18 July 2023

'Yes' and 'No' put forward their cases for Voice referendum

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
98
Australian flag, Australian Aboriginal Flag, Torres Strait Islander flag.

Australian, Aboriginal, and Torres Strait Islander flags fly as the nation prepares to vote in the Voice referendum. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

The formal ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ cases for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament can now be found on the Australian Electoral Commission’s website, after each side submitted their arguments.

The AEC listed and certified the cases on Tuesday (18 July) and uploaded them exactly as they were received, without any formatting or editing by the commission.

The No case has immediately sparked controversy, with former Australian Catholic University vice chancellor Professor Greg Craven furious that his words about the scope of the Voice (which he supports) have been “taken out of context” to promote the case against.

The wording for each case was authorised by a majority of members of parliament who voted for and against holding a referendum to change the Constitution to recognise Indigenous representation in lawmaking and policy development.

Both statements, while only summarising the respective cases, are quite lengthy at about 2000 words each and can be found in full here.

READ ALSO Consultants aren’t going away, no matter how tough the talk

Proponents for the Yes case say the referendum is about a better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and all Australians.

“Vote yes for unity, hope and to make a positive difference,” their statement says.

They say voting yes is about recognising Indigenous Australians in the Constitution and paying respect to 65,000 years of culture and tradition.

And, they say, it is about listening to advice from Australia’s First Nations people about matters that affect their lives, so governments make better decisions.

“Making practical progress in Indigenous health, education, employment and housing, so people have a better life,” the Yes camp says.

“It’s a change only you can make happen. Vote yes to an idea that comes directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves – Constitutional recognition through a Voice.”

The No case centres its argument on four grounds, saying a Voice to Parliament would be legally risky, divisive, too unknown, and permanent.

“This referendum is not simply about ‘recognition’. This Voice proposal goes much further,” its statement says.

“If passed, it would represent the biggest change to our Constitution in our history.

“It is legally risky, with unknown consequences. It would be divisive and permanent. If you don’t know, vote no.”

The No camp also argues that a Voice to Parliament would not help First Nations people.

“We all want to help Indigenous Australians in disadvantaged communities, to close the gap and achieve reconciliation. However, more bureaucracy is not the answer,” it says.

“There are currently hundreds of Indigenous representative bodies at all levels of government, along with the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has 1400 staff.

“A centralised Voice risks overlooking the needs of regional and remote communities.”

READ ALSO Australia joins G7’s Climate Club

The AEC will now use those authorised submissions for the typesetting, printing and physical distribution of the Yes/No pamphlet to all households – about 12.5 million.

The AEC will also translate the submitted words into 20 traditional Indigenous languages, plus about 35 other languages.

The typeset pamphlet will be uploaded on the AEC website when it is available and will replace the current submitted versions.

Only one official Yes and one official No case will be included in the pamphlet.

Australians will cast their votes in a referendum later this year on whether to change the Constitution.

The wording on the ballot papers will read:

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?

The proposed amendment to be inserted into the Constitution will also be included.

The provisions Australians will be voting to approve are:

  • There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
  • 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; and
  • The parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Join the conversation

98
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

This will be a referendum on this train crash of a government

Linda Burney said something to the effect of “from day one, the intray will be full”. Sounds like the pollies already know what needs to be done and don’t need a ‘Voice’ to do it.

People are entitled to vote however they want without being bullied or harassed.
Name calling, bullying or calling someone ‘uneducated’ or other juvenile names because they don’t vote the same as you is just immature. It makes you look like a bully.
Changing the wording in the Constitution is not a good idea and I haven’t been given any proof or evidence that it will improve anything for anyone.
I will be voting No.

Exactly right, joriel. That’s what democracy is all about. The people vote whatever way they want for whatever reason. There’s no “right” or “wrong” in democracy. So long as it’s a fair and informed vote, then everybody’s voice has exactly the same value.

HiddenDragon8:22 pm 19 Jul 23

The Yes pamphlet, and particularly the quotes it includes from prominent indigenous Australians, makes a feel good case for broad constitutional recognition.

The case for a constitutionally entrenched “Voice” to Parliament boils down to “something needs to be done, this is something and we’ve tried just about everything else that we care to think of, so let’s do it”.

