Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

An Indigenous Voice. Changing the Australian Constitution.


psyche101

Recommended Posts

Australia is going to vote sometime between September and December on a major change to our constitution. 

Apparently we have one too. :innocent:

The new referendum would change our constitution to include an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. 

 

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023

Summary
Proposes an alteration to the Constitution to recognise First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

 

This is the first referendum to the constitution in 24 years. 

Despite Indigenous people having been in Australia for st least 65,000 years, our 122 year old constitution does not recognise that. 

This strikes me as a good model to found respirations on. Instead of payouts or apologies this would actually recognise the first nations people's and include their consultation as our country moves forward. A genuine recognisable gesture of inclusion and a radical change to how cultural differences are approached. 

Unsurprisingly there is conservative resistance. 

What do you think? Do you think it's a good idea, has holes or will be a success closing a cultural gap? 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Australianophile, I am interested in what goes on there.  I presently have no fixed opinion on the matter, but I am skeptical.  Let me lay out why...

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Summary
Proposes an alteration to the Constitution to recognise First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

To me this seems very vague.  They say there will be a Voice, but there is zero said about what form this Voice will take.  Will there be 1 person? 12 ? 100 ? 500 ? 1000 ? 12000 ?  What will their budget be?  Will they form a branch of government?  Is this an act of tokenism or regional autonomy? Is this a way to make ATSIC a permanent fixture on the Australian political landscape but now call it the Voice?  I mean, ATSIC came to an ugly sticky end due to rape and corruption.  I doubt anyone really want a body like that to now be cemented into the government.  What are the checks and balances? 

If I were an Australian voter, I would be deeply skeptical of this proposal, especially given how many Aboriginals and TSIslanders oppose the idea.  I am naturally suspicious of things that sound too good to be true.

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Despite Indigenous people having been in Australia for at least 65,000 years, our 122 year old constitution does not recognise that. 

True, but then again, they are not a single people but well over 100 very separate tribes with different languages, many of whom have longstanding feuds against each other.  These feuds even played out during the ATSIC period with some groups being silenced, marginalized, and even subsumed by their enemies.

To be devil's advocate for a moment, the reason for the Terra Nullius finding of the British was certainly partly driven by imperial self-interest, but was also largely to do with the idea that the Murris and Koories were a nomadic people without a concept of land ownership.  In fact the belief of the Aborigines was more problematic than that, as they actually believed the land owned them, which in European Law would indicate that they were "tied to the land" i.e. serfs.  There is also the issue that the Aborigines may have displaced earlier peoples in the region.

Now attitudes have changed, for the better imo, but it is as much of a mistake to romanticize indigenous people as to be racist towards them.  Presently Aborigines are able to vote in Australia. Why then should they have more representation than everyone else in the country?  That is what the Voice is effectively enshrining in the Australian Constitution.

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 This strikes me as a good model to found respirations on.

I think you might mean reparations, lol.  "Respiration" is the process of breathing.  Humorously, for people to "breathe together" is the etymological origin of the word "conspiracy".B)

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Instead of payouts or apologies this would actually recognise the first nations people's and include their consultation as our country moves forward. A genuine recognisable gesture of inclusion and a radical change to how cultural differences are approached. 

Pardon my cynicism, but this seems a bit optimistic.  You assume this is how it is going to play out, but unless you can see draft legislation about the institutional form that this new Voice is going to actually take; what its duties and powers will be, etc you simply can't say that with any certainty.   

You suggest that this new body will preclude payouts and apologies, but will it really? 

Similarly, I have read that there is a lot of movement on the issue of getting a treaty, but a treaty with whom?  As I have said elsewhere, there are over 100 tribes and languages in Australia.  Is every tribe getting its own treaty?  Is every tribe going to be equally represented by the Voice?  Is every tribe going to forego claims for reparations in the future based on this referendum?  It could all go exactly that way, and be wonderful, but let's face facts, it probably won't, because this is an issue laden with emotional tinder leading to a keg of  gunpowder, and I'm actually ignoring the white racist "backlash" when I say this.  What I fear is that the Voice might actually be really bad for the Aborigines, reigniting old hatreds and setting them against each other, potentially for decades, while the oblivious white population looks on in confusion (as usual) and wonder what went wrong.

