You’re right. Every supporter in Parliament of ‘The Voice’ seem to all be on different pages. They all have different ideas on how it will look. Going into a referendum, with no detail, is not good.
1 Like
They seem to be trying to get it through on sentiment and sweeping statements (which actually mean nothing) alone, if this ad is anything to go by. It will fail if that’s all they’re going to say IMO.
It is a real pity that people still have these ideas and misinformation in their head. It has been pretty clear from the outset that this is not that case and that it is purely advisory. Back in 2017 Malcolm Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce claimed that it would act as a third chamber - both have now admitted they were wrong. However, it seems that this misinformation has lingered on. This is a referendum to finally recognises our indigenous people, their place and status in our constitution. You should go and do some research on a similar referendum in Canada and see that it isn’t that scary.
3 Likes
If this is true then why won’t they say that when asked directly.
I also wouldn’t hold Canada up as a model for first nations well-being. Things are pretty miserable there overall. Constitutional recognition is no guarantee of better outcomes.
That is two completely different things though. And it’s got nothing to do with the referendum. If you are wanting to know what it looks like you can research that referendum to see what it might look like here.
I’m not really sure what you are referring to. Can you post a link to this discussion or some examples?
Well the guy on ABC TV breakfast this morning was an example. When asked about when more detail will be provided on how it will work in practice he got very huffy and went off on quite a rant basically saying people shouldn’t expect this detail.
The problem is that even if its remit is to make representations and just provide advice, nobody is prepared to say that parliament doesn’t have to follow the advice. And then what happens if they don’t? Everyone knows High Court challenges are then possible to interpret the Constitutional amendments.
Again do you have a link to this interview. It’s a bit hard to understand it without the context.
I think it has been pretty clear from the outset that they want indigenous people recognised in our constitution. That is the sole purpose. It’s again this misinformation that you are holding onto that Malcolm Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce created (and later declared that it wasn’t the case). All of these proposals have been around for years. If you google there is a stack of information on what the purpose of it is.
Just be careful of this misinformation. This amendment is not there to trick anyone. It’s to give our First Nations recognition in our constitution and to allow them a voice to our government. Perhaps if they had that voice Things like changing an indigenous hospital name to the queen wouldn’t happen.
How is this idea different from ATSIC?
1 Like
It’s very similar to ATSIC just with the addition of having it enshrined in the Constitution.
For start it’ll be enshrined in the constitution hence the need for a referendum. An ATSIC like body could be established tomorrow by an act of parliament. Hopefully without the lingering smell of corruption around it.
1 Like
They already have a voice to our government. The same representation that non-indigenous people have. What is proposed is additional representation.
So again, how would your example of the hospital name thing work practically? What if parliament ignored the voice?
Also who makes the determination as to who is a First Nations person? All of these questions blew up with ATSIC.
2 Likes
Again give it a google and look at how the Canadian referendum worked. There are answers out there. Just not trust the misinformation that is provided. Like any good democracy there are ideas thrown around all the time. I guess when there is something that relates to indigenous Australians this group will be consulted to get an idea. It’s not a governing body. Governments have a range of bodies they go to for guidance. It’s nothing abnormal or scary.
maybe, but ive not seen them and if i haven’t (someone who is extremely politically engaged) than odds are “normies” have not.
I’m still on the fence about this referendum, and only when i get answers to the following questions will i be satisfied enough to vote yes.
-
what form will this voice take? I know it won’t be a 3rd chamber, but will it be for example, a committee?
-
who will be on this voice and how will they be appointed? will be ATSIC style elections or will it be political appointments?
-
what powers will they have? will it have, for example veto powers? will legislation still be presented even if the voice says they do not agree?
-
what’s to stop a government that’s anti -voice to parliament, defunding it, appointing a friendly “voice” and having them do nothing?
i’m not anti voice, i just want detail rather than broad ideological statements about how if you vote no your a racist
4 Likes
that’s an easy one. The constitution is what will prevent that from happening, that’s the point of the referendum, otherwise this would just be everyday legislation.
except it really doesn’t - unless the change explicitly says how it will operate and is enshrined in the constitution it would be very easy for a government to do this
I’m afraid you are absolutely correct. If you have a look at the proposed wording from Albanese the third point explicitly says that
“Parlaiment shall … have the power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the … voice.”
This is what is annoying me about the whole thing. Many are just wanting to wave this thing through with sentiment and sweeping statements (and yes, virtue signalling), without really thinking about how it will operate practically, including the potential pitfalls.
1 Like
Another day, another disgusting remark by Hanson. They’d prefer to see Australia burn to the ground rather than being united.
How she hasn’t been sued for defamation is beyond me.
2 Likes
Agree, Pauline’s comments are way out of line and extremely inappropriate.
However, this should not be used any excuse to let Senator Faruqi off the hook for her original remarks, which were insensitive at best, if not downright appalling, especially in their timing. She needs to be held accountable for those remarks as well and should also apologise as she too is guilty of fanning the flames of division.
I’m not a fan of Senator Faruqi or Thorpe or the likes and their somewhat OTT and one-dimensional view of the world. But then again when you’ve got the likes of Hanson and Roberts etc, it makes the Greens seem relatively sane by comparison. I’d like them to use facts and logic to push back against the radical extremism/fascism of the far right in One Nation. Empathy and emotions will only get you so far.
Senator Faruqi’s comments were not great (Adam Bandt as the leader of the Greens was much more measured) but Pauline’s comments were beyond repugnant.
1 Like