Stephen Donaghue KC's mind is to preserve the professional integrity of his office and to restrict attempts to use SG office specific legal opinions out orf context and for political point scoring. One way of doing that is to ensure such advice is provided on a confidential basis to government.

What we don't want in a democracy is for independent professional advice on key government decisions being provided in such a way that it must second guess how that advice might subsequently used by media outlets etc. What that risks of course is their being TWO avenues of advice - one written (official) and one delivered in hushed whispers in the back corridors of government offices.

 

[tandino]

The delay was based on debate around breaking a long held tradition of governments not releasing Solicitor General's legal advice and what breaking that protocol might mean for the privacy of future advice to governments. And how breaking that protocol might see SG advice being used by future governments for political capital - rendering the Office of the SG reluctant to provide fearless and frank advice in the future.

Dutton using this protocol for political gain has not only backfired on him politically but has also trashed an important tenet of Cabinet and government decision making. The implications go much further than just this referendum.

The Libs are all about preserving protocols and procedures, except when it suits their political agenda.

As far as I understand this is just the SG's opinion. The cabinet advice remains private.

 

[schneebly111]

After being told the Solicitor General’s advice was so important it HAD to be released now it’s not important at all:

 

[Festerz]

After being told the Solicitor General’s advice was so important it HAD to be released now it’s not important at all:

Breaking!

Having dismissed the learned legal opinion of Australia's Solicitor General, Dr Stephen Donaghue KC, in relation to the proposed Voice to Parliament, Sussssan Ley has said the shadow cabinet have found an alternative lawyer of inteernational repute whose opinion they will trust on this matter:

 

[kalex6251]

The delay to release seems odd as in it gave duttons crap oxygen and time.

the delay also gave lurch an opportunity to hyperventilate on all manner of 'legal concerns' conservatives had about the voice proposal ......... based on todays release, those 'legal concerns' had no credible basis or grounding

of course, the libs are scrambling to spin this and appear to have settled on 'this is not the SG legal advice weve been calling for - its nothing more than opinion' .... i think you could rightly describe this spin effort as clutching at straws

this is embarrassing for the libs .... an embarrassment entirely of their own making

 

[jatz14]

As far as I understand this is just the SG's opinion. The cabinet advice remains private.

Obviously it is the case that the SG would study and research a topic, then provide a legal opinion to cabinet, while maintaining completely contrary opinions.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[worldlylizard19]

the delay also gave lurch an opportunity to hyperventilate on all manner of 'legal concerns' conservatives had about the voice proposal ......... based on todays release, those 'legal concerns' had no credible basis or grounding

of course, the libs are scrambling to spin this and appear to have settled on 'this is not the SG legal advice weve been calling for - its nothing more than opinion' .... i think you could rightly describe this spin effort as clutching at straws

this is embarrassing for the libs .... an embarrassment entirely of their own making

They only released it because support is plummeting.

Support for ‘The Voice’ drops to 46% of Australians – down 7% points since December 2022 as Liberals vow to oppose -

Support for ‘The Voice’ has dropped across Australia in all six States over the last four months and after Liberal Party Leader Peter Dutton announced the party would formally advocate for a ‘No’ vote in the forthcoming referendum due later this year.

www.roymorgan.com

 

[Festerz]

As far as I understand this is just the SG's opinion. The cabinet advice remains private.

They are the same sets of advice. Just that what was tabled in Parliament is a summary of what was provided to Cabinet to preserve the sanctity of the Cabinet process.

And that advice could not be clearer:

The Voice will:

- Not cause a “legal quagmire”​

​

- “Improve the outcomes for Indigenous people”​

- “Enhance the systems of government”​

btw - for the record, advice on a matter of law from a qualified legal practitioner is called an 'opinion'. The terms 'opinion' and 'advice' are used interchangeably in that context.

Although notice how Dutton and Ley are trying to create a false perception of there being two different sets of advice by creating false confusion around the words 'advice' and 'opinion'? Zero integrity.

Or perhaps Sussan Ley is waiting for alternative advice from the SSolicitor General?

