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.

 

[Festerz]

Well worth a watch - Attorney General answers questions and explains the Voice:

 

[Festerz]

And for comparison - Opposition Leader Dutton:

 

[Festerz]

I've got a lot more respect albeit grudging for the Nationals who've at least said they're opposed to the Voice, Dutton's weasel words are just so transparent.

 

[Gavin Excell]

The vote simply can't be won without bipartisan support

 

[Schneebly11]

The vote simply can't be won without bipartisan support

Probably not. At least with the Same Sex Marriage vote Turnbull was in favour, and allowed Liberals to support it if they wished. Easily pigeonholing the conservatives to one side.

Obviously Dutton doesn't support it and is trying to build a narrative that Labor haven't provided enough information, therefore he can't support it, rather than the real reason (he hates Indigenous people). He may allow individual members to support it but the official Liberal position will not be in support.

So big question, will Albanese take it to a referendum without bipartisan support? He must be aware the conservatives are frothing at the mouth to run a race based hate campaign, and Indigenous people are going to cop massive abuse this year. They'll be accused of getting "special rights white Aussies don't get". There'll be fearmongering that this will lead to Indigenous people kicking whites off their land, ala what happened when Native Title came around. Or Indigenous people getting compensation for British settlement. Any race based hate campaign you can think of will be employed.

Does Albo risk it? If he loses this referendum it'll re-energise the currently dying conservatives.

The more I look through social media the more I think it'll fail. The SSM vote at least had clearly defined outcomes (gay couples being allowed to marry, which most of the developed world already had) and the majority know what marriage is. For this one it is less well defined. Most Australians aren't going to delve into the specifics of Indigenous Advisory bodies. The more the right can cloud the issue the less likely your average politically uninterested Aussie will vote Yes.

If I were Albo I would think of starting the "Truth, Treaty and Voice" debate with the Truth part - a memorial to Indigenous killed during the frontier wars, and the Treaty - can be done via an act of parliament.

 

[Schneebly11]

The No vote will be led by Price and Mundine. No surprise, he's speaking to the Minerals Council about why to vote No:

The Voice 'No' campaign to be launched in February

The campaign to convince Australians to reject the government’s proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament is set to be launched in February.

www.skynews.com.au

 

[Northalives]

Thanks

My concern is a couple of fold:

1) firstly I don't believe we should have an organisation based on race (add religion and sex). The catholic church once had a powerful voice and it often lead to negative outcomes and we have seen a ugly voice of the happy clappy church emerge in in recent years. A voice based on race, sex or religion is not the direction I feel is synergistic with our values on anti-discrimination.........but the voice is a popular idea and will happen regardless of what I think.

2) given we are going to have it, I'm concerned about the integrity of the organisation and the effectiveness. If it were democratic (voted by indigenous groups) and large in number (number of people) it becomes more difficult for politicians to corrupt, as the number of people that have to be bought and kept silent is difficult.

3) The effectiveness of an organisation is maintained by accountability. If it was introduced for a decade, its effectiveness could be assessed and in a decade refreshed by referendum for a longer period. After al, if the voice is required in perpetuity, this means the body was not effective.

4) The voice in my opinion is a political weapon. As if politicians wanted a "voice" they could simply call land councils today for their opinion on matters or set up steering committees......just like every other policy. Why is this different?

5) Many of the challenges faced by indigenous people and even non-indigenous people are local issues. Police, employment and health are local issues and not federal. Part of the peoblem isn't a "voice" (as there are many indigenous representatives in parliament) but an issue of federal govt over reach. We needed better and greater empowered local and state government.

As promised Power Raid. Apologies for the inordinate amount of time it took me to fulfil my promise.

My concern is a couple of fold:

1) firstly I don't believe we should have an organisation based on race (add religion and sex). The catholic church once had a powerful voice and it often lead to negative outcomes and we have seen a ugly voice of the happy clappy church emerge in in recent years. A voice based on race, sex or religion is not the direction I feel is synergistic with our values on anti-discrimination.........but the voice is a popular idea and will happen regardless of what I think.

You are under the misconception that the Voice is going to be an organisation; it is not.

The Voice is a “bottom up”, so to speak process which will give non-binding advice to the Federal Parliament in matters concerning the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. It will not be a convoluted bureaucracy populated by people who seek careers in the “Aboriginal industry” and the inevitable fiefdoms that are created within these unwieldy institutions.


