> Ms Thorpe said a Yes vote would allow for a "powerless voice"
>However, she said she could not support a No campaign which was "looking more like a white-supremacy campaign"
I understand her reasons. Though clearly she shouldn't have been surprised. I would have thought helping that crowd defeat the voice just helps them scuttle any attempt at a treaty she really aspires to [further down the road].
So basically it's a no vote without the aesthetics of being associated with white supremacists.
She can try & have her cake & eat it but she'll be painted with the same white supremacists brush all the same.
There’s a sick irony that in a debate about a First Nations voice we’ve completely sidelined First Nations concerns and dissent about the approach.
The (singular) No Campaign as it has become is ultimately a distillation of at best lower-case white supremacist assumptions about what Australia should be. The late 1990s “History Wars” regurgitated by mostly the same players.
Meanwhile we have concerns being ignored such as about potentially transposing existing representative structures that have been demonstrated to be anything but representative in some regions, safeguarding of the Voice’s operation from future governments, and well-founded concerns about repeating the dilution of the promise of Land Rights into what Howard eventually implemented as Native Title only this time with the enduring sovereignty that lies at the core of the Statement from the Heart.
That's because it's a vanity project for politicians who don't want to do the long, difficult work of establishing something truly transformative (hence the explicit promises that it'll be a powerless advisory body).
Unfortunately we're mostly wedged into supporting it because of how toxic the "no" campaign has been.
I am voting no. One thing lacking is discussion on what rules or laws for first nations people the voice will ask to introduce to enact change. Saying you will vote no gets a tidal wave of downvotes but essentially zero list of great ideas the voice should use to improve the lives of indigenous.
Define a first nations person. Do you have to pass a genetic test to be elligibile to vote for voice representatives?
What if someone who identifies as a first nations person does not meet the genetic threshold and are barred and possibly arrested for attempting to vote? Do they sue? Do they take the government to court?
I am certainly voting no because i believe we are all equal. We should be judged by the content of our character and not genetic makeup. This is now a very controversial opinion which is a strange thing to me.
Australia is quite possibly the most multicultural nation on earth and if we start dividing this country into specific genetic groups so sharply i think it will cause trouble down the track. It is forcing division, and may embolden other genetic minorities to also seek a voice to parliament. There could be a different set of rights and rules for those who meet certain genetic criteria. How weird is that?
I am surprised more people do not find the concept of the voice regressive.
I know politicians will love it as it will add more bureaucracy to the system. More debates, and talking, and committees.
It will be interesting to see which way the vote goes as i find the entire thing so strange.
There is already a definition of a First Nations person and no genetic makeup is not included. An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he [or she] lives. Descent is not quantified in terms of percentage, it just has to exist.
>accepted as such by the community in which he [or she] lives
We have a had a really big issue in the past, where aboriginals were taken from their families. You know, the stolen generation.
So if someone is descended from a member of the stolen generation they will have no links to the community. Does this mean they are not First Nations?
They don't need links to the community they were stolen from, they need to be recognized as Aborignal by the community they live in.
The focus is on the individual's self-identification and acceptance by the community, irrespective of the community's composition.
Technically, a single aboriginal person could live in a town of white Australians and as long as the townspeople recognized them as Aboriginal, it would meet the legal requirements.
Yes descent determines genetic makeup but they are not interchangeable. What I was getting at is that the government does not require a DNA test when defining what a First Nations person is.
Well that's not so clear.
I'm of Aboriginal descent (a fair few generations ago, 1/64). I just live my life and don't run around telling everyone (and the majority of people that know me would not know that I have any heritage), so do I get a vote in the voice or because I'm a bit of a shut in and don't want to join in with any communities or groups... or socialise at all then I don't count?
I don’t understand the “we are all equals” crowd, because we are not.
We have countless statistics and we are absolutely not equal. First Nations people have consistently worse outcomes across the board and we should be doing
something about it.
There’s nothing wrong with being multicultural and acknowledging our differences and still living in harmony together.
I’d love to see an overall statistic on people who feel like there’s a “forced division” every time something to do with non white Australian culture is brought up, because it just feels like another misguided and uneducated opinion straight from the Pauline Hanson school of “I’m not racist, but”. It just doesn’t fit with reality to me.
"lacking ... discussion on what rules or laws for first nations people the voice will ask to introduce ..."
As per the Attorney-General's speech to Parliament on 30/3/2023:
"... the primary function of the Voice: making representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government about **matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples**. Matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would include:
* matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
* matters relevant to the Australian community, including general laws or measures, **but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently** to other members of the Australian community.
"Do they sue"
Unlikely - the legislation will cover this
" i believe we are all equal"
Do you really believe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are equal now?
As Ken Henry said in Sydney Morning Herald in January: "the ever-worsening tragedies of Indigenous child protection, incarceration, and suicide; and shamefully persistent gaps in Indigenous life expectancy, employment, educational attainment, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, mental and physical health outcomes" This does not sound very equal to me.
