Voicers: Constitution is none of your business. Leave it to Albo

Posted on 19 July, 2022 by C.L.
This entry was posted in Left-wing extremism, Legal affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Voicers: Constitution is none of your business. Leave it to Albo

  1. C.L. says:
    19 July, 2022 at 1:28 am

    Those who support recognition of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, their ancient history, culture and tradition with a First Nations voice to parliament in the Constitution must guard against those who not only wrongly dismissed it as a “third chamber” but who are demanding that a detailed model be agreed before a referendum is held.

    Most politicians and commentators calling for the government to outline the advisory body in detail ahead of a referendum have always been opposed to it. They fundamentally misunderstand the Uluru Statement from the Heart. No voice to parliament will ever satisfy them. Trying to win them over risks a referendum they are unlikely to support.

    The referendum should be about establishing a head of power in the Constitution that enables an Indigenous advisory body to be established. The Albanese government can, and should, outline a series of principles to guide the establishment of the voice but leave it to the parliament to determine how the advisory body should be instituted.

    It may well be that in 10, 50 or 100 years the advisory body needs structural change. It may not be working as well as it could be. It may be that the Indigenous members of the advisory body suggest a different method of appointment or removal, want it to be larger or smaller or refocused in its work.

    If a detailed model is enshrined in the Constitution, then it can be altered only by another referen­dum. This would be a cumbersome, expensive and risky process. A situation could arise where there is agreement among political leaders and Indigenous representatives that the advisory body should be changed but it fails at a referendum. Not establishing the final form of the advisory body before the refer­endum also deals with a key criticism put by those opposed to a voice: it would preserve and protect the sovereignty of the House of Representatives and the Senate. It means the Constitution would provide for a voice but the parliament would be able to determine its structure, composition and function.

    Another danger in fixing the fine details before the referendum is it will attract critics who will argue it is still flawed. The referendum campaign would become a debate over the form of the voice rather than the principle of giving First Nations people a say in laws that affect them, such as those designed to address entrenched disadvantage by closing the gap on health, housing, education, employment, justice and safety.

    This is the spirit of the Uluru statement that in May 2017 invited Australians to walk together on a journey of reconciliation. It asked for the establishment of a representative Indigenous body that would advise the parliament on laws, policies and programs that affect Indigenous people and to enshrine this voice to parliament in the Constitution. It is not a revolutionary concept.

    It is why the Uluru statement has majority public support according to opinion polls, and the backing of business organisations, trade unions, churches and faith groups, civic, sporting and charitable organisations and the legal community. It also has the support of every state and territory government, whether Labor, Liberal or Coalition.

    Megan Davis, the Balnaves chair in constitutional law at the University of NSW and co-chair of the Uluru Dialogue, explained in The Weekend Australian (“A voice of recognition”, July 16-17) that the journey towards a referendum began over a decade ago with many processes of consultation and multiple reports published. The voice has been developed over “three key processes” since 2017.

    “The idea that there is no meat on the bones of what a voice might look like is a furphy,” Davis wrote. “We can draw from the three processes a set of shared design principles for the formation and operation of the voice and a process that draws together best-practice engagement with our communities. This process should immediately follow a successful referendum so as to finalise the model according to a timetable set out in legislation.”

    This is a compelling argument. “Legislation never precedes the power,” Davis adds. “No constitutionally mandated institution exists where the legislation has preceded the creation of the power. All institutions created by a power have been constitutionally mandated. Why is this the one exercise of a power whereby the institution will be created before the power?”

    The other furphy, as Anthony Albanese said to me a few weeks ago, is that a consensus is needed before putting a referendum. This was the Scott Morrison position. “You don’t need a consensus but you need a broad agreement,” the Prime Minister said. “Firstly, among First Nations leaders and then, secondly, you would seek to get as broad a political agreement as possible for a referendum.” He will not grant the Coalition, which is unlikely to formally support the referendum, an effective veto.

    The same critics who attacked Albanese’s referendum position have attacked the voice, echoing the past three Liberal prime ministers who wrongly labelled it as a “third chamber”. They claim the Indigenous advisory body would have an effective veto on the parliament when in truth it would have no legal or constitutional authority to override parliament.

    The Uluru statement provides symbolic and practical reconciliation and recognition. It acknowledges and empowers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians with an advisory body that is formulated in legislation and subject to the parliament but enshrined in the Constitution. And it strengthens parliament’s mandate by providing a voice in the laws and policies that directly affect them.