2) given we are going to have it, I'm concerned about the integrity of the organisation and the effectiveness. If it were democratic (voted by indigenous groups) and large in number (number of people) it becomes more difficult for politicians to corrupt, as the number of people that have to be bought and kept silent is difficult.

Integrity and fidelity of the advice given to the Parliament is paramount.

The draft proposal of a Voice to the SA Parliament is instructive and is in keeping with the proposals made by the Indigenous co-design Report as presented by Ken Wyatt and was part of the 2019 election promise by the LNP to develop options for an Indigenous voice. The SA Proposal is as follows:

An equal number of Men and Women elected to represent the six regions elected by those within those regions and would be known as the Local First nations Voice. There would be 40 members, 3 men and 3 women from the five non-metropolitan regions and 5 men and 5 women from the greater metropolitan Adelaide region because of the larger population.

Only people who live within in the region will be allowed to vote in that region and they must be enrolled with the Australian Electoral Commission to do so.

The SA proposal is that the first Local First Nations Voice will be a stand-alone election and then, the Voice election will be at the same time as State Elections.

These 40 elected members would then choose 12 from within these 40 to form the State First Nations Voice to the State Parliament.



I think this satisfies your and my concerns that an “elite” group will have control of this process who are bought or influenced by politicians and others bought and silenced.


3) The effectiveness of an organisation is maintained by accountability. If it was introduced for a decade, its effectiveness could be assessed and in a decade refreshed by referendum for a longer period. After al, if the voice is required in perpetuity, this means the body was not effective.

Accountability will be maintained because of the sheer number of people who will participate in the election of their representatives and also, this representative body/Voice will have no power to spend money nor will it have the power to compel Government to act in a particular way.

Its advice will necessarily be given voice to the Parliament but then it is up to the Parliament of Australia as to what to do with this advice. There is no compulsion, legal or otherwise, for the Parliament to acquiesce to advice given by the Voice of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people.

4) The voice in my opinion is a political weapon. As if politicians wanted a "voice" they could simply call land councils today for their opinion on matters or set up steering committees......just like every other policy. Why is this different?

With all respect, it’s rather naïve of you to think that all a politician/Minister/government has to do is to pick up the phone and talk to land councils and that would form the basis of policy.

To begin with, that is fraught with danger because of exactly what you brought up in points 2) and 3), that is, the opportunity of corruption and influence by politicians who could buy influence and keep others silent.

Secondly the whole idea of the Voice to parliament is to take the politics out of Indigenous affairs by establishing a Voice to Parliament which is non-binding and non-compelling and which is arrived at from the “bottom up”, not from the “top down”. It is so Governments cannot introduce things like a cashless welfare card which is not only absolutely discriminatory, but also a blatant action to placate and win favour with the racists and supremacists in the electorate.

It is ludicrous to think that laws are made which directly impact upon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, no matter how well intentioned, without any input or advice from the people for whom these laws are intended for. The law makers have little or no concept of the cultures and structures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and therefore, do not understand the consequences of such laws upon these people.

There is nothing of course that a non-binding voice to Parliament can do for such abysmal legislation, however, Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders will be able to legally and constitutionally raise their voice to the Australian Parliament and therefore, instead of politicians, both for and against playing politics with what is “good or bad” for Aboriginals, the politics will be rendered, for the most part, irrelevant because the people for whom these laws are intended will be able to Voice their concerns. This will mean that politicians and the media speculating what is good for “them” and trotting out all manner of bought, self-serving and “career aboriginal Industry figures”, will be marginalised because Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders have made their views crystal clear to the Australian Parliament.


5) Many of the challenges faced by indigenous people and even non-indigenous people are local issues. Police, employment and health are local issues and not federal. Part of the peoblem isn't a "voice" (as there are many indigenous representatives in parliament) but an issue of federal govt over reach. We needed better and greater empowered local and state government.

First of all Power Raid, you are not correct in asserting that there are “many indigenous representatives in parliament”.

There are 11 Indigenous people in the Australian Parliament who are part of a Political Party system and represent the constituencies that elected them to Parliament; the vast majority of the constituents are not indigenous.

