Within a very short space of time, we are going to be embroiled in a national discussion on constitutional change: namely, we are going to be asked if we favour First Nations people having a voice to our national parliament enshrined in our Constitution. The purpose of this article is not to take sides or to push one argument over another. Rather, it is to explore the options and the processes that contribute to a national constitutional referendum and to generate discussion.
Constitutional change in this country is fraught as the Constitution can only be amended by referendum, through the procedure set out in section 128. A successful referendum requires a ‘double majority’: a national majority of voters plus a federal majority of states (i.e. four of the six states).
The votes of those living in the ACT, the NT and any of Australia’s external territories count towards the national majority only.
Since 1901 there have been 19 referendums but of the forty-four referendum questions posed only eight have passed: The last constitutional referendum was for an Australian Republic held on 6 November 1999 – it failed. Usually, there are multiple questions to be resolved at each referendum – this time it appears there will only be one although it could be argued that there is some serious housekeeping necessary to tidy up our Constitution – perhaps that’s a question for another day.
Timing for a referendum is critical as is political consensus. Labor have already said that they favour a referendum in their first term and Pat Dodson, the special envoy for reconciliation and implementation of the Uluru Statement from the heart, favours a referendum on 27 May, 2023 – that is the 56th anniversary of the successful 1967 referendum allowing the commonwealth to make laws for Indigenous people and count them in the census, and the sixth anniversary of the Uluru statement.
So far the coalition has only said that it is open to supporting a referendum but wants to see more detail and the model to be put to the Australian people. This is a change in the position of the Morrison government. Indeed, Morrison ruled out a referendum quite specifically in the lead-up to the 2022 election; “It’s not our policy to have a referendum on the Voice” he told us. His minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, had favoured legislation for a voice and intimated that this would go before the parliament prior to the 2022 election but clearly, this didn’t occur as there was limited interest from coalition members and the then leadership.
The suggestion by Wyatt that a legislated voice, even as an interim measure, was shouted down by Aboriginal groups who generally considered that legislation was unsatisfactory and could be changed at a political whim and only an entrenchment in our Constitution would give any long-term certainty and continuity.
The road to constitutional change is not an easy one and the enabling legislation for a referendum has first to be passed by both houses of our parliament to set the process in motion. Already there are fears that not all parties are on the same page. Newly elected Country Liberal Party senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price a self-described Warlpiri-Celtic woman is suggesting caution on what she considers to be Labor’s policy on the Voice. She said recently that she was taking a cautious approach:
“We’ve got to understand what Labor proposes through this Voice process, and we’ve got to take a look at that before we take a clearer position on it, but I would certainly urge my colleagues to prioritise [more critical] issues,” she said.
“[The Voice] she said doesn’t clearly outline how in fact we’re going to solve some of our really critical issues, issues that I’ve been very much campaigning on for many years around family and domestic violence, around child sexual abuse, around education.”
The Greens are also taking a wait-and-see attitude and are suggesting that they would prefer to see “a truth-telling and treaty process begin before action on an Indigenous Voice”.
There has been considerable consultation over the past five years since the Uluru statement and this has produced the Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process report.
This report recommends that the Voice should comprise 24 elected members, with two drawn from each of the states and territories, two from the Torres Strait Islands, five additional remote representatives drawn from the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales, and one member representing Torres Strait Islanders on the mainland.
How much power, influence or authority this group would have on our government and parliament is not yet established but it is an advisory body and would not have a veto on our legislative process and would not be an additional chamber to our parliament as suggested by Malcolm Turnbull initially.
The Turnbull and Morrison governments demonstrated their then objection to a constitutional voice in saying:
“Our democracy is built on the foundation of all Australian citizens having equal civic rights … a constitutionally enshrined additional representative assembly for which only Indigenous Australians could vote for or serve in is inconsistent with this fundamental principle.”
If the Dutton opposition were to maintain this fundamental argument then, the referendum would have little chance of passing.
The form of question to be put to the Australian people will obviously be critical to the success of the referendum but it seems probable that the question will be posed in general terms with the detail and structure to follow in the form of legislation enacted through the parliament: ideally, this draft legislation would be available prior to the referendum so, there is a lot of work to be done if the May 2023 date it to be met.
The legislation governing the process for referendums in Australia is laid down in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1994. Among other provisions, this legislation, by section 8, sets out the procedure for presenting the ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments which need to be communicated to each elector prior to the referendum.
There are, of course, political risks for the Albanese government in the whole process and already some in the opposition are labelling the process as ‘Labor’s referendum’ which, of course, it isn’t. However, if the referendum were to fail or not receive bipartisan support the political fallout for the Albanese government could be damaging in its first term.
We shall see!
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
Love your title, Mr Mills,
Remove the second “h” and the constitution reference:
“Our democracy is built on the foundation of all Australian citizens having equal civic rights….”
is apt.
ps 23 gayview???
This constitution was a dud, defective, orchestrated, organised, pissupyapped, dealsandfixes, what’sinitforus., lawyers lunch and laugh, occasional hysteriatantrum, outburst, coverthearse document to plague us virtually forever, for we can hardly ever change this scribbled shit FOREVER. Where can we get a 2022m versionj? Nowhere. Could we all agree on this…(no)
@ Phil Pryor: I disagree. The Constitution was a well considered document after four Conventions in the 1890s (91,93,95,97) that FINALLY gave women the vote BUT disenfranchised all Aboriginals, thus beginning the state sponsored genocide polices of various states until 1967. There were other racist terrors to also control, especially the hard working Chinese who saw opportunity and pursued it more vigorously than the English.
