Referendum 2023

[watersider]

What was ATSIC? Why do we need to change the Constitution to do so?

Why do we need to change the Constitution to do those things?

ATSIC was a representative body for indigenous people that was dissolved by John Howard because of controversy around one of the board members. The reason a new representative body needs constitutional enshrinement is to recognise the deep significance of indigenous people in our country and avoid politicians being able to get rid of it, like what happened to ATSIC. Government still has the right to change the representative body, constitutional change just mandates that there has to be one.

I get that to many people this sounds controversial. To me, that is a simple and fair approach to improving a bad history of dispossession and bad policies which have often had a harmful impact on Aboriginal lives.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

My default position is always that whatever the Government wants, it is generally bad for the people. It is after all, a corporation, operating under the Uniform Commercial Code, and cares little or not at all for those they purport to work for - us.
Secondly, as it stands, the Riginals of this land are still sovereign. When Cook planted the flag and declared it 'for King and Country', (under terra nullius), he committed an illegal act, as the land was already inhabited. That is why, if one looks at the definition of 'Australia' it is described as the land mass of Norfolk Island, (No folk), and the Cocos Islands.
Should the Referendum go ahead (and there is some doubt following a challenge in the High Court re the 'constitutionality' of it, and should the 'yes' vote win, the 'Riginals will then be considered as having ceded their Sovereignty. And that folks, is exactly what Gov Corp wants - access to the land, unfettered by pesky sovereign owners.
So its a definite no from me.

if the first people still have sovereignty and the Aus gov is illegitimate, what would a change to the Constitution change? If first people have sovereignty, how would a foreign constitution change anything?

 

[Mistymuzzle]

ATSIC was a representative body for indigenous people that was dissolved by John Howard because of controversy around one of the board members. The reason a new representative body needs constitutional enshrinement is to recognise the deep significance of indigenous people in our country and avoid politicians being able to get rid of it, like what happened to ATSIC. Government still has the right to change the representative body, constitutional change just mandates that there has to be one.

I get that to many people this sounds controversial. To me, that is a simple and fair approach to improving a bad history of dispossession and bad policies which have often had a harmful impact on Aboriginal lives.

Assuming that this correct, why not draft that intent into a proposed amendment and ask people to vote on that as a referendum?

 

[Tucker]

As I said "not an excuse for any individual" but crime and poorer work and educational outcomes are common for disadvantaged worldwide. A few subsidies does not change this.
How will the voice change this? No idea, I'm asking the same question.

There are people from every demographic living in poverty in this country and they don’t have the luxury of a Government throwing tens of billions of dollars at them, in isolation per year.
Obviously this money is not being used well. It’s not getting past the greedy and out to the needy.
The same towns that have been shitholes for decades, remain so. Nothing ever changes.
If this Voice to Parliament can guarantee the funding and services it secures from Governments will be properly disseminated to the worst areas first, we may see value in it.

Give us the god damned details you idiots!! You have 5 weeks…

 

[watersider]

Assuming that this correct, why not draft that intent into a proposed amendment and ask people to vote on that as a referendum?

Sorry, I'm not sure what aspect you are referring to when you say 'assuming this is correct' or what your suggested proposed amendment refers to.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Sorry, I'm not sure what aspect you are referring to when you say 'assuming this is correct' or what your suggested proposed amendment refers to.

Bingo!
What is the proposed amendment to the constitution that will be made if the yes vote wins at the referendum? You don’t know and neither do I. I can’t vote for a change in the constitution that I don’t know what it is.

What propose in your post seems pretty reasonable and I might vote yes for that. But that’s not what the referendum is for

 

[watersider]

Bingo!
What is the proposed amendment to the constitution that will be made if the yes vote wins at the referendum? You don’t know and neither do I. I can’t vote for a change in the constitution that I don’t know what it is.