  2. Franx says:
    19 July, 2022 at 1:45 am

    Ah, journeys towards something or another; beloved of all manner of confabs, secular and sacred.

  3. Entropy says:
    19 July, 2022 at 6:18 am

    At the heart of this is the sheer anti democratic nature of the whole thing.

  4. Buccaneer says:
    19 July, 2022 at 8:05 am

    The same critics who attacked Albanese’s referendum position have attacked the voice, echoing the past three Liberal prime ministers who wrongly labelled it as a “third chamber”. They claim the Indigenous advisory body would have an effective veto on the parliament when in truth it would have no legal or constitutional authority to override parliament.

    Because so many politicians have been prepared to stand up to accusations of racism. And that term is never used in pursuit of power.

  5. Not Trampis says:
    19 July, 2022 at 8:41 am

    Bramston is essentially right. There is no veto power. It aint a third chamber of power.
    I am sceptical of changing the constitution however. I remember 1967

  6. Tel says:
    19 July, 2022 at 8:49 am

    You don’t change the Constitution unless you are reconstituting how government operates … not a difficult concept.

    Australia is a parliamentary democracy, and every Australian has a voice already. The main threats are the slowly encroaching loss of individual privacy and free speech.

  7. Fat Tony says:
    19 July, 2022 at 8:58 am

    Just be more pigs gorging themselves at the tax-payer trough.

  8. Old School Conservative says:
    19 July, 2022 at 9:13 am

    Bramston’s argument is exactly the same as Pelosi’s “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
    With the same level of childish naivety.
    Sure, let’s give parliament a blank cheque!

  9. Baba says:
    19 July, 2022 at 9:27 am

    They fundamentally misunderstand the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

    Supporters of the Statement fundamentally misunderstand the nature of a bicameral parliament.

  10. Baba says:
    19 July, 2022 at 9:36 am

    The proposed Voice would disenfranchise indigenous people. The white ‘progressive’ consensus that a self-perpetuating, self-serving indigenous elite speak for all indigenous people is a significant cause of indigenous disadvantage.

  11. C.L. says:
    19 July, 2022 at 9:45 am

    The Australian is fanatically supporting the Third Chamber.
    Just as they fanatically supported Net Zero, lockdowns and Endess War with Russia.
    A truly wacko newspaper these days. Judith Sloan is the last sane person standing over there.

  12. Not Trampis says:
    19 July, 2022 at 10:20 am

    when we recognised aborigines it didn’t change how government operates. That was one part of the 1967 referendum proposals despite all major parties supporting all proposals.. The only one that got up.

    A fanatic charges that people who disagree with him are fanatics.

    you could not make this up. does not

    judith sloan a truly remarkable columnist. A person who claimed a long time ago the ALP government was not attempting budget repair until the kouk pointed out that none of her ‘figures’ came from budget documents. oops
    Said Bernie Fraser was anc ALP hack and was soft on fiscal and monetary policy.
    Fraser was Treasury secretary when Keating and Walsh put the budget into surplus and was RBA governor when he introduced an inflation target, put the cash rate to 18%. He also put up rates in 1995 to cut off inflationary expectations which Keating did not appreciate.

    Easy to see why CL thinks so highly of Sloan. She is as inaccurate as he is

  14. C.L. says:
    19 July, 2022 at 10:50 am

    Homer, you wouldn’t know an Aborigine if you tripped over one.

  15. Baba says:
    19 July, 2022 at 10:54 am

    Bernie Fraser an ALP hack? Perish the thought.

    Bernie Fraser GetUp! activist.

  16. Lee says:
    19 July, 2022 at 11:04 am

    The only reason they are hiding the details is because they are well aware that if the public knows them The Voice will be resoundingly voted down.
    For a journalist, Mavis Bramston is curiously very incurious.
    Trust a politician or the MSM?
    Nah, definitely not.

  17. NoFixedAddress says:
    19 July, 2022 at 11:04 am

    C.L. says:
    19 July, 2022 at 10:50 am

    Homer, you wouldn’t know an Aborigine if you tripped over one.

    ROFL

  18. Boambee John says:
    19 July, 2022 at 11:32 am

    Bramston is essentially right. There is no veto power. It aint a third chamber of power.