The principal advocate against Aborigines was Isaac Isaacs, a lawyer from Beechworth Victoria who later became a judge on the AHC who disallowed an appeal against disenfranchisement by an Aboriginal man in a judge sitting alone decision. Isaacs later became Chief Justice.
Perhaps you might turn you talents to the High Court decision giving voters in the ACT and Northern Territory the vote in Federal elections, AND two seats each in the Senate; a decision written by Barwick CJ that is contrary to the literal reading of the Constitution.
Turnbull’s objection is disingenuous in the extreme; the Voice to Parliament was never intended as a legiislative body but as a major advisory group, considering effects of all existent and proposed legislation on Indigenous people.
The constitution definitely requires updating and clarification on many points, including the very concept of the Prime Minister. And getting rid of the ludicroous ties to the British throne.
Perhaps “The Voice” could be legislated in the first instance then, after a period of, say, 5 years go to a referendum. Let’s see how it works first then apply any tweaks based on worked experience.
I wonder that a 2-step approach might lead to a more successful permanent outcome. Just blue-skying here.
My replies keep disappearing! Cocky, you may be right and fresher in outlook, for I’d read it as the foreword to the Australian year book, only about 33 pages long and it seemed to me as more compromise than consideration, an orthodox view long ago (I studied more under Russell Ward at UNE). It has its merits and defects, certainly allowing assaults by lawyers and opening for common law re-interpretation over time. Perhaps every constitution everywhere (hah) should be regularly overhauled, but how, with what generosity and good will. As for Barwick, a distant cousin, I met him a few times but only talked family tree matters, not daring to the raising of certain issues like 1975. It is so ponderous to attemp to change it, despite the merits you endorse.
Ian Hughes, Your suggestion may be too sensible but I agree with you !
Leefe, have a look at section 59 of our Constitution :
Sure it’s dead Letter law now but it’s still there and that’s the point.
Johnny Howard wanted the position of prime minister recognised in the Constitution which in itself is an argument against such a move.
My view is that as the PM of the day is a creation of a political party and not directly elected by the people he or she has no place in the Constitution of Australia.
Cheers
Phil, I can’t see your comments out the back, so I don’t know what has been happening to them. Sometimes comments wrongly get caught up in the spam folder, but it’s not the case here.
One trick to try is to just write the first few words in your comment, then click on “Post comment”. If it goes through OK, then quickly click on “Edit” and add the rest of your comment then click on “Update”.
The same thing happened to Kaye Lee a year or so back, as well as to me, but we fixed it by doing the above. Things went back to normal very quickly.
To M T, I’m sorry to trouble you as it must be my old and clumsy fingers hitting areas not safe…and more of this has happened recently. Something half way done goes, and no search on this thing finds it. It’s great editing and recomposing practice, but, not the fault of your end, P (also, I stay out more now as little “conversations:” go on.., and on.)
Phil, I enjoy your commentary. Comment away at your heart’s content.
It will always remain a mystery as to why a person’s comment disappears like that. We have trigger words (such as c*nt) that send a comment straight to the trash bin from where we either edit it (and publish) or delete the comment if it’s from an abusive troll.
But I have no idea why a comment will disappear altogether after it has been posted. Fortunately, it is very, very very rare.
I offer my apologies for this happening to you.
@ Phil Pryor: Professor Russell Ward instilled in many generations of UNE and Wright College students an understanding of the self-serving nature of the ”borne-to-rule class in Australia. He was partly responsible for the admin Boolacrats unsuccessfully trying to close Wright College on three occasions, each repelled by the students guided by his, and other, older democratic heads.
Barwick CJ was regarded as an excellent lawyer before his promotion to the Bench. However, too many served the government of the day excpet Whitlam (ALP) and he was proving too entrenched for bothe the ”borne-to-rules” anf the American government which was at that time organising political coups in any country having a democratically elected democratic government.
Ah, Cocky, old days and memories. I managed a good distinction under Ward and later went on to a Syd Uni Masters, the last pass one by research thesis. (on New Italy). He was a beauty, clear, and there were others. I stayed a few times in Wright, and it was under threat then. (c. 1969) As for Barwick, a descendent of one of my great great uncles, (three Pryors married with three Ellicotts, who led to the Barwicks) while he was always a conservative type, the real USA threat to Whitlam came from Rex Connor’s efforts to raise huge funds to buy Australia back from corporate ravaging control, which would have been a big setback to USA world strategic planning. We could have, for the first and only time, been an independent, wealthy, happy nation.
I will continue to do updates as the discussion develops on the proposed referendum for an Aboriginal voice to parliament. I will try to capture comments and announcements from all sides as they occur so that we have a trove of data upon which to reflect as we move towards the referendum, scheduled for May 2023.
This from Tony Abbott on Friday 22 July 2022 :
Then there is this interview today on ABC RN Breakfast with Mark Leibler co-chair Expert Panel and the Referendum Council on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, trying to set the record straight :
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/what-should-the-voice-to-parliament-referendum-look-like/13987330
“Constitution can only be amended by referendum”, which in a perfect world would allow society to improve upon itself.
However, a bunch of grifters hanging out at the WHO, have taken it upon themselves to overlay our Constitution with a Pandemic instrument that in their eyes should be legally binding. Get ready to kiss the Constitution goodbye.
I believe our pollies are dumb enough to sign-on sight unseen, walking into the final trap.
https://www.who.int/news/item/21-07-2022-pandemic-instrument-should-be-legally-binding–inb-meeting-concludes
The Aus MSM has not told anyone to date (that I’m aware of) that Chief Grifter Tedros ruled unilaterally that moneypox be declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC, pronounced FAKE) last week even though “nine members against and six in favour of the declaration”. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/monkeypox-outbreak-constitutes-global-health-emergency-who-2022-07-23/
At what point will the media in this country begin to get to to the point of any matter and relay facts to the audience?
