Indigenous Voice to Parliament

[David]

Don't see even a hint of irony in these two comments from your post Skids?

Calm down Jack.
You'll notice I posted this around 2am this morning after getting an email regarding it from a friend who runs a pastoral lease in the Gascoyne which is the size of a small African country.

It's not 'my' post, I should have posted it more in lines with rule 97, part 4b of the Nick's left wing socialist party movement... but I was tired.

I could change it to the comrades liking, but I'm sure it will be edited if it doesn't conform. I put it here as a piece of information, I did sign the petition at my mates request.

2am or not, we do have rules around plagiarism, so please do ensure it's signposted as somebody else's writing next time (the best way to do this is to use quote tags). We're not keen on Facebook/email fwd copy paste jobs, but next time please at least add a note on top saying "a friend sent me this", or whatever. Consider that a mods' note, socialist or otherwise.

If your friend literally has property the size of a small African country, doesn't that tend to suggest that it's rather likely that he might have one or more Aboriginal cultural heritage sites on his land? I can understand why he and other farmers might be annoyed about this, but I think it's pretty obvious why this law has been brought in: far too many sites have been wantonly destroyed on private land (often by big miners).

Like it or not, he, like the rest of us, are living on stolen Aboriginal land that was never ceded. Whether it be native title, reconciliation, treaty or whatever, part of moving forward as a united country entails acknowledging traditional ownership and putting protections in place to ensure that the land is respected. It seems to me that that's what this WA act is all about.

[stui magpie]

^

Yeah, my read of this is only effects development of land where it's considered there are cultural heritage issues, it would have zero impact on the average punter on their suburban block, the councils already cause enough trouble there.

@Jo, the Voice will have zero impact on land ownership. It's nothing but a consultative committee with the intention of making sure that the First Nations Peoples are consulted before decisions are made that may effect them. Albo has done a shit job selling it, but I'm still voting yes.

Someone like Nomad or P4S might be able to explain properly, but my understanding of the whole thing about Land Rights is that First Nations Peoples have no claim over privately owned land. Regardless of whether it was ceded or not, the Governments have sold that land to people. They can lay a claim over Crown or State Government owned land is my understanding.

If we ever get down to the point of a Treaty, that's where the subject of reparations would come up I assume, there would be a claim on the Government for some kind of payments for the land that was taken and sold, but none of us would be in any danger of suddenly losing our homes.

[think positive]

too much noise about it, im not willing to risk it

and just curious, why is it there are so many first nation people coming out against it?

[KenH]

too much noise about it, im not willing to risk it

and just curious, why is it there are so many first nation people coming out against it?

I could be wrong but I believe that I read that over 80% of first nations people support the voice?

[think positive]

and the other 20%? 1 in 5? thats a lot that dont

[KenH]

and the other 20%? 1 in 5? thats a lot that dont

But I think the 20% that don't want the voice is because they want a treaty is that the same reason you would vote no? If so fair enough but I don't think that is the case?

[stui magpie]

^
My read is that there's several different reasons why many First Nations Peoples don't like it. They include:

Belief that it's just a Canberra voice, another body that will do nothing except line the pockets of it's members

They want a treaty instead

Some Traditional land owners, who currently have direct access to government, are scared that this will place a layer in the road

General piss poor communication

I'm voting yes, but everyone needs to make their own decision and I won't disparage anyone who chooses to vote No.

[think positive]

and the other 20%? 1 in 5? thats a lot that dont

But I think the 20% that don't want the voice is because they want a treaty is that the same reason you would vote no? If so fair enough but I don't think that is the case?

no

I want my kids to inherit our land!

if its about state land, that's different, unless the state start forcing people to sell. I have trust issues! Just like the Castle!!

[David]

^
My read is that there's several different reasons why many First Nations Peoples don't like it. They include:

Belief that it's just a Canberra voice, another body that will do nothing except line the pockets of it's members

They want a treaty instead

Some Traditional land owners, who currently have direct access to government, are scared that this will place a layer in the road

General piss poor communication

I'm voting yes, but everyone needs to make their own decision and I won't disparage anyone who chooses to vote No.

I think that's a good summary. And while I also wouldn't think badly of anyone who votes no, I do think people owe it to themselves and the country as a whole to make sure they've done adequate research into what's being proposed before they vote. Because while I can accept the no vote triumphing on its merits, I think it would be a great pity if the vote fails because of misinformation and baseless fears.

[think positive]

can you point to an easy to read dot point on it please?

[stui magpie]

^

Try this.

https://voice.gov.au/

[slangman]

Sounds like a lobby group really and after the corruption and ineptitude of ATSIC there will be no mechanism to dismantle the Voice if and when the same thing happens again.

On the contrary, I would assume that a more regulated status enables more oversight (and thus less scope for behind-the-scenes corruption). See this explainer from the ANU's First Nations Portfolio:

https://www.anu.edu.au/about/strategic- ... parliament

Won't the Voice just be another ATSIC?

