This is great. Thanks.
Will people in the Northern Territory have their vote counted as if it were a state or just to the total national amount?
Am I the only one here who thinks they could’ve made actual change if they became a state (more senators, can contribute to a referendum)?
The voice is very close to a lobby group’s position in Canberra. I can’t remember when Indigenous issues were in the top 3 most important during an election, so what’s stopping the government by just ignoring them?
No vote is “wasted”. That happens in some other election systems (e.g. the United States) but it doesn’t happen here.
Gerrymandering is an issue in Australia, and also the territories have less representation than a proper state (not just NT - we have ten Territories in Australia, mostly off shore islands). But there’s none of that for a referendum - it’s a straight count of votes.
The way we structure our democracy with territories makes sense for the other nine territories. We shouldn’t change that, instead we should make the NT a state. I’m sure it’ll happen one day, when there are more people living there. Have you been to the NT? Most of the state barely even has water and roads, and I suspect building those would be even more difficult if it was managed locally instead of with help from the much larger and better funded federal government.
The voice is very close to a lobby group’s position in Canberra. I can’t remember when Indigenous issues were in the top 3 most important during an election, so what’s stopping the government by just ignoring them?
The voice is something leaders within Australia’s indigenous community have asked for, as the next step in reconciling this country with the indigenous nations that have ruled here for tens of thousands of years and have never legally relinquished their authority to the Australian government that summarily took over relatively recently (practically yesterday, in the history of the indigenous Australians).
It’s just one small step, and it’s not intended to be a silver bullet that fixes everything, and in fact it won’t change much at all. But it will improve some small things and more importantly it will signify that we, as a country, care about the broader issue at hand and want to fix it. The symbolism for the voice is very powerful and I will be voting yes to the voice.
the territories have less representation than a proper state (not just NT - we have ten Territories in Australia, mostly off shore islands). But there’s none of that for a referendum - it’s a straight count of votes.
Only in part. Territories do not count towards the double majority, which is what they were getting at with their question.
Will people in the Northern Territory have their vote counted as if it were a state or just to the total national amount?
National count only.
Am I the only one here who thinks they could’ve made actual change if they became a state (more senators, can contribute to a referendum)?
Possibly, but then we’d have a state with less population than Hobart which raises it’s own issues.
The voice is very close to a lobby group’s position in Canberra. I can’t remember when Indigenous issues were in the top 3 most important during an election, so what’s stopping the government by just ignoring them?
Nothing, but that’s kind of the point.
I think more needs to be done when it comes to First Nations people and closing the gaps but just can’t get past the fact of allowing a group based on race to hold a position in parliament without being voted in each term by Australian voters.
Except they’re not in Parliament. The Voice is a body that can make submissions to Parliament; they don’t get to make the decisions. Parliament is still made up of elected representatives.
This is why I don’t see the point of the whole thing. If it gives no special powers/rights… whats the point? I’d rather see an official treaty than a powerless voice.
We can still have both. This isn’t a valid argument against the voice.
I don’t follow. I’m not saying its either/or, I’m saying the voice looks like it will achieve nothing if it has no powers or additional rights. If it has the same access to parliament as existing lobbying bodies, why is it needed?
I understand the need for reconciliation and to improve outcomes for indigenous people, I just don’t see how a body with no power can achieve it.
It seems like the yes camp are trying to have it both ways. To those leaning towards yes: “Yay its going to make a difference!” While at the same time those wary and leaning to no: “It won’t change anything or have any real power”. Which is it? I’m confused.
So if they can make submissions to parliament and the executive on matters, which don’t have to acted upon, why do we need constitutional reform to allow it as part of our government. Aren’t their numerous other organisations that do this already, provide advice to parliament on matters affecting First Nations people though their representatives?
It needs a constitutional change to ensure that it stays around and can become a part of the fabric of how things are done in the longer term. Even though it is relatively powerless, there is potential for it to provide influence over time for the betterment of First Nations People, but that would be lost if the next government just disbanded it as has happened in the past.
They’re not in parliament; literally all this does is mandate that their lobby group exist, not that anyone has to listen to them… it’s not exactly a big ask
They won’t hold a position in Parliament. That is not how this works at all.
I understand they won’t hold a position within the upper or lower house but is it incorrect to say they won’t hold a position in parliament?
Yes, that is incorrect. The Voice would be an advisory committee that could make proactive and reactive recommendations to parliament and government. It would not be part of the parliament itself.
No worries. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Definitely need to read more before the referendum.
Yes, everyone needs to learn more. As this article showed, the trouble with referendums in Australia is that it is too easy for the No side to win just by sowing doubt amongst people who haven’t educated themselves. So many people who want to vote No don’t like the idea of change because they don’t understand what it means.
it is not correct. a position IN parliament is a very different thing; the voice is effectively a lobby group. The kind of thing BHP and Chanel 9 get without being a valuable part of Australia
It’s not a voice based on race, this is the biggest fallacy. It’s a voice for the traditional owners of a land that was never ceded.