Yes, I agree, never.
It seems that with the opening of the 47th parliament lines are being drawn in the sand with both those in favour of a “voice” and a referendum to change the constitution and those opposed accusing each other of racism.
The early indications are that the coalition will retain the Morrison policy of opposition to a referendum and without bipartisanship, the promise of a referendum in May next year starts to recede.
This from the SMH : https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/indigenous-voice-could-drive-a-wedge-between-australians-price-20220727-p5b524.html
For those following these discussions, here is Marcia Langton talking to Patricia Karvelas on ABC Radio National on Friday 29 July 2022 :
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/marcia-langton-says-details-on-the-voice-to-parliament/13993960
A lot to digest !
Saturday 30 July 2022
The question that will be asked of the Australian people at the forthcoming Constitutional Referendum will be kept simple :
“Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?”
The words that will feature in our Constitution will be :
There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
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
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.
This was released by PM Albanese at the Garma festival. Already there are those who are not happy with the parliament controlling all aspects of the Voice so this might not be the final form of words but it is considered the next step in the discussion.
Anticipate that the coalition and others will question if we need a referendum at all when the parliament will make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
A way to go yet !
Am I right in remembering that the last referendum to get the “yes” vote was the one on Aboriginal citizenship in 1967?
Michael
There was some constitutional housekeeping done in 1977:
to allow the Territories to vote in referendums :
the retirement age of judges – now 70 was a lifetime appointment :
senate casual vacancies – after Joh’s controversial appointment of Albert Field to replace a Labor senator. Now a casual vacancy has to be filled by somebody of the same party as the previous senator s.15.
These were approved by referendum.
The most recent referendums, on a Republic and a Constitutional preamble, were defeated in 1999.
The 1967 referendum on Indigenous Australians was remarkable in that the vote in favour was over ninety percent.
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.
The devil as always is in the detail.Various Aboriginal activists and commentators are saying that they are not prepared to let the parliament take over the structure of the Voice as intimated in the initial proposals delivered by Albanese.
They will, of course, have input to the composition, functions, powers and procedures but they must accept, in my view, that it must be left to the elected parliament to legislate the details. Otherwise you could be looking at the much discredited ‘third chamber’ in our parliament.
A date for the referendum remains open as does the question of funding for both a Yes and No campaign.
Jacinta Price driving home the wedge :
Ms Price appears to stand for everything her fellow First Nations People don’t.
Warren Mundine has come out to Newscorp papers and SKY opposing a referendum for the voice.
It seems that the Murdoch media want to sink the referendum not because it’s a bad thing but because they want to see the Labor government defeated in everything.
Can Senator Price remind us how long she has spent on that gravy train, and exactly what she achieved to the betterment of the most marginalised?
Voice to Parliament ‘wrong in principle’, bad in practice: Tony Abbott
The proposed constitutionally entrenched Voice to Parliament is wrong in principle and will work out badly in practice, former prime minister Tony Abbott says.
“I don’t believe that we need a constitutional change if we are to have a voice and certainly I don’t think there’s any lack of consultation already,” Mr Abbott told Sky News host Peta Credlin.
“If anything, I think the problem is consultation paralysis when it comes to policy.
“And the biggest issue in Indigenous affairs is the fact that all too often we’re unwilling to apply the same standards to Indigenous people and to expect the same responsibility … that’s applied and expected more generally in the Australian community.”
Sadly this seems to be turning into a Right/Left issue.
There seems to be a tension building between those who are saying that the legislation that will give the Voice some structure needs to be on the table prior to the Referendum taking place.
We know that the proposed change to the Constitution places the entire responsibility and authority with the Parliament to design and enact the body and structure of what the Voice actually means :
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.
Albanese has today sought to quell fears raised by the likes of Pauline Hanson that the voice will be used as a veto power over the parliament to stifle legislation and has clarified that monetary reparations to aboriginal people was never contemplated and is not part of the Voice.
I’m starting to lean in favour of seeing the draft legislation before we vote.
What do you think ?
Terry, I saw Pauline Hanson’s statement about the vote. Apparently, according to Pauline, this is not in the best interests for Aboriginal Australians.
The irony was lost on her.
Since when has she shown a morsel of respect to Indigenous Australians? Now, coincidentally, but for all the wrong reasons.
Abbott says “bad”, therefore it must be good. This is the value of Abbott’s ongoing input into public affairs.
Michael
I wonder who writes Hanson’s speeches [perhaps she gets them from CHEGG] frequently she has trouble pronouncing some of the words if they are more than one syllable and she stumbles over sentences, grammar and punctuation. But, if there is a bandwagon Hanson will hop on it no matter where it’s going.
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is a business enterprise and doing very nicely on the public teat thank you very much !
Terry, whoever it is, he/she has tapped into Pauline’s black heart.
Tom Calma (and Jacinta Price) both point out that the substantive areas of indigenous disadvantage are the responsibility of State and Territory governments :
“When we look at education, employment, health service delivery, all of that takes place under a state or territory jurisdictional level, supplemented by funding from the Commonwealth. It’s administered through the states and territories by and large.”
Professor Tom Calma AO
Co-Chair, Senior Advisory Group on The Voice
This is a relevant consideration.
Pauline Hanson has announced her intention to spearhead the campaign against the Voice to Parliament during next year’s referendum. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph’s James Morrow (Sky- after-Dark spruiker and ardent fan for Donald Trump’s re-election to the presidency), Hanson said that her office had registered 46 website domains in preparation for her campaign.