In any case, given that ATSIC collapsed under allegations of rape and pork barreling, and so did the Morrison Govt, is it really such a great idea to set Australia up for another round of more of the same? (That's an awful joke btw. It is quite possible that won't happen... But it also might).

So psyche101, I hope you can address these issues for me.  Part of what is great about internet forums is their potential for interested parties to really thrash out ideas.  As a US citizen I don't have a dog in this fight, but having spent some of my happiest years living in Australia, I love the place and want the best for it.  I also really want what is best for the Aborigines, but they are a very traumatized community, and I have seen the ugly things they do to each other on a payday evening outside drinking establishments in Oodnadatta.  It didn't fill me with confidence about their future.  That being said, John Howards famous "intervention" which was established to fight child molesters in indigenous communities didn't actually arrest even 1.  While I know full well that there are people in the various Aboriginal communities and the European/immigrant communities who have a lot of good will, I worry they are outnumbered, and neither side really knows what they're doing.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The “no” mob have started early and are making points that’ll sway a lot of fence-sitting voters IMO. Barnaby Joyce (is that the Chattanooga Choo-Choo?) is making a lot of press about how a Voice will have a final say on everything including the Budget, meaning the unelected can overrule the parliament. The “yes” mob will have r9 work ver6 hard to counter that sort of scaremongering. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Is this a way to make ATSIC a permanent fixture on the Australian political landscape but now call it the Voice?  I mean, ATSIC came to an ugly sticky end due to rape and corruption.  I doubt anyone really want a body like that to now be cemented into the government.  What are the checks and balances? 

I haven't heard that The Voice would be any different to what ATSIC was supposed to be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

What do you think?

I think everyone should be treated the same, nothing more.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

As an Australianophile, I am interested in what goes on there.  I presently have no fixed opinion on the matter, but I am skeptical.  Let me lay out why...

We have discussed my country before and it didn't go well. You insulted my state deeply and offended myself and others. 

I do not believe you understand our country as well as you say and I'm honestly dubious about your claim of a visit. I saw you post that you were chased by a Cassowary in Lamington park. That just ain't happening. 

That said I appreciate your interest and will let bygones be bygones. 

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

To me this seems very vague.  They say there will be a Voice, but there is zero said about what form this Voice will take.  Will there be 1 person? 12 ? 100 ? 500 ? 1000 ? 12000 ?  What will their budget be?  Will they form a branch of government?  Is this an act of tokenism or regional autonomy? Is this a way to make ATSIC a permanent fixture on the Australian political landscape but now call it the Voice?  I mean, ATSIC came to an ugly sticky end due to rape and corruption.  I doubt anyone really want a body like that to now be cemented into the government.  What are the checks and balances? 

The voice will be made up of an elected representative voted in by local communities. Each state territory and the Torres strait Islands will each have a single representative is my understanding. 

This representative will serve the board for a fixed period of time. 

This would be an independent advisory committee to the government to ensure cultural values are respected and first nations people have a say in the way the country progresses culturally and through infrastructure. 

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

If I were an Australian voter, I would be deeply skeptical of this proposal, especially given how many Aboriginals and TSIslanders oppose the idea.  I am naturally suspicious of things that sound too good to be true.

Not sure what you are talking about. The overwhelming majority of indigenous people support this. A couple of right wing Indigenous politicians (Price and Mundine) oppose the idea and have been denounced by the local land councils run by elders of the indigenous communities. One of the biggest valid criticisms against those opposing the voice is that they do not live in the communities and don't even visit often enough to have a grasp of the actual situation. I'd have to agree with that based on the experience of those making that statement.

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

True, but then again, they are not a single people but well over 100 very separate tribes with different languages, many of whom have longstanding feuds against each other.  These feuds even played out during the ATSIC period with some groups being silenced, marginalized, and even subsumed by their enemies.

They are the first nations people. They do stand together. You're mainly talking of pre cook days which we don't really have a very accurate record of. I don't see tribalism as an issue as each state will be represented by an elected official. 

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

To be devil's advocate for a moment, the reason for the Terra Nullius finding of the British was certainly partly driven by imperial self-interest, but was also largely to do with the idea that the Murris and Koories were a nomadic people without a concept of land ownership.  In fact the belief of the Aborigines was more problematic than that, as they actually believed the land owned them, which in European Law would indicate that they were "tied to the land" i.e. serfs. 

