The Voice to Parliament will be an advisory body why is there a need to change the Constitution, just makes it harder to control if it turns into another Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and with corruption and embezzlement.

I am all for equality for all, but history suggests its bound to fail and from what I have seen is very decisive subject within the Australian community

There have been a number of different statutory bodies set up by the GOTD over the years all have tried I fail to see how this will change anything but make more division within Australian society

Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) 1980-89
Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation (AECD)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC)1990-2005
Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs
Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination
National Indigenous Council

history behind the Indigenous Voice to Parliament (The Voice)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenou ... Parliament

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/th ... 710-p525s6

I found this interesting position being taken by Warren Mundine
https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/opini ... arliament/

From the beginning, I have never been convinced to support the Voice, a position I share with many other Aboriginals from across the political spectrum. The reason for this is three-fold:

The Voice is not Aboriginal culture. In our cultures, only countrymen and women can speak for country. No national body can speak for the circa 300 traditional owner groups, Australia’s “First Nations,” it would be a huge bureaucratic structure drowning out Aboriginal voices, not enabling them to be heard;
I am a believer in liberal democracy and all the freedoms and opportunities it creates; and
I don’t believe Australia and its Constitution is racist. There are racist individuals in our country, like every country in the world, but that does not make our country nor the laws that govern us racist.

Whilst I enjoyed going to the beach for a BBQ and polish of a beer or 6 I have been reading about the protest marches in various capital city in relation to “invasion day” AKA Australia Day

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-n ... d-on-voice

I wonder if they realise if the settlement of Australia was overturned to an invasion that they would potentially lose the native title fight and Mabo could be overturned

Invasion says they are a conquererd lands and all people with are the same unlike a settlement

They say they want Constitutional recognition but conveniently forget that that has already happened in the referenda of 1967

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... Referendum

Referendum in which Australians voted overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people and include them in the census.

Thus becoming one nation for all Australians.

Seems to me the voice to Parliament could be another “Apartheid” after all it is just another version that was based on authoritarian political culture

I’ve got a lot of respect for Anne Twomey and her deep understanding of Australian constitutional and parliamentary matters.

Here’s a piece she wrote on the issue https://theconversation.com/amp/creatin ... lia-187972

Next, I would like to debate the subterranean opal mining rights for aboriginals. I saw such a debate when attending the Oxford debating tournament 20 years ago. The jury ruled, far too specific to be debated. I concur.

Its certainly going to be interesting to see how the Albanese's government reacts leading up to the vote. it is creating a lot of division and not just between Aboriginals and the rest of the Australian community, but within the Aboriginal community themselves.

https://www.ntnews.com.au/breaking-news ... ed7f61e89f

Also, I cannot find any changes to the governments tax concessions to the yes vote groups but have not granted the same to no votes.

Seems the Albanese government is intent on stacking the deck in yes favour. if this continues wonder if it will end up in the High Court

https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/w ... fe8ee67d67

https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/top-ab ... e.7335247/

My God And Albo thinks its a modest change


National Indigenous Australians Agency wants a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law


Sounds like they want to double dip with the voice a Australian Apartheid. Think Barnaby Joyce is right on the money here
"We're now dealing with a consultative power by a selected group, not an elected group … and that's a massive move away from the democratic process," he said.

NT Stolen Generations $50 million class action settlement receives final approval in NSW Supreme Court

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... r-AA19WUpM

It is very disappointing that some people are more focusssed on negative tabloid style reporting thsat the advice of experts in the area.

The proposal is well researched, well consulted and very valid. Those who don't understand the proposal seem to to not want to do so. Dutton has chosen base politicking in his opposition, which shows how little he and his party care for the nation or indigenous peoples.

Kent350787 wrote:

It is very disappointing that some people are more focusssed on negative tabloid style reporting thsat the advice of experts in the area.

The proposal is well researched, well consulted and very valid. Those who don't understand the proposal seem to to not want to do so. Dutton has chosen base politicking in his opposition, which shows how little he and his party care for the nation or indigenous peoples.

If it was so well researched then it should be able to tell the electorate what exactly they are voting for in pre-legislation what powers and so fourth


All I see is a blank check to do what they want after the fact with no say in the matter

A101 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

It is very disappointing that some people are more focusssed on negative tabloid style reporting thsat the advice of experts in the area.