That is a thin and desolate argument which never gets around to explaining why a body which (as we are incessantly told) will be advisory and have no veto or other coercive powers, will be able to overcome the implied deafness, incomprehension, intransigence and, one might even be forgiven for thinking, inherent prejudice of politicians and officials who have, as page 9 of the Yes pamphlet asserts “invested billions in programs that haven’t fixed problems or reached communities”.

There is also no clear explanation of why a constitutionally entrenched body which is advisory only would be any more effective than the existing proliferation of advisory and representative bodies – many of which have survived for decades without being abolished or defunded by governments which did not always welcome the views they put forward.

The Yes case comes from the nation’s largest First Nations dialogue (over 1,200 delegates) culminating in the uluru Statement from the Heart, As the PM said : ‘All of us should be proud that, amongst our great multicultural society is the oldest continuous culture in the world.’ How you could construe that to be “thin and desolate” we could only guess. If you feel thin and desolate about it then I feely sorry for you..

As the PM said : ‘All of us should be proud that, amongst our great multicultural society is the oldest continuous culture in the world.’

I do wonder about Albo’s grasp of reality here. Sure, human beings have been here in this land for tens of thousands of years. But likewise in other places for far longer. How would anyone know what Indigenous Australian culture(s) were like at any time before European colonisation, let alone 60 000 years ago?

There are no books to read, no recordings, nothing beyond a few cave paintings of hands and stick figures and kangaroos. Cave paintings are cultural objects, sure, but I struggle to see how it can be said that (say) Linda Burney who identifies as Aboriginal but has Scottish ancestry, speaks English, had a regular suburban education, and is in every way – apart from being the current Minister for Indigenous Affairs – an otherwise unremarkable Australian has the same cultural makeup as any of her ancestors from sixty thousand years ago. Does she go out at night and make cave paintings as taught by her ancestors?

How does this continuous culture thing work?

@skyring
“How does this continuous culture thing work?”
The High Court doesn’t have an issue understanding how it works!

If this forum is a representative sample of the general Australian population and assuming that any Canberra forum, based on past voting patterns is more likely to favour Yes over No, while observing that the majority of individual views expressed on this issue, in this forum, on different occasions, appear to be No, then a national referendum Yes vote is clearly doomed.
[Riotact – an idea for the next Today’s Poll – How do you intend to vote on the Voice Referendum, Yes/No.]

Stop this rubbish, now much more money are we throwing at ‘this entitled group

@davo1
Thank you for your erudite and intelligent contribution to the debate

I’m sorry I’m not as intellectual as you, but i think the average person is over giving and giving to the i want more and more group who seem to think they are more than equal

The King is our head of state and there should not be a token body to undermine his authority.

@Sam Oak
So, how will the establishment of the Voice undermine the king’s authority, Sam?

It’s all tokenistic and redundant. The Voice campaign does not explain how the body interacts with the powers of the Monarchy. Ultimate decision making lies with the King and the Governor General. I laugh every time there is an “Acknowlegement of country” as the monarchy is the custodian of the lands of the Commonwealth including Australia and he has assigned ownership rights to landlords. There is no third party that has some “connection” with the land which is spurious and ill-defined.

@Sam Oak
“… the monarchy is the custodian of the lands of the Commonwealth including Australia …”
It’s the 21st Century, Sam. There are a number of High Court decisions, most notable amongst them being Mabo (1992), which set aside James Cook claiming ownership of the east coast of Australia on behalf of Great Britain in 1770, based on the concept of terra nullius – specifically that Eddie Mabo, held ownership of Mer (Murray Island).

“… no third party that has some “connection” with the land which is spurious and ill-defined”
Really? Again the High Court doesn’t agree with you, Sam. In February 2020, in a majority decision, the court found that indigenous Australians’ historical, spiritual and cultural connections to land and waters are strong enough such that the common law of Australia recognises that Aboriginal people “belong” to the land”. (https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2020/HCA/3 … clause 450 is very relevant).

So by all means, follow your anachronistic forelock-tugging to the monarchy, those of us in the real world will follow precedent from the High Court.

