COMMENT by CHARLIE CARTER
Senator Price is trying to mislead us, by misrepresenting the nature and origin of the proposed Voice.
This time in the form of a glossy leaflet in the letterbox.
In the leaflet she alleges that it is the Prime Minister who has put forward the referendum question, but it comes directly from the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
It specifically says: “We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.”
Albanese is responding directly to that request.
She says that the Voice is “constitutionally controversial”.
Constitutional legal experts from the Australian Solicitor General on down have categorically rejected this claim.
She says: “The Parliament can’t change the Voice.”
This is wrong. The Parliament will determine the nature and functioning of the Voice.
Which is, of course the origin of her completely contradictory claim that the Voice is “poorly defined”.
She says: “It embeds race in our constitution and will divide the nation.”
Race is already in our constitution. Section 51. Legislative powers of the Parliament: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to … (xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.
She says: “Indigenous Australians are already consulted and have a say.”
Yes, they have been.
The Referendum Council appointed by then Prime Minister Turnbull and leader of the opposition Shorten travelled around the country and met with over 1,200 Aboriginal people. 250 delegates attended the National First Nations Constitutional Convention at Uluru.
And they said: “We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.”
IMAGE: Government promotion for Voice referendum.
If this Voice was a great idea, the government should have spent a solid year determining the EXACT details.
Instead, they tell us it’s going to be amazing and that we should have faith in them and let them meddle with the Constitution as they please? Utterly pathetic while their corruption is slowly being exposed after the Rolfe debacle.
Don’t sit on your high horse paying government desk job and call us idiots!
Big NO from me.
Come back next year with specific details and I may change my mind. Details and specifics FIRST! Then we shall decide.
@ Troy: What has the “Rolfe debacle” to do with the Voice? And what do you mean by it?
It is worth re-reading Kartinyeri v Commonwealth 1998 HCA 22 1998 195 CLR 337.
Commencing 01 January 1901 the Commonwealth has acted to discriminate upon Australians based on racial ancestry, to deny Australians their otherwise held legal rights and legal responsibilities.
Referenda re VOICE will only strengthen Commonwealth’s claim it is lawful to discriminate upon Australians.
Interesting to see recent research by the SA museum and Flinders uni on Arnhem land paintings may indicate war like activities by Muluccan vessels and that European settlers were not the first visitors.
I will be voting “no” on practical grounds. I found difficulty following a visit to a very remote community where a Government paid contractor was repairing houses while the residents did nothing to better their own lot.
I was also struck by the recent victims of the recent Kimberly floods being housed in Darwin, and did considerable damage, while Government did repairs on their homelands while the residents of Lismore did much of the repair work themselves.
If I could be assured that this thinking would be reversed with a “yes” vote, I would be first in line. I worked for years in the Pacific where the residents of a group of villages decided that they needed a secondary school. Government had no money so they built it themselves and took ownership. Can’t see that happening here.
Trevor, I am surprised.
I don’t know you personally, but from your correspondence I have taken you for a good hearted person, although at times misguided.
I suggest your position could do with some further consideration.
As many local Aboriginal leaders have pointed out, the recent problems are the post-intervention consequences. Aboriginal community organisations have been gutted, dis-empowered and disheartened.
Prior to the “mainstreaming” and rule by “business managers” from Canberra, there were local construction crews, and some decision making structures.
Comparisons with Lismore are inappropriate.
Vandalism is deplorable, but bad behaviour by bored teenagers a long way from home is scarcely restricted to Aboriginal people.
The Voice will not be a panacea, but it would have gone a long way to addressing the issues you raise.
I don’t think Troy above has a good understanding of what does and does not go into the Australian constitution.
I recommend rather than just repeating Mr Potato Head’s misleading words, take the time to read the Constitution, you will find there is not a lot of detail for some really important concepts.
The Constitution just states the principle and the Parliament defines the details through legislation. This is how it is proposed the Voice will work, as it alway has, embed the principle in the Constitution and let Parliament fine tune the details.
All this talk of detail is a furphy. It would just give No voters more to haggle over. And who says the ordinary voter is qualified to discuss detail anyway?
I grew up with Indigenous people in the Riverland in SA. My father showed a lovely Indigenous man how to grow spuds and he took me on “cultural “tours on the river flats.
He told me stories of how the Indigenous people arrived there and the stories of the water rats, and Murray cod and how they formed the river.
I have a strong affinity for Indigenous people and wish them well. That’s my motivation.
In the 40 years I have lived here my closest friends have been Indigenous men, all of whom have done very well in every sense.
I often wonder what my old mentor would think of the current situation. He was the very epitome of my thinking and how upset he was when the produce of his efforts were stolen from his garden.
I often wonder also, being a practical man what would be the outcome should the Voice offer advice to government via the Constitution and which was rejected by the prevailing Government of either political persuasion, as not being in the broader national and international interest?
A new election perhaps until the proponents of radical change get their way?
Patricia with due respect: Do you not know that it is the 17,446,467 Australians, whom you baptised ordinary, who elect the 151 MPs and the 76 Senators?
Trevor, there is an inaccuracy in your thinking here.
The advice would not be “via the Constitution”.
The establishment of the “Voice” will be in the Constitution, but the advice goes to the Parliament.
If the Parliament chooses not to accept it, then that would be that.
Why do you assume that the advice would be “radical change”?
It would more likely be for community participation in housing construction, or similar.
And why would there be “a new election”?
Evelyne, yes, we the elect parliamentarians to construct, debate, and pass the legislation necessary to bring about what the voters want.
We don’t vote on the specifics of the legislation.
The drafting of legislation involves a great deal of expertise from Public Servants, lawyers, etc.
Why would we expect the Voice process to be different?
Oh Charlie, I see very few politicians with any amount of commonsense or qualification.
As for this Patricia Beattie calling (as those who most times mistakenly we vote into power refer to the masses as) us Ordinary and without qualification, what a damn insult!
Why should anyone vote yes to this constitutional change when our fearless globe-trotting leader cannot give any indication of what we would really be voting for?
If I were to listen to with respect and believe, it would be the likes of John Elferink
and by the way, you would do well to take notice of Trevor Shiell.