Referendum 2023

[Mistymuzzle]

Joe Hildebrand is such a gifted writer. Summed it up perfectly.

Summed up the No case also perfectly and inadvertently.

 

[watersider]

Like yourself, I dont have a deep knowledge of the Constitution, or the Interstate Commission but I am willing to assume that the interstate commission impacts and represents all Australians. As such if some change was made by the federal govt to change it and people thought it was a bad idea then they could vote accordingly at the next federal election. Additionally, if the Interstate Commission was given some form of extreme powers, would it impact and benefit different people differently?

Part of my objection to the Voice being entrenched in the Constitution is tha tthe Constitution sets out the basis of laws for ALL australians whereas the Voice represents a subsection of Australians. If the Voice under the constitution makes recommendations and is an advisory body to government, then indigenous Australians get to represent two people to represent them and non indigenous people only get to vote for one.

its pretty fundamental.


With respect yo are wrong (not opinion). Everything you say above could be legislated. by including in the Constitution it would literally be the only part of the Constitution that represents a subset of Australia and not the whole populace. By its actual definition it is divisive.



Mate with as much respect as I can muster, that is very condescending. "Perhaps" I should start by thinking about your opinion and make a change but if not...ok? Your opinion needs no review? Perhaps?

No worries, Misty. I can see how that was condescending. It wasn't my intention to tell you what to think.

Understand your position on all of that. Will try to avoid being condescending in future posts.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

I get the resentment about all that. I don't vote for the proposal because I like politicians and believe what they say. I do however see value in a representative body that speaks for Indigenous people. And that should mean at least a counterbalance to those politicians who do say they care about the issue but then only spend 5 minutes in Alice Springs because the issues seem too difficult.

They are the same parliamentarians who determine the powers of the Voice. That is who you are giving power to in this referendum.

In response to your question, I think a representative body for indigenous people will have more insight into Indigenous issues. The broad and general direction of the voice is to have communities choose the representative participants, and I think this would be a new and promising approach to issues. I feel the way we've gone about it in the past has been bad and the results are rubbish.

Was the same process for ATSIC.

On the constitutional and legal stuff, many legal people have verified that the limits of this voice are clear, and it cannot be a great and limiting power on our democracy. However, I'd argue that if your issues are more about the legal implications rather than the base idea of Indigenous people having a representative body then you should reconsider your 'no' vote and look into those matters more because I don't think the idea itself could be packaged in a clearer or better way.

In what way is it clear what the limits of the Voice are, when the limits are determined by the Govt every 4 years? Can you point me to the document that shows me the clear limits of the Voice?
Are the legal implications irrelevant? Are good legal processes and maintaining an impartial Constitution mutually exclusive with indigenous peopple having a representative body and achieving better outcomes for indigenous people?

But if you vote no it doesn't mean you're racist, far from it.

Not that it matters what I think, but I thought you put your arguments together well and made heaps of good points about how hypocritical our politicians are. While there will be heaps of disagreement on this referendum issue, I'm sure we all can come together in a spirit of harmony and celebration in saying that politicians are a pack of bastards!

But will determine what the powers and extent of the Voice is every 4 years.........

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Ofcourse the constitution should be changed, it should be changed rarely but consistently refined. No constitution is perfect and the writers had no idea of the issues we face today.

Agreed but IMO should be based on providing for all Australians.

Heck one of the reasons why is that the constitution doesn't even recognise Aboriginal people!

Im pretty wary of particularly separating any people by means of inate characteristics such as race. IMO the Constitution should be generic and a base of law for all Australians regardless of race.....BUT....I can accept the unique situation of our first peoples and have no problem with that being included in our Constitution.In fact I remember that this was originally propmoted as a referendum to acknowledge the original people of Australia, nothing about the Voice and I would have been 100% Yes on that.

At some stage it has been railroaded to two questions in one "acknowledging the first Australians" by including Constitutional change that is by definition divisive, and completely undefined. I cant get behind that.

 

[Winston Churchill]

100% of those voting yes are uninformed of what the Voice actually is because no one knows what it actually is. It is at the whim of the Govt.

Still got a month to look into it but Ill probably vote no purely because up to this point the yes campaign has completely failed to articulate what it is. Its never been fully explained what a yes vote is.

