Linda Burney delivers forthright plea for Yes vote while detailing priorities for the Voice

Rubbish. Read the amendment. Parliament retains power.

Rubbish. It does NOT! See, I can write lies too.

“A proposed law to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.”

@Farqu2
Clause 2 of the proposed wording of the change to the Constitution states:
“The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”
Where does it say that the Parliament and/or Executive Government cede its powers to the Voice? Pretty disingenuos of you to suggest some mythical loss of power, when it’s not actually there.

Well at least you were honest about the fact you write lies.

@JustSaying. You have devastated me with your personal attack. You will be the one with egg on your face when you have to start paying $$$ on your block, unless you are one of them. The Voice is a major con job by a pack lying pollies and their sucked in supporters.

@farqu2
Yawn … do you actually have anything of substance to add to the debate?

@JustSaying. It is my opinion you debate with a large group of people. It’s well known as a mass debate which I believe you would be a expert in.

@farqu2
Oh you are so witty and clever.

Well, you would be if you had come up with that one on your own. As usual – you have nothing of substance to contribute to the intellectual debate. Yawn!

@Spiral
“If the Voice existed when the embassy legislation was in parliament it could make demands such as: “We will hold up your legislation on the Russian Embassy until after the sitting period ends and thus you won’t get it through, unless you give us what we want”

What utter claptrap. At least familiarise yourself with the facts before you start sprouting falsehoods.

The Voice will be an advisory body, not a legislative body. Yes, if it exisited, the Voice could probably have made representations on the “Russian lease” legislation – if they could be bothered to do so. So what?

Where in the proposed wording of the constitutional change, does it say the government/parliament must listen to the Voice? It doesn’t.

As Professor Anne Twomey, one of the nation’s top constitutional experts, wrote in a submission to the joint select committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum “There is no obligation upon parliament or the executive government to respond to the representations [from the voice] or give effect to them. There is no obligation of prior consultation. There is no requirement to wait to receive a representation before the executive government of parliament can act.”

So, HOW CAN THE VOICE HOLD UP LEGISLATION? I’m using capitalisation in the hope you can read it and respond.

Please reread what I wrote.

The Voice will have the right to have its say on any legislation it can argue affects indigenous Australians. We won’t know the limits of that until the High Court rules on a few cases (see my suggestions as to why the embassy legislation could be argued to affect them).

For legislation which the Voice gets to offer their opinion on, there is currently not a set time limit (again the High Court will probably end up ruling on this) but the government will have to wait until the opinion is offered.

So the Voice would be able to raise its hand for potentially almost any legislation, demanding to be able to give its view and not provide that view until after that current parliamentary sitting period is finished (a few weeks), thus delaying legislation. Of course, they may then offer to provide a very quick response and not delay legislation if the Government agrees to do things the Voice members want.

@Spiral
I don’t need to reread what you wrote. Your follow-up comment is equally claptrap.

Do me a favour, rather than listen to commentary, actually read the proposed wording of the change to the Constitution – which you can find here:
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/next-step-towards-voice-referendum-constitutional-alteration-bill

Once you have read it, come back and tell me which clause of that wording will allow the Voice to “…not provide that view until after that current parliamentary sitting period is finished (a few weeks), thus delaying legislation.”

Clause 2 states:
“The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”
What part of the wording in that clause (or any other part of the proposed wording) requires the Parliament to wait for such a representation to be made before legislation can be passed?

By all means, you are free to oppose the proposed change, but at least do it for factual reasons not on the basis of fabricated fear mongering.

“The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples””

Are you suggesting that the Voice will be happy with the government making legislation, passing it and saying to the Voice: “Sure, give us your opinions on the passed legislation and we’ll address that when we get around to it”?

The Voice proposal does not say when the Voice gets to make its representation and how long they have to take it. You certainly can interpret it one way, but it is so poorly worded that we won’t know how it works until the High Court rules on it.

The High Court certainly could rule that the Voice gets to have its say on new legislation before it is passed. Show me where it prevents that interpretation! The Voice members will undoubtably be pushing for this interpretation due to the power it will provide them.

This would mean they have the right to make representation and the government has to allow them sufficient time to get people together, discuss the issue and form an opinion, thus leading to where legislation can be delayed.