Secondly, after the 1967 Referendum, State Governments can still make laws for Indigenous people but if these laws come into conflict with laws made the Federal Parliament, then State laws are overridden.

You rightly point out that challenges faced by Indigenous people (as well as non-indigenous people) are local issues however, it is not a matter of federal government overreach, it is a matter of Federal Government washing its hands to the “Aboriginal problem” and palming it off to State Governments.

The 2021 Census stated that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represented 3.2% of the population yet incarceration levels of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is over 28% of the entire adult prison population. The life expectancy of Indigenous males is 71.6 years as opposed to non-indigenous male life expectancy of 80.2 years. For females it’s 75.6 years as opposed to 83.4 years of age.

Greater empowerment needs to be given to the Indigenous peoples, all 3.2% of them, to advise Federal Government who have been given the power to make laws for the Indigenous people and not to local and State Government. It should be the Federal Government working with Local and State Governments to implement policies that Aboriginal people have had a say in instead of it falling to local and State Governments to enact laws which, a lot of the time, is well intentioned but a lot of the time, it’s suits their political objectives.


In summary Power Raid, it was nearly 56 years ago that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were recognised as being human beings. Up until then, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were counted as part of the livestock. Only after 90% of Australians voted Yes at a referendum was it that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were counted as part of the population and the Commonwealth was able to make laws for them.

The Yes vote saw Section 127 of the Constitution repealed. Up until then, Section 127 had provided that, “in reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted”.

It was not until 1984 that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were granted full voting rights and the proposed referendum to grant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a Voice to Parliament, is a critically important step towards reconciliation.

The Uluru Statement From The Heart calling for a Voice To Parliament is a gesture of goodwill and trust from Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Nations towards all Australians. We should show the same goodwill and trust to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by voting Yes to the referendum granting them a legal Voice to parliament.

The Uluru Statement From The Heart called for a Voice to Parliament to be implemented first and be enshrined in our Constitution so as it can never be taken away. It is a starting point for dialogue between the Indigenous peoples and the Australian Parliament for things like a Treaty, for “closing the Gap”. It is not prescriptive nor binding, it is a basic legal right for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Peoples to have their Voices heard. Surely that is not a massive imposition upon the Australian Parliament and the people of Australia? It will enhance our Democracy and unite us.

 

[Rob R]

Probably not. At least with the Same Sex Marriage vote Turnbull was in favour, and allowed Liberals to support it if they wished. Easily pigeonholing the conservatives to one side.

Obviously Dutton doesn't support it and is trying to build a narrative that Labor haven't provided enough information, therefore he can't support it, rather than the real reason (he hates Indigenous people). He may allow individual members to support it but the official Liberal position will not be in support.

So big question, will Albanese take it to a referendum without bipartisan support? He must be aware the conservatives are frothing at the mouth to run a race based hate campaign, and Indigenous people are going to cop massive abuse this year. They'll be accused of getting "special rights white Aussies don't get". There'll be fearmongering that this will lead to Indigenous people kicking whites off their land, ala what happened when Native Title came around. Or Indigenous people getting compensation for British settlement. Any race based hate campaign you can think of will be employed.

Does Albo risk it? If he loses this referendum it'll re-energise the currently dying conservatives.

The more I look through social media the more I think it'll fail. The SSM vote at least had clearly defined outcomes (gay couples being allowed to marry, which most of the developed world already had) and the majority know what marriage is. For this one it is less well defined. Most Australians aren't going to delve into the specifics of Indigenous Advisory bodies. The more the right can cloud the issue the less likely your average politically uninterested Aussie will vote Yes.

If I were Albo I would think of starting the "Truth, Treaty and Voice" debate with the Truth part - a memorial to Indigenous killed during the frontier wars, and the Treaty - can be done via an act of parliament.

He will take it to referendum for sure - he wins either way, the teals and voters in marginal seats will mostly say yes so he will claim credit for a win, blame the libs for a no and make sure any opponents in the ALP aren't allowed to.say no so the libs appears disunited not labour.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Power Raid]

Thank you for the effort put into this. It is not only comprehensive but well considered

As promised Power Raid. Apologies for the inordinate amount of time it took me to fulfil my promise.

