Opinion It’s The Voice, try and understand it : WCE supports The Voice

[Godfather32]

Funnily enough I've seen a number of Native Americans who actually complained they changed the name from the Redskins, as it was a name they gave to their warriors and not a derogatory term for skin colour, like a lot of people assumed.

The problem a lot of the time is people get offended on others behalf and don't consult with the people who are actually affected.
If only there was a way to help with avoiding this, to say for example give those people a way to be heard...how would you put it? Give them a voice maybe?

 

[MrKK]

In all likelihood the club would've arrived at the same position re Voice. I'm sure the timing of the announcement it hot on the heels of the AFL urging club support for the Albanese government's position while locking in $240m of funding from said government, and while the club is getting hit from all sides about our performances, is just a happy coincidence.

 

[Frederico_WA]

Anything progressive that people don't like, they simply label as 'woke'.

The shock's starting to set in now that they're realising the majority of people are mostly ok with it, or simply don't care enough of what a small minority do that they simply get on with their lives.

I am mostly OK with the premise of the voice, but I am not OK that its a "trust us or your racist" connotations by the government and those in the YES camp.

If anyone has any resemblance of individual thought, they would also vote no until there was an actual government position of its extent and limits of powers and how this would add to our society as a whole and not just those of a few.

 

[bzparkes]

I am mostly OK with the premise of the voice, but I am not OK that its a "trust us or your racist" connotations by the government and those in the YES camp.

If anyone has any resemblance of individual thought, they would also vote no until there was an actual government position of its extent and limits of powers and how this would add to our society as a whole and not just those of a few.

I get what you're saying.

A lot of the plebs on social media haven't even thought that far though.

 

[Rowan18]

I am mostly OK with the premise of the voice, but I am not OK that its a "trust us or your racist" connotations by the government and those in the YES camp.

If anyone has any resemblance of individual thought, they would also vote no until there was an actual government position of its extent and limits of powers and how this would add to our society as a whole and not just those of a few.

Yeah, I still haven't heard a good reason for not giving details on how it will actually work.

There's also no good reason as to why they need the constitution to implement it. They could do it straight away through the existing government department (Aboriginal Affairs or whatever it is now) or pass a law if they need it to make direct representations to parliament (instead of through the minister). SA is already working to legislate a voice for their state.

It really smells like a token effort to get some fat cats a salary and look to be doing something (while just adding another layer of beauracracy).

 

[Frederico_WA]

It really smells like a token effort to get some fat cats a salary and look to be doing something (while just adding another layer of beauracracy).

This is where it sits for me too.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I am mostly OK with the premise of the voice, but I am not OK that its a "trust us or your racist" connotations by the government and those in the YES camp.

If anyone has any resemblance of individual thought, they would also vote no until there was an actual government position of its extent and limits of powers and how this would add to our society as a whole and not just those of a few.

There’s a draft Bill isn’t there?

 

[Frederico_WA]

There’s a draft Bill isn’t there?

The draft bill is the simple statement to adjust the constitution. There are some explanatory stuff here:
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInf...oad_pdf/JC009279.pdf;fileType=application/pdf

It is still a virtual unknown for how this will look if successful after referendum.

 

[JackOutback]

Yeah, I still haven't heard a good reason for not giving details on how it will actually work.

There's also no good reason as to why they need the constitution to implement it. They could do it straight away through the existing government department (Aboriginal Affairs or whatever it is now) or pass a law if they need it to make direct representations to parliament (instead of through the minister). SA is already working to legislate a voice for their state.

It really smells like a token effort to get some fat cats a salary and look to be doing something (while just adding another layer of beauracracy).

Because if you legislate it, the next government can just un-legislate it. If it's in the Constitution, then it's protected.

There is plenty of info out there, from the draft Bill to Uluru Statement from the Heart that show what it will look like, but they can't provide every minute detail because tweaks could happen as they negotiate it through the Parliament. You don't have to trust Albanese, you can trust the Solicitor-General that it's nothing to be afraid of.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

The draft bill is the simple statement to adjust the constitution. There are some explanatory stuff here:
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInf...oad_pdf/JC009279.pdf;fileType=application/pdf

It is still a virtual unknown for how this will look if successful after referendum.

That’s not the one I was thinking of. I thought the government had actually released the detail about what the Voice is proposed to look like. In addition to what the referendum will look like, which is what you’ve linked to.

I haven’t looked at it in any detail yet, I was putting that off until closer to the actual referendum. But the narrative seems to be Dutton and co perpetually saying there’s no detail and Albanese saying “we’ve released all the detail, you’ve just ignored it”

 

[Rowan18]

Because if you legislate it, the next government can just un-legislate it. If it's in the Constitution, then it's protected.

There is plenty of info out there, from the draft Bill to Uluru Statement from the Heart that show what it will look like, but they can't provide every minute detail because tweaks could happen as they negotiate it through the Parliament. You don't have to trust Albanese, you can trust the Solicitor-General that it's nothing to be afraid of.

I'm not after minute detail, just a clear idea on how it will work. How many people are on it? It would be well over 100 if they give every nation a voice. If they don't, then how will they be picked? Do they have to be Aboriginal (and what does that actually mean)? Can it over-ride parliament? What is the scope of its consultation (ie what are the safeguards to make sure it doesn't affect legislation that isn't primarily affecting aboriginal and Torres straight islanders).