@Spiral
Unlike you, I am not making any assumptions or suggestions in relation to the Voice.

I have simply read the proposed wording and don’t see anything in said wording which makes me feel afraid of what is proposed.

I think one assumption I’m prepared to make is that you have never wanted to support the Voice, so you manufacture “gotchas”, to justify your stance.

Nevertheless I’ll give you my opinion on some of your statements.

“Are you suggesting that the Voice will be happy with the government making legislation, passing it and saying to the Voice: “Sure, give us your opinions on the passed legislation and we’ll address that when we get around to it”?”
As above – I’m not suggesting anything. However, Professor Anne Twomey, an expert on Constitutional law, has suggested that there is no obligation on the Executive Government or Parliament along the lines you suggest. Remember, clause 3 of the proposed wording leaves it to the Parliament of the day to determine “… the composition, functions, powers and procedures” of the Voice. Just as Section 51 of the Constitution leaves it to the Parliament of the day to determine legislation on 39 matters (including tax), without providing one iota of detail on what such legislation will contain.

“Show me where it prevents that interpretation!” Another classic example of a non sequitur fallacy. Of course I can’t show you – because it doesn’t exist. There have been no High Court rulings on any aspect of the Voice, so nobody can state how any challenge would be interpreted.

You make the same ‘night follows day’ assumption that any High Court challenge will automatically be successful. Again, it makes you feel good about your negativity towards the referendum. Whereas I’m not frightened by High Court challenges to the Constitution. Our history is laden with such challenges – some successful, some not. Challenges reflect the high level nature of the Constitution as the document which underpins our legal framework.

By all means, express your opposition towards the referendum, that’s your democratic right, but at least do it based on actual facts, not strawman arguments about what might happen should the bogeyman succeed.

Unlike you “waggamick” Minister Burney has the wit, wisdom and humility to know that she doesn’t know everything there is to know about education. I suggest you follow the lead of those whose capacity to lead is greater than yours. Thanks.

Max_Rockatansky, the answer to your last two sentences is obviously and correctly, no. Where does the Constitution state the staff and budget of Treasury, Defence, Services, any other department at all?

Do you understand much about the Constitution and parliamentary legislation? I have responded to another on that detail below.

Well said!

“Can’t we ask those questions right now in the community?” The short answer is yes, and organisations have been doing this for decades. The problem that a lot of Australians aren’t considering is that after years of Government officials, consultants, advocacy groups and charity organisation’s dropping in and asking what they need, why has so little changed in the ‘Closing the Gap’ targets? Indigenous communities talk about the fatigue of constantly repeating themselves around what changes could be made that would actually make a difference to them, and when you see so little being done you just stop answering the questions all together. The Voice’s aim is to create a body of people that will consult with their peers and will speak on their behalf on matters that affect them. I hope this has answered your question and gives you a better insight.

Sickofthewhinging,
Not seeing how your comment provides a better insight, in fact it begs more questions.

How exactly is the Voice going to achieve outcomes more than the currently existing or previous organisations designed to do the same?

You seem to be claiming that the current organisations which also have significant levels of direct indigenous representation and enormous funding can’t adequately consult with their peers and develop solutions, but the Voice somehow will be different, far better and more effective.

How?

If the Voice was such a good idea, there’s no need for a referendum, legislate it now and see how it performs. If it works as you claim, it would be successful and could then be enshrined in the constitution at a later date.

The issue with using legislation for social change is the ease with which it can be thrown out. Indigenous representative bodies have been created by previous governments of both major party’s through legislation and, over time, each of these bodies were shut down due to neglect or removal of funding. With that, the confidence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in government intervention dwindled as a result. Changes to the Constitution are binding and while that is scary, amendments have been made in the past for the benefit of the country. The Uluru Statement of the Heart was the outcome of one of the largest meetings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives of recent history and they, collectively, agreed to commit to the Voice as a first action. While changing the Constitution doesn’t happen often,

The issue with using legislation for social change is the ease with which it can be thrown out. Indigenous representative bodies have been created by previous governments of both major party’s through legislation and, over time, each of these bodies were shut down due to neglect or removal of funding. With that, the confidence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in government intervention dwindled as a result.
Changes to the Constitution are binding and while that is a scary concept, amendments have been made in the past for the benefit of the country. The Uluru Statement of the Heart was the outcome of one of the largest meetings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives of recent history and they agreed that the Voice enshrined into the constitution was the best way to move forward on matters that directly impact them. This in itself is a strong indicator of the commitment that will be given to this body.
I genuinely don’t understand the vitriol that is being thrown towards this concept. At the end of the day, they will only be able to give their opinion to Government, they do not have the ability to change law’s themselves which is where a lot of the fearmongering lies.