Yes it sounds like a wonderful fairytale in the feels that aboriginal people have a voice, and I've read it here 50 times in this thread, "I'm voting yes because it makes sense" yada yada yada, you have zero idea what it is!! What the actual fark does that mean in the real world? They have a voice? voice to do what? impact what? Improve the life of aboriginal people how exactly? Crickets

I cant vote for something I don't now what I'm voting for that could potentially impact on my life and those around me. And I have no idea how it will benefit the people its meant to benefit, if at all??!! I know just as many aboriginal people that are telling me they are voting yes as i do that are voting no. The people its meant to be for cant even agree on it. People voting yes are purely doing it for the feels and warm and fuzzies as they too have zero idea what they are actually voting for. When you have no idea what you are voting for how could it possibly make sense to vote for it? Change my mind, anyone. Explain what the voice actually is.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

The Voice empowers bureaucracy over democracy
Christopher Reynolds

Getty Images
26 August 2023 5:00 AM

The Australian people will soon be asked through a national referendum to alter the Constitution to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

It is proposed that non-elected representatives of a racially identified cohort called ‘First Peoples’ be a Voice-committee-of-oversight to determine the course of parliamentary and executive government decisions and actions. It is proposed that a new Chapter IX – Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, be added to the Constitution, and that the government be trusted to devise the text without public foreknowledge. Further, there is no definition provided for the cohort referred to as ‘First Peoples’ – a term alien to Australia or the traditional Aborigines of this continent.

To propose alterations and additions to the text of the Australian Constitution, there are two fundamental principles that need consideration before embarking on the exercise: the designation of authority, and the principle of the separation of power.

The Constitution defines the structure of government for the nation of Australia. To cite a party (entity, body, or person), in the Constitution is, ipso facto, to delegate power, authority, and responsibility to that party. The moment a party is mentioned in the Constitution, that party is placed alongside and in relationship to the other parties in the document. To mention a party in the Constitution is to ascribe power, but to ascribe a party with the title ‘First Peoples’ is to not only ascribe power, but also priority.

The second consideration is that of the democratic principle of the separation of powers. Australia has a democratic form of government based on the principle of the separation of powers, as does Canada, Britain, the United States of America, Ireland, New Zealand, India, Japan, Italy, and many more. The division of power in a democratic system separates the legislature (Parliament), the executive (government) and the judiciary (courts) and thereby creates checks and balances. This system goes all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215 by King John and his barons wherein the document effectively limited the power of the executive (sovereign king). The principles of this 800-year-old document are still fundamental to the operation of state and Commonwealth government in Australia. It is the basis of what is often referred to as the rule of law.

The proposal to create, by way of an extra Chapter in the Constitution, a Voice committee to oversee the Parliament and the executive is to create a fourth tier to the structure of democratic government and to neutralise the ancient tradition of the separation of powers.



(A democratic system of government will be replaced in Australia with a form of totalitarian government whereby the Australian Parliament and Executive will be rendered subservient to the wishes and directives of the Voice committee.)



Until now, we have had a democratic form of government across the states and Commonwealth where one person had one vote. The Voice system of government will mean one vote equals very little to nothing and representative government will be undermined as decisions by elected representatives will be vetted by the unelected Voice committee: a committee that will be a fully funded para-Parliament.

When Arthur Phillip arrived in Australia, it was the Declaration of February 7, 1788 with the reading of King George III Letters Patent that established British government and British law over this continent. It was the first time in history that such a declaration of sovereign rule included benevolence towards the inhabitants whereby they were immediately considered British subjects, equal under the law and with equal rights to all other British subjects. And it was the first time in history that slavery was banned.

In 1855, the Constitution of New South Wales was made law, allowing for self-government in the colony. Constitutions for the other colonies soon followed, as did secret ballot elections – later known as the Australian ballot as the system was first introduced in Australia. In 1900, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act passed the British Parliament, which was inaugurated here in 1901 as a federation of the states. Aborigines first got a ‘voice’ to Parliament in 1856, along with everyone else, and Aborigines voted in the referendum for Federation, along with everyone else.

Reviewing the discussion on the ‘voice debate’, it is reasonable to conclude, as Anthony Albanese’s tee-shirt declared the night he attended a Midnight Oil concert, that the Voice will lead to Treaty and to Truth-Telling, where Voice has to do with power, Treaty is to do with money – compensation and taxes, and Truth-Telling involves education and children.

