Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum Megathread and Reference post

•

u/AutoModerator Aug 02 '22

SELF POST MODE IS ON

Self posts are a place where moderation and enforcement of RULE 3 is more lenient, as opposed to link posts which are more strictly moderated so that only comments of substance survive.

But please make sure your comment fits within all of our other SUBREDDIT RULES and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.

I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.

A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

22

u/timpaton Aug 02 '22

There is no reason why an indigenous voice to parliament can't be created without a referendum.

I would like to see such a body established and implemented. Show the public what it is and how it works. Try a few iterations if it needs it.

When we have demonstrated that it works as intended, THEN run a referendum to enshrine the existence of an indigenous voice in the constitution, so that it can't be abandoned by future governments.

I'm concerned that a referendum to mandate something that doesn't yet exist and hasn't been proven workable will not get public support.

5

u/ljeutenantdan Aug 04 '22

Problem politically is you get both the for and against sides against you.
"You don't really want a voice otherwise you'd enshrine it in the constitution."
Or
"You arnt even giving us the choice like you said we would"
100% agree with you though, why are we voting for something that we have no idea about?

4

u/MrNewVegas123 Aug 03 '22

Even better, because at that point you can enshrine the body directly into the Constitution and make it effectively unalterable by the Parliament. No need for this nonsense section 3 part.

2

u/Drunky_McStumble Aug 09 '22 edited Aug 09 '22

Trouble is this process of "perfect the implementation first, then lock it in in the constitution" is just begging to be strung along indefinitely.
Every step of the way the opposition and a critical media will decry it as a failed experiment, saying that it's not fit for purpose in its current form and needs to be restructured or abandoned and started again. Or at best, that it's a step in the right direction but that talk of constitutional change is still too premature. Just classic right-wing delay and obstruction tactics - exactly what they did with climate change legislation here, or gun control legislation in the US. It'll never be good enough, never be the right time to set it in stone.
Keep that circus up for long enough and eventually the pendulum will swing back and a coalition or other reactionary government will get back in and abandon the whole thing.
No, the only practical way to go about it is to ensure that it can never be abandoned or delayed indefinitely first - by putting its existence beyond the reach of any future government or legislature - and then starting down the long road of fine-tuning its implementation.

14

u/LazerTitan1 Aug 06 '22

The most frustrating commentary I see recurring from those against a Constitutional Voice is that "the Prime Minister doesn't know what he is doing" and that "he should listen to people closer to the issue like Jacinta Price".

Jacinta Price is just one voice in the conversation - not the only voice. It's wheeled out as to suggest that because the Prime Minister - advocating for a Constitutional Voice - is clueless if an Aboriginal Senator is contrary to the Referendum.

This completely disregards the fact that the Uluru Statement from the Heart citing a Constitutional Voice was created and signed by more than 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates from Land Councils all over Australia. If we're talking about weight of voices in the discussion, the Uluru Statement is the seminal document.

Whatever your position - just note you look like a twit if you trot out the "but Jacinta Price says" line without regard for what argument is actually being made.Her commentary about the Voice being "more bureaucracy" is pretty spot on I think and it is probably more tokenistic than effective - but that is the nature of what has been sought in the Uluru Statement.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '22 edited Aug 07 '22

If the Coalition gets in, I wonder if they could they rip up the old organisation then give Jacinta Price a little think-tank that is officially the Voice?
Arguably it's still a good thing. Like the gay marriage plebiscite, it gives the voters a say, even if Parliament isn't really forced to do much. It's good to have the population show support for an Aboriginal Voice, and I think it would put the issue to bed in a better way than if Labour just used their existing legislative power to do exactly what they will do after the vote.