“The issue with using legislation for social change is the ease with which it can be thrown out.”

But you’re claiming it would be an effective body, why would a government remove an effective body that achieved real outcomes for Indigenous Australians? And as it would be running as a deliberate trial for permanency, no government would dare remove it in the short term.

Almost seems like you and others making this argument don’t actually believe the stated claims around how effective this body will actually be.

“Indigenous representative bodies have been created by previous governments of both major party’s through legislation and, over time, each of these bodies were shut down due to neglect or removal of funding. “

I would contend the failure of these bodies has very little to do with lack of funding or neglect, it’s mostly because they weren’t achieving outcomes and/or had serious governance issues with how they and the funding they were receiving was being used.

“Changes to the Constitution are binding and while that is a scary concept, amendments have been made in the past for the benefit of the country”

And most of the proposed amendments fail. So?

Past examples of successful amendments provide exactly zero evidence that this or other future proposals would be good or successful. The difficulty in making constitutional change is exactly why we should make sure that any proposal is well defined and linked to clear and obvious benefits for the country.

Most of the arguments I’ve read and heard against this have not been dissimilar to that of the suffragette movement. ‘Change is never good’, ‘this won’t benefit me personally so why should I care’ etc, etc. All I have done on a typically negative website is offer a different perspective to think about the subject and it’s been strawman’d with what aboutism’s that neither you or I can actually answer without knowing exactly what’s going on in current or previous government’s party room discussions.

LOL,
Most of the arguments I’ve heard FOR this change are either straight appeals to emotion or easily countered with points that are never sufficiently answered with logical reasoning.

It’s up to those proposing change to provide the detailed rationale for its acceptance.

If you were actually open to different perspectives, you’d probably have a think about the problems with the current proposal that I and others have raised and how the arguments being put forward in favour have significant flaws that should have been addressed well before we got to this point.

Or maybe you could just do as the Minister seemingly is intent on doing. Only talk to the echo chamber and then blame Trumpists and Misinformation (among others) for why the proposal is going south.

“It’s up to those proposing change to provide the detailed rationale for its acceptance.”

Read it. You know where it is. USftH.

Your response is that invaders with accomplished power should consider the democratic representations of those directly affected, long-standing first peoples here, then dismiss them on the presumable basis that the majority’s previous answers have worked so well, or anyway will be better in the future provided no-one disturbs your complacency.

Think about what someone else is asking, not what personal critique you think to impose on them. Your resistance to change is manifest.

“Your response is that invaders with accomplished power should consider the democratic representations of those directly affected, long-standing first peoples here, then dismiss them on the presumable basis that the majority’s previous answers have worked so well, or anyway will be better in the future provided no-one disturbs your complacency.”

That’s an interesting statement Bob.

Not slightly related to my position but interesting that this is what you think.

Hi Acton, firstly, there needs to be clarification of what Minister Burney is putting forward. She is not against the debating of ideas at all; however this needs to be a respectful debate and also without deliberate misinformation being putting out – that is part of the democratic process. Secondly, the misinformation mentioned above is illustrated by your claim that there would be “a group of politicians elected on the basis of race” – in the spirit of the debate that you claim to want put forward, could you please explain where that proposal is mentioned in the Voice referendum wording? That would be great. If it is not mentioned in the wording – then that would be misinformation wouldn’t it. Hopefully, you are genuinely just misinformed about this claim. Thirdly, and this is a very muddled point so hopefully you can clarify for us what you are talking about how would there be “parliamentary chaos” with a representative Voice for First Nations people – bearing in mind that these systems have successfully been implemented in other Commonwealth countries. Hoping you can clarify these points about your “debate.”