Hanson mentioned VoicetoParliament.com.au and Ulurustatement.com.au as two of the domains. Others include 39 relevant domains registered by One Nation all centred round notovoice.com.au, saynotovoice.com.au and more.
Why would she go to all this trouble to register all these website domains ? Your guess is as good as mine but one possibility is to cause confusion and the other is the prospect of the government funding both the YES and NO campaigns. She may also be planning to sell off the domain names – never one to miss an opportunity to make a quid, our Pauline.
PS: the websites don’t appear to be operational.
Terry, I understand that a number of the websites have been shut down because they breached naming standards (or something like that… I don’t know the technical explanation).
Miichael
It may have been an attempt by the Hanson group to cause confusion by registering so many domain names.
This is a legitimate site not connected to Hanson : https://fromtheheart.com.au/about/our-people/
Hanson seemed OK with the “Welcome to Country” ceremony every day she was in the Senate but suddenly she wasn’t.
It’s got little to do with the proposed referendum but everything to do with being a frequent attention-seeker, particularly after the drop in the One Nation vote and now she’s pushed her way to the front of the argument.
The burqa-wearing stunt in the Chamber a few years ago (which was copied from a US politician) was another one but like the Halal accreditation scare campaign, got no lasting traction. She’ll be reminding us of her presence all the way to the referendum.
It seems that the discussion is narrowing down to two schools of thought, not necessarily Left or Right.
There is the one school, favoured by the government, that first there should be a referendum in broad terms to ask the Australian people to approve a ‘voice’ to the parliament as a general principle and when this has been passed the parliament will fill in the gaps of how it will work, with legislation.
The other group insist that first the draft legislation be placed before the Australian people before the referendum and then the referendum authorise the voice in the terms of the legislation – to be fair, this group are also concerned that the legislation will, as is the case with all legislation, be available to any future government to change as they see fit. Which in their view defeats the purpose of constitutional entrenchment in the first place.
Senator Jacinta Price in her interview with Peter FitzSimon appears to have this view and whilst she is said to be against a ‘voice’ and considers that it could be divisive she did make the point to Fitz :
“we still haven’t seen the detail. How can we vote for something when we don’t know what it looks like?”
The interview was quite informative but Newscorp and Sky decided to politicise it and get in a crack against FitzSimon and his employer.
This I understand is the full interview, verbatim :
https://www.smh.com.au/national/we-are-not-a-separate-entity-we-are-all-just-australians-senator-defends-her-opposition-to-the-voice-20220805-p5b7i9.html
I see the vile Precambrian slime has bubbled and burbled again:
@1.48 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2022/aug/18/scott-morrison-david-hurley-governor-general-anthony-albanese-indigenous-voice-australian-politics-climate-emissions-industry
The New York Times attempted to explain The Voice to an American readership but it didn’t start well :
MELBOURNE, Australia — When Capt. James Cook sailed to Australia in 1788, he did so with instructions that he should “show every kind of civility and regard” to the land’s Indigenous people and get their consent before possessing their land. He did neither.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/28/world/australia/voice-to-parliament-referendum.html
In the meantime Sky-after-Dark favourite Jacinda Price continues to talk down the Voice referendum :
“According to the recent census, Indigenous Australians account for 3.2 per cent of the population – they now make up 4.5 per cent of the Australian Federal Parliament.
You don’t need a constitutionally mandated representation for a group over represented in Parliament.”
It’s not looking good for a referendum in 2023 with the Greens now looking as though they’ll align with far-right fringe dwellers like One Nation, and racist dead-enders in the Coalition, in opposing a Voice referendum .
Greens’ Senator Lidia Thorpe who has aboriginal heritage has adopted a hardline position against the Voice referendum as has Liberal senator Jacinta Price.
Lidia Thorpe has become a very vocal Greens spokesperson and has made clear either way that the Greens will not be supporting a referendum in 2023, saying the government is “kidding themselves to think that they’re going to a referendum next year”.
Peter Dutton is still sitting on the fence but there is no doubt that he would dearly like to defeat what he calls Labor’s referendum.
Not sure if the Shaq O’Neal intervention has really helped or not.
Without strong support in the parliament the referendum has little chance of getting up and with the Greens, One Nation already coming out against it and the coalition not committing I can’t see an upside for Albanese.
Terry, referendums don’t have to be passed in the Senate. Passing the Lower House is all that is needed.
Roswell, the legislation that authorises the referendum is conducted according to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. If the bill is approved by an absolute majority of both houses, the Constitution provides that it must then be submitted to the electors no less than two months but no later than six months after passage.
Incidentally, I note that Dr Hannah McGlade, a Curtin University legal academic and member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, says Senators Jacinta Price and Lidia Thorpe’s critiques are damaging the “yes” cause and the government needs to show it has a strategy in train”.
“It is very disappointing and concerning that we now have a ‘no’ campaign clearly in action involving two Aboriginal women senators,” McGlade says.
“I would have thought that Minister Burney would have called a roundtable of Indigenous leadership at this point. They have to properly strategise and resource this campaign because these loud voices of opposition seem to be dominating public discourse.”
I agree with Dr McGlade, if they can’t speak with one voice within the parliament then Albanese should abandon the referendum until a consensus can be achieved.
Thanks, Terry. I reckon your understanding of this outstrips mine.
A rather confusing panel discussion on SKY last night (Sunday 4 September) . It was moderated by Chris Kenny and included Andrew Bolt and Jacinda Price.
A disturbing aspect of this discussion was the introduction of ‘who has the voice, who is an aboriginal person’ ?
The 2021 census found that 812,728 people (3.2 per cent of the population) identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, an increase of over 25 per cent (25.2 per cent) since 2016.
