He wants us to make a constitutional change but won't tell us what it is! That an intelligent man could put forward such a concept I find astonishing.
Santa said
10:26 AM Aug 1, 2022
Morning Mike, my vote will be against.
Possum3 said
10:28 AM Aug 1, 2022
Agree Mike, I wouldn't sign a blank cheque for my family members, let alone a politicians. Could it be that this is another cynical attempt at "We tried to do it, but; the opposition were the unreasonable ones". Therefore nothing changes.
JeffRae said
10:37 AM Aug 1, 2022
Agree with Santa, will be an against vote from us
woolman said
11:13 AM Aug 1, 2022
Never under estimate the stupidity of voters. Primary school kids are being taught if the last government had acted on climate change we would not have had the fires and floods.
Oh if if was so simple
Neil
dorian said
11:16 AM Aug 1, 2022
I agree, Albo is an idiot. This is just too stupid for words:
"What some people are arguing for is having a debate about the consequences of a constitutional change before you have any idea of whether the constitutional change should happen or not."
dogbox said
11:27 AM Aug 1, 2022
but he is one of the most popular PM's we had in years even though he has been overseas more than here
what is that saying about us ?
oldbloke said
11:37 AM Aug 1, 2022
IMO Albo is doing the right thing. "He wants us to make a constitutional change but won't tell us what it is!" (actually, he is) "I wouldn't sign a blank cheque for my family members, let alone a politicians." What do you gentlemen expect? Your asking parliament to pass the legislation including Act & Regulations before we even vote on the constitutional change? So that you have all of the details. LOL Utterly ridiculous. Your arse about tit.
Lets face it. If he circulated the "draft" Act and then it got amended in Parliament you would all say he lied. Right? And who would even fully understand it. I would suggest the vast majority would not. It would simply cause confusion and more arguments in forums.
When the constitution was written they could not see 200 years into the future and that's why its written the way it is.
The constitution is the "Umbrella" document that provides executive powers to state and federal Governments. (among other things) It also gives them the power to make laws in relation to those executive powers. And we get to vote every few years. That is what has been happening since 1901. Imagine if we included all that detail in the constitution it would many 1000's of pages long. So, cant do that. What Albo is proposing is to ensure the "voice" simply exists. Then ALP will Draft the Act & parliament will eventually (after some negotiations) pass the Legislation.
We just have to trust the Politicians to do the right thing. (unfortunately)
Example. The federal government has executive powers relating to defence and taxes. And that's really all it says. The Parliament then passes the legislation relating to those "Powers" for example the Defence Act. This is no different.
Obviously some people simply do not understand our system very well.
This is how it works.
1. Change Constitution
2. Draft act
3. Negotiate
4. Pass Acts
5. Implement Acts
You cant
1. Pass Acts
2. Change Constitution
And that is what you are all suggesting should happen. How else would you provide the detail?
Has anyone here actually read the AU Constitution?
I have attached a very short part of the explanatory notes at the front of the constitution.
The proposed words to be added to the constitution ....
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
3. The parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
I have trouble perceiving what that third clause could mean, particularly if a subsequent legal challenge sought to clarify a meaning that the public had not considered when it was posed. The parliament "SHALL ..... make laws" in the same sentence as the "POWERS of the .... "VOICE" concerns me. Whatever it may be there is no doubt a hidden agenda in the proposal.
The minister for Indigenous Australians says it must be simple words. I interpret that to mean "Who could deny a motherhood type statement?" And that many would vote against it if they understood what it meant. I believe simple words leave it too open for exploitation.
Mike Harding said
12:28 PM Aug 1, 2022
oldbloke wrote:
We just have to trust the Politicians to do the right thing. ( unfortunately )
Very good :) You should have put it in the jokes section though.
-----
From what I understand to date, which isn't much, I cannot see why the need for constitutional change exists?
If parliament wants an Aboriginal advisory body then it already has all the powers it needs to appoint one so why change the constitution?
-----
My understanding is the largest group of Aboriginals in the country live in western Sydney so I am unsure how representative and appreciate of the problems facing Aboriginals in, say, Arnhem Land they would be?
-- Edited by Mike Harding on Monday 1st of August 2022 12:36:49 PM
dorian said
12:29 PM Aug 1, 2022
There have already been three official implementations of an indigenous Voice, all of which failed.
There is nothing stopping the government from going ahead and creating another "voice".
