And what does that have to do with our modern (and future) Democratic nation?
None of us took anything from any others of us. Its a totally irrelevant point.
We can’t go around changing g the fundamental nature of democracy because of historical tragedies or in 15 minutes we’ll be back to fucking tribalism and feudal lords.
Colonisation took everything from First Nation people, but all you care about is that recognition might end up costing you something. Sound a lot like that tribalism you reckon you’re want to avoid.
And what are you actually giving up?
There is no threat to democracy, The Voice is an advisory body. It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.
Referendums are described in the Constitution to allow Australians to change how it functions. So we explicitly can change how aspects of our democratic process works, and obviously should do so to reflect changes in Australian society since Federation 120+ years ago.
Well you’ve just erected a pretty nice strawman there but not much else.
“It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.”
Nobody has any fucking clue what powers it might have, its a blank check. Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this “advisory body” can and can’t do, or shut the fuck up.
Sure, we can change it. But there has not been any fucking legitimate reason presented as to why we should. The arguments presented by the Yes campaign are certainly emotional, but not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.
Let’s stick the the topic and avoid juvenile debate tactics.
Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this “advisory body” can and can’t do, or shut the fuck up.
Here is exactly what the referendum entails, and note that it specifically limits the role of the Voice (in whatever form it takes) to “make representations” and also that it specifically highlights that parliament - and only parliament - “shall… Have the power to make laws”.
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander by peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
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.
I repeat: the Voice Has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers, and you have no legitimate basis to imply otherwise. We are 100% not being asked to vote on a Constitutional change that undermines democratic principles. If you vote No on that basis then it is because you are ignorant of the proposed Constitutional change and have been conned by the right wing and media.
not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.
The Voice is part of modest recommendations proposed respectfully by First Nations people via the Uluru Statement from the heart. You need to be cynical and unrealistic to think that accepting and supporting their views - with no downsides to you personally or us as a country - really won’t change anything. Are you really interested in the outcomes for First Nations people? If so, please explain how you expect to see change if the Voice is rejected?
Forgot to add - I haven’t been conned by any media, either right wing or slightly less right wing. Don’t own a TV and the only social media I’m on is this which is unsurprisingly light on Aus politics.
Interesting. I’m curious why you aren’t familiar with the details of constitutional amendment I linked to. You’re clearly not basing your opinion on primary sources, so what secondary sources are you consuming?
They will decide after how to establish the advisory body that has no legislative, executive, or judicial power and can only advise parliament (who will then decide what actions are taken or even if any action is taken at all).
They cannot make decisions with respect to giving the Voice Constitutional powers to make or change legislative, executive, or judicial decisions unless there’s another referendum. They can legislate powers, but they can already do that without the referendum.
Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around “powers”
And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.
Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around “powers”
They can do that right now. Albo can legislate what you’re describing and the next government can de-legilsate it. If the referendum passes it has no bearing on what powers are legislated.
The referendum does not give the powers you’re describing and does not impact whether those kinds of powers are granted or revoked in the future.
You are misunderstanding what the Yes vote is. The referendum would only establish a voice in the Constitution that “may make representations” while specifically outlining that only “Parliament shall make laws”.
And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.
Again, all of this is explained in the resources I linked to earlier, and the only reason you’re ignorant to that fact is because you haven’t bothered to do your research.
Members of the Voice would be selected by
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities,
not appointed by the Executive Government.
Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular
accountability to their communities.
To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice would be chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined
through the post-referendum process.
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 would have balanced gender representation at the national level.
None of that actually says anything. Its just wide open phrasing that allows for limitless scope. Can you not see that somehow?
All this is way out in the fucken weeds anyway man.
Why the fuck are people trying to create a less inclusive and egalitarian society instead of trying to find and implement actual solutions to solve the problems that exist. And why do people who apparently think of themselves as progressive and socialist think any of this is OK?
Use the mechanisms we have to push for positive long term structural change, using the huge moral and political advantage gained at the election. Build, change, organize, grow systems that actually help people who need it.
Everyone is just going along with this stupid pointless circus because they feel guilty about British crimes and think this will somehow help people who died 200 years ago.
Get a fucken grip and use your Democratic power to help, don’t throw your weight behind people who are making the world less inclusive ffs
There is! The power is limited to “may make representations”. It’s written in stone, what more do you need than official, published documentation that clearly refutes what you claim is the position of the Yes campaign?
And what does that have to do with our modern (and future) Democratic nation?