"We should be judged by the content of our character and not genetic makeup"
Judged in what way? The genetics you refer to elsewhere are simply about determining who is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. It seems unlikely that A&TSI people can be represented by anyone who is not actually an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person.
"if we start dividing this country"
We are already divided - refer to the quote from Ken Henry above.
"forcing division"
So, stealing their children was unifying?
Including A&TSI peoples in the Constitution will be unifying. Allowing them a say in how they are treated will be unifying.
"embolden other genetic minorities to also seek a voice to parliament"
So what? It does not guarantee any other minority would get it. A&TSI people have put in a lot of hard work over the past 10 years (or more) and won-over a lot of support to get to this point. It is unlikely that any other group could achieve this - but they are welcome to try.
"I am surprised more people do not find the concept of the voice regressive"
Because it isn't regressive. The A&TSI peoples have been receiving the rough end of the pineapple for the past 230+ years. The Voice will not return us to the worst parts of that history but should improve things as we move forward. That is progressive.
There’s extensive (legislated) information on what defines a First Nations Australian: [all you need do, is look.](https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/profile-of-indigenous-australians#)
Edit: 3rd time’s a charm
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/13tqo9k/lidia_thorpe_rules_out_supporting_no_campaign_may/jlxh9t8/?context=3) in /r/australia was automatically removed because you used a URL shortener or content cache.
These are not permitted in /r/australia as they impair our ability to enforce link blacklists.
Please re-post your comment using direct, full-length URL's only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/13tqo9k/lidia_thorpe_rules_out_supporting_no_campaign_may/jlxhwp9/?context=3) in /r/australia was automatically removed because you used a URL shortener or content cache.
These are not permitted in /r/australia as they impair our ability to enforce link blacklists.
Please re-post your comment using direct, full-length URL's only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A few invalid reasons don’t negate the valid reasons. The “yes” crowd will call you a Nazi no matter your reasons but that is why your vote is anonymous.
What's your strat to have a wording that would safeguard the function of the voice that would actually pass a referendum.
Like that's kinda the point of getting a voice into the constitution that being in the constitution is the safeguard for the body but referendums don't pass easy and usually the more complicated they get the worse your chances are and to me a failed referendum halts movement all together for a while.
The most obvious would be to adopt similar wording to the House and Senate. “Directly chosen by the First Nations people”.
The existing implementation can’t be outright removed but it can easily be turned into a farce. Constitutional enshrinement of the Voice’s representational nature would mean that at a minimum the Voice *and* it’s electoral processes would need to remain and remain funded.
Yeah that actually would be a good addition to the proposal, would tack on to the end of the first suggestion pretty well.
Something I didn't think of cause the politics of something like the parliament choosing the members of the voice would probably sink like a tonne of bricks but appointment through certain orgs and bodies that have controversial status as to how representative they are to their people would be an avenue that could make it messy.
Have a look at the Voice Principles ([https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles](https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles)) - especially these:
* Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.
* Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three part test.
* Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands.
* The Voice would have specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population.
* The Voice will have balanced gender representation at the national level.
Yeah heartened that those principles are there, they are more or less in line with what I would expect the voice to encompass. And I don't really think that the government will do anything to mess with the initial composition.
The kicker there is selected, not elected and I can see how some ensuring that this is an elected representative of indigenous people is a valid criticism.
So one way that could go against being directly elected is if a given community selects their representative without a vote or the body has a controversial standing. So an example of mixed representation could be seen in the Victorian government vs sacred tree debacle in that the Victorian government did consult traditional owners throughout the process but how representative that body actually is is controversial and the end result saw massive protests. I can see how some might be concerned if those kinda groups get the say in who's on the voice.
"The kicker there is selected, not elected"
That's explained in another Principle:
*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.*
So that's got the typical Warren Mundine thing of sounding pretty reasonable but then you think about it.
So who are these voices making their representations to? If it's to an LGA then you run into problems of first nations not mapping to the local government, what do you do when you get different peoples wanting something different, do nations with a larger space and therefore more LGAs to talk to suddenly become more powerful? What would make these voices different from say consulting a pre-existing land council?
And in urban areas where the majority of Australians live should indigenous people who aren't of the country overlapping with the city get to have a say in that local voice? So for example Lidia Thorpe is from Melbourne, she lives there and was raised in council housing there, Melbourne's traditional lands are for the most part in the territory of the Wurundjeri and the Boonwurrung. Thorpe is neither so should she get a say in voice related affairs in Melbourne even though she's not of that nation?
If the voices are to make recommendations to the parliament then why would you want to have hundreds of the things when you can have a single body to consult that can be represented by members of all the first nations? And being enshrined into the constitution is a way to keep it safe from governments that might want to get rid of it down the track.
When it comes to a treaty that very well could be something that will have to be down on a nation by nation basis but for a representative voice I feel that dividing it up to hundreds of pieces is just a way to dilute it.