Jacinta Price is worried that this ‘new aboriginal’ group, many of whom have only incidental links to the indigenous population, will hijack the Voice for political gain.
Advertisements have started to appear in our print media and on television under the banner of History is Calling supporting a YES vote for the referendum on The Voice. The advertisements are funded – at least that’s the way it seems – by the Uluru Dialogue Group an advocacy group based at the University of NSW Indigenous Law Centre, who run education programs and projects to advance the work of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Professor Megan Davis is a co-chair for the Uluru Dialogue Group, she is also Pro vice-Chancellor, Indigenous at UNSW.
Funding of YES and NO cases by the government can only take place once the legislation to hold a referendum has passed both Houses : which has not yet occurred in the case of The Voice referendum.
There are no statutory provisions for the government to spend any money on the referendum yes and no arguments, except to fund the Australian Electoral Commission to print and distribute information pamphlets.
The government of the day will frequently enact special legislation prior to a referendum to allow government funding promoting the referendum by ‘educating the public’.
In the 1999 referendum on a Republic the Howard Government legislated ahead of the referendum to provide funding for a $4.5 million ‘neutral’ public education campaign and $15 million to be divided equally among the yes and no campaigns.
In the 2013 referendum on local government recognition (that didn’t go ahead) the government announced that $10 million in funding would be allocated to the yes campaign, but only $500,000 to the no campaign.
Already there are murmurings from those opposed to the ‘voice’ referendum for funding to promote their case but as the current advertisements are not a government funded campaign they will have to find private funding until such time as a referendum act is passed and formal government funding approved – if at all.
Still no firm date has been set for the referendum and it seems that the date originally suggested, 27 May 2023 ( the 56th anniversary of the successful 1967 referendum allowing the commonwealth to make laws for Indigenous people and count them in the census, and the sixth anniversary of the Uluru statement) is unlikely to be met unless they get a move on.
The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) get together in Sydney has displayed all of the worst features and people of Australia’s Conservative Right and they are rallying for a fight to defeat the Voice referendum.
Tony Abbott as a keynote speaker said the voice was unnecessary because more Indigenous people could be elected to parliament, and claimed it would “offend the sacred principle that every individual has equal rights and responsibilities”.
He joined a panel with former Liberal senator Amanda Stoker, who claimed the voice to parliament would “fundamentally divide Australians into groups of different rights” : “It’s a terrifying thing,” Stoker said.
Abbott acknowledged Indigenous people had been mistreated in Australia at points in history, but said he did not view the voice as a remedy. “Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because there may have been institutional discrimination in the past is no reason to institutionalise discrimination in the present and future,” he said.
Senator Jacinta Yangapi Nampijinpa Price – the newly elected senator for the Northern Territory – called the voice “a terrible idea” and described it as an attempt to create “racial separatism”.
Professional spokesman on all matters aboriginal, Warren Mundine – the former Coalition candidate and former president of the Labor party – said in a panel discussion that the voice was “a solution looking for a problem”.
It seems that the right-wing of politics are building up resistance to the Voice in an effort to damage Albanese by having the referendum fail – Albanese in the meantime has said, somewhat confusingly, that the referendum will take place in the next financial year i.e between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024.
PS : CPAC Australia also featured a keynote address from rent-a-conservative favourite, Nigel Farage and in their delegate’s show-bag you will get a coffee mug featuring Margaret Thatcher’s image. There was also a cardboard cut out of Donald Trump to have your photo taken with.
See what you’re missing ?
As Terence observes, CPAC is off and running at the orifice, with many speakers who have something in common.., they have never worked, never succeeded, have bludged off life by streams of verbal effluent, have asserted they exist to be noticed and admired.., for sweet fanny adams. Farage, a right wing Disneyish Dickhead and Abbott, the Manly Mental Masturbator…
On analysis the thrust of the CPAC approach on the Voice and the basis on which they will build the ‘NO’ case seems to be that to introduce an amendment to our Constitution that favours one ethnic group over other ethnic groups is fundamentally discriminatory.
That could be a powerful argument.
What do you think ?
There is a push on by the ‘No’ campaign to secure government funding for their push to advance their No arguments.
At the present time there would need to be specific legislation to authorise the government to provide funding for either Yes or No campaigns.
The existing limitations are contained in section 11 (4) of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. Before any additional funds could be allocated to the for and against arguments they would need to be legislated as would the legislation authorising the referendum.
I think it is fair to say that the government are reluctant to agree to allocate funding at this stage and Mark Dreyfus dodged the question at the National Press Club on Wednesday.
The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2022C00073
The Greens seem to be recovering from a shambolic week on their attitude to the referendum for a ‘Voice’
Aboriginal spokesperson for the Greens, senator Lidia Thorpe had originally said that the referendum was a waste of money which could be better spent elsewhere : she now accepts that you can’t change our constitution without a referendum but she wants the Albanese government to make “concrete progress” on the other parts of the Uluru statement from the heart before publicly supporting the voice.
Cost has now been swept aside as Greens leader Adam Bandt and senator Lidia Thorpe have united to call on Labor to spend $161 million in this month’s budget on a national truth and justice commission and to promote a federal treaty with Indigenous Australians.
So, it seems that the Greens are supporting the referendum for the Voice……………I think !
The Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process report recommended that the Voice should comprise 24 elected members, with two drawn from each of the states and territories, two from the Torres Strait Islands, five additional remote representatives drawn from the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales, and one member representing Torres Strait Islanders on the mainland.
This proposal has not been endorsed by the Albanese government and is already causing concern with some first nations commentators who have likened it to a group of elite lobbyists who will be well paid and potentially open to pressure from various groups with an agenda.