The proposal is well researched, well consulted and very valid. Those who don't understand the proposal seem to to not want to do so. Dutton has chosen base politicking in his opposition, which shows how little he and his party care for the nation or indigenous peoples.

If it was so well researched then it should be able to tell the electorate what exactly they are voting for in pre-legislation what powers and so fourth


All I see is a blank check to do what they want after the fact with no say in the matter

And I listen to the words of experts rather than populist fear mongering https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/we ... 323-p5curk

Kent350787 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

It is very disappointing that some people are more focusssed on negative tabloid style reporting thsat the advice of experts in the area.

The proposal is well researched, well consulted and very valid. Those who don't understand the proposal seem to to not want to do so. Dutton has chosen base politicking in his opposition, which shows how little he and his party care for the nation or indigenous peoples.

If it was so well researched then it should be able to tell the electorate what exactly they are voting for in pre-legislation what powers and so fourth


All I see is a blank check to do what they want after the fact with no say in the matter

And I listen to the words of experts rather than populist fear mongering https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/we ... 323-p5curk

I have been a there are big hurdles to overcome just on the wording let alone the electorate don't actually know what he final outcome will be.

Far too many unknowns for me to vote yes

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-16/ ... /102217212

That is interesting reporting of how the constitutional experts support a yes vote.

Kent350787 wrote:

That is interesting reporting of how the constitutional experts support a yes vote.

They might support it fundamentally but as I pointed out there are concerns about the wording and how it will affect parliament in the future

Don’t get me wrong I’m all for helping and I just don’t see how this will change anything. After all aboriginal have more of a voice currently then do the mainstream of Australians All it’s going to do is challenge and divide by race which is ironic when you consider it something they were trying to stamp out and become equals

Craven, along with Liberal MP Julian Leeser, who this week quit the frontbench to support the Voice, has concerns about the current wording. They want changes but both say they will ultimately vote Yes either way.

They fear the inclusion of the words "executive government" leaves open the prospect that the width and breadth of the federal government and its agencies would be obliged to consult the Voice. Taken further, they fear the wording leaves open the prospect whereby judges could make rulings about the nature of the Voice.

That is not a modest change

It’s probably worth reading the rest of the article rather than just citing Craven.

Kent350787 wrote:

It’s probably worth reading the rest of the article rather than just citing Craven.

I have read it and others along with yes and no arguments yes has not come u with a compelling argument to vote yes

Albo has already stated that if it does not get up he will do it anyway. Either he already knows the legislation he wants to put to parliament if that’s is what he intends to do then what’s the point of changing the constitution?

A101 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

It’s probably worth reading the rest of the article rather than just citing Craven.

I have read it and others along with yes and no arguments yes has not come u with a compelling argument to vote yes

Albo has already stated that if it does not get up he will do it anyway. Either he already knows the legislation he wants to put to parliament if that’s is what he intends to do then what’s the point of changing the constitution?

Because constitutional recognition has been an important point in the majority of consultations over time. And one side of politics has a history of dissolving legislated bodies.

If the proposed wording were amended to address Craven’s concerns, would you vote yes?

Kent350787 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

It’s probably worth reading the rest of the article rather than just citing Craven.

I have read it and others along with yes and no arguments yes has not come u with a compelling argument to vote yes

Albo has already stated that if it does not get up he will do it anyway. Either he already knows the legislation he wants to put to parliament if that’s is what he intends to do then what’s the point of changing the constitution?

Because constitutional recognition has been an important point in the majority of consultations over time. And one side of politics has a history of dissolving legislated bodies.

If the proposed wording were amended to address Craven’s concerns, would you vote yes?

They got constitutional recognition back in 67.
The reason that Legislative bodies were disbanded was because of corruption within such as with
ATSIC

No nothing will change all the voice will do is divide even further

A101 wrote:

No nothing will change all the voice will do is divide even further

The only thing the Voice is dividing is the Liberal party. Multiple resignations, cabinet members standing down, MPs and state leaders speaking out against Peter Dutton. His approval and the Liberal party's polling numbers have plummeted. His stunt in Alice Springs was a failure and saw his already low approval rating drop 11 points. The Liberals have lost every election recently and especially got clobbered in the Aston by election, the first time a government has taken a seat off the opposition in a by election in 100 years. The ALP now dominating the city vote where the majority of the population live.