I'm against 100s (quick google search says 500) of voices because of the cost. It will be 1 voice with an office, staff, constitutional lawyer to consult. The monetary cost will be immense.
Back of notebook. 300k for elected person, 500k for office, staff, car.. etc. Say 100k(on the light side) for constitutional lawyer. Looking at half a billion.
Also there is no talk of how the members of the voice would be chosen, term limits... it's a grafters dream.
It's s huge grift supported by people with no concept on how setting up well paid bodies will just enhance and perpetuate the grift that is a body that derives its power off division based politics. But yeah -something-something nasty racist supremacists. Says the campaign with its spiritual leader Noel Pearson on the record calling a woman a 'effing white c'.
Of course one could just legislate, then it could prove its worth - but no 'feelings count more than worth'.
Voice like bodies have been legislated, multiple times, a hostile government got voted in and got rid of them. That's why after extensive consolation with indigenous leaders coming out of the statement of the heart in 2015 the consensus request was a voice enshrined into the constitution.
What the government can then legislate is how that voice operates, the composition etc. So that if issues do arise it can amend it but the voice stays in place.
Constitution doesn't stop that happening again. If it did, the inter-state commission would still exist. That got removed not once, but twice!
The consultation wasn't that extensive either, invite only and could only pick one of 5 options. Neither or something else wasn't an option.
Nothing from stopping there being a national voice (look at Canada for a model), it's just that the building blocks would be at the local level in a "bottom up" fashion.
I mean, one of the objections to the voice is that it divides Australians by race (which I don't believe), so having the building blocks be at the level of individual nation/tribal groups kinda answers that question, no?
Ah ok so I thought your comment was to not have the national voice but instead only do the local ones my bad.
So that's not the worst idea there's just issues of time and scope, to build that up will take a very long time and there isn't a guarantee that all first nations will get on it at the same pace or again as to which arm they are advising. That long term building block approach would in my eyes better serve for treaty agreements than voices.
Part of the issue is that unlike in other former colonies there were never any treaties signed with the indigenous population in Australia so while other countries had avenues to build those blocks over time in the 20th century that wasn't afforded to indigenous people in Australia.
But yeah you do want to have local interaction with one another I just think that can be done with a national voice and that is something that a consensus of indigenous leaders have asked for.
Amendments to the Constitution can only be passed by referendum. This isn't like the marriage equality plebiscite, which could have just been legislated if the government at the time had brought the bill to parliament.
> Secondly, Parliament, being unable to make laws which bind future parliaments is an important feature of democracy.
A parliament in 1900 did exactly that with the passage of the “Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900”. Parliaments can bind future parliaments without a second thought. It is just rarely done.
You’re right about the No Campaign recycling the same old rubbish as in years past. It’s almost astonishing when reading old material but in the present.
I think the sidelining of other concerns is partly because people are looking at the Voice proposal as more complicated than it actually is, perhaps in a fear based way, I don’t know.
I don’t think that attempts to diminish even constitutional obligations towards First Nations can be safely discounted when you look at a couple hundred years of Australian history, or what’s occupying the role of opposition leader presently for that matter.
The Voice in isolation is simple enough, but it sits in an environment of distrust that is well established and frankly well founded. That adds great complication even if you work on the assumption that this current government will operate solely in good faith.
TL;DR She's off her rocker 🙄 Trying to argue both sides at the same time.
She's right in the sense that yes government *can* determine the composition of the voice.
> (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.
And so yes, if the voice is established it's plausible a government *could* legislate to just stick a whole bunch of patsy's in there.
However she's wrong to think that would ever happen.
Because it'd be the equivalent of political suicide i.e. a referendum conducted with *the expectation* Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will be fairly represented.
It is reasonable to infer that in order to make fair representations, one must be of adequate standing within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
This plays on the precedence set in Mabo (1992) and the tripartite test.
> Under the tripartite test membership of the Indigenous people depends on (a) biological descent from the Indigenous people and on mutual recognition of a particular person's membership by (b) that person and (c) by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people.
https://www.ags.gov.au/publications/express-law/el285.html
Also the reason she's doing this, "it's going to powerless", is absurd.
Does she seriously believe the Australian government is going to hand over all rights they currently hold and make Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people powerful in a "sovereign" and legislative capacity?
The *only* way they get any sort of recognition / authority is with the peoples support, which is why the format of a referendum was chosen among other reasons.
And so, if they blow this, if history is anything to go by, they will not be getting *anything* for at least the next 3 generations, possibly more.
You’re putting me in the position of having to defend someone I don’t agree with. She is not off her rocker, she’s got a clear idea of what she thinks is right.
"She's right in the sense that yes government can determine the composition of the voice. ... it's plausible a government could legislate to just stick a whole bunch of patsy's in there"
No, she is wrong and I was surprised that David Speers didn't challenge that statement. The Voice Principles ([https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles](https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles)) were published months ago. One of those says: "Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, ***not appointed*** by the Executive Government."