The SBS broadcast Insight hosted by Karla Grant focused on aboriginal identity and the increase in people identifying as aboriginal :
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/video/aboriginality-claim-rejected-by-some/9s3q3bb9f
According to The Guardian
‘The government has set up three separate expert groups around the proposed referendum, including a working group, an engagement group, and the constitutional group. The latter – including Uluru statement from the heart co-chair Megan Davis, Indigenous leader Noel Pearson, University of Sydney academics Anne Twomey and George Williams among others – met for the first time on 28 October. Following a working group meeting the same day, Burney’s office issued a communique saying the group supported changes to bring the Referendum Act “into line with the Electoral Act”.’
Interestingly it has been reported that “Government sources said it may be unlikely the government would fund a No campaign, suggesting no public funding for either side was a likely outcome.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/09/not-fit-for-purpose-government-looks-to-amend-antiquated-referendum-laws-ahead-of-voice-vote
The question of identifying who is Aboriginal continues to simmer with One Nation’s Mark Latham maintaining that One Nation plans to introduce reforms to “tighten the eligibility rules for Aboriginal identity” in Australia, which would “require DNA evidence of at least 25 per cent Indigenous – the equivalent of one fully Aboriginal grandparent.
This reflects the views of senatorJacinta Price who is worried that this ‘new aboriginal’ group, many of whom have only incidental links to the indigenous population, will hijack the Voice for political gain.
The latest from the coalition seems to be a vague move towards not having a view on the Voice. Liberals are expected to give their MPs freedom to campaign as they wish on the Voice, for or against depending on which way the wind is blowing.
John Howard said this week that “Among people I see as part of the Liberal base I don’t find any reaction to the Voice other than one of hostility. I haven’t found anybody who accepts the proposition that you ought to just give it a go. Not everyone talks about it. But those who talk towards not having a view on the Voice about it are critical.”
This campaign to change our Constitution is going to be very political and it appears that the coalition will adopt any position as long as it will damage the Albanese government.
Not a good start !
The Nationals are out !
As it happened, the National Party have decided that they will not support a Voice to parliament : so it looks as though (see last post) the Conservative side of politics is out which, potentially sinks the referendum.
Disappointing, but unsurprising, Terry.
A political party that receives bugger-all votes gets the final say.
I presume everybody has watched https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-series/the-australian-wars. So there is a range of opinions that encompass “didn’t get the job done” (vis. unfortunately didn’t complete the genocide) to “And you have the hide to say that you’ve brought civilisation to Australia” (vis. because complete genocide was not achieved there are still people alive that care about the false claim of Terra nullius, state sanctioned murder/genocide, that never gave up their lands and now want a say in their future). The murder (war) happened and is documented in “official” records. Truth telling is important and the likes of the Nats and One Nation just don’t get it… they continually demonstrate their tenuous grasp on reality – see per above re: the voice.
Fred
The Nats will be virtue signalling today as the media try to catch up with their decision making rationale. The Nats will say that Aboriginal people don’t need a voice, that it’s divisive.
They will say there are more important issues than constitutional recognition, that healthcare (fifty percent of kids in remote communities have ‘glue ear’ ), education (nationwide, 45% to 65% of Aboriginal adults and children are functionally illiterate), housing (overcrowding leads to many of the adverse health outcomes), violence against women (Indigenous women are 10 times more likely to be killed by domestic violence than non-Indigenous women).
The Nats will blame all of this on the Labor governments (both state and federal).
The Nats will ignore that they were in coalition government for close to ten years when all of these issues were ignored.
What is the point of the National Party ?
PS: the media conference called by Littleproud and his gang had one notable omission : Barnaby was missing !
TM: Good question – what is the point of the Nats? Being made up of space dust they carry useful atomic material, but they seem to occupy part of the space time continuum that has as much relevance to Australia as material in the Kuiper belt.
Ken Wyatt former Aboriginal Affairs minister was on ABC radio this morning and was critical of the Nationals and others for saying they had insufficient detail on the Voice after he had taken the Voice Co-Design process report to the Morrison Cabinet on two occasions with no response or any real interest.
This is the report which was referred to in my original post.
https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf
The Nationals need to explain themselves because it seems that by coming out prematurely against the Voice and saying that there is insufficient detail they are shooting themselves in the foot.
It was pathetic that they rolled out Jacinta Nampijinta Price in front of every camera to shout “No”.
They assumed that using a First Nations person will give the “No” vote some credibility.
She’d be in a very small minority of First Nations people who are against the Voice.
There is one good argument against starting the iimplementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart with the Voice to parliament, and that is that it may (probably legally would be considered to) effectively cede sovereignty.
So, unless the wordiing of the act establishing the Voice clearly says that it does not and can not be considered do so, I’d rather Treaty first.
And I’d have a lot more time for Price if she followed that liine of reasoning in her rejection of the idea, rather than blathering on about anything else and adding all the bullshiit bullying claims. She’s a willing shill for the LNP, unfortunately.
With the National Party digging in and saying that they will not support a Voice to Parliament much now rests with the Liberal Party if there is any chance for this referendum having a bipartisan chance of getting up.
Peter Dutton says he wants more detail before committing yet Albanese was adamant last week in saying the way the Voice will work “will be determined by legislation once the constitution is amended”. This response is proving to be a sticking point for the Liberals and won’t be adequate for many undecided voters.
There won’t be funding for Yes and No campaigns and there will not be the customary pamphlet prepared by the government prior to the referendum and explaining the Yes and No cases. What the government will do is to “fund educational campaigns to promote voters’ understanding of referendums and the referendum proposal” : that, we are told, will be done in an impartial way – good luck with that.