    Non Mentis is unaware of (or hopes that we are unaware of) the screeching harridans of the media and the whole indigenous “industry”. The first time that a democratically elected government (the latest iteration of which includes around ten indigenous “voices”) rejects one of the suggestions from an addirional Constitutionally entrenched “voice”, the noise will be heard beyond Mars.

  19. Boambee John says:
    19 July, 2022 at 11:36 am

    Non Mentis

    when we recognised aborigines it didn’t change how government operates.

    That isn’t what indigenous activists and their historically ignorant white parasites say. According to them it was a new dawn.

  20. Not Trampis says:
    19 July, 2022 at 12:40 pm

    I was born in bowraville your ignorant prat.

    Please note our primary school drop out cannot even find a veto power. Why there is none. Nor can he show how in 1967 government operations changed.

  21. Boambee John says:
    19 July, 2022 at 12:45 pm

    Non Mentis

    I was born in bowraville your ignorant prat.

    Demonstrate your genius, tell us all where I was born? Such arrogance and stupidity, to never tell where you were born, then complain that others don’t know that petty detail.

    No veto Power? You don’t know much about modern politics do you? Not all “veto” powers are written down.

  22. cuckoo says:
    19 July, 2022 at 1:03 pm

    I can write the referendum question now:

    Tick the statement which expresses your opinion:
    1. I want to do something nice for those poor aborigines
    or
    2. No, I’m a racist c__t

  23. cuckoo says:
    19 July, 2022 at 1:05 pm

    There is no veto power.

    As many have stated here already, just wait for the sh!tstorm that erupts the first time a Coalition government politely declines to accept the ‘advice’ of the Voice. Then be sure to remind me ‘there is no veto’.

  24. C.L. says:
    19 July, 2022 at 1:31 pm

    I was born in bowraville…

    Never heard of it.

  25. Boambee John says:
    19 July, 2022 at 1:39 pm

    CL

    Mid-north coast, inland of Nambucca Heads. Most [in]famous for a series of unsolved murders of local aborigines in the early 1990s.

  26. Lee says:
    19 July, 2022 at 2:16 pm

    Please note our primary school drop out cannot even find a veto power. Why there is none.

    Your assurances are about as credible as the gay lobby’s that gay marriage getting the go ahead would be the end of their activism.
    Since then we’ve had the Rainbow lifestyle and now transgenderism rammed down our throats 24/7, even if we couldn’t care less.

  27. NoFixedAddress says:
    19 July, 2022 at 2:37 pm

    not forgetting “The National Cabinet” instituted to deal with the dire emergency of the plague.

  28. jupes says:
    19 July, 2022 at 2:42 pm

    No voice to parliament will ever satisfy them.

    Well he got that right.

  29. Boambee John says:
    19 July, 2022 at 2:50 pm

    jupes

    He certainly did get that right. The number of aborigineal”voices” in the current Parliament is roughly in line with their relative (inflated) representation in the population.

  30. Tel says:
    19 July, 2022 at 8:02 pm

    The 1967 referendum in Australia resulted in a substantial transfer of power away from the states and towards the Commonwealth … in terms of both collecting data about indegenous populations and ruling over the same people. Yes, of course it changed how government operates.

    Is there anything you don’t get wrong? Should happen purely by accident at least now and then.

  31. Wally Dalí says:
    19 July, 2022 at 11:12 pm

    This is the spirit of the Uluru statement that in May 2017 invited Australians to walk together on a journey of reconciliation. It asked for the establishment of a representative Indigenous body that would advise the parliament on laws, policies and programs that affect Indigenous people and to enshrine this voice to parliament in the Constitution. It is not a revolutionary concept.

    It is why the Uluru statement has majority public support according to opinion polls, and the backing of business organisations, trade unions, churches and faith groups, civic, sporting and charitable organisations and the legal community. It also has the support of every state and territory government, whether Labor, Liberal or Coalition.

    Megan Davis, the Balnaves chair in constitutional law at the University of NSW and co-chair of the Uluru Dialogue, explained in The Weekend Australian (“A voice of recognition”, July 16-17) that the journey towards a referendum began over a decade ago with many processes of consultation and multiple reports published. The voice has been developed over “three key processes” since 2017.

    So, The Voice is a revolutionary concept, it is confessed to be the slow growth pre-determined outcome of a Gramscian slow march.
    It should be a reminder to us plebs to never trust the announcement of an enquiry, listening tour, consultation, summit, or “dialogue”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *