Voice referendum question revealed by tearful PM

Apparently Sky News set up the NIAA because they are the only media reporting it.

You just did talk about it, ignorantly as it may be.

Do you understand 18c?

@gooterz
” (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people”
What are you offended and/or insulted that if the referendum is successful, your natural order of things will be disturbed? How dare we regognise the First Nations people as the original inhabitants of the land – right?

“Do you understand 18c?”
Better than you, evidently. Go ahead to answer JustSaying’s question.

You are telling us as clearly as you may that you have no arguments, so it seems you wish to use derogatory invective to intimidate, and are saddened that doing so happens to be unlawful as well as vacuous. Any other laws you would like to break to vent uncivil rage?

Actually, it is believed there were 500 different “first nations” so this will mean 500 different voice agreements will be needed.

It is based on the “Uluru statement” which means nothing to the other 499 first nations.

It’s a scam.

@Capital Retro
Thank you for your opinion. I was never in any doubt as to where you would stand on indigenous recognition.

Capital Retro, your claim is false, unsurprisingly. “Delegates were selected from participants in regional Dialogues held around the country.” else you may take it the High Court.

All the best with that scam.

Accidental post there, so excuse any solecisms

I intended to add about the 250 delegates from around the country, and refer to source documents, but when did Capital Retro last bother with inconvenient facts?

Still waiting for the links.

gooterz, your premise is wrong. If you are concerned about the words to be in the constitution you will find them here as one instance: “https://theconversation.com/we-now-know-exactly-what-question-the-voice-referendum-will-ask-australians-a-constitutional-law-expert-explains-202143”
Parliament has the opportunity to confirm or amend the exact wording prior to the referendum.

You will know the amendment, a fact obvious to most people.

@Elf
“I work with plenty of indigenous men and women that are no different from me.” Oh believe me they are very different from you

I feel the same. I want my vote to count and be a way to advance Indigenous Australians, not tokenism for the a political party. I trust people like Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton and they approve of the voice so I will continue to listen to them.

Frankly, I could care less about the cost of the myriad government departments set up to implement programs to address Indigenous disadvantage. It’s up to the minister and heads of departments to work cross portfolio to ensure funding is effective and efficient, this should not be used as a justification to deny the Voice to parliament. (That’s a general reply to sentiments here not your comment geebs)

@Trevor Wills
Your desire to maintain the status quo with respect to First Nations people has been made clear in several posts, as has your regular bleating that a successful vote in the referendum will lead to apartheid. While I have serious doubts about your ability to do so coherently, I’ll ask anyway … perhaps you can explain how the road to apartheid would be an outcome?

You may have misunderstood that statement. It says the Parliament will have the power to make laws, which it already does, but will just now incorporate advice from the Voice. The Voice can provide the government with whatever advice they wish, but the government has no obligation to act on it by changing or making laws.

It is the latter phrase “… including its composition, functions, powers and procedures”, where “its” refers to the Voice, that is the cause of the question. What powers will the Voice have, which implies that it is more than just an advisory body?

You need to read the whole statement. It’s saying that the Parliament shall have the power to make laws with respect to the Voice including about its composition etc.

I can’t read it any other way. It’s not saying the Voice has powers to make laws.

DJA, the body which is the Voice will need to run itself. You need certain “powers” to do that. As Hoppingmad suggests, it is always under parliamentary control in terms of such capabilities.

@GrumpyGrandpa
“… but from the outset, I’ve seen this as nothing more than a political feel good electoral stunt and I’m yet to be convinced otherwise.”
So, it seems your default position was to oppose the idea unless you could be convinced otherwise.

I have the exact opposite perspective. I think it’s the first step in the right direction towards recognition of the fact that they are (and were) the first occupants of this country. Absolutely it’s a kind of lip service (after all the whole thing is framed in Brisitsh Colonial infrastructure), but it’s a start. If we leave it up to the lawyers to get it ‘perfect’ we’ll still be here in 100 years.
I remember one of the objections to The Apology when it was first proposed – “It’ll leave the Australian government exposed to litigation from those who were affected as ‘Stolen Generation’ kids.” Didn’t happen.
Sometimes sybolism speaks loudly.