My concern is a couple of fold:

1) firstly I don't believe we should have an organisation based on race (add religion and sex). The catholic church once had a powerful voice and it often lead to negative outcomes and we have seen a ugly voice of the happy clappy church emerge in in recent years. A voice based on race, sex or religion is not the direction I feel is synergistic with our values on anti-discrimination.........but the voice is a popular idea and will happen regardless of what I think.

You are under the misconception that the Voice is going to be an organisation; it is not.

The Voice is a “bottom up”, so to speak process which will give non-binding advice to the Federal Parliament in matters concerning the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. It will not be a convoluted bureaucracy populated by people who seek careers in the “Aboriginal industry” and the inevitable fiefdoms that are created within these unwieldy institutions.

I like a bottom up structure for this situation

2) given we are going to have it, I'm concerned about the integrity of the organisation and the effectiveness. If it were democratic (voted by indigenous groups) and large in number (number of people) it becomes more difficult for politicians to corrupt, as the number of people that have to be bought and kept silent is difficult.

Integrity and fidelity of the advice given to the Parliament is paramount.

The draft proposal of a Voice to the SA Parliament is instructive and is in keeping with the proposals made by the Indigenous co-design Report as presented by Ken Wyatt and was part of the 2019 election promise by the LNP to develop options for an Indigenous voice. The SA Proposal is as follows:

An equal number of Men and Women elected to represent the six regions elected by those within those regions and would be known as the Local First nations Voice. There would be 40 members, 3 men and 3 women from the five non-metropolitan regions and 5 men and 5 women from the greater metropolitan Adelaide region because of the larger population.

Only people who live within in the region will be allowed to vote in that region and they must be enrolled with the Australian Electoral Commission to do so.

The SA proposal is that the first Local First Nations Voice will be a stand-alone election and then, the Voice election will be at the same time as State Elections.

These 40 elected members would then choose 12 from within these 40 to form the State First Nations Voice to the State Parliament.

View attachment 1588363
View attachment 1588365
I think this satisfies your and my concerns that an “elite” group will have control of this process who are bought or influenced by politicians and others bought and silenced.

I like the shared male and female representation here as although this goes against the grain of sexual discrimination, we know there is male business and female business

Some issue just can't be discussed with a certain sex

I would prefer this representation to be enshrined as a steering committee of parliament rather than the constitution

3) The effectiveness of an organisation is maintained by accountability. If it was introduced for a decade, its effectiveness could be assessed and in a decade refreshed by referendum for a longer period. After al, if the voice is required in perpetuity, this means the body was not effective.

Accountability will be maintained because of the sheer number of people who will participate in the election of their representatives and also, this representative body/Voice will have no power to spend money nor will it have the power to compel Government to act in a particular way.

Its advice will necessarily be given voice to the Parliament but then it is up to the Parliament of Australia as to what to do with this advice. There is no compulsion, legal or otherwise, for the Parliament to acquiesce to advice given by the Voice of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people.

I hear you

What I will add is I want to see the most disenfranchised people in Australia and in this case we are considering those with indigenous back grounds. For this to be sustainable it must be effective and accountable.

Having something in perpetuity without time limits and measurable outcomes in not in line with these principles.

If this does work and assessed to be refreshed I think we would all support expanding this model to other disenfranchised parts of the community. but again why the constitution, why not a steering committee to parliament?

4) The voice in my opinion is a political weapon. As if politicians wanted a "voice" they could simply call land councils today for their opinion on matters or set up steering committees......just like every other policy. Why is this different?

With all respect, it’s rather naïve of you to think that all a politician/Minister/government has to do is to pick up the phone and talk to land councils and that would form the basis of policy.

To begin with, that is fraught with danger because of exactly what you brought up in points 2) and 3), that is, the opportunity of corruption and influence by politicians who could buy influence and keep others silent.

Secondly the whole idea of the Voice to parliament is to take the politics out of Indigenous affairs by establishing a Voice to Parliament which is non-binding and non-compelling and which is arrived at from the “bottom up”, not from the “top down”. It is so Governments cannot introduce things like a cashless welfare card which is not only absolutely discriminatory, but also a blatant action to placate and win favour with the racists and supremacists in the electorate.

It is ludicrous to think that laws are made which directly impact upon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, no matter how well intentioned, without any input or advice from the people for whom these laws are intended for. The law makers have little or no concept of the cultures and structures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and therefore, do not understand the consequences of such laws upon these people.