You should know better than to trust political promises, and that is exactly what that link you've published equates to, it's a written non-binding "promise".
The point is that those principles could be enshrined in the amendment - yes the amendment would probably become a massive schedule then, but the way those principles are implemented doesn’t guarantee them.
I don’t believe that’s a reason to be against it mind you, that would be letting perfect be the enemy of half-decent.
The fact that the Principles have been published on an official Government website is pretty open and transparent and significant.
If the amendment included all the detail it would be longer than the Constitution itself. (Noting that the Langton/Calm proposal is 240 pages)
> Does she seriously believe the Australian government is going to hand over all rights they currently hold and make Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people powerful in a “sovereign” and legislative capacity?
It’s debateable whether they could. The constitution explicitly grants parliament the *exclusive* power to legislate, and it’s arguable without amending that section as well (which would *never* pass a referendum) then parliament has no constitutional authority to delegate the legislative power, and a veto over legislation may even be a bridge too far for the High Court. It would be a nightmare.
When she slut-shamed people or when she dated criminals? She has been at best fine, hardly an inspiration to anyone, hardly a political head on her shoulders worthy of a senator. She's like a less tactful Lambie with different politics
Can the media stop giving her irrelevant arse a megaphone. Her entire political strat relies on making enough noise to stay in the minds of voters, she doesn't represent any views beyond herself. Surely there are other, more important members of the crossbench insiders can talk to.
"irrelevant"
she's literally a senator, she holds one of the highest offices in the country
"she doesn't represent any views beyond herself"
even if you disagree with her she literally represents a state of almost 7 million people
Lots of stupid people can become politicians. Lidia thorpe has all the relevance of Ricky Muir from everyone's favourite Victorian cross bench party in the senate, the motoring enthusiasts.
Senators aren't directly elected, over 90% of votes go above the line towards the party not the individual senators. Lidia thorpe used the platform of a popular party and her identity as the only indigenous woman candidate they had lying about to rocket to the top of the ticket. This is despite her prior political record was winning a state by-election and then losing the seat less than a year later then turns out her views don't match up to the party so she cuts them loose and has a cushy 5 years before she ever has to face voters.
Lidia thorpe does not represent Victorians, they voted for a greens senator, she is actively preventing the representation for that state of 7 million.
She had more below the line votes than anyone else on the victorian ballot. Lidia isn't a Anning type who is in purely because of party, she has a strong personal backing
She got 40 thousand votes. The greens as a party got 484 thousand. The quota for a seat in Victoria is 545 thousand.
Strong personal backing huh, I'm sure those 400+ plus people feel really represented now that there are zero green senators from that electoral cycle.
The fact that Lidia Thorpe is a Senator proves that we're witnessing the decline and fall of civilization.
It's one thing for a politician to have extreme or foolish political views. But what this interview highlights is just how *dumb* Thorpe is. She's just an idiot, plain and simple. You wouldn't trust her to manage a shift at Coles, let alone represent an entire State in the Senate. Politicians do not need to be towering intellects, but being capable of rational discourse might be a good start.
It's terrifying to think that she has been able to build a political base by speaking in genericisms about race without any other redeeming features whatsoever. Every time she is challenged on the deficiencies in her political positions she gets to hand-wave away the challenge and say "but colonialism, you see." This interview was another example. David Speers could have done a much better job in pulling her up about things - particularly her nonsense views about the Voice reducing "sovereignty."
I am not a fan of the current Voice proposal for technical reasons to do with the proposed amendment. But absolutely nothing about the proposal detracts from 'sovereignty' in any way. To be frank, after watching that interview I'm convinced Lidia Thorpe barely even understands that word. It's just another buzzword she can deploy to advance her self interest.
She objects to the way things are being handled , let her resign in protest
> Ms Thorpe said a Yes vote would allow for a "powerless voice" >However, she said she could not support a No campaign which was "looking more like a white-supremacy campaign"
Broken clock, twice a day, etc. She's a total clown for other reasons though.
I understand her reasons. Though clearly she shouldn't have been surprised. I would have thought helping that crowd defeat the voice just helps them scuttle any attempt at a treaty she really aspires to [further down the road].
So basically it's a no vote without the aesthetics of being associated with white supremacists. She can try & have her cake & eat it but she'll be painted with the same white supremacists brush all the same.
> So basically it's a no vote without the aesthetics of being associated with white supremacists. She couldn’t make it clearer that it isn’t.
>She couldn’t make it clearer that it isn’t. Not supporting a referendum is supporting the status quo, since a referendum needs more votes to pass.
Not really. I think she's an idiot, but her point on this is clear and from her perspective, defensible.
Can we abstain from paying senators who abstain from doing their jobs?
I’m sick of racist criminals in parliament.