Justsaying,
“symbolism” doesn’t belong anywhere near our Constitution.

And including further racist division in the document does nothing to move us forward as one nation, it exacerbates and locks in division with an “us” and “them” mentality.

If the idea is to fix specific issues, why do you need to include it in the constitution, which requires a referendum to change? The underlying assumption being that this is a permanent requirement and the issues will never be resolved.

And that doesn’t even begin to answer the legitimate questions raised on the detail of what exactly is being proposed and how it will positively benefit people of Indigenous heritage and the nation as a whole. Lots of emotional based feel good statements but very little logical and reasoned arguments as to why it’s a good thing.

If it was truly needed and will achieve results, why not enact the legislation for the voice now and run a trial on its effectiveness before enshrining it in the constitution?

It’s a poorly thought out idea from the start and it can already be seen that those who are opposed to it get derided as “racists” for simply questioning the validity of a change that by definition is racist itself.

@chewy14
Thank you for your opinion … I guess you’ll be voting No.

‘“symbolism” doesn’t belong anywhere near our Constitution.’
Funny that, because to me the Constitution perfectly symbolises the world of 1901.

This is an article that tells you in simple terms what a constitutional lawyer says about the proposed change – https://theconversation.com/we-now-know-exactly-what-question-the-voice-referendum-will-ask-australians-a-constitutional-law-expert-explains-202143

The whole point of this change is to enable indigenous people to advise the government on matters that affect them. There’s no question of The Voice having any part in legislating or vetoing any legislation. There’s absolutely no way that it can adversely affect anyone else. But most indigenous people believe that it will enable the government to understand the particular problems of their people, and thus to help solve them.

Why anyone would object to that is beyond my comprehension.

The Constitution is about principles. The Parliament determines legislation.

In the words for former High Court Justice Kenneth Hayne,
“The constitution sets out principles, not machinery … Asking for details is a distraction. It asks for a prediction of what parliament will do in the future. That is for parliament to decide.”

Calls for legislative specificity in the Constitutional amendment are legally unsound attempts to curtail the power of parliament, and to derail the proposal without reason.

I’ll bet on legal views of Hayne over the usual grab-bag of oppositionists here.

Just saying,
Not really an opinion, more an evidence based, factual position.

Bob,
Can’t see where anyone here has asked for legislative specificity in the constitutional amendment.

That link states:
“it is a matter for parliament to decide whether the representations of the Voice must be considered by decision-makers when making administrative decisions.”

If parliament can decide whether to follow the advice from the Voice, why does it need to be in the Constitution?

Why doesn’t the current government just set up a Voice committee now and take its advice when appropriate?

What benefit does having it added to the Constitution provide?

@chewy14
Just because you pontificate on something, it doesn’t make it fact … it’s still your opinion and it is only a single vote

JustSaying,
That’s two comments without addressing the points and facts raised. Waffling on about opinions doesn’t substitute for an argument.

Yes, I agree you have an opinion and that even the most uninformed citizen has one vote.

Perhaps if people think more closely about why they have a specific opinion and the evidence they used to support it, we might have more informed debate.

@chewy14
“we might have more informed debate” That’s side-splittingly laughable … your definition of debate is that you will give everybody your opinion and they need to accept it. No thanks, I’ll stick to ignoring your self aggrandising opinions.

chewy14, at the time, I was non-specific about what I was addressing. I read more widely. For this thread I will draw your attention to GrumpyGrandpa’s second paragraph as an apt example of someone requesting something which cannot usefully be delivered, an otiose attempt at prior constraint of parliament, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the machinery of government. If you do not understand that yourself, join him and vote as you please.

Your own contributions show no evidence, discussion or consideration of the facts that the first peoples and culture in Australia were formally recognised as prior holders of the land by the High Court over thirty years ago, a sovereignty not formally ceded despite invasion. The Uluru Statement From The Heart proposes a Voice and Makarrata, with the explicit aim of ultimately bringing all of us together more effectively, not separation.