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was a national Indigenous representative body that existed between 1989 and 2004. The Commission combined representative and administrative roles. Elected Indigenous representatives could identify funding priorities, formulate, and implement policy and plans, make decisions over public expenditure, and protect cultural material and information. However, ATSIC faced several structural problems. In 2004, it was abolished with bipartisan support. Is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice going to be another ATSIC?

No. Much has been learned from the experience of ATSIC and so the structure of the Voice will be different. The Voice will not deliver government programs. It will be a representative body that makes representations to Parliament and the government on law and policy that affect Indigenous Australians. This more limited role will avoid the structural complications that ATSIC faced.

It's the "will not deliver government programs" part that's probably most relevant there. It's easy to see how that aspect of ATSIC could have been vulnerable to the misappropriation of finances, whereas obviously that's far less of a concern here.

As for why it should be in the constitution, that's addressed in the same link:

10. Why do we need to put the Voice in the Constitution?

Many people believe the Voice is a good idea, but they do not know why it should be put in the Constitution. They wonder whether it would make more sense for Parliament to establish the Voice in legislation.

This is a good question. The Parliament could pass a law tomorrow that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. However, there are three good reasons why the Voice needs to be put in the Constitution.

• The Constitution will provide the Voice with security and stability.
The Parliament has established three national Indigenous representative bodies in the past. These bodies empowered Indigenous Australians to speak to government about laws and policies that affected them. In each case, however, the body was abolished after several years. Putting an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution will make it harder for government and Parliament to do away with the Voice.

• Putting the Voice in the Constitution will make it more likely to succeed.
The Voice will not be able to force the Parliament or government to change laws or policies. Its success will rely on political and moral pressure. However, Parliament and the government are more likely to listen to the Voice if it has been endorsed by the Australian people at a referendum. Australians will have made clear that they want their political leaders to take the Voice seriously. Without a referendum, Parliament and government will find it easier to ignore the Voice.

• Putting the Voice in the Constitution is an Act of Recognition and Respect.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have more than 60,000 years of connection to this continent. Putting the Voice in the Constitution would mean that the Australian people formally recognise that history and status. It is also the form of recognition asked for by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. For over a decade Australians have debated whether and how to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. In the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people said that putting a Voice in the Constitution is the way that they would like to be recognised.

I can see how the first reason strengthens both the yes and no cases: the Voice is going to be more or less permanently enshrined in a way that previous institutions weren't, so, yes, we almost certainly won't be getting rid of it once it's there. I think that's resolutely a good thing, and something to be embraced: there's no good reason to be going into this half-baked. Indigenous Australians are right to ask for and expect a meaningful and formally enshrined form of representation that will inform government policy.

This to me still doesn’t explain with enough conviction why it HAS to be in the constitution.
The framework of the voice is good and I support the concept but to me there is no justifiable reason why it should have constitutional recognition.

Regarding the three reasons you mentioned:

1. There are no guarantees that it will succeed and even if it does, to me it doesn’t justify a change to the constitution.
2. The political and moral pressure you mention is basically a lobby group.
3. the constitution represents ALL Australians and I’m not for enshrining in the constitution any recognition either positive or negative based on sex, race, religion etc.

[think positive]

that third point is excellent

[Skids]

If your friend literally has property the size of a small African country, doesn't that tend to suggest that it's rather likely that he might have one or more Aboriginal cultural heritage sites on his land? I can understand why he and other farmers might be annoyed about this, but I think it's pretty obvious why this law has been brought in: far too many sites have been wantonly destroyed on private land (often by big miners).

Like it or not, he, like the rest of us, are living on stolen Aboriginal land that was never ceded. Whether it be native title, reconciliation, treaty or whatever, part of moving forward as a united country entails acknowledging traditional ownership and putting protections in place to ensure that the land is respected. It seems to me that that's what this WA act is all about.

The pastoral lease (3 Rivers Station) is actually bigger than some 43 countries around the world.

https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/ ... countries/

I'm sure it's difficult for those who haven't actually covered much of our vast continent to actually grasp these kind of facts.

He runs cattle, not really into 'blowing things up' like mining companies. That's done to make big rocks, little rocks. Not much point in that for a cattle farmer.
Big Ben Forsyth has run 3 rivers for decades. Never had an issue with locals, other than them.shooting and slaughtering a 'killer' whenever they feel like it stealing the odd car to run into Meeka and lighting fires. They don't hang around much, no gold see.
A 'dreamtime' story would be whipped up before you could say "trucks are coming" if anything of value was found.

Ben and his fellow farmers know what will happen, the cost of putting up a fence will double, drilling a bore will take years to be approved. Like I said, the city slickers who love all this warm.fuzzy legal things that helps them stay cosy in their 12th floor apartment at a constant 23 are clueless and will always be that way to what goes on beyond the bitumen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Rivers_Station

[think positive]

^

Try this.

https://voice.gov.au/

Had a read thanks, now I’ll check out the WA stuff. Cheers