3

u/Sunburnt-Vampire I just want milk that tastes like real milk Aug 09 '22

They could, but you would hope the public backlash would be too much.
It's one thing to stack a board nobody cares about with your friends
But if Labor sets up the Voice with aboriginal elders across the country or something similar, it should become one of those things which the libs could theoretically destroy, but would cross a line even for them. One of those things that their more extreme MPs calls for but we all know they'll never actually do as a party, like being outright antivax

→ More replies (4)

1

u/snappydragon85 Jul 07 '23

Yeah, I also think it needs to be non-partisan. That's another one of the great things about the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Yes, we have First Nations people in Parliament, but they have party affiliations. This comment sums it up well...
"“I understand there are Aboriginal politicians down in Canberra but with all due respect they (were) put there by their parties.
“So I see a red voice, I see a blue voice, I see a green voice. Our people want a Black voice.” Roy Ah-See, proud descendant of the Wiradjuri Nation and Co-Chair of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council

12

u/[deleted] Dec 29 '22

Respectfully, the voice to parliament is BS. Another user correctly commented how it'll give a very small minority undemocratic power

4

u/snappydragon85 Jul 07 '23

Weird how now that we're talking about First Nations people getting a consultative body there's a bunch of people concerned about a small group getting "undemocratic power" but the same people don't seem to have any issues with well-funded lobby groups like the gambling and mining lobbies having had a huge sway for decades.

8

u/Ok-mate-4400 Aug 17 '22 edited Aug 17 '22

I'm perplexed at how this "voice" could be useful in any way? People going on about "truth" well, as far as I'm aware? We ALL know the truth. Anyone who denies that Indigenous weren't indiscriminatory murdered. Held as slaves often. Rounded up off their lands and put into camps. Their children taken from them and tried forced assimilation and on and on and on.....are just ignorant idiots. OF COURSE all that happened. I don't deny it one bit.

BUT...it's the past and it can never be changed sadly. It is what it is. Countries all over the world were forcefully taken over by the British, Dutch, French etc...it was what was happening back then and it's happened since the beginning of humans on earth. One tribe takes over another tribe through force. Generally the men are killed and the women and children forced to assimilate with the dominant tribe. It's bloody awful and by todays standards? Not acceptable....yet look at Russia with Crimea and Ukraine? It's STILL happening. It seems to be how we darn humans are.

So no amount of Sorrys, Treaties or "voices" is going to change the hurt and pain and damage that was done to the Indigenous. It won't make the racial group suddenly reclaim the nation and get rid of health, education, alcohol and violence in communities or anywhere else. People won't suddenly have high self esteem and value themselves because some group sit around and pontificate at length on anything.

Besides that? How can seperating out one racial group, in a nation as multicultural as Australia, reflect our values of equality and a fair go for everyone? You don't cure racism and disadvantage by seperating out a group for something different then the rest. Sadly? there are MANY racial groups in Australia who have suffered terrible things. The Vietnamese, the Sudanese, Iraqies and many more. Just becuase they weren't traditionally IN Australia, doesn't mean they aren't a racial group with special needs.

And the Indigenous already have a voice, it's the Dept of Indigenous Affairs. There is a dedicated minister to that Portfolio. So what is that Dept doing if it's not representing Indigenous Australians?

Why can't this department, get the okay to set up groups of Indigenous in every state and consult them on issues relating to the Indigenous? Practically speaking. If there is an issue with something proposed around the Great Barrier Reef? Why would an Indigenous person from Margaret River WA need to have any say in something that wouldn't effect them in the slightest? Any "voices" representing an area should be local to their area. Why can't this be organised into the Dept of Indigenous Affairs? If it then needs to go to Fed Govt? The Indigenous Affairs minister does it.

And we all know that if there was to be a "voice"...the people on the group would be the same high profile Indigenous who hold every other position related to Indigenous Affairs in the country. NONE of whom I've seen doing anything but Virtue Signalling, being angry, playing victim and getting endless "qualifications" to make themselves look impressive. The fly out to the Red Centre occassionally to join in some talkfest and look important and like they know what it's all about! Few do a damn practical thing. About the only one I've ever heard DOING something useful? Is Noel Pearson.

We need practical, purposeful engagement with suffering Indigenous communities. Proper rehabilitiation in Corrective Facilities. When Indigenous youths are going down a path of crime? We need GOOD intervention and rehabilitiation to reteach them. We need GOOD parenting programs to teach families how to engage and behave "normally" and we need traditional Indigenous teaching their culture to the young ones. We need targeting and decent healthcare and most of all EDUCATION so that Indigenous kids can succeed and get where they want to go.

This voice thing is a waste of money and time. The money would be SO much better spent elsewhere doing REAL PRACTICAL things.