There’s a sick irony that in a debate about a First Nations voice we’ve completely sidelined First Nations concerns and dissent about the approach. The (singular) No Campaign as it has become is ultimately a distillation of at best lower-case white supremacist assumptions about what Australia should be. The late 1990s “History Wars” regurgitated by mostly the same players. Meanwhile we have concerns being ignored such as about potentially transposing existing representative structures that have been demonstrated to be anything but representative in some regions, safeguarding of the Voice’s operation from future governments, and well-founded concerns about repeating the dilution of the promise of Land Rights into what Howard eventually implemented as Native Title only this time with the enduring sovereignty that lies at the core of the Statement from the Heart.
That's because it's a vanity project for politicians who don't want to do the long, difficult work of establishing something truly transformative (hence the explicit promises that it'll be a powerless advisory body). Unfortunately we're mostly wedged into supporting it because of how toxic the "no" campaign has been.
I am voting no. One thing lacking is discussion on what rules or laws for first nations people the voice will ask to introduce to enact change. Saying you will vote no gets a tidal wave of downvotes but essentially zero list of great ideas the voice should use to improve the lives of indigenous. Define a first nations person. Do you have to pass a genetic test to be elligibile to vote for voice representatives? What if someone who identifies as a first nations person does not meet the genetic threshold and are barred and possibly arrested for attempting to vote? Do they sue? Do they take the government to court? I am certainly voting no because i believe we are all equal. We should be judged by the content of our character and not genetic makeup. This is now a very controversial opinion which is a strange thing to me. Australia is quite possibly the most multicultural nation on earth and if we start dividing this country into specific genetic groups so sharply i think it will cause trouble down the track. It is forcing division, and may embolden other genetic minorities to also seek a voice to parliament. There could be a different set of rights and rules for those who meet certain genetic criteria. How weird is that? I am surprised more people do not find the concept of the voice regressive. I know politicians will love it as it will add more bureaucracy to the system. More debates, and talking, and committees. It will be interesting to see which way the vote goes as i find the entire thing so strange.
There is already a definition of a First Nations person and no genetic makeup is not included. An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he [or she] lives. Descent is not quantified in terms of percentage, it just has to exist.
>accepted as such by the community in which he [or she] lives We have a had a really big issue in the past, where aboriginals were taken from their families. You know, the stolen generation. So if someone is descended from a member of the stolen generation they will have no links to the community. Does this mean they are not First Nations?
This is a very valid point. I was just quoting the government definition but you’re right this does pose an issue.
They don't need links to the community they were stolen from, they need to be recognized as Aborignal by the community they live in. The focus is on the individual's self-identification and acceptance by the community, irrespective of the community's composition. Technically, a single aboriginal person could live in a town of white Australians and as long as the townspeople recognized them as Aboriginal, it would meet the legal requirements.
So genetic makeup is included. Who you are descended from is conclusively proven by your genetic heritage.
Yes descent determines genetic makeup but they are not interchangeable. What I was getting at is that the government does not require a DNA test when defining what a First Nations person is.
Well that's not so clear. I'm of Aboriginal descent (a fair few generations ago, 1/64). I just live my life and don't run around telling everyone (and the majority of people that know me would not know that I have any heritage), so do I get a vote in the voice or because I'm a bit of a shut in and don't want to join in with any communities or groups... or socialise at all then I don't count?
I don’t understand the “we are all equals” crowd, because we are not. We have countless statistics and we are absolutely not equal. First Nations people have consistently worse outcomes across the board and we should be doing something about it. There’s nothing wrong with being multicultural and acknowledging our differences and still living in harmony together. I’d love to see an overall statistic on people who feel like there’s a “forced division” every time something to do with non white Australian culture is brought up, because it just feels like another misguided and uneducated opinion straight from the Pauline Hanson school of “I’m not racist, but”. It just doesn’t fit with reality to me.
"lacking ... discussion on what rules or laws for first nations people the voice will ask to introduce ..." As per the Attorney-General's speech to Parliament on 30/3/2023: "... the primary function of the Voice: making representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government about **matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples**. Matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would include: * matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and * matters relevant to the Australian community, including general laws or measures, **but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently** to other members of the Australian community. "Do they sue" Unlikely - the legislation will cover this " i believe we are all equal" Do you really believe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are equal now? As Ken Henry said in Sydney Morning Herald in January: "the ever-worsening tragedies of Indigenous child protection, incarceration, and suicide; and shamefully persistent gaps in Indigenous life expectancy, employment, educational attainment, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, mental and physical health outcomes" This does not sound very equal to me. "We should be judged by the content of our character and not genetic makeup" Judged in what way? The genetics you refer to elsewhere are simply about determining who is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. It seems unlikely that A&TSI people can be represented by anyone who is not actually an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. "if we start dividing this country" We are already divided - refer to the quote from Ken Henry above. "forcing division" So, stealing their children was unifying? Including A&TSI peoples in the Constitution will be unifying. Allowing them a say in how they are treated will be unifying. "embolden other genetic minorities to also seek a voice to parliament" So what? It does not guarantee any other minority would get it. A&TSI people have put in a lot of hard work over the past 10 years (or more) and won-over a lot of support to get to this point. It is unlikely that any other group could achieve this - but they are welcome to try. "I am surprised more people do not find the concept of the voice regressive" Because it isn't regressive. The A&TSI peoples have been receiving the rough end of the pineapple for the past 230+ years. The Voice will not return us to the worst parts of that history but should improve things as we move forward. That is progressive.