There is nothing of course that a non-binding voice to Parliament can do for such abysmal legislation, however, Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders will be able to legally and constitutionally raise their voice to the Australian Parliament and therefore, instead of politicians, both for and against playing politics with what is “good or bad” for Aboriginals, the politics will be rendered, for the most part, irrelevant because the people for whom these laws are intended will be able to Voice their concerns. This will mean that politicians and the media speculating what is good for “them” and trotting out all manner of bought, self-serving and “career aboriginal Industry figures”, will be marginalised because Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders have made their views crystal clear to the Australian Parliament.

ATSIC ended up a very dangerous organisation and part of the reason it got that way was it was a political hot potato

Anything based on race becomes a political weapon "you want to do something against ATSIC.........you're a racist"

This is why a steering committee rather than the constitution is the place


Further mining companies pick up the phone with land councils and elders. Why would it be hard for ministers and their staff? It is called dealing with stakeholders and doing business.

5) Many of the challenges faced by indigenous people and even non-indigenous people are local issues. Police, employment and health are local issues and not federal. Part of the problem isn't a "voice" (as there are many indigenous representatives in parliament) but an issue of federal govt over reach. We needed better and greater empowered local and state government.

First of all Power Raid, you are not correct in asserting that there are “many indigenous representatives in parliament”.

There are 11 Indigenous people in the Australian Parliament who are part of a Political Party system and represent the constituencies that elected them to Parliament; the vast majority of the constituents are not indigenous.

what % is that in parliament compared to the % of the population?

Secondly, after the 1967 Referendum, State Governments can still make laws for Indigenous people but if these laws come into conflict with laws made the Federal Parliament, then State laws are overridden.

You rightly point out that challenges faced by Indigenous people (as well as non-indigenous people) are local issues however, it is not a matter of federal government overreach, it is a matter of Federal Government washing its hands to the “Aboriginal problem” and palming it off to State Governments.

The 2021 Census stated that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represented 3.2% of the population yet incarceration levels of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is over 28% of the entire adult prison population. The life expectancy of Indigenous males is 71.6 years as opposed to non-indigenous male life expectancy of 80.2 years. For females it’s 75.6 years as opposed to 83.4 years of age.

Greater empowerment needs to be given to the Indigenous peoples, all 3.2% of them, to advise Federal Government who have been given the power to make laws for the Indigenous people and not to local and State Government. It should be the Federal Government working with Local and State Governments to implement policies that Aboriginal people have had a say in instead of it falling to local and State Governments to enact laws which, a lot of the time, is well intentioned but a lot of the time, it’s suits their political objectives.


In summary Power Raid, it was nearly 56 years ago that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were recognised as being human beings. Up until then, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders were counted as part of the livestock. Only after 90% of Australians voted Yes at a referendum was it that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were counted as part of the population and the Commonwealth was able to make laws for them.

The 1967 referendum was not about livestock, fauna, flora or any other category.

Prior to 1967 the federal government had no powers regarding indigenous people rather the states held that power.

and yes I agree the indigenous people trail behind others in so many important measurements. We need to fix this glaring issue with (not for) indigenous people, as we all own our history.

The Yes vote saw Section 127 of the Constitution repealed. Up until then, Section 127 had provided that, “in reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted”.

It was not until 1984 that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were granted full voting rights and the proposed referendum to grant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a Voice to Parliament, is a critically important step towards reconciliation.

The Uluru Statement From The Heart calling for a Voice To Parliament is a gesture of goodwill and trust from Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Nations towards all Australians. We should show the same goodwill and trust to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by voting Yes to the referendum granting them a legal Voice to parliament.

The Uluru Statement From The Heart called for a Voice to Parliament to be implemented first and be enshrined in our Constitution so as it can never be taken away. It is a starting point for dialogue between the Indigenous peoples and the Australian Parliament for things like a Treaty, for “closing the Gap”. It is not prescriptive nor binding, it is a basic legal right for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Peoples to have their Voices heard. Surely that is not a massive imposition upon the Australian Parliament and the people of Australia? It will enhance our Democracy and unite us.

believe if we give something back to indigenous people, the gap will close........and that is opportunity, aspiration and hope.

We can throw just money at the problem and it will fail, as it has done to date.

If the voice (which will happen despite my concerns) generates opportunity, aspiration and hope, then we have a future we can all look forward to owning.