What propose in your post seems pretty reasonable and I might vote yes for that. But that’s not what the referendum is for

Muzzle, I don't like the 'Bingo!' response when I was simply unsure of what you were saying. I'm personally clear on what the change will be, I just don't know what you were asking about. I don't really like 'gotcha' stuff and was trying to clarify what you were asking about. The constitutional change voted on will be for the following, with the parliamentary control over the voice specified in point 3:


Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

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;

2: 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;

3: 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.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Muzzle, I don't like the 'Bingo!' response when I was simply unsure of what you were saying. I'm personally clear on what the change will be, I just don't know what you were asking about. I don't really like 'gotcha' stuff and was trying to clarify what you were asking about. The constitutional change voted on will be for the following, with the parliamentary control over the voice specified in point 3:


Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

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;

2: 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;

3: 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.

Genuinely no “gotcha” intended and your response is the most informative I’ve seen in the forum.

For me it’s a no, due to item 3. The powers etc of the voice are completely at the whim of the government of the day whether it be labor, liberal, left or right. Potentially dangerous, definitely divisive and ultimately unnecessary as either party could do that without a constitutional change

 

[crazycat]

40,000 in NSW alone. If you don't know the full details, and Albo can't or won't say, then vote no.

No change means we accept that Aboriginal:
deaths in custody
Infant mortality at near third world levels.
overall just Crap lifestyle...

No does mean things will stay as is. Yes people have tried to change and improve things... It hasn't worked.

I have been to Papua Niu Guinea, The people there have pride. Australian Aborigines are far more broken.

We are talking an elected voice to parliament, one that cannot just be dropped because the PM doesn't want it. Someone(s) who can speak for their community, who have been elected by them.

Vote no, we will see whatever appointed voice removed the instant they start talking about "deaths in custody" or "indigenous child health" or whatever.
Vote yes, we may get some change here.

 

[gregjm87]

There are people from every demographic living in poverty in this country and they don’t have the luxury of a Government throwing tens of billions of dollars at them, in isolation per year.
Obviously this money is not being used well. It’s not getting past the greedy and out to the needy.
The same towns that have been shitholes for decades, remain so. Nothing ever changes.
If this Voice to Parliament can guarantee the funding and services it secures from Governments will be properly disseminated to the worst areas first, we may see value in it.

Give us the god damned details you idiots!! You have 5 weeks…

For the most part i agree with all this.

Yes, there is poverty in all demographics. However, I'd suggest that people of every demographic in poverty have access to (perhaps not equal access to) welfare, not just Indigenous.

Strongly agree, give us the details.

 

[Tucker]

Just a thought that may become reality….
If the YES campaign gets up, who will control the inevitable surge of young people claiming to identify as Indigenous?
With the cost of living so high and the younger section of the community being hard hit, many will try their luck getting on the gravy train.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that many are already searching their heritages for any gaps that they can create reasonable suggestion of aboriginal heritage.

 

[Tucker]

No change means we accept that Aboriginal:
deaths in custody
Infant mortality at near third world levels.
overall just Crap lifestyle...

Yes people have tried to change and improve things... It hasn't worked.

How so?

I have been to Papua Niu Guinea,

Have you? Did you happen to see anything in your travels that spelt the country name properly?

We are talking an elected voice to parliament, one that cannot just be dropped because the PM doesn't want it. Someone(s) who can speak for their community, who have been elected by them.

We currently have 11 in the form of 8 Senators and 3 members of the House of Reps.

Vote no, we will see whatever appointed voice removed the instant they start talking about "deaths in custody" or "indigenous child health" or whatever.
Vote yes, we may get some change here.

The current elected reps will be removed? How?
What change are you expecting?

 

[watersider]

Genuinely no “gotcha” intended and your response is the most informative I’ve seen in the forum.

For me it’s a no, due to item 3. The powers etc of the voice are completely at the whim of the government of the day whether it be labor, liberal, left or right. Potentially dangerous, definitely divisive and ultimately unnecessary as either party could do that without a constitutional change

Fair enough, it's definitely a significant change. But what 'dangers' do you anticipate with the parliamentary power point?