I'd honestly consider that half the story. The people belonged to the land and were also it's custodians. They are supposed to protect and be "one" with it. It's a concept Terra Nullis can't really approach as it's outside it's scope. A mutual relationship outside the scope of ownership isn't "land belonging to no-one". It's still a people's land. 

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

There is also the issue that the Aborigines may have displaced earlier peoples in the region.

I have zero idea what you are referring to. Indigenous people have been certified as arriving here at least 65 thousand years ago. Possibly as long as 110 thousand years.  I'm not sure whom you think they might have displaced. 

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Now attitudes have changed, for the better imo, but it is as much of a mistake to romanticize indigenous people as to be racist towards them.  Presently Aborigines are able to vote in Australia. Why then should they have more representation than everyone else in the country?  That is what the Voice is effectively enshrining in the Australian Constitution.

No. That's not correct. They will not have more representation. They will have equal representation. Currently Indigenous can vote on what parliament decides. With the voice they can have a representative in parliament to provide advice which represents their views and communities. 

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I think you might mean reparations, lol.  "Respiration" is the process of breathing.  Humorously, for people to "breathe together" is the etymological origin of the word "conspiracy".B)

Oh yes. I'm in a phone. You found a typo. 

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Pardon my cynicism, but this seems a bit optimistic.  You assume this is how it is going to play out, but unless you can see draft legislation about the institutional form that this new Voice is going to actually take; what its duties and powers will be, etc you simply can't say that with any certainty.   

That's why I linked to the government website. The draft legislation is available. 

This is a change to the constitution to recognise the rights of first nations people as the country develops. 

Perhaps I am optimistic but we don't have a precedent for this either. Again, Australia is taking strides forward into unknown territory. My hope is that this can close cultural gaps and put all on a level playing field. I can't see a country where racism does not exist and the great divide in the poverty lines are defined by skin colour. With this bold move of inclusion I'd like to think those boundaries are being aggressively challenged. 

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

You suggest that this new body will preclude payouts and apologies, but will it really? 

I do suspect so. Recent recognition of stolen generations have adopted this. I saw an indigenous woman from the stolen generation on ABC last night saying recognition is far more important than monetary compensation. Time will tell but a radical approach like this will test that. 

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Similarly, I have read that there is a lot of movement on the issue of getting a treaty, but a treaty with whom?  As I have said elsewhere, there are over 100 tribes and languages in Australia.  Is every tribe getting its own treaty?  Is every tribe going to be equally represented by the Voice?  Is every tribe going to forego claims for reparations in the future based on this referendum?  It could all go exactly that way, and be wonderful, but let's face facts, it probably won't, because this is an issue laden with emotional tinder leading to a keg of  gunpowder, and I'm actually ignoring the white racist "backlash" when I say this.  What I fear is that the Voice might actually be really bad for the Aborigines, reigniting old hatreds and setting them against each other, potentially for decades, while the oblivious white population looks on in confusion (as usual) and wonder what went wrong.

I have no idea how you are coming to these conclusions. 

I've covered the representatives above. One from each state and the Torres Strait Islands elected for a predetermined length of time. Similar to an elected representative. 

Currently there are four land councils that represent the elders recognised by those communities as custodians of the land. They are not at war. There is no good reason to think they will feud. Each will have their own say. 

The white population has never bothered to understand the indigenous relationship with the land. It's unique. It's been British rule for our entire written history. As such applying British principles to indigenous values can only result on confusion. The voice aims to bridge that understanding gap. 

It's not anyone's fault is the thing. It's two very different mindsets clashing.

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

In any case, given that ATSIC collapsed under allegations of rape and pork barreling, and so did the Morrison Govt, is it really such a great idea to set Australia up for another round of more of the same? (That's an awful joke btw. It is quite possible that won't happen... But it also might).

As I understand it's quite a different model. ATSIC didn't elect indigenous representatives and really one man, Geoff Clark was not the person to lead the initiative.

The Howard government did watch ATSIC and had low confidence in the model before it was shut down. What we do have is ATSIC as a learning curve. And I feel it's comforting to know it was shut down when shown to be inefficient and corrupted. 