King Charles, like his mother in the last decades of her reign, did not claim the title of head of state. The Governor-General has stated this for many years now: “The Governor-General of Australia is His Majesty The King’s representative. In practice, they are Australia’s Head of State and have a range of constitutional and ceremonial duties.”
–https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/role-governor-general

Also, check out the statements of the various State Governors:
“Her Excellency the Honourable Margaret Beazley AC QC is the 39th Governor of New South Wales and the Head of State in NSW.”
–https://education.parliament.nsw.gov.au/student-lesson/head-of-state
–https://www.governor.nsw.gov.au/governor/role-of-the-governor/

The monarch has no real power in Australia. Since 1930, when Jimmy Scullin forced King George V to appoint Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General against the personal wishes of HM, the monarch has been little more than a rubber stamp in our government.

In actual fact, any references to “The Queen” in the Constitution were a polite way of saying “Her Majesty’s Government” and with the Statute of Westminster, the politicians in London ceased to have any say in Commonwealth affairs. The Governor-General’s role as British representative in Canberra was taken over by a British High Commissioner.

Max_Rockatansky3:28 pm 18 Jul 23

Chris Johnson, what could Australians do if the Voice turned out to be dominated by activists similar to Senator Thorpe? Victorians can simply vote Thorpe out at her next election, but what could be done if a similar group of activists were entrenched in the Voice?

Advice is what you pay for, action is what you take.

@Max_Rockatansky
… what could Australians do if the Voice turned out to be dominated by activists similar to Senator Thorpe”.
You don’t have much of a clue as to what is being proposed do you?

Firstly, the “… Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth …”
Neither the Parliament nor Executive Government will have any obligation to heed those representations, especially if they are outlandish representations.
Secondly, “… Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures”
So, the Voice will only be dominated by “… by activists similar to Senator Thorpe” if the democratically elected Parliament determines that should be its composition.

Seriously, you need to get a grip on reality.

Max_Rockatansky8:32 am 20 Jul 23

JustSaying, which government would be brave enough to force people on or off the Voice?

@Max_Rockatansky I don’t know – your the one pushing the narrative, so you tell me.

Max_Rockatansky12:31 pm 20 Jul 23

JustSaying, none of us know how this Voice would work. We should be told before we vote.

@JustSaying

Here’s a quote from the SMH, a very left leaning publication:

“Details about a proposed Indigenous Voice to parliament will not be known before a referendum on the issue, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says, arguing he does not want a repeat of the failed 1999 republic referendum.

Albanese, speaking from the Garma festival in Arnhem Land, said the detail of the Voice would be left to federal parliamentarians to debate rather than let it be a central element of a proposed referendum.”

We don’t get to know the details of what it will be exactly until after we vote. When people try and say: “Well, we’re not going to tell you exactly what it is you are voting for or how it will actually work but just vote for it anyway and we’ll decide what you actually voted for later”

If the organisers are too afraid to give the details as they “Do not want a repeat of the failed 1999 republic referendum” – In what world would it be sane for people to vote for something that the organisers refuse to even give you the details on?

@Max_Rockatansky
You do understand the purpose of the Constitution don’t you? That it provides the high level platform on which legislation is based?

As I and others have stated on here, the proposed wording for the change to the Constitution is totally in keeping with other sections.

You may want to check out Section 51 – which covers the “Legislative powers of the Parliament”. It states:
“The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: ”
It then goes on to list 39 areas on which the Parliament may legislate – without providing any detail of what that legislation will be. It is left up to the Parliament of the day to decide on the detail.

Clause 3 of the proposed wording forthe Voice change states:
“The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”
It then goes on to list the areas – “including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.” – without providing any detail. It’s left up to the Parliament of the day to decide on the detail.

Amazing how similar the existing wording of S51 and proposed wording of the change are.

“Amazing how similar the existing wording of S51 and proposed wording of the change are.”

Funny about that. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth already has the head of power to make legislation affecting Aboriginal Australians. The Voice clearly falls under this power. Why do we need a referendum? The Constitution isn’t defective or needing correction to enable the Voice. Albo could do it tomorrow.

@Skyring
Perhaps you should actually read the proposed wording of the change to the Constitution and then you might actually be able to comment from a point of understanding. You clearly have no idea at the moment.