The recent Pathway to Treaty Act, 2023, in Queensland, clearly declares that the ‘First Nations’ cohort (not defined) do not see themselves as Australians but claim to be a separate sovereign power who are claiming Crown land as their own and want Australians to pay taxes (rents) to live on and have homes on, ‘First Nations’ land. Since ‘compensation’ has also been mentioned in the context of the proposed Voice referendum, it follows that treaty and ‘truth-telling’ are also in line for legislation by the Commonwealth Government. The recent enactment of the Western Australian Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act of 2021, is also a sign of things to come.

The proposal to create a Voice to Parliament and acceptance of the Uluru Statement is nothing short of a government-sponsored succession from the Commonwealth.

The hidden objective is to recognise and empower a separate sovereign state to oversee the government of Australia.

Now, we may see debate and difference of opinion expressed under our current system of government and in our parliaments, but we have a functioning democracy with a separation of powers system for checks and balances with regular elections to change a government if the majority of the population so determine.

What is being proposed is a social, political, and legal experiment. It is the most dangerous threat to our democracy and system of government since Federation in 1901.

Dr Christopher Reynolds is the author of What a Capital Idea – Australia 1770-1901

 

[Tim Sheens]

Can you give me an explanation as to how this referendum will help Aboriginals? I'm genuinely asking mate because I've done quite a bit of research & the info from people advocating for it has been very vague. I just struggle to vote yes for something that isn't guaranteed to work. It's also costing the country quite a bit of money when that money can be used actually making a change for everyone out there struggling.

How about you point some of your anger regarding housing solutions, or lack thereof, towards those that put no solutions forward for a decade or so and are voting against the only constitutionally valid proposal currently put forward.

Nothing is guaranteed to work, but I can guarantee doing nothing will not, and that is a big reason why the former coalition minister, along with the one removed to instill Price disagree vehemently with the coalition stance on the voice.

This is just another example of political bastardry from the disgusting human Dutton.

 

[Winston Churchill]

How about you point some of your anger regarding housing solutions, or lack thereof, towards those that put no solutions forward for a decade or so and are voting against the only constitutionally valid proposal currently put forward.

Nothing is guaranteed to work, but I can guarantee doing nothing will not, and that is a big reason why the former coalition minister, along with the one removed to instill Price disagree vehemently with the coalition stance on the voice.

This is just another example of political bastardry from the disgusting human Dutton.

Agree, it would be nice if the dweb in charge actually did something about the housing issues in this country over virtue signaling and spending, time, money and energy on a mythical 'voice'. Total valid point formerguest, it would be nice if Albo was actually doing something to help the entire nation but that really isnt a labor thing to do though. Will have to wait for the adults to be back in charge.

 

[hank37w]

Question mate if you could help I heard part of the discussion but did not catch it all

So the water front land in the whole of the Sutherland shire has had a claim put forward and parks as well in multiple claims

So once the clam is granted it becomes Aboriginal land 32 percent of this massive country is already Aboriginal land and alot of that Aboriginals are not allowed on for some reason

But my question is with the rezoning of land near the aboriginal claim say Cronulla is claimed then the residential land next to it gets rezoned is my understanding so you can not build there ? Is it knocked down your home ?

Or is it like in cooper Pedy when the residents had to come to an agreement with the now Aboriginal land owners to rent there homes off them

Sorry Mate, I really have no idea and that is the problem because so many of these things are put in place by people who think they are doing the right or noble thing but there ends up being so many unintended consequences because a lot of it was not thought through properly.

This obviously leads to legal challenges and huge disruption to the lives of many individuals and even whole communities. I did say that many of these things were put in place by people who thought they were doing the right or noble thing, but one could also argue that they have been put in place by disrupters hell bent on causing anarchy and attempting to destroy our current society.

I personally believe that there is a hell of a lot of that happening, but at least laws have a chance of being altered or repealed where as with something enshrined in the constitution you are basically stuck with it.

This is why I will be voting NO at the referendum because I feel it would be dangerous to give a minority group a Voice that is not available to the rest of the community with unknown consequences and with out being able to undo any damage that may result.