Yet another group is suggesting that, whilst recognition of Aboriginal people in the Constitution is the right thing to do, it should also embrace and celebrate the contribution to this nation of migrants and immigration to avoid being labelled a racist and divisive referendum.
They may have a point !
Warren Mundine, who has been outspoken against the Voice referendum, has today said that he would prefer to see the Voice legislated initially and constitutional amendment looked into down the track.
Back in January, Ian Hughes made the same observation on this site :
“Perhaps “The Voice” could be legislated in the first instance then, after a period of, say, 5 years go to a referendum. Let’s see how it works first then apply any tweaks based on worked experience.
I wonder that a 2-step approach might lead to a more successful permanent outcome. Just blue-skying here.”
Mundine and Jacinta Price whilst opposing the referendum as being tokenistic agree that there is an urgent need to address the problems facing Aboriginal communities, namely : healthcare, education outcomes, domestic violence and housing, just for starters.
Terry, we can thank Howard for the present day failures. I don’t have the info at hand, but when he took healthcare away from ATSIC and gave it to the Dept of Health, the health statistics of ATSI people went downhill.
And when he closed ATSIC altogether in 2005, we said goodbye to some damn good programs in domestic violence and housing.
Earlier, when he cancelled CDEP (Community Development Employment Programs) I noticed that the number of Indigenous Australians applying for the Disability Support Pension because of mental health issues skyrocketed. (I can vouch for that one as I was doing the statistics).
MT:
That’s a big part of why I still rank him as our worst ever PM
It’s LJH to the core. Deceitful, opportunistic, racist, misogynistic, bigoted, entitled jerk who remade the Liberal Party in his image and loves the direction they’re taking.
leefe,
Within ATSIC John Howard had access to dozens of outstanding policy officers with an understanding and appreciation of Indigenous needs issues.
But what would Howard do?
He’d act on whatever hair-brained solution (??) or slander of Indigenous people that made the editorial in The Australian.
Despite the National Party opposing the Voice and various activists condemning the referendum, eight of Australia’s most respected constitutional scholars have issued a statement saying that the proposed Voice would have no veto power over parliament or executive government, and would not confer any special rights on any group of Australian citizens, no matter their ethnicity.
The Constitutional Expert Group, made up of Kenneth Hayne, Megan Davis, Noel Pearson, Asmi Wood, Anne Twomey, George Williams, Greg Craven and Cheryl Saunders see the role of the twenty four elected members of the ‘Voice’ as focusing their energies specifically on matters of significant aboriginal disadvantage including, education out comes, community violence and rates of incarceration, housing, health services, employment, youth detention, child protection, and justice.
That’s probably enough to be getting on with !
Prime Minister Albanese announced at the Woodford Folk Festival that the referendum will take place during calendar 2023.
Expect a full-on government funded ‘education campaign’ but there will be no public funding for an opposition campaign.
The National Party continue to be opposed to the ‘Voice’ despite objections to that position within the party and the Liberal party continue to sit on the fence.
That’s all for now but I’ll endeavour to update as developments occur.
Timeline for the Referendum from the SMH :
‘Linda Burney confirmed the enabling legislation will be introduced to parliament “sometime in March” before it goes to a parliamentary committee to scrutinise for six weeks.
The government would then aim to pass the legislation through parliament in May, allowing the public vote to be held as early as August – although it could be held as late as November.’
The nuts and bolts of the Voice are starting to receive some attention, and probably not before time.
We know that preferred model for the representative body will be made up of twenty-four elected members from around the country but their term of office has not yet been determined. The emphasis will need to be on ensuring that the representative body is regularly refreshed to avoid these positions – which will be well remunerated – becoming entrenched by individuals or family groups. The proposals on the table at the present time appear to be :
The proposals
There are two options proposed by the National Co-design Group for term lengths for National Voice members.
Importantly, under both options, a person could not serve more than two back-to-back terms as a National Voice member.
Option 1 – Four year terms
This option would give National Voice members a term of four years.
Terms would be staggered, which would see half of the National Voice positions be open for selection every two years.
This would ensure the National Voice is stable with only half of the membership refreshed at a time.
There would always be current members with a good understanding of the work of the National Voice and familiar with how it operates.
This option would also see current and experienced National Voice able to brief an incoming Australian Government after a federal election.
Option 2 – Three year terms
This option would give National Voice members a term of three years.
Terms would not be staggered with this option.
All National Voice positions would be open for selection at once, every three years.
In addition to the elected representative members there will be support staff making up a dedicated bureaucracy both in Canberra and personnel at regional locations and of course there will be offices to rent in regional areas and presumably a central Canberra office plus all the trappings that go with a government funded gravy train: including travel expenses and ‘living away from home’ allowances etc.
Is there any wonder the government are showing some reluctance to dive into the detail but they are going to have to address the detail before the referendum.
@ Terence Mills: ”What is the point of the National Party ?”
.
1) To maintain the agricultural industries as a socialist enterprise securely attached to the teat of government funding to subsidise the way of life that the properties are unable to provide.
.
2) To insure that MDB water remains the ”property” of a few broad acre landholders to the detriment of everybody else especially metropolitan residents living downstream from about Dubbo.
.
3) To provide every kind of subsidy that can be imagined to keep the landholders in the manner to which they believe they are entitled to be kept.
.
4) To maintain the ”Nazional$ Family Values” of adultery, alcoholism, amorality, bigotry, cronyism, deception, fornication & misogyny. Think Beetrooter Joyce.
.
Why do Tamworth women support the Nazional$ and their values? At the 2023 NSW elections vote anyone but Nazional$ and find yourself a future in the 21st century.
Reference has been made in recent days to the lack of information on the proposed referendum and the supporting legislation. The government have pointed to the various working groups that have been set up to advise government and inform the public ; the question is, can you have too many working groups ?
