Dutton says no to Indigenous Voice

@jorie1
What don’t you understand about “In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia …”? You seem to be caught up with the colour of their skin. It’s irrelevant. It’s about their unchallenged position in Australian history as the first inhabitants of the land. Can’t you even acknowledge that?

@farnarkler
Perhaps because the NIAA is a public service agency which answers directly to the MInister & Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians.

Ever thought of asking the people who proposed it, or read their proposal?

It’s like “public transport” in Canberra. We had a great bus service but it was replaced by a not needed and inferior service tram “network” costing billions more and taking more rent-seekers along for the ride.

@Capital Retro
Yeah, CR, nice attempt at … well I have no idea at what you are attempting with your totally irrelevant “analogy” (and with regard to that comment I definitely use the term loosely)
But OK, if you want to present the case to Canberrans – “if you don’t like the tram vote No in the referendum”, go for it.

I concede it was a bit deep for you – next time I’ll be more simplistic.

And? The last sentence of the NINA’S purpose pretty much covers the voice and at no extra cost.

@Capital Retro
Yes – perhaps it was deep and meaningless, CR. You could always start with relevance, before you worry about simplicity.

@jorie1
The power of the ruler of the second peoples to permanently settle in Australia is embedded in Chapter 1 of the Constitution.
So it’s ok to have an entity specifically based on racial identity -i.e. the BRITISH monarch, permanently in this important legal document but not the original (indigenous) permanent settlers?

Not big on reading the Constitution, are you jorie1.

Justsaying,
What race is “British”?

JS what language is the Constitution written in? Of course the British Monarch needs to be enshrined in the constitution as they invented the language spoken in Australia. If the indigenous settlers want to be enshrined in a legal document they can write their own and create their own system of government, not insert themselves in something established only 200 years ago!

@Sam Oak
Heaven forbid that Australia should ever become a republic and remove references to the British Monarch in the Constitution. The sky will definitely fall then, Sam, won’t it? Nevertheless keep pushing to preserve the ‘purity’ of the Constitution.

@chewy14
Ascendancy to the “British” monarchy is based on blood lines is it not? Isn’t race determined by blood lines?

This is not about discrimination based on race, but on heritage and inheritance, based on who was here first, who was dispossessed of their land with no compensation. As a result, they have lost what they had and been pushed aside ever since, as if they were an irrelevant minority without the right to be heard. We all have an obligation to ensure they’re treated better, we have all benefited from their loss of land.

BTW, there is no such thing as different races, as proven by scientific research into DNA. We are all one race, the human race. There are different cultures and the oldest culture alive today understands the history of this land better than us immigrants. If we value their knowledge and work with them collaboratively we all benefit. The Voice will ensure we all hear from them and are able to consider their perspectives. Seems smart to me.

@psycho
Unfortunately, history, specifically as it relates to the migration timeline in Australia, is irrelevant to a lot of the negative posters on here. To them the race card is much more important – they can, in their minds, present a cogent argument for confirming, their always intended no matter what the facts, No vote.

I actually love their comments about the Voice ‘doing nothing to change the current circumstances of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Island people’ – it’s as if they actually cared about those current circumstances.

Psycho,
I agree there is no such thing as “race” and have specifically said it is a meaningless characteristic above. Which is why it’s so disheartening to see people who claim to be against “racism” use race to define their wish to grant special rights to a specific group of people.

If it’s solely about inheritiance and heritage, I assume you think there should be some form of assessment and proof given for who should qualify to be eligible to qualify to vote on the Voice representatives?

Perhaps you can outline how you believe this should be achieved. The tripartite test? DNA mapping?

Or perhaps as you’ve even outlined yourself, we can recognise that Aboriginality is far more around culture and personal identity rather than biological heritage.

Best thing I’ve heard yet is left wing wokeism arguing amongst themselves whether “race” exists LOL.

It is achieved by people having to demonstrate a long-term (well before colonisation) ongoing connection to the land.

@Sam Oak
I’m sure chewy14 will contest your assessment of his “left wing wokeism”. Mind you it would be pretty hard for anyone not to be left of your ideology.

Psycho,
Nothing like that is currently proposed in the Voice wording. Noting that we don’t have the proposed legislation yet but your statement is different from the standard government approach for defining the Indigenuous status of individuals.

The Calma-Langton report which is the most fully fleshed out proposal simply included the 3 part test.

@chewy14
“… use race to define their wish to grant special rights to a specific group of people”
Why are you persisting with your “left wing wokeism” argument about race?
I thought we’d already agreed that the Voice is about the first ‘occupants’ of the land.
Why does proof of “aboriginality” even enter into the equation? Do you have a problem with people decide to identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?