It's always a good idea to learn from past attempts and it's a great idea to try and close cultural gaps. No models on the planet work. It's time to try new things IMHO. 

16 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

So psyche101, I hope you can address these issues for me.  Part of what is great about internet forums is their potential for interested parties to really thrash out ideas.  As a US citizen I don't have a dog in this fight, but having spent some of my happiest years living in Australia, I love the place and want the best for it.  I also really want what is best for the Aborigines, but they are a very traumatized community, and I have seen the ugly things they do to each other on a payday evening outside drinking establishments in Oodnadatta.  It didn't fill me with confidence about their future.  That being said, John Howards famous "intervention" which was established to fight child molesters in indigenous communities didn't actually arrest even 1.  While I know full well that there are people in the various Aboriginal communities and the European/immigrant communities who have a lot of good will, I worry they are outnumbered, and neither side really knows what they're doing.

And thank you for your well though out post addressing aspects that require clarification. I hope I've answered your questions adequately. 

The city homeless indigenous are in every city. Darwin had a bit of a reputation for such. It's not a representation of the indigenous people. It's a representation of a break down in society and community. The old us and them battle. With indigenous recognised in our constitution I would like to hope we can close that at least a little and recognise that we actually do have equal rights legally as opposed to assurances. It's putting our money where our mouth is and trying something new. What we can be sure of I feel is that no action is not going to make anything better. 

If this doesn't work, I suspect it would suffer the same fate as ATSIC although rather than disbanded, heavily revised. If it does work well, like gun reforms, Australia may yet again offer a world leading example of a better way forward. I thinks it an exciting proposal and will be interested to see how Australians vote on this. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, openozy said:

I think everyone should be treated the same, nothing more.

Agreed. That's why I think this is a good idea. As a people I could understand being offended at having no mention in the constitution of their own country.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

The “no” mob have started early and are making points that’ll sway a lot of fence-sitting voters IMO. Barnaby Joyce (is that the Chattanooga Choo-Choo?) is making a lot of press about how a Voice will have a final say on everything including the Budget, meaning the unelected can overrule the parliament. The “yes” mob will have r9 work ver6 hard to counter that sort of scaremongering. 

I'd like to hope the majority of Australian's are more intelligent than to give Hanson and Joyce the time of day. Joyce has already been corrected on his claim of a third chamber of parliament regarding the voice. Hanson doesn't have a great reputation regarding racial issues. Bob Katter is also I'm opposition but he's not very credible outside his own circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I haven't heard that The Voice would be any different to what ATSIC was supposed to be.

ATSIC t3chnically had MORE power than the Voice. It’s why Toned Abs etc gutted it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

ATSIC t3chnically had MORE power than the Voice. It’s why Toned Abs etc gutted it.

Boney Taboot didn't gut ATSIC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2023 at 11:31 PM, psyche101 said:

What do you think? 

I don't like it. A constitution that distinguishes some Australians as different from other Australians by race might be a step backwards in human societal evolution. How much aboriginal ancestry makes you distinguished with different legal classification?  And with indigenous people in America and Australia it seems to end up making them a fringe of society people and then everyone decries why they don't fare as well as the majority Australian/Americans.

 

Edited by papageorge1
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2023 at 8:05 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

The “no” mob have started early and are making points that’ll sway a lot of fence-sitting voters IMO. Barnaby Joyce (is that the Chattanooga Choo-Choo?) is making a lot of press about how a Voice will have a final say on everything including the Budget, meaning the unelected can overrule the parliament. The “yes” mob will have r9 work ver6 hard to counter that sort of scaremongering. 

Yeah, I don't want to be on Joyce's side of any argument; the man's a serious fool.  On the other hand, I think there are many Australians (and perhaps other Americans like me, not that we can vote on it), who would like to know what the actual legal and  institutional form the Voice will take.

6 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

ATSIC t3chnically had MORE power than the Voice. It’s why Toned Abs etc gutted it.

ATSIC died because of the whole ugly rape charges against Geoff Clark and charges of corruption amongst others afaik.  Dissolution of ATSIC was bipartisan btw.

13 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't like it. A constitution that distinguishes some Australians as different from other Australians by race might be a step backwards in human societal evolution. How much aboriginal ancestry makes you distinguished with different legal classification?  And with indigenous people in America and Australia it seems to end up making them a fringe of society people and then everyone decries why they don't fare as well as the majority Australian/Americans.