The change to the Constitution is about “… recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia”. An accompaniment to that recognition, is the establishment of the Voice, which “… may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”

As many have stated in various publications, enshrining the proposed change in the Constitution means two things:
. It accords with the wishes of those to be recognised – the First Nations people, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
. Unlike legislation, it will not be able to be repealed at the whim of Parliament/the government, in contrast to ATSIC (and just about every other Indigenous advisory body set up by various governments).

However, let’s not forget, the Voice’s “composition, powers and procedures” will be subject to change by Parliament through legislation.

Well as I’m not racist… NO, I will never vote for different levels of political representation based on skin colour or racial identity.

In what way is this not a ridiculously divisive measure? We would literally be dividing the population of the country into two groups: Everyone else which are considered equal and then a special group that have all the rights and representation of all other groups AND then a special activist body that is inserted into the political process, solely to advocate for them.

To those supporting this measure – would you be OK if this division was done to privilege white people over everyone else? No? then why are you OK to do it when it comes to indigenous people?

When asked HOW the voice will fix any of the issues of indigenous disadvantage, the silence in response has been deafening.

Skin colour and race are not the focus, nor even mentioned, in this change to the constitution, whilst the constitution has always discriminated against aboriginal people.

Are you quite happy for the existing different levels of representation, whereby mining companies and big corporates have a voice that other people and organisations lack?

Psycho,
Can you outline what these existing different levels of representation that big corporates apparently have are? Where are these formalised?

And then can you explain how Indigenuous people specifically are the only individuals or groups that suffer from this differing lack of representation?

And lastly can you outline the existing parts of the constitution that discriminate specifically against Indigenuous Australians and how the Voice proposal will remove that discrimination?

@Bob
“… why are you OK to do it when it comes to indigenous people?”
It’s in the first sentence of the wording of the proposed change, Bob: “In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia … “.

Pretty simple, really.

So, what you’re saying is “racism is okay when it’s to the advantage of certain groups of people”?

So their ancestors were here before mine? That is your justification for segregating the population and awarding different levels of political representation based on racial identity?

I will NEVER vote for that. I see you decided not to respond to my main point that you would never be OK to do it for white people and rightly so but you are happy to set up a system like this for a different race?

Also, care to explain how the voice would in any way rectify any of the issues currently facing the aboriginal people? They currently have a government body setup with 1400 employees and a budget of $300 million that answers directly to an aboriginal woman (the minister) which has consultative boards setup all over the country so any argument stating they lack representation or a forum to air any suggestions they may already have for bettering the aboriginal issues is ridiculous.

So, you’re suggesting that aboriginal is not a separate racial identity? Can you enlighten us all as to what exactly it is then?

@Vousie
No I’m not saying that, Vousie. Happy for you to show me where I did say that.
Nevertheless, perhaps you can explain to me how acknowledging the special place in our history held by the first occupants of the land is racist? Or are you suggesting that we should deny our history and only recognise the hereditary (and unelected) representative of the second occupants of the land, and in so doing, that justifies the fact we confer on that representative special powers under our Constitution.

@Bob
Your ancestors are very nicely recognised in the Constitution via their (white) representative the monarch. The first comers will be recognised via their representative (the Voice).

“That is your justification for segregating the population and awarding different levels of political representation based on racial identity”
Different levels of political representation? Seriously?
Perhaps you should drop the histrionics, Bob, and look at the proposed wording of the change to the Constitution. There is no additional political power being conferred.

The ability to make representations to the Parliament (via elected MPs) and executive government (via ministers) is exercised daily via various lobby and special interest groups. I’m fine with he fact that the Voice will be enshrined in the Constitution, obviously you are not. That’s also fine.

@Bob
“So, you’re suggesting that aboriginal is not a separate racial identity?”
Again – where did I say that. It’s you who seems to consistently want to bring race into the debate. I am simply acknowledging the first occupants of the land … the fact that they happen to be of a certain race is more an historical indicator of the tribal nature of humanity 40,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Can explain to me how acknowledging the special place in our history held by the first occupants of the land requires a separate level of political representation, above and beyond what all other ethnic groups within the country have access to?