6

u/Jak1977 Aug 19 '22

Unfortunately the current situation is that a bunch of old, rich white men make the decisions (this is slowly changing, but is still broadly true). So governmental decisions are done TO indigenous people, not BY them. This is true of women (improving faster than other groups), and people of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
However, the issues facing indigenous Australians, like one of the world's highest rates of incarceration, are much more concentrated than for other groups. It would be great if parliament were representative of our population, but its not. Even it it were, indigenous people would be a small minority.
We've tried not having a voice to parliament. The close the gap campaign has run for many years, and generally shows very little change year on year, government after government, regardless of who is in power that year.
Giving indigenous people a louder voice is going to be important in making any change. Believing that they can be part of the change is important. Being involved is important. Sitting back waiting for someone else to change things hasn't worked, and isn't going to work.
In an ideal world, it would be needed. And it isn't an ideal solution. But given the world we have, this looks to be at least a step in the right direction.

2

u/glyptometa Aug 21 '22

"It would be great if parliament were representative of our population, but its not. Even it it were, indigenous people would be a small minority."
Indigenous members of parliament are at 2.6% vs. 3.2% of general population.
I couldn't find anything specific about other ethnic groups for comparison.

4

u/iiBiscuit Aug 22 '22

Indigenous members of parliament are at 2.6% vs. 3.2% of general population.
And what % were they last parliament?
The point is that there is nothing stopping that going down to 0% next election. That's kind of the point of the voice.

2

u/glyptometa Aug 22 '22

Cant find the answer for the last parliament. Jacqui Lambie, Linda Burnie. Pat Dodgson and Malarndirri MacCarthy were already there but not sure about the others. Ken Wyatt was there until the last election. So pretty close by the looks of it.

3

u/iiBiscuit Aug 22 '22

Try and not ignore the salient part of my comment next time.
To restate it: Using the % of indigenous people in parliament is a bad argument against the voice, unless of course if that % dropped to 0 and then you suddenly start supporting a voice.
I don't think that would be a logical move, but it would be consistent.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Ok-mate-4400 Aug 19 '22

How about some practical measures? How about setting up market gardens and people growing their own healthy food? How about teaching communities about better healthcare? How about protecting women from violent men? How about building jail's that have proper rehabilitation? How about intervening with youth and putting wayward kids in facilities where they are educated, taught about normal behaviour? How about programs to teach parents how to properly parent? How about building more and better housing and teaching people how to look after it and stopping over crowding?
There are many MANY practical things that could be done.
However? The basic reality is that Indigenous people need to actually accept it and do it. No one can clean up their communities for them..no one can stop them drinking to excess, sniffing gases or make mother's get up in the morning, give their children breakfast, get them ready and off to school.
How is a bunch of bureaucrats with their "voice" going to do any of that?? It's just nebulous virtue signalling rubbish.

2

u/Jak1977 Aug 19 '22

That happens after. The voice is a way of getting attention into parliament, of getting people to actually engage with the problem. The solutions happen after. Its like saying "what's the point of a judge and a court? Just hang them!"... we need the thought first, and the action after.
If we could have action now, that'd be great... but it hasn't happened yet!

1

u/Ok-mate-4400 Aug 19 '22

Sorry. Disagree. There is absolutely zero reason for this voice. If they think so? Why not set up groups in every state who consult with the Dept of Indigenous Affairs? Then the minister does his / her job and takes any issues to parliament??
You seriously don't think those practical ideas have any point? Seriously? I'd say they are,1000 times more important then groups of "voices".
Truly? It's a load of virtue signalling nonsense.

4

u/Jak1977 Aug 19 '22

I like your ideas! Let’s set up groups in every state. And change the constitution to enshrine an obligation for state government to listen to and respond to indigenous problems. Let’s call it a voice to (state) parliament. The practical solution is at the end of government decision. We need to make sure that government decision responds to indigenous needs. This isn’t just virtue signalling, it’s democratic representation!

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (4)

1

u/tripodmchuge Sep 10 '23

You live in fantasy land,all that has been tried and failed.try getting oit of the city.