 

[campbell]

Sad when one talks to someone born overseas, and they say how racist Australians are especially Queenslanders.

Like uh huh.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

The libs out of racism, spite or mean political calculation are trying to poison the well.

Sadly Labor are doing **** all to counter their bullshit and expose the silly games Dutton is playing.

Just call em out.

 

[Festerz]

The libs out of racism, spite or mean political calculation are trying to poison the well.

Sadly Labor are doing * all to counter their bullshit and expose the silly games Dutton is playing.

Just call em out.

There is a real danger in tackling them on their own ground and giving their BS commentary oxygen and credibility it doesn't deserve, (think of the 'When did you stop beating your wife?' dilemma).

Dutton has an exceptionally low approval rating in the community and his current behaviour is all about managing a divided and decimated partyroom and retaining his position as leader despite appalling polling week after week.

The facts on the Voice and the proposed changes are out there and the PM and other Ministers including the Attorney General made a detailed factual rebuttal of Dutton's lies on various media outlets. The fact that it has received virtually no coverage elsewhere in the media is reflective of our toxic media cheer squad environment.

Being calm and truthful with the facts and letting Dutton, the LNP and their dwindling supporter base out themselves for the racist liars they are is a good strategy imho. I have faith in the Australian people to see straight through it.

 

[Northalives]

Thank you for the effort put into this. It is not only comprehensive but well considered





I like a bottom up structure for this situation



I like the shared male and female representation here as although this goes against the grain of sexual discrimination, we know there is male business and female business

Some issue just can't be discussed with a certain sex

I would prefer this representation to be enshrined as a steering committee of parliament rather than the constitution



I hear you

What I will add is I want to see the most disenfranchised people in Australia and in this case we are considering those with indigenous back grounds. For this to be sustainable it must be effective and accountable.

Having something in perpetuity without time limits and measurable outcomes in not in line with these principles.

If this does work and assessed to be refreshed I think we would all support expanding this model to other disenfranchised parts of the community. but again why the constitution, why not a steering committee to parliament?


ATSIC ended up a very dangerous organisation and part of the reason it got that way was it was a political hot potato

Anything based on race becomes a political weapon "you want to do something against ATSIC.........you're a racist"

This is why a steering committee rather than the constitution is the place


Further mining companies pick up the phone with land councils and elders. Why would it be hard for ministers and their staff? It is called dealing with stakeholders and doing business.


what % is that in parliament compared to the % of the population?

The 1967 referendum was not about livestock, fauna, flora or any other category.

Prior to 1967 the federal government had no powers regarding indigenous people rather the states held that power.

and yes I agree the indigenous people trail behind others in so many important measurements. We need to fix this glaring issue with (not for) indigenous people, as we all own our history.



believe if we give something back to indigenous people, the gap will close........and that is opportunity, aspiration and hope.

We can throw just money at the problem and it will fail, as it has done to date.

If the voice (which will happen despite my concerns) generates opportunity, aspiration and hope, then we have a future we can all look forward to owning.

Thank you brother and I hope to continue this discussion with you.

 

[Northalives]

The libs out of racism, spite or mean political calculation are trying to poison the well.

Sadly Labor are doing * all to counter their bullshit and expose the silly games Dutton is playing.

Just call em out.

The problem with that is that the ALP risk getting into a fight with the extremists and supremacists and that is exactly what those pieces of shit wrapped in skin want.

Far better calm and measured and not using Aboriginal peoples as a football to kick back and forth.

 

[Northalives]

The No vote will be led by Price and Mundine. No surprise, he's speaking to the Minerals Council about why to vote No:

The Voice 'No' campaign to be launched in February

The campaign to convince Australians to reject the government’s proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament is set to be launched in February.

www.skynews.com.au

Opportunists who have made careers in the "Aboriginal industry" and are shit scared that they will be made irrelevant and redundant.

 

[Not Important]

so good 2 read the comments of someone knowledgeable.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

The problem with that is that the ALP risk getting into a fight with the extremists and supremacists and that is exactly what those pieces of s**t wrapped in skin want.

Far better calm and measured and not using Aboriginal peoples as a football to kick back and forth.

That's fair, but at some point you have to overtly address their racism.