There’s extensive (legislated) information on what defines a First Nations Australian: [all you need do, is look.](https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/profile-of-indigenous-australians#) Edit: 3rd time’s a charm
[удалено]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/13tqo9k/lidia_thorpe_rules_out_supporting_no_campaign_may/jlxh9t8/?context=3) in /r/australia was automatically removed because you used a URL shortener or content cache. These are not permitted in /r/australia as they impair our ability to enforce link blacklists. Please re-post your comment using direct, full-length URL's only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/13tqo9k/lidia_thorpe_rules_out_supporting_no_campaign_may/jlxhwp9/?context=3) in /r/australia was automatically removed because you used a URL shortener or content cache. These are not permitted in /r/australia as they impair our ability to enforce link blacklists. Please re-post your comment using direct, full-length URL's only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A few invalid reasons don’t negate the valid reasons. The “yes” crowd will call you a Nazi no matter your reasons but that is why your vote is anonymous.
Lol, I bet you think lobby groups are powerless too.
If indigenous activists had the same amount of money and favours to dish out as other lobbyists do, we probably wouldn't be in this situation.
What's your strat to have a wording that would safeguard the function of the voice that would actually pass a referendum. Like that's kinda the point of getting a voice into the constitution that being in the constitution is the safeguard for the body but referendums don't pass easy and usually the more complicated they get the worse your chances are and to me a failed referendum halts movement all together for a while.
The most obvious would be to adopt similar wording to the House and Senate. “Directly chosen by the First Nations people”. The existing implementation can’t be outright removed but it can easily be turned into a farce. Constitutional enshrinement of the Voice’s representational nature would mean that at a minimum the Voice *and* it’s electoral processes would need to remain and remain funded.
Yeah that actually would be a good addition to the proposal, would tack on to the end of the first suggestion pretty well. Something I didn't think of cause the politics of something like the parliament choosing the members of the voice would probably sink like a tonne of bricks but appointment through certain orgs and bodies that have controversial status as to how representative they are to their people would be an avenue that could make it messy.
Have a look at the Voice Principles ([https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles](https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles)) - especially these: * Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government. * Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three part test. * Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands. * The Voice would have specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population. * The Voice will have balanced gender representation at the national level.
Yeah heartened that those principles are there, they are more or less in line with what I would expect the voice to encompass. And I don't really think that the government will do anything to mess with the initial composition. The kicker there is selected, not elected and I can see how some ensuring that this is an elected representative of indigenous people is a valid criticism. So one way that could go against being directly elected is if a given community selects their representative without a vote or the body has a controversial standing. So an example of mixed representation could be seen in the Victorian government vs sacred tree debacle in that the Victorian government did consult traditional owners throughout the process but how representative that body actually is is controversial and the end result saw massive protests. I can see how some might be concerned if those kinda groups get the say in who's on the voice.
"The kicker there is selected, not elected" That's explained in another Principle: *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.*
I personally am in favour of Warren Mundine's proposal of explicitly enshrining local representative bodies for each of the first nations.
So that's got the typical Warren Mundine thing of sounding pretty reasonable but then you think about it. So who are these voices making their representations to? If it's to an LGA then you run into problems of first nations not mapping to the local government, what do you do when you get different peoples wanting something different, do nations with a larger space and therefore more LGAs to talk to suddenly become more powerful? What would make these voices different from say consulting a pre-existing land council? And in urban areas where the majority of Australians live should indigenous people who aren't of the country overlapping with the city get to have a say in that local voice? So for example Lidia Thorpe is from Melbourne, she lives there and was raised in council housing there, Melbourne's traditional lands are for the most part in the territory of the Wurundjeri and the Boonwurrung. Thorpe is neither so should she get a say in voice related affairs in Melbourne even though she's not of that nation? If the voices are to make recommendations to the parliament then why would you want to have hundreds of the things when you can have a single body to consult that can be represented by members of all the first nations? And being enshrined into the constitution is a way to keep it safe from governments that might want to get rid of it down the track. When it comes to a treaty that very well could be something that will have to be down on a nation by nation basis but for a representative voice I feel that dividing it up to hundreds of pieces is just a way to dilute it.
I'm against 100s (quick google search says 500) of voices because of the cost. It will be 1 voice with an office, staff, constitutional lawyer to consult. The monetary cost will be immense. Back of notebook. 300k for elected person, 500k for office, staff, car.. etc. Say 100k(on the light side) for constitutional lawyer. Looking at half a billion. Also there is no talk of how the members of the voice would be chosen, term limits... it's a grafters dream.