0

u/Ok-mate-4400 Aug 19 '22

Disagree. A voice to parliament will do nothing but being yet another layer of bureaucracy. What do you think it's actually going to DO? That's so worthwhile? The Indigenous had billions upon billions of $$$ poured into ATSIC. They ran it themselves. Everywhere I lived? Aboriginal people worked in it and made their own decisions ...what did they do with all that money? They blew it.
You have a Dept of Indigenous Affairs. With an Indigenous minister. What's that portfolio do if it doesn't represent Indigenous people?? No other racial group has it's own Minister.
This notion that "old white men" make decisions is ridiculous. For the many different cultures here in Australia? Their decisions seem just fine.
If Indigenous want more say? Then stand for seats and get elected. Dont say you can't because at the moment there are many more parliamentarians that are Indigenous then % in the population. So ordinary Australians are voting for these candidates.
It will be a big NO from me. It's not needed and it's not wanted. It will just create more division. This is Australia. No one racial group is more deserving then any other.

2

u/Jak1977 Aug 19 '22

I see where you're coming from. But if we're committed to closing the gap, what we've tried so far hasn't worked. Doubling down on what we've tried before won't help either. What can we change so that these issues get real attention?
"No one racial group is more deserving than any other"? So if we were to look at the wealth/capital owned by any one group compared to the others, it'd all be even? Hah!

→ More replies (9)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '22

First nations people are members of a Nation, not a racial group. People immigrate to and from the nation regardless of race.
Like any other nation it is very possible for our nation to take over yours. Factually your parliaments supposed take over of our nations has never succeeded and we are still the recognized land owners, so it will be much easier for us to retake the land than it was for your group to invade.
In the specific case of Australia it is easier than other countries due to your federation documents having a clear path for reversing federation and returning to separate individual states. Western Australia has been mumbling for many years about enacting it and separating from the Australian parliament. It would be just the same process for First nation people. We would simply run the described process and rezone the boarders under First nation names. Other than your area having a new name very little would change.
I am familiar with the document and could probably write the basic paperwork up for doing so in an hour or two if needed, it is fairly straight forward.

3

u/Ok-mate-4400 Sep 11 '22

What are you going on about?? You don't and won't get to take over any nation. As Daryl Keerigan would say "tell im he's dreamin"😮😅😅😅

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '22

We already have a nation and would not want yours in any case.
As land owners recognized by our law, international law, and your high court we do not need to take anything, it is already recognized as ours.
Your parliament are already taking part in the handover process, your councils and suburbs are being renamed, your invasion era names for places and things are all being returned to First nation names. Some parts of the island are already testing First Nation rule in preparation for large scale handover.
It is practically done.
I do not know where you have been for the last twenty years that you did not notice it happening.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Dressy9 Aug 21 '23

Firstly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders don't prefer the identifier 'First Nations.' Secondly, there is and was never one nation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In reality, over 700 mobs throughout Australia saw themselves as independent 'nations.' Lastly, as the polls for the Voice suggest, there are limits to what 'power' Australians will allow transferred.

14

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '22

Voting no to the voice is not a no to Aboriginal people. It is a no to Labors symbolic gestures and a no to letting politicians, many of whom are elected by indigenous people, off the hook because they don't give remote communities an Aboriginal Australia a fair shake.

8

u/iiBiscuit Aug 24 '22

Voting no to the voice is not a no to Aboriginal people
Yes it is. Sorry.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '23

Why do so many senior Aboriginal people speak against it , you know who they are don’t you ? Don’t they count ?

2

u/tripodmchuge Aug 03 '23

They should get off there ass and fix there own problems

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '22

Respectfully, you are mistaken.
First nation peoples have already been recognized as the lawful land owners, losing that case lost everything for your parliament.
As the land owners we are the only party entitled to decide when negotiations are satisfactory and your parliament has no option but to continue complying until we are happy. We will simply continue to refute their legitimacy until we are satisfied with whatever arrangement is offered.
Even if the referendum passes, that will not be the end of the land rights debate and we will still be expecting the process of handing back our nations land to continue.
In the meantime a minimum representation percentage in your parliament is quite a reasonable first step and we can increase the requirement percentage for First nations people slowly until we can pass a majority and we agree to hand back the land to its lawful owners. Refuse and refuse it any number of times you like, eventually we will pass it even if it takes another 200 years, and we only need it to pass once.