What makes you believe that I am white? Somewhat presumptuous of you.

Are you suggesting that a special body, embedded within the (until this point) egalitarian political process where everyone is considered equal – with the express purpose of advocating for a single racial group is not a separate level of political representation? I am positively mystified as to how you have come to this conclusion.

The lobbyists do not have a constitutionally guaranteed, privileged position inserted into the political process to advocate solely for them so this is simply a strawman argument

Justsaying,
“Your ancestors are very nicely recognised in the Constitution via their (white) representative the monarch.”

I’m struggling to see where Bob has stated his own ethnicity? Or how your comment applies to all Australians who come from a multitude of backgrounds. Are we worth more or less as Australians depending on this?

The English monarch doesn’t represent my background, can I get some recognition in the constitution too? Or perhaps your point provides a better argument that we should instead, become a republic and remove the English monarch entirely. I’d agree.

As for “acknowledgement” or recognition of the fact that there were people here before white settlement, how exactly does the Voice specifically do this?

If all you’re claiming is that we should acknowledge Indigenous Australians in the constitution, then a simple symbolic statement is all that’s required. The Voice doesn’t relate or improve recognition of this fact and it’s intellectually dishonest to claim it does.

If the referendum was simply about acknowledging that Indigenuous Australians were here first, I think it would pass easily. But this proposal is clearly about more than that.

@JustSaying
That post was in response to @Psycho who stated:
“Skin colour and race are not the focus, nor even mentioned…”

Apologies for the confusion, I am not up to date on social media tagging etiquette in comment sections.

@Bob
I didn’t say you are white – I said the representative of your ancestors(the monarch is white). Sheesh – feeling a little racially sensitive there, Bob?

So, how is your access to the egalitarian political process impacted by the Voice, Bob?

Fact: If established, the Voice may make representations “… on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

Note: The Voice will not be able to pass laws, veto legislation, vote on legislation or in any other way have a role in the actual passing of legislation – despite the fact that their right to make representations is enshrined in the Constitution. Reality: there is nothing in the proposed wording that requires parliament or executive government to do anything with the representations the Voice may make.

In essence, there is no difference between the ‘power of the Voice’ and the ‘power of a lobbyist’ – hence my relating the two. One could argue that there is far more transparency in the way the Voice will have access to parliament / executive government (via the legislation that will determine its “composition, functions, powers and procedures”) than happens with the faceless power brokers of the various lobby groups.

@JustSaying
You stated that: “Your ancestors are very nicely recognised in the Constitution via their (white) representative the monarch.”

If you weren’t suggesting that I am white, then you are suggesting that I can be “nicely represented” by a member of a different race? In that is the case, then what is your actual argument for the need for the voice to parliament then? If members of different races are adequately able to be represented by different races based on votes, then surely there is no need for a dedicated group to advocate for people of any specific race?

Did I at any stage state that my access to the political process was in any way affected? As stated, as I am not a racist, I have an ethical problem with dividing people and providing additional levels of political representation based on racial or ethnic identity.

I am quite aware of what is being proposed and I am also aware of the type of activists that will be appointed fill these positions. If you think there won’t be legal challenges to the high court for any decisions that they don’t agree with, I have a bridge to sell you.

I have two simple questions for you: 1) Why is a separate body inserted into the political process required? and 2) How will it help in any way with the issues currently affecting the aboriginal people?

@JustSaying My last response was getting a tad long so I thought I’d separate the response to your last point. You stated that “In essence, there is no difference between the ‘power of the Voice’ and the ‘power of a lobbyist’”

Yes, there absolutely is given that as I have previously stated – the lobbyist does not have constitutionally guaranteed access and a privileged position inserted into the political process of this country and I doubt anyone would suggest that this would be a good idea.

The way you keep bringing up the access to our politicians by lobbyists, you seem to be against the concept (as am I) and yet at the same time you are advocating for a different kind of lobbyist to gain far MORE access to our politicians and access directly into the political process, despite the fact that we already have dedicated political representation in the shape of a minister for the purpose of acting as the representative of this particular group. This seems like an odd contradiction.