By leaping to claims of racism in almost every post, as you do, you are simply race-baiting; a falsely diversionary attack of which PHON would be proud. I have more interesting and useful things to do than engage further with your unwavering prejudice.

Bob,
Grumpy Grandpa’s second paragraph is an attempt to consider what the supporting legislation and function of the Voice will look like in reality. It’s not remotely an attempt to add legislative specificity to the constitutional amendment or to constrain the parliament. It’s an attempt to understand the detail of what is being asked in the referendum.

But what it seems you are actually saying is that the proposed amendment is deliberately vague but still conveys extremely broad powers that will be shaped by the government over time. That no detail can be provided and people shpuld vote on a vague concept.

Your own point highlights the problem with the entire design of the proposal and why people should reject such a proposal with no solid reasoning, no direct purpose and no direct link to desired outcomes.

“The Uluru Statement From The Heart proposes a Voice and Makarrata, with the explicit aim of ultimately bringing all of us together more effectively, not separation.”

You can never bring people together by deliberately creating division as these proposals do. The idea that creating groups of citizens with different rights will somehow create unity is ridiculous.

“By leaping to claims of racism in almost every post,”

The proposal is by definition racist, It’s not remotely provocative to note that simple fact.

When the idea of constitutional change was first mooted i was extremely hopeful that they would include the removal of the existing race powers to remove any form of racism in the document. Instead they’ve perplexingly decided to add more. It’s extremely regressive thinking.

Enjoy your day Bob.

Hi GrumpyGrandpa, in reference to the key question you raised about whether the Voice will make a meaningful difference; the main point here is that to have constitutional recognition of First Nations people and a voice to Parliament of those people, is a step in the direction that we need to be taking. Of course no one could say ‘well if the referendum is passed, school retention rates will increase by 43.6% as that would not be possible with any type of referenda change. So what you are voting for, if you vote yes, is that you acknowledge the need for the voice as part of the process of reconciliation as acknowledged by most Indigenous groups. The Constitution doesn’t encompass all the required legislation that flows from it – that’s a different process enacted by our Parliament. So, for instance, the Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to enact laws relating to taxation – it doesn’t go into detail about what those laws are; for instance, we didn’t need to have a referendum to change the constitution to allow for the Goods and services Tax (GST). Hope this clarifies things.

@astro2
Well put – an erudite summary of the situation … but prepare yourself for the barrage from the usual nay sayers.

JustSaying,
My initial response to The Voice announcement was that it sounded like a “thought bubbles” during an election campaign.

I’m yet to be convinced otherwise, simply because other than the wording of the Referendum question, we know nothing and for reasons unknown to me, the PM is not prepared to give Australians any details of how it would work.

I will conceived that with all political promises or “thought bubbles” their are risks, because politicians never disclose legislation during a campaign.
The difference is that with most political promises or “thought bubbles”, we all have a general idea of what is being offered and how it will be delivered. ThatNot

so much with “The Voice”.

Symbolism doesn’t improve school retention rates, stop alcohol abuse or lift life expectancies.

@GrumpyGrandpa
“Symbolism doesn’t improve school retention rates, stop alcohol abuse or lift life expectancies.” You are right, but symbolism is a way of expressing an intent. I believe that that symbolism is to just acknowledge the special place First Nations people have in our history – and for mine, no better place than to enshrine it in the Constitution.
I mentioned the Apology above – it had no impact on my life, and it certainly didn’t change a lot to improve the every day lives of indegenous people, but having spoken to a lot of people who were effected by it, the sybolic nature of it was not lost on them.
“I’m yet to be convinced” – so rather than thinking “why not?”, you simply thought “why?” from the outset.

Hi grandpa, thx for being upfront and open about what your initial response was. Hopefully, after doing a bit more reading, you’ve moved on from those initial expectations? If not, and you do genuinely want to know more about the background to the Referendum, then reading the documents coming out from the Uluru Statement from the Heart would be a great starting place. I can search out links to the documentation around this – and there is a lot – so certainly not a “thought bubble” as you initially thought. There is a lot of documentation to get through in the background to the referendum questions and you certainly don’t need to read it all; however if this helps you then it’s easy to send through links.