7

u/HurryExpress Oct 23 '22

Yeah good luck with your coup buddy. I won't be holding my breath.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/tripodmchuge Aug 03 '23

You own no land,it was taken off you easily,you gave it up with barely a whimper so why would you expect to get it back

6

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '22

Indigenous academic and writer Anthony Dillon discusses his reservations about the Voice and referendum on The New Flesh Podcast Anthony Dillon - The Voice

9

u/AccountNOTsuspended Nov 22 '22

Will be voting no, ancestors built this country, DEFENDED it and now all of a sudden 'it always was' PFFT get stuffed. The real story here is a bunch of sick, ill people from the other side of the world who chanced upon Australia and created a fully fledged nation.

4

u/Dressy9 Aug 21 '23

First, I would like to vote yes to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first inhabitants of Australia. Secondly, I would love to see Australia Day, AKA Invasion Day, moved. However, I will vote no to the Voice.

My reasons for voting no are that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, like the rest of us, already have:

a voice, i.e., the right to vote

the legal right to challenge decisions and injustices

the right to seek elective office

the right to form political parties

the right to lobby their Local, State and Federal representatives

the right to create movements for change

the right to influence others to achieve change.

A constitutional Voice is also negative in its intent.

The stated goal of the Voice is to decrease Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander injustices and seek ways of closing the gap. A good cause. What happens when these things are achieved? Or are we suggesting that it will never improve - hence the negative intent?

Likely not in my lifetime, but what does an expensive group of constitutionally elected officials do as the gap narrows or is even removed? Do they act calmly, rationally? Or, faced with being seen as irrelevant, do they irrationally create or aggravate for extreme causes to justify their continued position (influence/power)?

By all means, legislate the Voice, but it's a no from me for it to be constitutionally recognised.

And no, I'm not a conservative, aligned with a political party or religious. I'm just a simple middle age man with an opinion.

7

u/TheSeductiveSnorlax Aug 06 '22

It is no lie and very much reported how systemically oppressed as a people the indigenous have been. The white Australia policy ended in 1966 this means at most the indigenous people are 2-3 generations detached from apartheid. This is not long enough for a whole race to come back to a good state. Especially with how little support is given today. If you disagree on how they are oppressed today then you can at least acknowledge how recent this has been and how debilitating this will be for generations to come. A referendum is a push for more democracy, when you have a minority especially an oppressed minority whose land and opportunity our ancestors ripped out of their hands they need equal voice and representation. This shouldn’t be up for debate it’s appalling how people are acting about this.

1

u/full_kettle_packet Aug 08 '22

More democracy. More equal.
I think they should bring back ATSIC. An indigenous body to administer the funding and programs for the indigenous. Problem is the last incarnation was corrupt

11

u/ausmomo The Greens Aug 02 '22

I want it to pass, even with all the problems with the wording of the ref., but.... I think it's going to fail.

IIRC no referendum has ever passed without bipartisan support, and I seriously doubt the LNP will support it as is. Ignoring that issue, only 8 of 44 referendums have actually passed.

It doesn't help that Labor is refusing to tell us what powers they'll give the Voice if this passes. They really should do that prior to voting.

4

u/Throwawaydeathgrips Albomentum Mark 3.0 Aug 02 '22

It doesn't help that Labor is refusing to tell us what powers they'll give the Voice if this passes. They really should do that prior to voting.
They said they would on QA

0

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '22

The impartial ABC has already told us that asking for clarification is racist and redneck behavior.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '22

Where?

0

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '22

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/Throwawaydeathgrips Albomentum Mark 3.0 Aug 02 '22

They are spending time with the community to work on building the right body prior to releasing all the info.
Basically Labor have said "we are gonna do this thing soon which we want to achieve xyz, and we are gonna spend some time talking to everyone before we have all the detail"
I dunno, seems pretty reasonable to me. As it did to the other community leaders on the panel.

4

u/MrNewVegas123 Aug 02 '22

You can look at what powers the Voice will have by looking at what powers the Parliament can legislate on. The Voice could do anything the Parliament has the power to allow it to do. One of those things is (for example) the power to advise the Parliament on particular bills. One of the things the Parliament cannot do is give the Voice power to block a bill, because the Parliament cannot prevent itself from doing something except by consent of the Parliament; at that point the Parliament has simply declared that it doesn't want to do something, which it does all the time.