@Bob
“As for “acknowledgement” or recognition of the fact that there were people here before white settlement, how exactly does the Voice specifically do this?”
Ummm – I can only, yet again, refer you to the proposed wording: “In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”
If you seriously can’t understand that then I’ve got nothing more for you, Bob.

“what is your actual argument for the need for the voice to parliament then” – as above – with the qualification that the legislation as per clause 3, will provide the detail on “its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

” If you think there won’t be legal challenges to the high court for any decisions that they don’t agree with, I have a bridge to sell you.”
OK, in the absence of actual facts to support your argument, just present a fabricated scenario with the emotive rider that not accepting it would be foolish. Nevertheless, who cares if there are High Court challenges? There are constitutional challenges regularly put before the High Court – and some succeed, some fail. You use the potential for a challenge as something of which we should be afraid, where as I just see it as an opportunity for clarification. The Constitution is a high level document which is of its nature open to interpretation – that’s why the High Court has been set up as the arbiter.

“access to our politicians by lobbyists, you seem to be against the concept”
I am never against anyone accessing our elected representatives. What I am against is the lack of transparency in the “lobbying” process. The fact that there will be legislation around the Voice will make it a very transparent process.

It’s obvious that you don’t accept my position and I don’t accept yours. That’s the beauty of democracy – we each get to vote according to our own perspective.

Justsaying,
Once again you refuse to answer the straightforward question that I and now Bob have asked you repeatedly.

“Ummm – I can only, yet again, refer you to the proposed wording: “In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”
If you seriously can’t understand that then I’ve got nothing more for you, Bob.”

How can you possibly not understand the question being asked. Once again I’ll spell it out:

Two statements:

A. we recognise Indigenuous Australians as the first inhabitants of this land.

B. We recognise Indigenuous Australians as the first inhabitants of this land. And there will be a voice……..etc.

How exactly does statement B specifically acknowledge the historic fact better than statement A?

It’s a classic bait and switch attempt and extremely disingenuous.

@JustSaying

Again, you didn’t answer either of the essential questions that I asked. 1) Why is inserting an activist body into the middle of the political process required to acknowledge the history and position of the aboriginal people in the constitution? and 2) How will this in any way fix any of the issues currently facing the aboriginal people? These are the key issues here and not being able to provide an adequate answer leaves the YES vote side with no real position other than an emotional feel good gesture that is ripe for unintended consequences and once instated will be impossible to remove.

Saying that they need to be recognised in the constitution is not an argument for the voice, this is conflating two entirely separate issues. It is entirely possible to alter the wording of the constitution to acknowledge the history of the aboriginal people in this country without the creation of an activist body inserted into the middle of Australia’s political processes.

The political process is torturously slow in this country already; Do you honestly believe inserting a body such as this and opening the door to repeated court challenges will do anything but make it worse? How long does it already take to get the parties to agree on anything or negotiate numbers for favours with the independents? This will make it much worse by adding an additional layer of bureaucracy into the process.

I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the back door, paid kind of access by lobbyists which I believed was the point that you were repeatedly making.

It is pretty obvious that there is no point in continuing a conversation if you refuse to answer basic questions that are at the CORE to the issue at hand.

@Bob
You really need to drop the histrionics and just stick to the facts. Or do you believe the Voice is an “activist body” because it represents indigenous people and that goes against the natural order of things?

The Voice has come out of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. So it is a request from indigenous people, for constitutional recognition, that goes hand in hand with the fact that they are the original inhabitants of the land.

I don’t have a problem with that – it in no way disenfranchises me nor does it give anything other than rightful recognition of the original inhabitants, and because I think that makes them a very important player in our history I don’t have a problem with the added recognition of their right to have a say in matters affecting them.

Consequently I am comfortable with the wording of the proposed change and the transparency it brings. Which is the proposal I am being asked to vote on.

I mentioned lobbyists to emphasise that the Voice will have no legislative power – they will simply be able to make representations.

You continually bang on with furphies about High Court challenges. So what? Perhaps you can explain why potential High Court challenges are a reason not to do something.

At the end of the day, whether the Voice referendum gets up or doesn’t, my life will not change one iota. So to some extent I am adopting a why not attitude … and to date, I haven’t found a valid factual reason not to vote for the change.