 

[tandino]

They are the same sets of advice. Just that what was tabled in Parliament is a summary of what was provided to Cabinet to preserve the sanctity of the Cabinet process.

And that advice could not be clearer:

The Voice will:

- Not cause a “legal quagmire”​

​

- “Improve the outcomes for Indigenous people”​

- “Enhance the systems of government”​

btw - for the record, advice on a matter of law from a qualified legal practitioner is called an 'opinion'. The terms 'opinion' and 'advice' are used interchangeably in that context.

Although notice how Dutton and Ley are trying to create a false perception of there being two different sets of advice by creating false confusion around the words 'advice' and 'opinion'? Zero integrity.

Or perhaps Sussan Ley is waiting for alternative advice from the SSolicitor General?

I'm no lawyer myself, and it's wasn't my distinction or word game, I picked it up on The Guardian daily blog, below.

I think what you said earlier about the frankness of Cabinet advice is relevant here, which probably (?) contains views on different models, maybe a SWOT analysis. Who knows. Maybe that would sway opinion in the public debate. I don't really know or care, and I don't know if I'll be around in 30 years to find out anyway.

What the solicitor general’s opinion on the voice means

One point to clarify on the solicitor-general document that just dropped - it gives the solicitor-general’s opinion on the voice amendment (which is that the change is sound and won’t clog up the courts) but it isn’t exactly the same document that went to cabinet. That might sound like a minor distinction, and it is, but it could be a factor in how the Coalition opposition responds to this announcement.

Some context - Peter Dutton has for some time been asking for the government to release the advice the SG provided to the referendum working group and the federal cabinet. Pointing to reporting in The Australian newspaper in recent months, Dutton has claimed on multiple occasions that PM Anthony Albanese had “rejected the advice otherwise of the Solicitor-General” on the question of whether the Voice should be able to make representations to the executive government.

Dutton, of course, hasn’t seen the advice (the government doesn’t usually drop cabinet documents to the opposition leader). But in his press conference announcing the Liberals’ plan to oppose the voice, Dutton still claimed the PM had gone “against the advice of the Solicitor-General”.

Now, the government has said for a while they won’t release the advice, because the advice is a cabinet document and the government doesn’t release cabinet documents. But they’ve now released this lengthy opinion from the SG. So what gives?

Because today they’ve released a different document. This document today, dated as being written April 19 (two days ago, obviously well after the cabinet considered and approved the amendment) isn’t the advice that went to cabinet. It might be very similar, and it does show the actual opinion of the SG (which is that the voice is sound, it won’t clog up the courts and it won’t slow down decision making), but it’s technically not the same document.

Albanese said just now:

We don’t release nor do any government ever release advice to Cabinet.

And that’s where we could see Peter Dutton go with his response - pointing out that because the government hasn’t done what he asked for, in releasing the advice (even though it’s likely to be functionally very similar and still the assessment of the SG), it may still not satisfy his concerns. We’ll bring you the opposition’s response when we get it.

 

[schneebly111]

 

[kalex6251]

They only released it because support is plummeting.

Support for ‘The Voice’ drops to 46% of Australians – down 7% points since December 2022 as Liberals vow to oppose -

Support for ‘The Voice’ has dropped across Australia in all six States over the last four months and after Liberal Party Leader Peter Dutton announced the party would formally advocate for a ‘No’ vote in the forthcoming referendum due later this year.

www.roymorgan.com

 

[Ghost Patrol]

hahaha sms poll

These are the people most likely to fall for the Hi Mum scams.

 

[Not Important]

yes!

 

[Festerz]

 

[Chief]

The "debate" for this referendum will make the same sex marriage plebiscite look intelligent and honest

Truer words....





To call them dumb as rocks is insulting to rocks.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Truer words....





To call them dumb as rocks is insulting to rocks.

What the F**k Jenny?

 

[Gough]

Dan Tehan was busy citing Aristotle and MLK to support his opposition to the Voice on the ABC this morning. The No case has become a conga line of stupidity.

 

[Kyptastic]

LNP: Businesses should be free to carry out their operations as they see fit.

Also LNP: No, not like that