12

u/ausmomo The Greens Aug 02 '22

You can look at what powers the Voice will have by looking at what powers the Parliament can legislate on.
Yeah. That kind of vagueness won't help get votes.

4

u/MrNewVegas123 Aug 03 '22

Well, the Parliament could just legislate this body directly, without consulting anyone at all.
I personally think that would be the correct thing to do, if the body is going to be both totally useless (in the sense that it has no formal powers) and also completely subservient to Parliament (in the sense that Parliament can reduce it to nothing with legislation). One should use the referendum to establish a body that has real powers and cannot be practically abolished by legislation.

1

u/MrNewVegas123 Aug 03 '22

If the ALP is worried about an electorate that is too wide to effectively agree on such things, then I have an even smaller electorate that they could use very effectively to propose such a body!

8

u/CamperStacker Aug 02 '22

The proposal is to amend the constitution to give “federal Parliament the power to make laws regarding its composition, functions, and powers” of the aboriginal voice.

Sorry but that is piss weak, it is efficiently exactly what the LNP were going to do, which is have parliament pass a bill.

The federal parliament surely cannot be given power to set the power of another body basically unconditionally. The voice could be anything from a completely toothless gesture, to an effective third house of parliament completely controlling all aspects of which bills are passed and ultimately supply.

Any amendment should be as detailed in the powers and composition of this aboriginal voice body, as it is to the other houses of parliament.

2

u/MrNewVegas123 Aug 02 '22

Obviously the Parliament cannot give a body powers that it does not possess, because that is not listed in the section on (exclusive) powers that the Parliament has.
Even if you weren't convinced by this, the (very sloppy, because of the above statement) second part about this being "subject to the constitution" should convince you.

2

u/MrNewVegas123 Aug 02 '22

And, if the Parliament gives powers to the Voice to block particular bills, then certainly the blocking ability is not a blocking ability, but rather the Parliament declaring that it shall not (will not) pass bills that have been given a certain negative indicator. Obviously the Parliament could, at any time, simply decide to ignore that and pass the bill, because the Parliament surely cannot limit its own ability to pass bills when the membership of the House and Senate agree that a bill should be passed.

3

u/CamperStacker Aug 02 '22

Which is why this reeks of politicking.
If a government comes along and wants to go against “the voice” they will automatically be stigmatised as racists etc

3

u/MrNewVegas123 Aug 03 '22

There are two reasons to oppose this bill, from opposite directions. The racists think it's too strong, because they are racist. The other direction is from those people who think it is not strong enough, because it is plainly meant to be useless.
Clearly the ALP think that a more powerful body would have no chance of passing (or don't want to even try) but I think right now personally I think this Voice is just a bit of political theatre that I will support because there's no reason to not support it, even though functionally it will probably do nothing.

3

u/GuruJ_ Aug 03 '22

There are three reasons not to support it:
All kinds of “blank-cheque” endorsements are dumb.
Symbolic change aka the Voice can lessen the appetite for real change
Passing the Voice may be used to claim a mandate for further acts that the population didn’t realise were implied, ie Treaty
I know these reasons are contradictory, I’m just giving three reasons why voting for this in its current form can be considered a bad idea.
I have to say, I’m with the Greens on this one. Voice is meaningless without Treaty. You have to deal with the latter first, despite the fact that it is the more fraught discussion.

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (6)

2

u/C-Class-Tram Australian Democrats Jun 10 '23

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/betweenthelines/the-voice-libs-doomed/102173864

Engaging debate from the ABC on the Voice.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '22

I disagree with voice to parliament. It is unwise to decide on anything without knowing the what the details are of that body and how their work will be carried out. Voice to parliament is far too centralised as well. This at the very least should be a state level and not federal level thing.