There are actually a lot of aborigines who don't want the Voice for various reasons from what I have read and watched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

We have discussed my country before and it didn't go well. You insulted my state deeply and offended myself and others. 

:w00t: :w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t:  Welcome to every day on this forum as an American you wimp.

But this does seem like a no-go constitutional change unless they don't get a vote but do get an advisory voice.  The indigenous people already have elected officials just like the rest of Australia.  

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OverSword said:

:w00t: :w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t:  Welcome to every day on this forum as an American you wimp.

You don't know what you're referring to ass-hat. 

I thought I was extremely polite given the circumstances. 

5 hours ago, OverSword said:

But this does seem like a no-go constitutional change unless they don't get a vote but do get an advisory voice.  The indigenous people already have elected officials just like the rest of Australia.  

You  feel constitutional recognition is irrelevant? I suspect there will be a strong vote. There's quite some support for the idea. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't like it. A constitution that distinguishes some Australians as different from other Australians by race might be a step backwards in human societal evolution. How much aboriginal ancestry makes you distinguished with different legal classification?  And with indigenous people in America and Australia it seems to end up making them a fringe of society people and then everyone decries why they don't fare as well as the majority Australian/Americans.

 

How do you figure this distinguishes differences? By inclusion in our constitution everyone is on the same classification. Currently Indigenous people are a fringe society by large. The idea of constitutional inclusion is to change that and give all an equal say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

There are actually a lot of aborigines who don't want the Voice for various reasons from what I have read and watched.

If you are watching our country as close as you say it should be pretty obvious to you by now that indigenous or first nations people are preferred terms. 

Where are you seeing this? And what reasons are you referring to? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

ATSIC t3chnically had MORE power than the Voice. It’s why Toned Abs etc gutted it.

Yeah, as he said, before his time. 

It's a very different model as I understand. A much more democratic process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Do you think the outcome would be as satisfactory though without specific indigenous input?

I hold your views in high regard. You're smarter than the average bear. May I ask if you feel this is a worthy proposal or if you feel it's simply a waste of time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

How do you figure this distinguishes differences? By inclusion in our constitution everyone is on the same classification. Currently Indigenous people are a fringe society by large. The idea of constitutional inclusion is to change that and give all an equal say. 

And how don’t they have equal say? Do they not have the right to vote for representatives in their electoral district like every other Australian? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

How do you figure this distinguishes differences? By inclusion in our constitution everyone is on the same classification. Currently Indigenous people are a fringe society by large. The idea of constitutional inclusion is to change that and give all an equal say. 

Well I consider Australia a civilized modern democracy as it stands. Aborigines have full citizenship and voting rights already.

Separate designation and identification by race in the constitution sounds unnecessary and backwards to modernity.

And another generation of indigenous children will be fringe dwellers by excessive focus on race.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OverSword said:

And how don’t they have equal say? Do they not have the right to vote for representatives in their electoral district like every other Australian? 

They get to vote in Commonwealth policies driven by western standards. 

My understanding is that the constitutional change would require indigenous advice on future decisions regarding all Australians. Indigenous input from people who actually live on the land. 

Wouldn't it simply be respectful to include the original land owners as part of the constitution and decision making moving forward? Why do you feel (if I'm reading your posts correctly) that maintaining purely British standards would be more beneficial? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well I consider Australia a civilized modern democracy as it stands. Aborigines have full citizenship and voting rights already.

Separate designation and identification by race in the constitution sounds unnecessary and backwards to modernity.

And another generation of indigenous children will be fringe dwellers by excessive focus on race.

How do you come to this conclusion? You're not making any sense 

Take a step backwards.

How is this seperating people? Can you define that first. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

How do you come to this conclusion? You're not making any sense 

Take a step backwards.

How is this seperating people? Can you define that first. 

It’s not hard. A modern civilized constitution does not break down representation by race categories.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

It’s not hard. A modern civilized constitution does not break down representation by race categories.

 

Should it not at all recognise that indigenous people actually owned the land before settlement? Why should an Australian constitution be based purely on British principles? 

It's cultural as opposed to race based. Do you not understand that? 

Have you read the links I left on the subject?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.