“Noting that we don’t have the proposed legislation …” Ummm – you don’t think it’d be a good idea to actually resolve the referendum question first? Or are you making a similar call on Dutton to release the Coalition’s proposed legislation – should the referendum be successful and should they win the next election? You know, just so we have all of the details.

Justsaying,
No we didn’t agree about it, and I specifically didn’t reply to your last comment because you avoided the questions raised to go off on a tangent irrelevant to the key disscussion points.

“Why does proof of “aboriginality” even enter into the equation? Do you have a problem with people decide to identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?”

If you cannot see the inherent contradiction in your points, I can’t help you.

You say it’s not about race but about prior occupation, then in the next breath claim the definitions of who qualifies as Indigenuous are unimportant along with how claims of Indigenuous status are assessed and verified. You raised the issue of Native Title and I’ve shown how the proposed Voice application differs.

How can it be about prior occupation if individuals in the group it applies to don’t have to show evidence of their linkages to that prior occupation and continued connection with the land as used in Native Title cases?

Can you not see the clear flaws in that approach?

“Ummm – you don’t think it’d be a good idea to actually resolve the referendum question first?”

Understanding the breadth of the proposed constitutional change is key to understanding its potential impacts. The point above was simply to highlight that without the specific details of the proposed model, its impossible to know what definitions might be used because the power itself has been designed to be deliberately broad.

But yes you are right in that all we are being asked now is to vote on a change that creates a new vague power in the constitution that will be shaped by parliament over time. A new power with very little detail as to its purpose, desired outcomes and measures of success. A power that will be very difficult to remove if it proves problematic or achieves nothing.

The clear answer for anyone sensible would be to reject it based on those points alone. And yet we still have people trying to use emotional arguments to guilt the public into supporting it because they believe that doing “something” is better than doing nothing, no matter what the area is.

@dsact
Careful, dsact – or the usual suspects will accuse you of “lazy emotional language”.

“Indigenous Australians are not just another ethnic group as they have a connection to the land that we whities cannot truly grasp. ”

Have there been peer reviewed scientific studies into this superpower?

Which bit of their DNA passes on this ability? Is it something we can test for?

I know indigenous people who know a lot less about the Australian environment than I do, and based on the amount of household rubbish scattered around their yard, and their needlessly large inefficient car, seem to care much less for our land than I do.

Perhaps they’re not really indigenous?

I do not doubt some indigenous people have a very strong connection to the land. Some others clearly do not.

Some “whities” also have very strong connections to the land.

It would seem to be racist claptrap to claim that only one ethnic has this ability, but if there is some truth in it, has there been any attempts at what other effects this special indigenous DNA produces. Perhaps it results in a lack of respect for laws and contributes to the high number of indigenous proportions in custody.

Of course not. That would be stupid racist garbage.

But surprise surprise, the Yes vote people are pushing their racist views yet again when they decide it suits their cause.

Yes, the amount of lazy emotional language trotted out over the last 24hrs tells you all you need to know about this.

Not one attempt to explain the actual need and merits behind the proposal, you should just support it because of the vibe.

Funny how the first nation people reject the values of the invaders yet wear Akubra hats made from hair of exotic rabbits that the invaders introduced to their land.

@chewy14
A lot of commenters on here have put forward their reasons for supporting the Voice to Parliament. You and the other naysayers just don’t like their reasons. I don’t like your opinion (despite your assertion you are stating fact it is an opinion) – but that’s ok. Your opinion, like mine, is a single vote.

@Capital Retro
Yet another insightful contribution So we shouldn’t vote Yes, because if we do we’ll contract myxomatosis?

Justsaying,
Yes, a lot of comments have put forward emotional based reasons for backing the Voice. And when logical flaws in those positions are pointed out, they usually disappear or go straight to ad hominems and strawmen.

Even your attempt to call people “naysayers” is an attempt to discredit others to avoid addressing the sensible points raised.

The constitution provides the foundation of our country’s legal framework. Feel good arguments about “doing something” (anything) aren’t the slightest bit convincing on the need for change.

Sounds like you have already got it.

@chewy14
And you don’t attempt to discredit yaysayers by belittling their opinions as “lazy emotional language” – because they express a desire to acknowledge the First Nations people and, as brucewantstobecool says, provide permanency of an advocacy role for them, in the Constitution. Your argument against it is simply – it doesn’t belong in the Constitution … because you say it doesn’t. Hardly a compelling reason for me to vote No.

“Your argument against it is simply – it doesn’t belong in the Constitution”

Seems the responses aren’t being published, so will keep it simple

This is not remotely my argument and you would have to have not read any previous comments to think it is.

The rabbits are still thriving on City Hill.