Multiple comments attacking others on the issue but an inability to answer the most basic questions.

“You really need to drop the histrionics and just stick to the facts.”

Extreme LOL.

This is the second time you have accused me of histrionics. You aware the insults are NOT arguments correct? They simply make you look childish; This combined with your repeated refusal to address even the most basic questions that are at the very core of the issue are not a good look.

No matter how desperately you try avoiding answering them, they are going to be asked over an over again as THIS is the very issue that we are debating and no amount of attempted misdirection, appeals to emotion or insults are going to change that.

@chewy14

I’m fine with it. Surely @JustSaying doesn’t think they are going to win over anyone with repeated insults, condescension and a repeated refusal to answer even the most basic of questions on the topic?

I haven’t seen someone squirm this hard in an open discussion in a long time.

/grabs popcorn

@Bob
When you refer to the Voice as being an “activist group” I call it for what I see it. If you can’t stand the heat ….

LMAO

@JustSaying

If you can’t stand the heat… repeatedly insult, strawman, misdirect and refuse to answer even basic questions on the topic being debated?

If you honestly believe that your positions can stand on their own merit in an a forum of open ideas, why are you so afraid to answer the questions that have been put to you by myself and others?

@Bob
OK – so why is the Voice an activist group, Bob?

Also, I’ve answered your questions – you just don’t like the answers … not my problem!

Listing 3 examples of successful programs already operating in indigenous communities would suggest that The Voice is a redundancy. There is nothing stopping the replication of these programs in other communities and the creation of The Voice, what is, in effect, a CDEP for activists becomes another finance sapping layer of beauracracy. And to tell us The Voice will ‘save money’ the least you could do is tell us the full cost of The Voice itself as these monies could have been used to provide nurses and teachers in struggling communities.

Why we need it…..from The Voice pamphlet:

There are big challenges facing SOME Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people:

■ A life expectancy 8 years shorter than non-Indigenous Australians.

Choosing to live and remain in isolated areas while at the same time opting for poor choices mimicking western cultures including smoking, drinking too much alcohol, using drugs and consuming fast food rather than following the activist encouraged ‘noble savage’ traditional lifestyle will impact on your longevity.

■ Worse rates of disease and infant mortality.

Living in remote areas will limit your access to medical services and specialists. Try and get into a specialist or even a GP in a capital city these days and see why staffing and operating these services in remote areas is not only a dream, it’s a cruel “The Voice’ lie.

■ A suicide rate twice as high.

Sentencing remote based indigenous children to a life of boredom and despair in the name of ‘culture’ is the prime cause of these suicides. Boredom leads to thrill seeking and substance abuse not to mention high rates of teen pregnancy. These are the stepping stones to substance abuse, crime and incarceration. All combine and contribute towards self harm and suicide. ‘Culture’ is killing these people.

Fewer opportunities for education and training.

If I moved to Upper Kumbukta West, 500 kilometres from any decent sized community I’d have fewer opportunities for education and training too.

Yes, getting good medical treatment in the middle of nowhere is hard… But then, aborigines are welcome to move closer to a city if they want. Just like a white person would get the same poor medical treatment if they moved to the middle of nowhere – as you point out in your last sentence. Do you not realise that that sentence of yours actually works against your point?
Actions have consequences.

Here’s the issue that a whole lot of the bleeding heart brigade don’t want to address. Have they looked at the outcomes of white people living out in the middle of nowhere, where there are no jobs, no health care, no government services etc? It ends up in unemployment, alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence, crime etc …sound familiar?

It’s almost as if this has little to do with race and is primarily to do with living circumstances.

We can’t all afford to live in Sydney, Melbourne or Canberra Bob, as nice as those cities are. Some Australians are living in more remote areas. And, answering your question about people of any colour or ethnicity living in rural, regional or remote areas, yes – governments of both persuasions have developed policies and programs for people living in these areas.

Astro,
You didn’t answer the question though.

Yes, governments of both persuasions have put in place programs for regional Australians including Indigenuous Australians who have significantly more funding per capita provided than other Australians.

The question was around the outcomes for people of all other ethnicities in those regional areas? Are they better, worse etc? I’d add in socio economic status into that question as well.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.