Australia @aussie.zone Ilandar @aussie.zone 1y ago

Linda Burney says there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by supporting the Voice

www.abc.net.au Linda Burney says there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by supporting the Voice

Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney names four priorities for the proposed Voice to Parliament in a speech to the National Press Club, after growing pressure to detail how it would benefit First Nations people.

You're viewing a single thread.

45 comments

There is nothing stopping her making a Voice right now, and showing what it can do. I'm really afriad Linda Burney is in an echo chamber and doesn't see the massive flaws.
- Not sure what you mean by that. How would she go about making a Voice on her own?
  
  By engaging with the existing representative body that has already been established - The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA).
  It employs 1,023 full time staff and manages a budget of $285M each year specifically for the purpose to "lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them."
  https://www.niaa.gov.au/who-we-are/the-agency
  
  True, didn't know that was a thing. I assume people who are leading the Voice movement don't find it to be sufficient enough -- I wonder why? I suppose because it has no constitutional recognition? But why not use the NIAA as a basis? Would be interesting to learn the reasoning there.
  
  Through parliament without a constitutional change. Or by making representation to the government on behalf of the aboriginal and Torres strait Islander peoples independently, as a unified body.
  
  I disagree. I think there are too many competing bodies to have one organically represent all. I think having it in the constitution adds gravitas and says that we as a society and country are listening.
- We've tried that, the LNP dismantles it the second they get into power.
  
  Are you a constitutional lawyer? If not, then I don't think you're qualified to talk about flaws in a constitutional amendment. Instead, listen to the ones who are (who overwhelmingly support it).
  
  It's not that simple. Each time that an agency was dismantled, it was always replaced by something else. If we were to look at the history:
  
  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission - established by Labor, dismantled by Liberals
  Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs - established by Liberals, dismantled by Labor
  Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination - established by Liberals, dismantled by Labor
  National Indigenous Council - established by Liberals, dismantled by Labor
  Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs - established by Labor, dismantled by Liberals
  Indigenous Advisory Council - established by Liberals and still exists
  National Indigenous Australians Agency - established by Liberals and still exists
  
  Looking back through the history, it could be argued that Abbott was responsible for the heaviest dismantling, but it wasn't really connected to election cycles.
  
  The current structure under the NIAA seems to be the most detailed, transparent, and accountable body that we have had so far. The Corporate Plan and Reconciliation Action Plan are worth a read. It definitely makes you wonder why we need a Voice when the plans, structure, and hierarchy is already in place.
  https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/niaa-rap-2022-25.pdf
  https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/niaa-corporate-plan-2022-23_0.pdf
  
  It definitely makes you wonder why we need a Voice when the plans, structure, and hierarchy is already in place.
  
  So that there is a permanent Aboriginal presence in govt that cannot be removed at the whims of the sitting govt. I know the wording says the composition and appointees can be determined by parliament but the body must always be there. The symbolism is the important part. Something visible, not hidden away amongst the various govt departments.
  
  Are you a lawyer? Have you read the actual wording of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023?
  
  The proposed amendment says:
  
  In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
  
  i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
  
  ii. 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;
  
  iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
  
  That last paragraph means that the government of the day can still functionaly gut the Voice by altering its "composition, functions, powers and procedures" and then ignoring its representations anyway.
  
  To me the only real value I see is the first paragraph, which formally acknowledges the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as First Peoples.
  
  Edit: typo, no one will be recognised as "Dirst Peoples"
  
  But what about Durst Peoples?
  
  They'll just keep rollin'.
  
  This constitutional amendment doesn’t do anything to prevent the Coalition dismantling it. There’s zero detail of its makeup, other than the existence of something called “The Voice”. If he had control in both houses, Dutton could simply redefine “The Voice” as being the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, and disband everything else.
  
  You can’t say “it’s so important that it can’t be left up to the government of the day to legislate it”, but when people ask “where’s the detail?” the answer is “the detail isn’t in the amendment because the government of the day will legislate it”.

45 comments