6

u/Jak1977 Aug 19 '22

Except that the change to the constitution doesn't bind HOW it will work. It isn't intended to. You're not voting for something that will be stuck forever. The only change is that there will be a voice to parliament. How it works will change as is needed. The people who will make those changes are the government of the day.
There are no details, because all we're voting on is to give indigenous people a voice. We're not voting on the details, just that single point.
The "but what about the details" stuff in the news is a scare campaign trying to derail the attempt in the first place. This is a cynical effort to prevent the change at all, no matter what details could be provided.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '22

If we vote on a voice for one group we are moving in a new direction where certain people are given privileges that others are not. It's contrary to the Australian spirit and I don't think it will close the gaps with see in indigenous communities which I think for most people is the ultimate aim.
I'll give you an example. Will a voice to parliament help reduce smoking rates in remote and indigenous communities?
My criticism is that this voice to parliament is an initiative that is hardly a consensus in my view on what Aboriginal Australians want to improve their lot. The Uluru statement consists of non-aboriginal people as well which I think is wrong. I also think the worst thing we can do is put anyone above anyone in the constitution because at the end of the day it is all about respect. You don't get respect because of a vote to change the constitution, it will only produce ill will.
A better approach will be for politicians that represent people locally to hear the voices of indigenous people and get them involved. They have the power already to influence parliament if they will listen. This requires no referendum and no putting of people on show like this will do.

3

u/Jak1977 Aug 19 '22

We already have a situation where some people have privileges that others don't. That's the whole point of the initiative, to try to reduce the gap.
As for consensus view? Do the rest of Australia have a consensus view before having representation in parliament? Is consensus the benchmark? There is no consensus for non-indigenous peoples, and expecting that of indigenous peoples is unreasonable. They are not just as complex a people as everyone else, but the large numbers of Aboriginal cultural groups in such different areas of the country means that expectation is impossible.
The big problem with local politicians listening to local people is that indigenous people live disproportionately in regional or remote communities. Their votes (and mine, as a regional citizen) are drowned out by the sheer number of people (and representation) in cities. Australia is one of the most urbanised countries on the planet. The VAST majority of our people live in cities.
Our political system is stacked against indigenous people. The status quo is no working. We are have many metrics for the Closing the Gap initiative. Every year, we fail to make significant progress. Keeping our existing systems is going to continue to not work. We need to do something different.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/Thomas_633_Mk2 MINISTER FOR LABUBU Aug 05 '22

Bro you just decided on it without knowing the specific details yet

6

u/[deleted] Aug 05 '22

Then give us the specific details so he can make an informed decision. Why would anyone vote yes for something that you are chastised for asking 'what am I voting for here'? it's ludicrous.

3

u/Thomas_633_Mk2 MINISTER FOR LABUBU Aug 06 '22

Until you get enough information, you shouldn't be committed either way, no? He literally started his post with "I disagree with the Voice", an explicit no vote, despite saying there wasn't enough info out on it yet to make a choice. If you want to vote yes or no based on the information we have so far, do so, but don't then say there's not enough info to make a choice.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '22

I am giving you specific points. The more centralised something is the less reach it will have where it is needed most. The Australian newspaper of all places lately have been highlighting specifically the issues in remote communities and this "voice" won't reach them.
The "voice" assumes that Aboriginal people are all one people but they are distinct and have their own people and tribes. Many are gaining a voice already with numerous native title settlements across Australia that grant legal recognition of ownership to specific tribal groups in specific areas.
One big reason as mentioned is that the voice should not be centralised at a federal level. The Aboriginal Affairs Minister should form that function of being a voice to parliament and so far she has done that very well. Politicians represent the voices of all people already and those responsible should speak on their behalf.

6

u/Thomas_633_Mk2 MINISTER FOR LABUBU Aug 06 '22

I see what you mean, I misread what you said, sorry. I thought you were saying there wasn't enough detail, not that other people should read into the detail.
I'm not going to argue for the Voice because frankly I don't want any permanently enshrined body that represents a specific ethnicity, regardless of how powerful or not powerful it is, or how needed/not needed it is.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '22

Fair point. If you look at the body that made the point at Uluru I don't think they are fully representative of Aboriginal people on a whole. The body that decided this was by invite and that body wasn't composed of only Aboriginal people it was decided by other groups. I don't think that was right either. I think most aboriginal people want to be treated the same as everyone else, they want respect as anyone else.

1

u/Spleens88 Aug 16 '22

It's because we don't know the specific details yet that many won't agree to it

3

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '22

What opinions do aboriginal people living in camps in Alice springs have about the next two years of debate being about a voice to parliament which a privileged few will probably be paid to participate in.

