I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but still think it should all be very explicitly worked out and published in detail PRIOR to a referendum.
-
Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account.
2023 Referendum: Indigenous Voice to Parliament
- Thread starter rj90
- Start date
This explains the Uluru statement from the heart, and its suggested constitutional reform.
What is it you are looking to know?
Literally everything about how it functions….
Including but not limited to how members of the voice are chosen / how they are able to represent the varying thoughts of needs of indigenous people? What happens if they disagree with legislation or government in power of the day? What are the time frames allowed for recommendations? How does it impact/change the governing of the country?
Saying that the voice will be able to speak to policies that affect indigenous people is a pretty broad and ambiguous thing. They are members of Australian society and therefore they are genuinely impacted by every single piece of legislation.
Also the current ambiguous nature of this referendum means if it truly is up to the government to legislate the details of the voice then it could be made too powerful and cripple the ability to create legislation in Australia and similarly it could be made to be completely ineffective for indigenous peoples.
In my mind currently, without further details, it’s potentially unfair for indigenous peoples and unclear for wider Australians. I’m not confessing to any great political acumen here, but I’m seriously baffled in the way this is being presented.
Last edited:
This article gives some details. It also says there is a comprehensive report by Professors Tom Calma and Marcia Langton on the structure so if you google them you may find further information. I tried looking for the report but couldn't find it in a quick google search but there were some you tube videos and some summary documents so there may be something that you find that helps?
There's a lot of talk about a Voice to Parliament. Here's what it is and who's for and against it
We break down everything to do with the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum.
www.abc.net.au
This is also a link on how the 11 first nations MPs feel - There is at least 1 that shares your feelings on wanting more information on how it will work.
There are 11 First Nations MPs and senators. Here's what they think of a Voice to Parliament
The 2022 federal election delivered record results for First Nations representation in parliament. Ahead of the referendum, the ABC contacted the 11 politicians to hear directly from them what they think about a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament.
www.abc.net.au
I think sometimes when people have been with an idea for so long they forget that they need to explain it to others to bring them along on the journey with them. The difficult thing I guess is trying to find reliable sources to spread that information without tainting its accuracy. I am not saying ABC won't have its biases its just what I found. I hope it helps a bit.
Judging by the latest poll the "not enough information" argument appears to be winning. They really need to do better, so I won't be surprised if this is defeated, tbh. I really do believe it's a good idea that Australians should support, but it really does feel like they haven't fleshed it out enough. So there it is: I give up. Labor is useless. Do better.
SeanE
I loathe sport on TV...
Ok... Ask *any* other ethnic group about why they shouldn’t also have a ‘Voice’ in the Constitution. Afghani, Vietnamese, Russian, Italian, Polish, Chinese, Malay, pick-the-ethnic-group-of-your-preference...
If you’re going to single out the Aboriginal people then this divides them from the rest of all these other groups and gives them a greater influence over any other ethnic group in Australia. This has been pointed out by Indigenous elected Parliamentarians themselves as well as various Indigenous celebrity personas.
Everyone already has a ‘Voice’ in Parliament. It’s called your elected Representative and/or State Senator. If these people were doing their jobs properly and actually representing the people who elected them fairly and not be biased towards party policy and politics then a “Voice” wouldn’t be necessary at all.
Sure, have an advisory group / Quasi-Gov’t Department. Have as many as you like. Create them through regular legislation in Parliament as is the usual process... I have no problem with that idea at all. We had ATSIC for years before it was disbanded by a newly elected Government for no real reason at all, except that it had been created by the preceding Party in Government.
(I realise that’s the problem with that regular legislative process though. Politicians just can’t keep their party politicking hands off things like ‘Advisory Committees’ and such. The ABC's 'Utopia' show parodies this to perfection IMO btw.)
I do not think we need to cement this 'Voice' into the Constitution.