Is not because they’re aboriginal, it’s because they were here first.
See analogy above re ducks and quacks
It’s nonsense mate, just because you say it a little louder doesn’t make it any truer.
I can do analogies as well,
Let’s give a special privalege to all fruit that are really high in potassium.
No it’s unfair to give bananas special treatment just because they’re yellow!
This was incredibly interesting, thanks for sharing!
One minute in they’re claiming the ‘No’ supporters are falsely claiming a Voice would give special rights to a specific race.
It is literally an amendment to the Constitution to create an advisory body dedicated to supporting a specific race. Whether you agree with affirmative action or not, people aren’t bloody stupid. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then I don’t need an alleged “independent expert’s” ackchyually to tell me it’s something else.
I am so over this. Can we have the referendum already? Then we can have the stupid referendum about becoming a republic, and maybe then we can start thinking about all the people who can’t afford food or shelter.
Leading legal and constitutional experts have rejected the claim that the proposed Voice to Parliament will provide “special rights” to one race of people.
Professor Anne Twomey, a member of the Constitutional Expert Group that provides the government with legal support on constitutional matters relating to the referendum, told RMIT FactLab that “the proposed constitutional amendment does not confer any special rights”.
Professor Twomey added: “It just requires the establishment of a body with the function of making representations to parliament.”
She said that any individual or organisation can make representations to parliament by way of petitions, which are tabled in parliament, or by making representations to their local member of parliament.
Bodies with collective interests, such as unions, community groups, charities and business organisations, can also make submissions to parliamentary committees to point out problems or propose changes to bills being debated in parliament, she said.
“People with similar interests often band together in groups in their hope that their collective voice will be more influential than their individual submissions,” she said. “The Voice would be one such group.”
Professor Twomey likened the Voice to other statutory bodies that can make representations to parliament through reports, reviews or recommendations, such as the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Productivity Commission.
“The fact that the majority of people appointed to those bodies are lawyers and economists cannot be treated as giving members of those bodies ‘special rights’ and discriminating against doctors and plumbers,” she said.
The reason particular professionals dominate those bodies is due to their expertise and relevant experience, she said.
“The same can be said of a group of Indigenous Australians who have expertise and experience in how laws directed towards them are likely to affect them,” she said.
Professor Twomey said it was up to parliament to decide how the Voice would be composed and what its powers, procedures and other functions would be.
In an article published on December 14 in The Conversation, a website that publishes commentary, research and analysis from Australian universities and the CSIRO, Professor Twomey wrote that the Constitutional Expert Group were “unanimously of the view” that the Voice would not confer “special rights” to anyone.
The expert group comprises leading legal and constitutional experts, including Professor Greg Craven GCSG, Professor Megan Davis, Mr Kenneth Hayne KC, Mr Noel Pearson, Professor Cheryl Saunders, Professor Anne Twomey, Scientia Professor George Williams and Professor Asmi Wood. It is chaired by the Attorney-General of Australia, Mark Dreyfus.
In their advice to the First Nations Referendum Working Group, the constitutional experts said the Voice would not change or take away any rights of non-Indigenous people. A summary of their advice was published in a communique on December 13 by the Referendum Working Group.
“The Voice does not confer ‘rights’, much less ‘special rights’, on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,” the communique states. “Nor would the Voice change or take away any right, power or privilege of anyone who is not Indigenous.”
RMIT FactLab also consulted a legal expert outside of the Constitutional Expert Group - Professor Gabrielle Appleby of the Law Faculty at the University New South Wales.
Professor Appleby agreed that the Voice to Parliament would not provide “special rights” to one race of people.
“The Voice does not itself grant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people rights, such as land rights or cultural rights, which are still granted, amended and even repealed by the parliament, as with all other laws,” Professor Appleby said.
The Voice provides an additional opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people input in the decision-making processes of government and parliament, she said.
“It does not change or reduce the rights of any other Australian,” she said.
Notice how they continually refer to “rights” as if they are careful to only address that word specifically. I wonder what their response would be if the question was whether the Voice would be giving unfair representation to Australian citizens of a particular background.
As they point out, other bodies makes representations to Parliament, but none of those required a constitutional amendment yet they seem sufficiently represented.Notice how they continually refer to “rights” as if they are careful to only address that word specifically.
It’s almost as if the claim they were debunking was literally about “special rights”.
They’re sufficiently represented because those bodies are resourced by companies and NGOs. Indigenous people don’t have those same resources, and simply allocating them through normal government process (as has happened in the past) can simply be undone by successive governments for political/ideological reasons.
Constitutional amendment prevents that from happening. It guarantees they always have a voice.
specific race
Why is this so dog whistly
It’s not a voice based on race, this is the biggest fallacy. It’s a voice for people who are traditional owners of a land that was never ceded.
Is not because they’re aboriginal, it’s because they were here first.