I hate to be giving advice to the Liberal party but you guys need to ditch this hard right wing culture warrior and install a leader and a team who will moderate the Liberal party, return them to the centre and have a shot at winning any election for the next 10 years.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

A101 wrote:

No nothing will change all the voice will do is divide even further

The only thing the Voice is dividing is the Liberal party. Multiple resignations, cabinet members standing down, MPs and state leaders speaking out against Peter Dutton. His approval and the Liberal party's polling numbers have plummeted. His stunt in Alice Springs was a failure and saw his already low approval rating drop 11 points. The Liberals have lost every election recently and especially got clobbered in the Aston by election, the first time a government has taken a seat off the opposition in a by election in 100 years. The ALP now dominating the city vote where the majority of the population live.

I hate to be giving advice to the Liberal party but you guys need to ditch this hard right wing culture warrior and install a leader and a team who will moderate the Liberal party, return them to the centre and have a shot at winning any election for the next 10 years.

Mate while it’s very political and it should be because it is far from a modest change that Albo keeps saying

But away from party politics the people that I talk to about it are all saying no. They understand what they are trying to do but it’s the wrong way to go about it

We are all Australians one voice one nation

A101 wrote:

But away from party politics the people that I talk to about it are all saying no.

Opinion polls show a constant 60% support for Yes so your circle of friends are not representative of the Australian people. Just like Dutton you need to expand the group of people you talk to because you are not getting the majority opinion. Even many Liberals like Julian Lesser, Ken Wyatt, Simon Birmingham, Bridget Archer, Jeremy Rockliff and Libby Mettam are all pro Yes.

We are all Australians one voice one nation

Yeah OK, Pauline……

In 30 years One Nation has not gotten more than 5% at an election. They are a fringe minority party and the Liberals are currently destined to join them.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

A101 wrote:

But away from party politics the people that I talk to about it are all saying no.

Opinion polls show a constant 60% support for Yes so your circle of friends are not representative of the Australian people. Just like Dutton you need to expand the group of people you talk to because you are not getting the majority opinion. Even many Liberals like Julian Lesser, Ken Wyatt, Simon Birmingham, Bridget Archer, Jeremy Rockliff and Libby Mettam are all pro Yes.

I think you will find that those 60% would like something to be done didn’t mean that they all agree with how it is to be implemented.

Just like the republican referenda there was a broad support but the electorate did not like the model proposed.

And that is what I’m getting from the people I talk to across a great deal of different professions

sierrakilo44 wrote:

A101 wrote:

We are all Australians one voice one nation

Yeah OK, Pauline……

In 30 years One Nation has not gotten more than 5% at an election. They are a fringe minority party and the Liberals are currently destined to join them.

You are taking it out of context by what I mean by one voice one nation. And it was not about Pauline Hanson

LOL I thought someone would pipe up along those lines



So after all these years by the experts throughout different versions that were established to help how is this going to be any different from those besides changing the constitution permanently?

Support for ‘The Voice’ drops to 46% of Australians – down 7% points since December 2022

https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/supp ... -to-oppose

Interesting the closer we get anything could happen with up or down

Only Victoria has majority support for ‘The Voice’ in April while two States now have more people saying ‘No’ than ‘Yes’ (Queensland and South Australia)

For a referendum to pass in Australia a majority of Australian voters nationally as well as a majority of voters in a majority of States (four out of six) must vote in favour of the proposal.

I think this is where it will fall over on double majority

It’s interesting that the Libera party strongly supported the Voice to parliament under previous leaderships, but the current leadership feels its best political option is division.

It’s little wonder that their support is so low when they are willing to put theme selves before society.

Kent350787 wrote:

It’s interesting that the Libera party strongly supported the Voice to parliament under previous leaderships, but the current leadership feels its best political option is division.

It’s little wonder that their support is so low when they are willing to put theme selves before society.

From memory coalition leaders Abbott, Turnbull,Morrison and Dutton were against a referendum

Abbott has been supportive of indigenous recognition in the preamble not a voice to government. He has had a long and consistent view.

alanb976 wrote:

Abbott has been supportive of indigenous recognition in the preamble not a voice to government. He has had a long and consistent view.

Very different effect from changing the preamble to the actual constitution.

That didn’t get up either;

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... ous_people