If you’re going to single out the Aboriginal people then this divides them from the rest of all these other groups and gives them a greater influence over any other ethnic group in Australia. This has been pointed out by Indigenous elected Parliamentarians themselves as well as various Indigenous celebrity personas.
Everyone already has a ‘Voice’ in Parliament. It’s called your elected Representative and/or State Senator. If these people were doing their jobs properly and actually representing the people who elected them fairly and not be biased towards party policy and politics then a “Voice” wouldn’t be necessary at all.
Sure, have an advisory group / Quasi-Gov’t Department. Have as many as you like. Create them through regular legislation in Parliament as is the usual process... I have no problem with that idea at all. We had ATSIC for years before it was disbanded by a newly elected Government for no real reason at all, except that it had been created by the preceding Party in Government.
(I realise that’s the problem with that regular legislative process though. Politicians just can’t keep their party politicking hands off things like ‘Advisory Committees’ and such. The ABC's 'Utopia' show parodies this to perfection IMO btw.)
I do not think we need to cement this 'Voice' into the Constitution.
because none of those other ethnicities lived on this land for thousands of years and have valuable knowledge on how it could be looked after for thousands more years? Because the first nations people of Australia suffered genocide and had their children stolen from them and suffer trauma from that that leads to some complexities in the communities that they live in, that maybe they should have some say in how to fix, rather than being told by outsiders what is best for them all the time? Because they want something that is in the constitution so that the government of the day cant just randomly change thier mind about having an advisory group - you just said it.
If/when this referendum fails, regardless of how labor try to spin it against the opposition, the fault will lay fair and square with themselves imo.
It should have been supported by both side of parliament. But no surprise, Dutton's a cunt who prefer to push division.
While they pontificate on what to say in their yes and no pamphlets so much other information, misinformation and opinions swirl on the interwebs and in society and the majority of people will have chosen their vote before those pamphlets even get published.
They should have had these arguments ready to go within days/the same time as announcing the referendum - its not like it snuck up on them.
ABC News Australia on TikTok
Rodney Gibbins, a Palawa man from Lutruwita / Tasmania, says he definitely won't vote no to the Voice, but that he also can't vote yes. He explains his thinking behind going for a third option. #Indigenous #Australia #Aboriginal #VoiceToParliament #VoiceReferendum #Politics #ABCNews
The voice not being properly explained is the government of the days fault!
I think this is really telling. Not wanting to vote no (therefore not being influenced by Dutton et al) but unable to vote yes due to a lack of explanations and convincing that this is the right way forward.
Last edited:
rj90
Yeah, Nah.
The case for voting Yes:
The case for voting No:
The case for voting No:
Thanks for this
And to get the fullscreen image (if you can't read that), click here.
Thanks for Sharing @timmy. You reminded me that Thomas has written a couple of books: ‘Finding Our Heart - A story about the Uluru Statement for young Australians" and "Finding the Heart of the Nation - The journey of the Uluru Statement towards Voice, Treaty and Truth"
Below is a video of him reading out loud the children book:
edit not linking - put spacing at the beginning so you can copy and paste the rest
https: // www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEqbxdtS13Q&list=WL&index=39&ab_channel=ThomasMayo
Below is a video of him reading out loud the children book:
edit not linking - put spacing at the beginning so you can copy and paste the rest
https: // www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEqbxdtS13Q&list=WL&index=39&ab_channel=ThomasMayo
The Vote No people, eh... aren't they a lovely bunch...
He had advertised them for sale at the cost of postage on his website and has published another Vote No flyer with a QR code linking to an article on a white supremacist website
www.abc.net.au
He had advertised them for sale at the cost of postage on his website and has published another Vote No flyer with a QR code linking to an article on a white supremacist website
'Vote No' to Voice to Parliament flyers peddling false claims under investigation by election watchdog
An Indigenous artist and elder is "disgusted" that a painting he composed of Uluru has been reappropriated to help spread misinformation about the Voice to Parliament.
www.abc.net.au