Sabotage by stealth is still sabotage. At least fight for the people you profess to care about.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

There is a real danger in tackling them on their own ground and giving their BS commentary oxygen and credibility it doesn't deserve, (think of the 'When did you stop beating your wife?' dilemma).

Dutton has an exceptionally low approval rating in the community and his current behaviour is all about managing a divided and decimated partyroom and retaining his position as leader despite appalling polling week after week.

The facts on the Voice and the proposed changes are out there and the PM and other Ministers including the Attorney General made a detailed factual rebuttal of Dutton's lies on various media outlets. The fact that it has received virtually no coverage elsewhere in the media is reflective of our toxic media cheer squad environment.

Being calm and truthful with the facts and letting Dutton, the LNP and their dwindling supporter base out themselves for the racist liars they are is a good strategy imho. I have faith in the Australian people to see straight through it.

All good points.

Then at least borrow from the Andrews playbook, pretend the Libs don't exist but strenuously refute their argument through simply and repetitively outlining what Voice entails and what it doesn't.

 

[Festerz]

so good 2 read the comments of someone knowledgeable.

All excellent rebuttal from an esteemed Constitutional Law expert. No doubt those in this thread who have parroted the bigoted politicking of Peter Dutton on the points raised will scurry back here to admit they were wrong.

Professor Twomey's comments about Dutton's bizarre demand that a Draft Bill should be released prior to the Referendum is also worth a read/listen.

Indigenous Voice details should not be released, says constitutional law expert

Releasing draft legislation for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be inappropriate, a leading constitutional law expert says, as the federal opposition continues to press for more detail.

www.abc.net.au

"It goes completely against the entire point of the referendum," Professor Twomey said.

"If you start putting out a detail with the bill, et cetera, people will think that that's what they're voting on in the referendum."

"The voting in the referendum is on the words and the change that you put into the constitution," Professor Twomey said.

"So it's the words that say — there shall be this body, it has the function of making representations to parliament and we have to leave parliament to decide the rest."

"In fact, the process involves getting parliament to decide those things in the future and change them from time to time where needed."


All these issues were covered in considerable detail in the discussion documentation released under the former Coalition Government. Labor has been consistent in saying those details would be covered by legislation if the Voice passes a referendum, repeatedly referring to the 2021 Calma-Langton report on the Voice as one of the documents that will inform eventual legislation.

That Dutton and the Coalition have to rely on blatant lies and misinformation to make their case against this Indigenous Voice Referendum and choose this issue as their key political battleground against theGovernment is not surprising. But it really does highlight how toxic and unsuited to government the Coalition has become.

Also no surprises that the over 50s from Queensland are the Australian demographic most opposed to the Voice Referendum at this point.

 

[AndyD]

So can you name anything tangible she’s done of value to improve the lives of indigenous persons? Considering she and her Nats are all about “real solutions”.

Can you point to any tangible real benefits that have flown from Rudd’s apology apart from making inner city leftist’s feel all warm and fuzzy inside because they are protecting the poor blacks who can’t defend or help themselves from the nasty redneck racists?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AndyD]

Imagine if First Nations people were consulted on - “hey, is it a good idea if we take your children?”

First Nations people have had the absolute opposite of a voice for a very long time now and conservatives didn’t scream racism then.

Bizarre someone who clearly sees themselves s “anti racist” making such a discriminatory comment. Why would you look at an at risk Indigenous child any different to an at risk non Indigenous child, if not for a pretty clear underlying bias against Indigenous people.

It is attitudes and views like these which have done more to contribute to the poor outcomes for Indigenous people of this country more than anything else. Why would we need to consult the Indigenous community about issues such as that or drug/alcohol abuse but wouldn’t dare for the Asian or any other community?

The entire Voice discussion seems to be so the rest of the population don’t have to soil themselves by having to deal with the wider Indigenous communities and just the one designated blackfella.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Can you point to any tangible real benefits that have flown from Rudd’s apology apart from making inner city leftist’s feel all warm and fuzzy inside because they are protecting the poor blacks who can’t defend or help themselves from the nasty redneck racists?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a dumb question.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

I'd be happy to support a voice to parliament on the proviso it would resolve the question of 'Indigenous Sovereignty'.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'd be happy to support a voice to parliament on the proviso it would resolve the question of 'Indigenous Sovereignty'.

And what is that question?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

And what is that question?

Treaty...ferk you people are dumb