Table 1: National Indigenous elected bodies 1973 2004
Name of elected body
Government at time of establishment
First election
Abolition
Government at time of abolition
National Aboriginal Consultative Committee
ALP
Nov 1973
May 1977
Coalition
National Aboriginal Conference
Coalition
Nov 1977
June 1985
ALP
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission
ALP
Nov 1990
April 2004 (abolition announced)
Coalition
Something like this ...
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
3. The parliament shall, ..., have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
-- Edited by dorian on Monday 1st of August 2022 02:08:55 PM
DMaxer said
12:51 PM Aug 1, 2022
You are absolutely right with what you have written Old Bloke. Not only have I read (and reread) the Constitution, I had to pass a three hour examination on it when I did my degree.
Unfortunately, some of the posters here are just parroting what some clown on Sky News has told them. The Parliament has to have the power before they can draft and present a bill. Some people are still in denial after their party was absolutely flogged and booted out by the Australian voting public.
As to being overseas too much, what trip should he have not gone on. Perhaps the first one with the Japanese and the US leader that motor mouth had arranged. Perhaps going to Indonesia were our reputation has been trashed, perhaps the one where Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand were invited by NATO or maybe the South Pacific Forum where our neglect has allowed the Chinese into the Solomons. Which one would you suggest he should have ignored? Meanwhile, your hero went AWOL from his constituents to address a religious meeting of global failures all on our dime and also collecting a speakers fee.
The posters attacking his proposal are only demonstrating their total ignorance of parliamentary procedure and the procedures regarding referendums. Thank god we have a sensible and knowledgeable person like you on the forum Old Bloke.
Craig1 said
12:57 PM Aug 1, 2022
We have 11 Federal Members who all claim to be Aboriginal, and all fairly elected. Why do we need more unelected ? Warren Mundine says we don't need anymore.
Keith P said
01:32 PM Aug 1, 2022
I thought political stuff was a big NO NO on this forum.
Good thing I,m not a moderater on this one .
Cheers Keith
dorian said
01:32 PM Aug 1, 2022
DMaxer wrote:
The Parliament has to have the power before they can draft and present a bill.
What powers did the Parliament previously use to create those 3 earlier "voices"? As I see it, there was nothing stopping Kevin from creating a 4th voice in '07, nor is there any legal impediment to creating such a voice right now, without the expense of a referendum. In fact, what would happen if the referendum were to fail, as they usually do? Would that spell the end for an ATSIC revival? That's the real danger that this idiot is setting us up for. Remember, the Australian electorate voted against free and fair elections, so they're not the sharpest tools in the shed.
What kind of person goes ahead and does something without first assessing the consequences? That's the question that is being asked of us.
Magnarc said
01:40 PM Aug 1, 2022
A thorny old subject you have raised Mike. Just my opinion but, had we had the will to follow the path taken in NZ with Maori nation, I don't think we would be having this discussion.
I think that was the mistake made at the time, I also realise that it is far too late now. I also had problems with Albanese's wording.
Mike Harding said
01:48 PM Aug 1, 2022
DMaxer wrote:
The Parliament has to have the power before they can draft and present a bill.
The parliament already has pretty damn extensive powers would you not say Dmaxer!?
What I want to know is exactly what laws they wish to pass in the future that they seek constitutional change for now and I don't think that's unreasonable... do you?
Someone said: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" and I think he was spot on.
I listened to the entire maiden speach of Jacinta, for which I was impressed. It was the most revelent speach about the plight of rural indigenous people who if the Voice was passed, nothing would change for them.
Please take the time to watch Jacintas maiden speach, and listen to it with unbiased ears.
Currently there are 22 clans waring in the NT community of Wadeye.......a Voice will not help Wadeye
-- Edited by Gundog on Monday 1st of August 2022 03:12:17 PM
dogbox said
03:33 PM Aug 1, 2022
Craig1 wrote:
We have 11 Federal Members who all claim to be Aboriginal, and all fairly elected. Why do we need more unelected ? Warren Mundine says we don't need anymore.
i'm not as sharp as some people on this forum claim to be, so i need to be enlightened if there are 11 federal members who claim to be of aboriginal heritage and there are 151 members of parliament would that not workout that they are all ready represented in parliament, if approx 2% of the population is aboriginal ? how much of the federal budget is allocated to aboriginal affairs ?
from where i see things, an i could be confused but i wonder were all the money, that is allocated to the indigidious communities goes, it dosen't seem to be getting to the remote communities it seem to be getting used up in the administration side of things before it leaves town are we going to have a bunch more fat cats on big salaries advising the MPs who claim aboriginality what is going on in their own back yard
deverall11 said
04:31 PM Aug 1, 2022
DMaxer wrote:
....SNIP
The posters attacking his proposal are only demonstrating their total ignorance of parliamentary procedure and the procedures regarding referendums. Thank god we have a sensible and knowledgeable person like you on the forum Old Bloke.
