SDC Rewards Member
Upgrade yours now
.png){kind=icon}
The Voice If concerned/confused please read.
1. For the first time our constitution will divide us by race, with one side having more political rights than the rest. Racial division is immoral and pits Australians against each other. It has never worked.
2. Power under such a change will swing even more to activists stressing grievance and entitlement, and justifying this by preaching that Aborigines (however defined) are different to everyone else and that difference must be respected, even funded. The oppositie is true. The many Aborigines who have assimilated tend to do much better economically and socially.
3. This is not the end of it. Albanese has also agreed to a treaty and a “truth telling” commission, which will preach that our history is shameful. More division in a country struggling to make Australians feel united. And as the Uluṟu Statement, which Albanese has promised to implement “in full”, says: “With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe (our) ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.” We are on the road to apartheid. https://theconversation.com/amp/est...-nation-building-heres-what-that-means-187534
4. The Voice will not be directly elected, says the co-design report: “Each region decides how best to draw its Voice members (i.e. election, nomination/expressions of interest/selection, drawing on structures based in traditional law and custom, or a combination) and how many Voice members there will be … ” https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/def...us-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf
This is not just undemocratic. It makes the Voice less accountable, more open to abuse by non-Aborigines and is designed to help the existing Aboriginal power structures maintain their control, despite their manifest failure over decades. This cements rule by radicals.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/o...ws-story/d874dedb5e74cc3e47879f622524af03?amp)
The guidelines for drawing regional boundaries and choosing delegates are also so unclear that they leave the matter open to endless challenges. Who decides if there is a dispute?
5. It is based on a lie. Governments have for years consulted with Aboriginal groups, including the Council of Peaks. There is a bureaucracy of 1300 public servants in the National indigenous Australians Agency whose role is to consult and advise.
We also have 11 federal MPs identifying as Aboriginal, plus 3000 Aboriginal corporations and more than 30 Aboriginal land councils.
6. On the wording of the proposed amendment, the words highlighted are problematic: “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…
“Executive government” means the Voice can advise any federal public servant on body, including the Reserve Bank.
“Matters relating to” means in can advise essentially on anything affecting people identifying as Aboriginal, from climate policies to mining, criminal law to firefighting.
The Attorney-General himself tried to get these provisions watered down but was overruled. His speech in Parliament concedes the scope of the Voice’s remit:
“Matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would include:
- matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
- matters relevant to the Australian community, including general laws or measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community.
Greg Craven, a constitutional legal expert, Voice supporter and legal advisor to the referendum advisory group, is scathing on how much power the Voice could have. He feels conned:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/co...g/news-story/f9a4b98bbbd3778ce0a2f630c7754418
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/in...d/news-story/cb21c78b5cd5fd99ca8ae0d0f7037aff
7. There is also an argument that the High Court could find the Voice not only had the right to advise but also an implied right to be heard. The explanatory memorandum released with the bill says that is not so, and a black-letter High Court would almost certainly agree. But we have learned to our cost of the rise of the activist judge, most dramatically in the Love and Thomas case.