I feel that Indigenous groups already have a higher representation in parliament per capita than the rest of the population and with the departments and corporations already in place I just cannot see how yet another body is going to solve the current issues that plague Indigenous Communities.

 

[Odessa]

Sorry Mate, I really have no idea and that is the problem because so many of these things are put in place by people who think they are doing the right or noble thing but there ends up being so many unintended consequences because a lot of it was not thought through properly.

This obviously leads to legal challenges and huge disruption to the lives of many individuals and even whole communities. I did say that many of these things were put in place by people who thought they were doing the right or noble thing, but one could also argue that they have been put in place by disrupters hell bent on causing anarchy and attempting to destroy our current society.

I personally believe that there is a hell of a lot of that happening, but at least laws have a chance of being altered or repealed where as with something enshrined in the constitution you are basically stuck with it.

This is why I will be voting NO at the referendum because I feel it would be dangerous to give a minority group a Voice that is not available to the rest of the community with unknown consequences and with out being able to undo any damage that may result.

I feel that Indigenous groups already have a higher representation in parliament per capita than the rest of the population and with the departments and corporations already in place I just cannot see how yet another body is going to solve the current issues that plague Indigenous Communities.

I am voting no I feel it's very dangerous as well to have a body that is unelected by the majority of Australia's in power is a dictatorship

 

[Red88_Tiger]

Heck one of the reasons why is that the constitution doesn't even recognise Aboriginal people!

Wouldn’t they be classed as an Australian??

 

[Spartan117]

This is an Activist led Money grab.

I am, We are all Australians.

 

[twentyforty]

The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities​

• Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.
• Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities.
• To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process.

 

[hank37w]

Shame no one can tell us what the post referendum process will be.

Sorry, but NO thanks.

 

[twentyforty]

The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities​

• Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.
• Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities.
• To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process.

This is an interesting point and possibly similar to our issues at WT, as we struggle to find people who share our cultural identity.
And what of the 300 Aboriginals who currently work in the government’s NIAA? Most of whom are situated in communities around Australia?

 

[hank37w]

NIAA, You mean the body that is funded to the tune of $4.5 Billion in the last Financial Year?

Last I heard it was going to remain. I mean how many of these Bodies and Corporations do we need and we still have the same problems in Indigenous Communities.

How many more voices do we need?

 

[Winston Churchill]

Sums it up nicely

 

[watersider]

Are you guys that are upset about potential implications of power of the voice over our democracy also concerned about our situation as a constitutional monarchy? We've already seen our government dismissed by governer general in recent history.

I personally do not think the voice, an advisory body with no power and at the whim of parliament, is such a threat, but happy to accept others interpretation on it.

Obviously, we all know the monarchy DOES right now have powers over our democratically elected processes and so was curious if this is an issue for you? That sounds judgy but I am just curious about thoughts and how it fits with your thinking on this.

 

[The Chad]

Just talking for myself, but I feel this might count for a lot of people & probably is a good reason so many people are still undecided. When I read this:

"To propose alterations and additions to the text of the Australian Constitution, there are two fundamental principles that need consideration before embarking on the exercise: the designation of authority, and the principle of the separation of power."

I have zero concept of what people are talking about. And just shut down.

If I can't figure out what people are trying to sell me right away, by hiding it behind general observations of the weather or behind fancy terminology in order to either make themselves look smart or to baffle those that don't quite grasp what they are saying...I lose interest.

I've seen so many things about voting yes or no- and they nearly all end up saying nothing that the average punter wants to know.

What will it do? If another person tells me it gives aboriginals a voice in parliament but then brush away my question on "isn't that what elected aboriginal members in parliament have?" as if I don't know what I'm talking about...I'm going to lose interest in their argument too.

If someone tells me it's bad because....reasons...but can't tell me exactly what will happen, good or bad...I'm going to stop listening to them too.

What I've decided is- this is a nice distraction from the issues that are really killing Australia today. Cost of living. New employees with no experience being paid equal to staff that have 10 years experience on them because the lack of workers lets their demands & expectations escalate, housing & rental price hokes, fuel costs, grapes are $17.99 a kg...while we focus on a 'voice' like Obi Wan in the government's ear reminding them that aboriginals are part of the community too.

The people selling it need to do better. Dummies like me have no idea what they have on offer & stopped listening after the second sentence.

 

[gallagher]

I'll probably just pay the $20