Rather ironic from some who probably do not know the finer points of the constitution. Was not taught at school.
Perhaps it should be. The constitution is nothing more then some old pommie thing that was used
when they had nothing better.
I say junk the whole thing and start again with our own version and use the opportunity to become
a republic. We are not poms or a colony of.
How about showing some respect for the people whose land was invaded some 230 odd years ago.
Webmaster said
05:24 PM Aug 1, 2022
Thanks everyone for your input, but I am closing this now. We do not allow political discussions on our forum as, in our experience, they ultimately lead to bad feelings. Thanks for your understanding.
Anthony Albanese has only been Prime Minister for a few weeks but I think the stress has driven him crazy:
Voice referendum
He wants us to make a constitutional change but won't tell us what it is! That an intelligent man could put forward such a concept I find astonishing.
Morning Mike, my vote will be against.
Never under estimate the stupidity of voters. Primary school kids are being taught if the last government had acted on climate change we would not have had the fires and floods.
Oh if if was so simple
Neil
I agree, Albo is an idiot. This is just too stupid for words:
"What some people are arguing for is having a debate about the consequences of a constitutional change before you have any idea of whether the constitutional change should happen or not."
what is that saying about us ?
IMO Albo is doing the right thing. "He wants us to make a constitutional change but won't tell us what it is!" (actually, he is) "I wouldn't sign a blank cheque for my family members, let alone a politicians." What do you gentlemen expect? Your asking parliament to pass the legislation including Act & Regulations before we even vote on the constitutional change? So that you have all of the details. LOL Utterly ridiculous. Your arse about tit.
Lets face it. If he circulated the "draft" Act and then it got amended in Parliament you would all say he lied. Right? And who would even fully understand it. I would suggest the vast majority would not. It would simply cause confusion and more arguments in forums.
When the constitution was written they could not see 200 years into the future and that's why its written the way it is.
The constitution is the "Umbrella" document that provides executive powers to state and federal Governments. (among other things) It also gives them the power to make laws in relation to those executive powers. And we get to vote every few years.
That is what has been happening since 1901. Imagine if we included all that detail in the constitution it would many 1000's of pages long. So, cant do that. What Albo is proposing is to ensure the "voice" simply exists. Then ALP will Draft the Act & parliament will eventually (after some negotiations) pass the Legislation.
We just have to trust the Politicians to do the right thing. ( unfortunately )
Example. The federal government has executive powers relating to defence and taxes. And that's really all it says. The Parliament then passes the legislation relating to those "Powers" for example the Defence Act. This is no different.
Obviously some people simply do not understand our system very well.
This is how it works.
1. Change Constitution
2. Draft act
3. Negotiate
4. Pass Acts
5. Implement Acts
You cant
1. Pass Acts
2. Change Constitution
And that is what you are all suggesting should happen. How else would you provide the detail?
Has anyone here actually read the AU Constitution?
I have attached a very short part of the explanatory notes at the front of the constitution.
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
3. The parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
I have trouble perceiving what that third clause could mean, particularly if a subsequent legal challenge sought to clarify a meaning that the public had not considered when it was posed. The parliament "SHALL ..... make laws" in the same sentence as the "POWERS of the .... "VOICE" concerns me. Whatever it may be there is no doubt a hidden agenda in the proposal.
The minister for Indigenous Australians says it must be simple words. I interpret that to mean "Who could deny a motherhood type statement?" And that many would vote against it if they understood what it meant. I believe simple words leave it too open for exploitation.
Very good :) You should have put it in the jokes section though.
-----
From what I understand to date, which isn't much, I cannot see why the need for constitutional change exists?
If parliament wants an Aboriginal advisory body then it already has all the powers it needs to appoint one so why change the constitution?
