The Voice

It's time for another referendum, our last, was in 1999 for an Australian Republic which failed.

Most referenda fail due to the way the question is phrased not that the concept is wrong.

The government will not send out Yes and No case pamphlets ahead of the Voice to Parliament referendum. Does this matter?

S11 of Federal Register of Legislation - Australian Government (the Act) requires that the yes and no cases be provided to the voters.

Without debating the merits of the cases, should we be going to a referendum blindly?

 

Bingo.

 

If the vote goes to referendum, and receives a "yes", the result cannot be overturned by subsequent governments. If the vote is taken within parliament, then it can be overturned.

As with every other referendum, the result will rely on the social media/media presentation ... The Voice is already being misrepresented by those who want it to fail

 

True but what if it's the wrong outcome? It's not just about recognition, it's the what else will be included.

The difficulty in the debate is that we're working on the vibe not the substance, so I am in agreement with @Simon Hampel - a scheme set up to fail not a plan for meaningful change, a treaty, restitution, recognition of our first nations people. Migrants to this country have more rights.

What are the misrepresentations if nothing has been presented? This is all based on interpretation and speculation.

 

The presentation I have seen is that there will be a panel of non-political appointed First Nations people/elders that will be consulted on, and help make decisions on, legislation that directly affects First Nations people.

The misinformation is social media comment stating that they will get a say in "everything" - which is not accurate

 

I suspect it's being left deliberately vague so that we don't end up in a situation, 5-10-15 years down the track where something codified in law turns out to be not suitable.

Only have to look at the difference between the "specific" US constitution and the mess it is creating in modern time ... compared to the deliberately vague Australian constitution that allows the courts/governments of the day to determine what is suitable

 

kinda sounds like writing a blank cheque. a better approach would be for the govt to setup the panel using the powers they already have, demonstrate that it doesn't become another waste of taxpayer's money, and only then, in the event it actually does achieve good outcomes - bring it to the referendum.

 

I dont get this .. as it is, the First Nations people already have lots of privileges. The Voice will just create more, and divide the people. How about the Voice of everyone else, Migrant or not? When is this going to stop?
It is a lot of money for something that IMHO is not constructive, and will not help this country to advance. They should just make everyone equal.
But sadly the reality is this might pass with the power of the Majority, and we the Silent Minority all will have to face the consequences.

 

Yes, and so vague. Apparently the voice will only "advise" on matters impacting first nations people. But who decides what "impacting" is? If a govt body asesses a decsion as non impacting, can this be referred to a court if the voice disagrees? And if you dont follow the "advice", is there recourse via the courts? Seems we will end up with a lot of judge made law, and additional compliance cost and delays etc.

 

I would like to know what it’s going to cost tax payers and what it’s really going to cost tax payers.

 

Don't we already have MPs of First Nations descent? Don't they represent both sides of politics?

There are currently 8/151 (5%) MPs and 3/76 (4%) senators in Parliament of FN descent, this is more than "the voice" which has no power maybe influence, they have been elected and have a voice.

 

It's more likely to be the opposite. Another case of tax payer funded virtue signalling that achieves nothing. Just like all the previous statements from the heart and other ******** like that. In 10 years time we'll be talking about some other idiotic initiative to 'close the gap', conveniently forgetting all the previous ones that promised to do the same.

 

Successive governments have botched this national issue for generations....

1972-1990 Department of Aboriginal Affairs
1990-2004 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC)
2004 Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs
2004 Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination (took over from ATSIC)
2004 National Indigenous Council
2006 Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (took over from Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination)

Now we have a referendum.... to do what exactly is still not clear.

 

Why do we need separate laws for them? If they want to be 'heard in their own affairs' they need to talk to their local councils, not sit on some federal body.

Furthermore, if aboriginal MPs aren't able to influence their own parties on these matters, what makes you think the body with no powers would? And why do we need to change constitution for it before it's proved it's usefullness?

 

There's not even a definition of indigenous.
None of the people promoting the voice can even define "Indigenous".
And if Pascoe is Indigenous then at about 50% of the population is Indigenous.
Is that why we can't have them vote, and when they do it doesn't count unless *real* Indigenous people like Pascoe and Lidia approve?

The ABC talked about Jacinta Price today and not once referred to her as "Indigenous" or "first Nations" as it does for the one it prefers and almost exclusively ever mentions.
Maybe we also need a voice to represent all Indigenous people at the ABC istead of favouring the select few.