I've stated why I think constitutional change is necessary but I can see you're not convinced! Certainly either party could (and has) created advisory boards like the voice in the past. The trouble is that they've been dissolved in the past, and there's been no ATSIC like body since 2005. The third point in the constitutional change is important because parliament should have the power to change the voice. Say for instance it is found to only represent the 'inner city indigenous academia', then government may wish to change the advisory body to make it more representative of wider indigenous population. Another situation may be there's issues with corruption.

Parliamentary power over the voice is very important and this amendment would be much more controversial and significant without that. I wouldn't vote no against it for that point. Although if you believe in indigenous sovereignty and want a more powerful voice that isn't held to account, you'd definitely get rid of that one.

 

[Tiger-ferret]

No change means we accept that Aboriginal:
deaths in custody
Infant mortality at near third world levels.
overall just Crap lifestyle...

No does mean things will stay as is. Yes people have tried to change and improve things... It hasn't worked.

I have been to Papua Niu Guinea, The people there have pride. Australian Aborigines are far more broken.

We are talking an elected voice to parliament, one that cannot just be dropped because the PM doesn't want it. Someone(s) who can speak for their community, who have been elected by them.

Vote no, we will see whatever appointed voice removed the instant they start talking about "deaths in custody" or "indigenous child health" or whatever.
Vote yes, we may get some change here.

Up to 4x as many non aboriginals die than aboriginals whilst incarcerated.

Most deaths in custody are from natural causes or suicide. A lot of the numbers that get thrown about are from old data. There’s been huge inroads in how inmates are treated. Healthcare is better on the inside for many inmates than they would receive on the outside.

If an inmate is serving a lengthy sentence for a violent crime against a family member, and they die of a heart attack which can happen as they age, that gets thrown into the data set.

 

[jadtiger]

Just a thought that may become reality….
If the YES campaign gets up, who will control the inevitable surge of young people claiming to identify as Indigenous?
With the cost of living so high and the younger section of the community being hard hit, many will try their luck getting on the gravy train.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that many are already searching their heritages for any gaps that they can create reasonable suggestion of aboriginal heritage.

You are showing your true colours by "speculating:" about young people getting on the "gravy train".The fact that you even describe the whole issue as a "gravy train" makes it obvious that you are against the proposal of the voice and have preconceived ideas on what it it will achieve

 

[Tucker]

You are showing your true colours by "speculating:" about young people getting on the "gravy train".The fact that you even describe the whole issue as a "gravy train" makes it obvious that you are against the proposal of the voice and have preconceived ideas on what it it will achieve

All initiatives are corruptible.
I’ve watched Governments release hundreds of Billions of dollars over the years to help/support/aid our communities for little result.
This will be no different.

 

[twentyforty]

Why do we need to increase the size of government by adding another layer of bureaucracy?
I have read and listened to many arguments from both sides and remain unconvinced that this change could lead to improved outcomes.

 

[Tucker]

Why do we need to increase the size of government by adding another layer of bureaucracy?
I have read and listened to many arguments from both sides and remain unconvinced that this change could lead to improved outcomes.

We currently have 11 Indigenous Parliamentary reps - all fighting for their piece of the pie for their areas, issues and constituents. If this new organisation is introduced, what becomes of their voices? Do they work in conjunction with it? Do they work under its umbrella? Will it undo their current initiatives for the “greater good”?
So many questions and zero answers.

 

[Siberian Kitten]

No. For half a century I've seen governments come up with ideas to improve the lot of Aboriginal people, and it's always been a stuff-up, from justice programs to ATSIC to Abbott's paternalism. It's pretty clear that the government is not a good project manager when it comes to social issues.

I'd rather the government focus on easing issues with housing, energy supply, the environment and the economy.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Vote for Freedom. This is all about all our freedom. Our fellow man. About You. The stolen children. The Rabbit Proof Fence.
Nothing to do with business at all or profit. Let us free ourselves from the shackles that bear the weight of tyranny that breeds exclusiveness and that which blankets and envelopes our lucky country today.