-----
My understanding is the largest group of Aboriginals in the country live in western Sydney so I am unsure how representative and appreciate of the problems facing Aboriginals in, say, Arnhem Land they would be?
-- Edited by Mike Harding on Monday 1st of August 2022 12:36:49 PM
There have already been three official implementations of an indigenous Voice, all of which failed.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/Current_Issues_Briefs_2004_-_2005/05cib04
There is nothing stopping the government from going ahead and creating another "voice".
Table 1: National Indigenous elected bodies 1973 2004
Name of elected body
Government at time of establishment
First election
Abolition
Government at time of abolition
National Aboriginal Consultative Committee
ALP
Nov 1973
May 1977
Coalition
National Aboriginal Conference
Coalition
Nov 1977
June 1985
ALP
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission
ALP
Nov 1990
April 2004 (abolition announced)
Coalition
Something like this ...
1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
3. The parliament shall, ..., have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
-- Edited by dorian on Monday 1st of August 2022 02:08:55 PM
You are absolutely right with what you have written Old Bloke. Not only have I read (and reread) the Constitution, I had to pass a three hour examination on it when I did my degree.
Unfortunately, some of the posters here are just parroting what some clown on Sky News has told them. The Parliament has to have the power before they can draft and present a bill. Some people are still in denial after their party was absolutely flogged and booted out by the Australian voting public.
As to being overseas too much, what trip should he have not gone on. Perhaps the first one with the Japanese and the US leader that motor mouth had arranged. Perhaps going to Indonesia were our reputation has been trashed, perhaps the one where Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand were invited by NATO or maybe the South Pacific Forum where our neglect has allowed the Chinese into the Solomons. Which one would you suggest he should have ignored? Meanwhile, your hero went AWOL from his constituents to address a religious meeting of global failures all on our dime and also collecting a speakers fee.
The posters attacking his proposal are only demonstrating their total ignorance of parliamentary procedure and the procedures regarding referendums. Thank god we have a sensible and knowledgeable person like you on the forum Old Bloke.
Good thing I,m not a moderater on this one .
Cheers Keith
What powers did the Parliament previously use to create those 3 earlier "voices"? As I see it, there was nothing stopping Kevin from creating a 4th voice in '07, nor is there any legal impediment to creating such a voice right now, without the expense of a referendum. In fact, what would happen if the referendum were to fail, as they usually do? Would that spell the end for an ATSIC revival? That's the real danger that this idiot is setting us up for. Remember, the Australian electorate voted against free and fair elections, so they're not the sharpest tools in the shed.
What kind of person goes ahead and does something without first assessing the consequences? That's the question that is being asked of us.
A thorny old subject you have raised Mike. Just my opinion but, had we had the will to follow the path taken in NZ with Maori nation, I don't think we would be having this discussion.
I think that was the mistake made at the time, I also realise that it is far too late now. I also had problems with Albanese's wording.
The parliament already has pretty damn extensive powers would you not say Dmaxer!?
What I want to know is exactly what laws they wish to pass in the future that they seek constitutional change for now and I don't think that's unreasonable... do you?
Someone said: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" and I think he was spot on.
Currently there are 22 clans waring in the NT community of Wadeye.......a Voice will not help Wadeye
-- Edited by Gundog on Monday 1st of August 2022 03:12:17 PM
i'm not as sharp as some people on this forum claim to be, so i need to be enlightened
if there are 11 federal members who claim to be of aboriginal heritage and there are 151 members of parliament would that not workout that they are all ready represented in parliament, if approx 2% of the population is aboriginal ?
how much of the federal budget is allocated to aboriginal affairs ?
from where i see things, an i could be confused but i wonder were all the money, that is allocated to the indigidious communities goes, it dosen't seem to be getting to the remote communities it seem to be getting used up in the administration side of things before it leaves town are we going to have a bunch more fat cats on big salaries advising the MPs who claim aboriginality what is going on in their own back yard
Rather ironic from some who probably do not know the finer points of the constitution. Was not taught at school.
Perhaps it should be. The constitution is nothing more then some old pommie thing that was used
when they had nothing better.
I say junk the whole thing and start again with our own version and use the opportunity to become
a republic. We are not poms or a colony of.
How about showing some respect for the people whose land was invaded some 230 odd years ago.
Thanks everyone for your input, but I am closing this now. We do not allow political discussions on our forum as, in our experience, they ultimately lead to bad feelings. Thanks for your understanding.