The Voice. An Australian referendum

[Recidivist]

More factual information to keep the fact lovers informed.

snippets from

We fact checked claims about the Voice to Parliament being a 'third chamber'. Here's what we found

As Labor progresses a referendum on the Voice to Parliament, some politicians and pundits have claimed it would be a 'third chamber'. We asked five experts to weigh in.

www.abc.net.au

<snip>

Anne Twomey, professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, agreed.

She noted that the Voice would not be able to "initiate, debate, pass or defeat bills and would not have any of the powers or privileges of the existing houses".

Even the suggestion that parliament would need agreement from the Voice to make legislation was "wrong", she added, likening the Voice to other bodies which make recommendations and reports to parliament, such as the Human Rights Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission.

The last time I read the Australian Constitution (which was only a couple of days ago), I didn't notice any references to the HRC or the ALRC. If the "Voice" is so similar, why would it need specific Constitutional mention?

 

[Ease the sheet.]

The last time I read the Australian Constitution (which was only a couple of days ago), I didn't notice any references to the HRC or the ALRC. If the "Voice" is so similar, why would it need specific Constitutional mention?

It doesn't.
However, placing it in the constitution takes it out of the politician's hands.

 

[00seven]

I see the poor, voiceless Larakia people have a negotiated a 40 Million$ land grab grant.

What could possibly go wrong?

https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c-king/media-release/land-deal-signing-brings-larrakia-cultural-centre-significant-step-closer

 

[Recidivist]

It doesn't.
However, placing it in the constitution takes it out of the politician's hands.

Not being argumentative, but I don't actually understand what that is intended to mean.
But I admire your optimism ...

 

[ShortForBob]

I may join the fray in due course when we have more information re the actual question that is to be put to the masses...however in the meantime will chuckle internally at the usual shit flinging between the usual suspects

Yep. That's what the thread's for. laters.

 

[FinnFish]

It doesn't.
However, placing it in the constitution takes it out of the politician's hands.

So the Constitution then needs to be amended, which puts any changes firmly in the hands of the politicians in the first instance.

 

[ShortForBob]

The last time I read the Australian Constitution (which was only a couple of days ago), I didn't notice any references to the HRC or the ALRC. If the "Voice" is so similar, why would it need specific Constitutional mention?

Because the HRC doesn't get abolished at the whim of government. It's UN protected.
Like The ABC, the HRC is a constant thorn in the side of Government and no Gov would dare to abolish it.

Your question is really about whether you think that "we are all Australians now" (like immigrants that choose to come here) and ATSI people should just accept that they are a conquered people and move on OR you think they were never consulted, had no choice and are entitled to their culture and have the tiny vestige left, protected by elected custodians and protected in the Constitution.

Simple as that.

official ATSI bodies come and go

 

[Ease the sheet.]

Not being argumentative, but I don't actually understand what that is intended to mean.
But I admire your optimism ...

Changes to constitution require referendums. Obviously difficult to change.

Legislated or regulated bodies can be modified anytime by politicians.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

So the Constitution then needs to be amended, which puts any changes firmly in the hands of the politicians in the first instance.

Only if you don't understand how it works.

 

[Fah Kiew Tu]

The last time I read the Australian Constitution (which was only a couple of days ago), I didn't notice any references to the HRC or the ALRC. If the "Voice" is so similar, why would it need specific Constitutional mention?

So that if/when it goes the way of ATSIC, it can't be abolished. Once established, it'll take another referendum to remove it.

Which is why one needs to think very carefully about the exact form of words to determine what you're voting for because if there's a Yes vote sufficient to establish it, we're all stuck with it for a long, long time.

And so far, I can't tell just who is eligible to vote or be elected/appointed to this Voice let alone what constraints on its behaviour, funding etc etc are proposed. No detail equals a NO vote from me.

FKT

 

[ShortForBob]

As far as I understand it to date, the proposal in the referendum will simply be that there BE a body. A single sentence.
No one has suggested that that body will have permanently fixed form or regulations enshrined in the C.

 

[ShortForBob]

here you go. Couple of days ago


The three suggested sentences to be added to the Constitution

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 Parliament and the Executive Government 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 the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

But that's still being wrangled over.

Many are still confused

‘No one knows what’s going on’: Voice supporters query referendum strategy

Key supporters of the Indigenous Voice referendum want the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment scrutinised by parliament, as debate over the scope of the body threatens to divide the Yes camp.

www.smh.com.au

 

[ShortForBob]

Ken Wyatt's in (well it really is his baby) and Dutton is already spruiking mis information.

Former Liberal minister Ken Wyatt joins Voice referendum working group

Former Liberal minister Ken Wyatt is among 21 Indigenous Australians who will advise the government on its strategy for a referendum on the Voice to parliament.

www.smh.com.au

 

[ShortForBob]

Good podcast.
discussion with two constitutional lawyer starts 30 min in.

A forensic look at the proposed changes to the Constitution which would enshrine an indigenous voice to parliament - ABC Radio National

Analysis of the week's events, with a special focus on business and foreign affairs

www.abc.net.au

 

[FinnFish]

So that if/when it goes the way of ATSIC, it can't be abolished. Once established, it'll take another referendum to remove it.

Which is why one needs to think very carefully about the exact form of words to determine what you're voting for because if there's a Yes vote sufficient to establish it, we're all stuck with it for a long, long time.

And so far, I can't tell just who is eligible to vote or be elected/appointed to this Voice let alone what constraints on its behaviour, funding etc etc are proposed. No detail equals a NO vote from me.

FKT

Exactly. It's 'democratic exercise' controlled by politicians and unelected public servants. We'll be asked to provide a simple Yes/No answer to a complex constitutional change with no detail of the change, its implementation or reach.

 

[LB 15]

What about this bloke for president? He can be any colour you like!

 

[Mid]

And so far, I can't tell just who is eligible to vote or be elected/appointed to this Voice let alone what constraints on its behaviour, funding etc etc are proposed. No detail equals a NO vote from me.

Agreed

 

[Recidivist]

Because the HRC doesn't get abolished at the whim of government. It's UN protected.
Like The ABC, the HRC is a constant thorn in the side of Government and no Gov would dare to abolish it.

Your question is really about whether you think that "we are all Australians now" (like immigrants that choose to come here) and ATSI people should just accept that they are a conquered people and move on OR you think they were never consulted, had no choice and are entitled to their culture and have the tiny vestige left, protected by elected custodians and protected in the Constitution.

Simple as that.

official ATSI bodies come and go

It's not as simple as "that" at all. Those 2 thought bubbles that you made up do not represent the gamut of views and considerations of all indigenous persons, let alone the broader Australian population.

And this

• The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

negates the whole point about amending the Constitution.

 

[ShortForBob]

It's not as simple as "that" at all. Those 2 thought bubbles that you made up do not represent the gamut of views and considerations of all indigenous persons, let alone the broader Australian population.

And this

• The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

negates the whole point about amending the Constitution.

No it doesn't.

 

[Recidivist]

No it doesn't.

Wow, I'm stunned by your in-depth legal analysis and insightful explanation.

You really are embarrassing yourself Meli, but feel free to continue by yourself.