None of us took anything from any others of us. Its a totally irrelevant point.
We can’t go around changing g the fundamental nature of democracy because of historical tragedies or in 15 minutes we’ll be back to fucking tribalism and feudal lords.
Colonisation took everything from First Nation people, but all you care about is that recognition might end up costing you something. Sound a lot like that tribalism you reckon you’re want to avoid.
And what are you actually giving up?
There is no threat to democracy, The Voice is an advisory body. It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.
Referendums are described in the Constitution to allow Australians to change how it functions. So we explicitly can change how aspects of our democratic process works, and obviously should do so to reflect changes in Australian society since Federation 120+ years ago.
Well you’ve just erected a pretty nice strawman there but not much else.
“It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.”
Nobody has any fucking clue what powers it might have, its a blank check. Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this “advisory body” can and can’t do, or shut the fuck up.
Sure, we can change it. But there has not been any fucking legitimate reason presented as to why we should. The arguments presented by the Yes campaign are certainly emotional, but not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.
Let’s stick the the topic and avoid juvenile debate tactics.
Here is exactly what the referendum entails, and note that it specifically limits the role of the Voice (in whatever form it takes) to “make representations” and also that it specifically highlights that parliament - and only parliament - “shall… Have the power to make laws”.
I repeat: the Voice Has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers, and you have no legitimate basis to imply otherwise. We are 100% not being asked to vote on a Constitutional change that undermines democratic principles. If you vote No on that basis then it is because you are ignorant of the proposed Constitutional change and have been conned by the right wing and media.
The Voice is part of modest recommendations proposed respectfully by First Nations people via the Uluru Statement from the heart. You need to be cynical and unrealistic to think that accepting and supporting their views - with no downsides to you personally or us as a country - really won’t change anything. Are you really interested in the outcomes for First Nations people? If so, please explain how you expect to see change if the Voice is rejected?
Forgot to add - I haven’t been conned by any media, either right wing or slightly less right wing. Don’t own a TV and the only social media I’m on is this which is unsurprisingly light on Aus politics.
Its ain’t me being conned here
Interesting. I’m curious why you aren’t familiar with the details of constitutional amendment I linked to. You’re clearly not basing your opinion on primary sources, so what secondary sources are you consuming?
What makes you think I’m unfamiliar with it? I know exactly what it says, regardless of whether I’m a shit debater
Maybe because you keep claiming information hasn’t been made available when a simple google search proves you wrong?
I never said that
Right here:
“its composition, functions, powers and procedures”
There is literally no scope included - they’ll decide after
They will decide after how to establish the advisory body that has no legislative, executive, or judicial power and can only advise parliament (who will then decide what actions are taken or even if any action is taken at all).
They cannot make decisions with respect to giving the Voice Constitutional powers to make or change legislative, executive, or judicial decisions unless there’s another referendum. They can legislate powers, but they can already do that without the referendum.
What specifically do you object to about this?
Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around “powers”
And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.
Those specifically are what I object to
They can do that right now. Albo can legislate what you’re describing and the next government can de-legilsate it. If the referendum passes it has no bearing on what powers are legislated.
The referendum does not give the powers you’re describing and does not impact whether those kinds of powers are granted or revoked in the future.
You are misunderstanding what the Yes vote is. The referendum would only establish a voice in the Constitution that “may make representations” while specifically outlining that only “Parliament shall make laws”.
Again, all of this is explained in the resources I linked to earlier, and the only reason you’re ignorant to that fact is because you haven’t bothered to do your research.
So, again, what’s your issue here?
None of that actually says anything. Its just wide open phrasing that allows for limitless scope. Can you not see that somehow?
All this is way out in the fucken weeds anyway man.
Why the fuck are people trying to create a less inclusive and egalitarian society instead of trying to find and implement actual solutions to solve the problems that exist. And why do people who apparently think of themselves as progressive and socialist think any of this is OK?
Use the mechanisms we have to push for positive long term structural change, using the huge moral and political advantage gained at the election. Build, change, organize, grow systems that actually help people who need it.
Everyone is just going along with this stupid pointless circus because they feel guilty about British crimes and think this will somehow help people who died 200 years ago.
Get a fucken grip and use your Democratic power to help, don’t throw your weight behind people who are making the world less inclusive ffs
There is! The power is limited to “may make representations”. It’s written in stone, what more do you need than official, published documentation that clearly refutes what you claim is the position of the Yes campaign?