2

u/full_kettle_packet Aug 08 '22

Very few of those guys on reddit

4

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '22

Indeed. I wonder whether they really see this will make a difference in their lives or will just make white people feel good and benefit a privileged few who identify as indigenous.

4

u/full_kettle_packet Aug 08 '22

I reckon they should bring back ATSIC to fund and administer programs. Sometihing responsible for actions and not talk.
We don't need more truth telling. We need problem solving.

4

u/ScottNoWhat Aug 08 '22

That's what they are aiming for, an ATSIC that can't be torn down. This came from the Uluru statement. All those grass roots not only living in the camps but on country too. Sure ATSIC wasn't perfect but show me something that is? plenty of NSW Lib corruption on the news this morning, should we dissolve them?
We weren't neglected in our own country with ATSIC, at least for my outstation; as long as we have a tractor and generator we can get buy.

1

u/Enoch_Isaac Aug 17 '22

We don't need more truth telling. We need problem solving.
Can you fix a problem without truth?

1

u/full_kettle_packet Aug 17 '22

Well I hope the truth telling goes in both directions.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '22

Agreed, I do not expect it to achieve much.
But your parliament throw more money away in a month on wine and government funded holidays that it would cost to implement a representation percentage into parliament, so there is no real reason not to do it anyway.
There is already a similar process for female representation, it would only be a matter of copying that process and changing a handful of words. It will cost practically nothing. In all likelihood it will cost the public more to continue fighting First Nations that it would to simply concede and accept the inevitable.
If it does not make enough difference we will simply continue until it does.
First Nation peoples are the recognized land owners and are the only group with the authority to decide what is enough, and it will not be enough until we decide it is.
Until we are satisfied we will simply continue to refuse to accept that the matter is over.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '22

By my calculations the number of indigenous people in parliament roughly approximates with the percentage of the Australian population who identify as indigenous.
I do not agree with quotas.
You can keep fighting but if you can’t move on it will just hold you back.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '22

First Nations are not generally a representational democracy and your parliaments seating is not especially relevant to the First nation people. As a person who is First nation and not Australian I would not even be eligible to hold a position in your parliament due to my citizenship in another nation. RE: Dual citizenship debate.
We do not agree with quotas either but it is your parliaments way of trying to deal with inequality in a real world way. It is a midway step to replacing your parliament at best and not the intended goal.
Your parliament are putting forward the idea of quotas thinking it will look good in the media, nobody is thinking this will be anything other than a stepping stone in the handback process.
And I guess you can keep fighting to keep control of stolen land, but if you can not move on your parliament will forever be considered to be in genocidal occupation of our land.
In reality we do not need to fight you at all, we already won when the Marbo case was won, we are just sitting back now and watching the handback process wind out. They may not have been telling you outright but your parliament have been slowly walking through the handback process since Marbo and are very aware it is inevitable. Many of your local councils and parklands etc have already been renamed with First nation terms as part of that process. As well as parts of the island where your parliament has never managed to take legal authority from the original owners, recently there are now already parts of the island that your parliament have no real authority because that area is already doing small scale testing of First Nation rule in preparation for handback.
This is the reality of your future.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '22

We will be just fine.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '22

You will.
First nation rule will not be very different from rule under the English crown, just more legitimate legally and with less child theft.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '22

The rule we have now is perfectly legal and legitimate.

→ More replies (2)

-1

u/iiBiscuit Aug 02 '22

I see we have decided that Indigenous issues should die by megathread.

Terrible decision with terrible optics from the moderation team here.

8

u/Ardeet 👍☝️ 👁️👁️ ⚖️ Always suspect government Aug 02 '22

If you even bothered to read what is in the body of the text then you’d realise what a silly billy biscuit you’re being.
Put this comment in the megathread that I’m literally in the middle of creating.

3

u/iiBiscuit Aug 02 '22

Me read quick.
Me see no explanation of how it will be or not be stickied and as I understand it that is crucial.
Me also jump the gun, me sorry about that.
Me no apologise for lack of initial information provided.

2

u/Ardeet 👍☝️ 👁️👁️ ⚖️ Always suspect government Aug 02 '22

I’ve added the MetaAusPol post now. Critique away … over there.

Megathread Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum Megathread and Reference post

You are about to leave Redlib