I don't think changing the constitution is a flippant thing and the lack of detail makes me nervous. When I'm nervous, I'd rather stay with the status quo (as I can't determine the benefit or detriment to me).

 

[Frederico_WA]

That’s not the one I was thinking of. I thought the government had actually released the detail about what the Voice is proposed to look like. In addition to what the referendum will look like, which is what you’ve linked to.

I haven’t looked at it in any detail yet, I was putting that off until closer to the actual referendum. But the narrative seems to be Dutton and co perpetually saying there’s no detail and Albanese saying “we’ve released all the detail, you’ve just ignored it”

Last I heard (not that I'm actively paying attendltion either) was Albo did not want to release the details as it would confuse the voting process.

 

[ZergMinion]

Indigenous people would like to be heard on policy affecting them, and a voice to parliament enshrined in the constitution is how they want this to happen.

It's a simple premise with a relatively simple implementation, and you can bet that opponents of this voice will do their best to try to obscure that.

 

[Frederico_WA]

That’s not the one I was thinking of. I thought the government had actually released the detail about what the Voice is proposed to look like. In addition to what the referendum will look like, which is what you’ve linked to.

I haven’t looked at it in any detail yet, I was putting that off until closer to the actual referendum. But the narrative seems to be Dutton and co perpetually saying there’s no detail and Albanese saying “we’ve released all the detail, you’ve just ignored it”

I think its also a case of politicking for politics sake. Not helping the process at all. Haha

 

[Frederico_WA]

Indigenous people would like to be heard on policy affecting them, and a voice to parliament enshrined in the constitution is how they want this to happen.

It's a simple premise with a relatively simple implementation, and you can bet that opponents of this voice will do their best to try to obscure that.

Every policy and decision affects all people equally. Anything else is against the law as per human rights that we in Australia abide by.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Yeah, I still haven't heard a good reason for not giving details on how it will actually work.

There's also no good reason as to why they need the constitution to implement it. They could do it straight away through the existing government department (Aboriginal Affairs or whatever it is now) or pass a law if they need it to make direct representations to parliament (instead of through the minister). SA is already working to legislate a voice for their state.

It really smells like a token effort to get some fat cats a salary and look to be doing something (while just adding another layer of beauracracy).

Quite the opposite of this is true.

Tokenism would be recognising indigenous Australians in the preamble and then palming off all practical functions to local bodies. There is a reason why the Liberals oppose it and it's not because they're anti-racialists who think this undermines one vote one value.

There are multiple models that The Voice could take, my personal preference would be one that emphasizes subsidiarity, where regional bodies elect representatives that stand within the voice. The point is that such models are determined solely through legislation and can remain both politically accountable and responsive.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Can it over-ride parliament?

The answer to this one is No.

It’s an advisory body. It’s not a chamber of parliament. Legislation will be passed by the two chambers as its always been.

 

[JackOutback]

I'm not after minute detail, just a clear idea on how it will work. How many people are on it? It would be well over 100 if they give every nation a voice. If they don't, then how will they be picked? Do they have to be Aboriginal (and what does that actually mean)? Can it over-ride parliament? What is the scope of its consultation (ie what are the safeguards to make sure it doesn't affect legislation that isn't primarily affecting aboriginal and Torres straight islanders).

I don't think changing the constitution is a flippant thing and the lack of detail makes me nervous. When I'm nervous, I'd rather stay with the status quo (as I can't determine the benefit or detriment to me).

I mean, the only question with genuine importance is the bolded, and the answer is a flat no. Confirmed by the Solicitor General.

I also think it's a safe bet that people on the Voice have to be Aboriginal otherwise what's the point.

But again, it has been stated that the Uluru Statement of the Heart is what they are working from and the design principles are pretty clear.

The Voice Design Principles

A Voice to Parliament will be a permanent body to make representations to the Australian Parliament and the Executive Government on legislation and policy of significance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

ulurustatement.org

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Every policy and decision affects all people equally. Anything else is against the law as per human rights that we in Australia abide by.

No it doesn’t. It absolutely doesn’t. That’s just nonsense. Every law is going to affect different people differently by virtue of what it’s set up to do.

 

[Frederico_WA]

The answer to this one is No.

It’s an advisory body. It’s not a chamber of parliament. Legislation will be passed by the two chambers as its always been.

However, it can still be legislated that the chambers must abide by the voice recomendarion in cases of <to be determined>.

See ... quite scary right?

 

[JackOutback]

Every policy and decision affects all people equally.

 

[kempy]

Maybe reading this is a start to understanding why First Nations people want the Voice.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

However, it can still be legislated that the chambers must abide by the voice recomendarion in cases of <to be determined>.

See ... quite scary right?

Where’s that quote from?

The wording of the Constitutional question is that Parliament “may” “consult” with the Voice.

 

[Frederico_WA]

No it doesn’t. It absolutely doesn’t. That’s just nonsense. Every law is going to affect different people differently by virtue of what it’s set up to do.

View attachment 1676362

By that screenshot, its stating the race laws in the constitution are racist against anyone not first nations. Did i read that right?

 

[Frederico_WA]

Where’s that quote from?

The wording of the Constitutional question is that Parliament “may” “consult” with the Voice.

My quote was just a possibility.

It is stated the govt has free reign after an affirmative vote to legislate anything they want in regard to the voice. It could be that.