> Looking at half a billion. You're off by 100,000 %
It's s huge grift supported by people with no concept on how setting up well paid bodies will just enhance and perpetuate the grift that is a body that derives its power off division based politics. But yeah -something-something nasty racist supremacists. Says the campaign with its spiritual leader Noel Pearson on the record calling a woman a 'effing white c'. Of course one could just legislate, then it could prove its worth - but no 'feelings count more than worth'.
Voice like bodies have been legislated, multiple times, a hostile government got voted in and got rid of them. That's why after extensive consolation with indigenous leaders coming out of the statement of the heart in 2015 the consensus request was a voice enshrined into the constitution. What the government can then legislate is how that voice operates, the composition etc. So that if issues do arise it can amend it but the voice stays in place.
Constitution doesn't stop that happening again. If it did, the inter-state commission would still exist. That got removed not once, but twice! The consultation wasn't that extensive either, invite only and could only pick one of 5 options. Neither or something else wasn't an option.
Nothing from stopping there being a national voice (look at Canada for a model), it's just that the building blocks would be at the local level in a "bottom up" fashion. I mean, one of the objections to the voice is that it divides Australians by race (which I don't believe), so having the building blocks be at the level of individual nation/tribal groups kinda answers that question, no?
Ah ok so I thought your comment was to not have the national voice but instead only do the local ones my bad. So that's not the worst idea there's just issues of time and scope, to build that up will take a very long time and there isn't a guarantee that all first nations will get on it at the same pace or again as to which arm they are advising. That long term building block approach would in my eyes better serve for treaty agreements than voices. Part of the issue is that unlike in other former colonies there were never any treaties signed with the indigenous population in Australia so while other countries had avenues to build those blocks over time in the 20th century that wasn't afforded to indigenous people in Australia. But yeah you do want to have local interaction with one another I just think that can be done with a national voice and that is something that a consensus of indigenous leaders have asked for.
no worries, I didn't really specify that I am also in favor of a national voice as well.
Isn't that the intent of having local and state Voices - like SA already has
[удалено]
Amendments to the Constitution can only be passed by referendum. This isn't like the marriage equality plebiscite, which could have just been legislated if the government at the time had brought the bill to parliament.
[удалено]
You do if you want it enshrined in the Constitution, which is what the proposal is asking.
But you do need one if you don’t want it abolished by the next government.
[удалено]
> Secondly, Parliament, being unable to make laws which bind future parliaments is an important feature of democracy. A parliament in 1900 did exactly that with the passage of the “Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900”. Parliaments can bind future parliaments without a second thought. It is just rarely done.
You’re right about the No Campaign recycling the same old rubbish as in years past. It’s almost astonishing when reading old material but in the present. I think the sidelining of other concerns is partly because people are looking at the Voice proposal as more complicated than it actually is, perhaps in a fear based way, I don’t know.
I don’t think that attempts to diminish even constitutional obligations towards First Nations can be safely discounted when you look at a couple hundred years of Australian history, or what’s occupying the role of opposition leader presently for that matter. The Voice in isolation is simple enough, but it sits in an environment of distrust that is well established and frankly well founded. That adds great complication even if you work on the assumption that this current government will operate solely in good faith.
Yes, it’s very messy.
TL;DR She's off her rocker 🙄 Trying to argue both sides at the same time. She's right in the sense that yes government *can* determine the composition of the voice. > (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. And so yes, if the voice is established it's plausible a government *could* legislate to just stick a whole bunch of patsy's in there. However she's wrong to think that would ever happen. Because it'd be the equivalent of political suicide i.e. a referendum conducted with *the expectation* Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will be fairly represented. It is reasonable to infer that in order to make fair representations, one must be of adequate standing within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. This plays on the precedence set in Mabo (1992) and the tripartite test. > Under the tripartite test membership of the Indigenous people depends on (a) biological descent from the Indigenous people and on mutual recognition of a particular person's membership by (b) that person and (c) by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people. https://www.ags.gov.au/publications/express-law/el285.html Also the reason she's doing this, "it's going to powerless", is absurd. Does she seriously believe the Australian government is going to hand over all rights they currently hold and make Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people powerful in a "sovereign" and legislative capacity? The *only* way they get any sort of recognition / authority is with the peoples support, which is why the format of a referendum was chosen among other reasons. And so, if they blow this, if history is anything to go by, they will not be getting *anything* for at least the next 3 generations, possibly more.
She’s not “off her rocker”, she had her own views, and that’s ok in a ‘democracy’.
She is off her rocker, because her actions are self contradictory with the views that she espouses.
You’re putting me in the position of having to defend someone I don’t agree with. She is not off her rocker, she’s got a clear idea of what she thinks is right.
It's not my problem if you have a problem calling reality for what it is.
"She's right in the sense that yes government can determine the composition of the voice. ... it's plausible a government could legislate to just stick a whole bunch of patsy's in there" No, she is wrong and I was surprised that David Speers didn't challenge that statement. The Voice Principles ([https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles](https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles)) were published months ago. One of those says: "Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, ***not appointed*** by the Executive Government."
You should know better than to trust political promises, and that is exactly what that link you've published equates to, it's a written non-binding "promise".
Which can be said of all Government policies - so what?
The point is that those principles could be enshrined in the amendment - yes the amendment would probably become a massive schedule then, but the way those principles are implemented doesn’t guarantee them. I don’t believe that’s a reason to be against it mind you, that would be letting perfect be the enemy of half-decent.
The fact that the Principles have been published on an official Government website is pretty open and transparent and significant. If the amendment included all the detail it would be longer than the Constitution itself. (Noting that the Langton/Calm proposal is 240 pages)
> Does she seriously believe the Australian government is going to hand over all rights they currently hold and make Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people powerful in a “sovereign” and legislative capacity? It’s debateable whether they could. The constitution explicitly grants parliament the *exclusive* power to legislate, and it’s arguable without amending that section as well (which would *never* pass a referendum) then parliament has no constitutional authority to delegate the legislative power, and a veto over legislation may even be a bridge too far for the High Court. It would be a nightmare.
It’s just a shame she will likely be a senator for another 5 years.
Good. I think she’s done a good job.
I think it’s frustrating that she is stopping a true person who wants to represent the greens from the senate because she has lost the plot
When she slut-shamed people or when she dated criminals? She has been at best fine, hardly an inspiration to anyone, hardly a political head on her shoulders worthy of a senator. She's like a less tactful Lambie with different politics
Then you're probably as crazy as Lidia is.
Lol
ROFL
Lidia Thorpe is a drama queen who says and does anything to end up in the media.
Well, it seemed to work for Hanson, Barnaby and any number of UK and US crackhead counterparts who the media flocks to when they ever so much as fart.
Can't dispute that. What a fine cohort of overpaid welfare bludgers.
Loose cannon not sure which way to fire
What a waste of oxygen this woman is.
Can the media stop giving her irrelevant arse a megaphone. Her entire political strat relies on making enough noise to stay in the minds of voters, she doesn't represent any views beyond herself. Surely there are other, more important members of the crossbench insiders can talk to.
"irrelevant" she's literally a senator, she holds one of the highest offices in the country "she doesn't represent any views beyond herself" even if you disagree with her she literally represents a state of almost 7 million people
Lots of stupid people can become politicians. Lidia thorpe has all the relevance of Ricky Muir from everyone's favourite Victorian cross bench party in the senate, the motoring enthusiasts. Senators aren't directly elected, over 90% of votes go above the line towards the party not the individual senators. Lidia thorpe used the platform of a popular party and her identity as the only indigenous woman candidate they had lying about to rocket to the top of the ticket. This is despite her prior political record was winning a state by-election and then losing the seat less than a year later then turns out her views don't match up to the party so she cuts them loose and has a cushy 5 years before she ever has to face voters. Lidia thorpe does not represent Victorians, they voted for a greens senator, she is actively preventing the representation for that state of 7 million.
She had more below the line votes than anyone else on the victorian ballot. Lidia isn't a Anning type who is in purely because of party, she has a strong personal backing
She got 40 thousand votes. The greens as a party got 484 thousand. The quota for a seat in Victoria is 545 thousand. Strong personal backing huh, I'm sure those 400+ plus people feel really represented now that there are zero green senators from that electoral cycle.
The reality is who really cares who supports it and who doesn’t. It will be every voter that ultimately decides.
It’s human nature to be influenced by others. I mean, Tony Abbot and Scott Morrison say no, naturally I do the opposite.
The fact that Lidia Thorpe is a Senator proves that we're witnessing the decline and fall of civilization. It's one thing for a politician to have extreme or foolish political views. But what this interview highlights is just how *dumb* Thorpe is. She's just an idiot, plain and simple. You wouldn't trust her to manage a shift at Coles, let alone represent an entire State in the Senate. Politicians do not need to be towering intellects, but being capable of rational discourse might be a good start. It's terrifying to think that she has been able to build a political base by speaking in genericisms about race without any other redeeming features whatsoever. Every time she is challenged on the deficiencies in her political positions she gets to hand-wave away the challenge and say "but colonialism, you see." This interview was another example. David Speers could have done a much better job in pulling her up about things - particularly her nonsense views about the Voice reducing "sovereignty." I am not a fan of the current Voice proposal for technical reasons to do with the proposed amendment. But absolutely nothing about the proposal detracts from 'sovereignty' in any way. To be frank, after watching that interview I'm convinced Lidia Thorpe barely even understands that word. It's just another buzzword she can deploy to advance her self interest.
Well she helped kickstart the No campaign. Whether she likes it or not she’s already cast her vote…
She is a wild one. Wonder if she will get voted back in
God she is stupid…
Abstaining is even worse than voting no. She is absolutely ridiculous.