I had uploaded all the people attached to these working and consultative groups but now realise there are just too many to include to make the post coherent
A few odd comments made in recent days, mainly about the composition of the elected representatives comprising the Voice.
There will be twenty four representatives elected in their respective regional communities. It has been stated that these representatives will be ‘gender and age’ balanced. How do you do that ? Can you reject a candidate if he or she doesn’t fit the ‘balance’ and who establishes what the balance is ?
It seems that only registered and verified first nations people will be permitted to vote. But who determines if a prospective voter is a “registered” aboriginal person. Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has asked if DNA testing will be adopted and she raises the implications of racism when you determine voting entitlements based on race .
These and other ‘nuts & bolts’ question will have to be answered.
Following on to the above comment of mine, I have listed here the fifteen questions that Peter Dutton has asked of the government in an open letter to Albanese.
1.Who will be eligible to serve on the body
2.What are the prerequisites for nomination?
3.Will the Government clarify the definition of Aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body?
4.How will members be elected, chosen or appointed?
5.How many people will make up the body
6.How much will it cost taxpayers annually?
7.What are its functions and powers?
8.Is it purely advisory or will it have decision-making capabilities?
9.Who will oversee the body and ensure it is accountable?
10.If needed, can the body be dissolved and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances?
11.How will the Government ensure that the body includes those who still need to get a platform in Australian public life?
12.How will it interact with the Closing of the Gap process?
13.Will the Government rule out using the Voice to negotiate any national treaty?
14.Will the Government commit to Local and Regional Voices, as recommended in the report on the co-design process led by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton?
15.If not, how will it effectively address the real issues that impact people’s lives daily on the ground in the community?
Some of these questions have already been answered in the Calma/Langton Report but that report has not yet been formally adopted by the government. Some of the questions do not need to be answered prior to the planned referendum but some obviously do.
What do you think ?
During the week, Anthony Albanese had an interview with Ben Fordham on 2GB answering (or not answering) questions concerning the Voice.
The PM was asked if he would still legislate a Voice if the referendum failed : he dodged the question but seemed to concede that the matter would not proceed without constitutional recognition.
He was also asked if the nominated representatives (twenty-four drawn from around the country comprising the ‘Voice’) would be appointed or elected. He was vague on this fundamental point but seemed to say that the body would, as anticipated by the Langton/Calma report, be elected.
The problem he is trying to avoid is the inevitable question of how a separate electoral roll can be drawn up for one group of Australians of one ethnicity and who determines if a prospective voter is in fact of that ethnicity (i.e. an aboriginal Australian) – an issue that Jacinta Price and others have also raised.
This is the interview which can only be described as a train smash by an under prepared prime minister :
I had a conversation with an overseas visitor (from the UK) the other day.
He could not understand what the referendum was all about and why it was so controversial. I explained that the only way we can change our constitution is by way of a referendum.
He responded that as he understood the issue it was about the creation of a Lobby Group and he couldn’t understand what the fuss was all about.
I Googled Lobby Group and it reads :
Lobbying: any attempt by individuals or private interest groups to influence the decisions of government; in its original meaning it referred to efforts to influence the votes of legislators, generally in the lobby outside the legislative chamber. Lobbying in some form is inevitable in any political system.
Hmmm ! I have to think about that : maybe that’s all we are talking about, a publicly funded Lobby Group who will roam the corridors of power promoting issues on behalf of the first Australians.
Are we muddying the waters ?
Talking of muddying the waters, the NO advocates have now come out with a campaign not to recognise the Voice to parliament but to recognise Aboriginal people as the first settlers on this continent AND to recognise the contribution of subsequent migration.
Warren Mundine, a leading organiser of the NO campaign, said on Sunday the campaign would propose symbolic constitutional recognition of Indigenous people and migrants through a new preamble, via another referendum.
“We’re talking with the migrant community as well … It’s about recognition of all the people who have come to Australia, who have been here first and how we built this great country of ours,” Mundine said.
Senator Lidia Thorpe had a lot to say about most things on Q&A but not necessarily much help : she said, rather confusingly “If you go the Republic, then out goes everything that you are voting for this year.’’
I’m not sure where this debate is going !
A commentator on the ABC referred to the term balanda as being the name for white people in native Yolgnu language but, on checking I find that as with so many such terms that is not completely correct.
Whilst Balanda refers to a non-Aboriginal or European person, commonly used by Aboriginal people, particularly those up north.
The word Balanda was used by the Macassan traders to describe the Dutch by being an accented translation of Hollander. The Macassans frequented the Top End years before Britain settled in the south as did the Dutch and many locations in the North were known and named by early Dutch explorers ( e.g. Arnhem Land – In April 1644, Tasman named Arnhem Land after the Dutch vessel Arnhem which explored the area in 1623 : Arnhem is a city and municipality situated in the eastern part of the Netherlands).
So, there you go !
Just an update to remind us all that the proposed referendum will ask this fundamental question of the Australian people :
“Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?”
The draft words then to be added to the Constitution are:
There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
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.
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.
The prime minister’s constitutional expert advisory group have yet to report to the government but have, in the meantime , recommended an introductory sentence to be added to the proposed Voice to parliament amendment as follows :
“In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as the First Peoples of Australia”
It seems that this form of words is as far as the advisory group are prepared to go in appeasing those calling for Aboriginal sovereignty to be recognised in the constitution – which could be fraught with legal implications and complications.
Referendum Update
A lot of comment about Senator Lidia Thorpe resigning from the Greens which, fundamentally, seems to have nothing to do with the Voice referendum but more to do with Thorpes’ personal ambitions particularly in promoting Aboriginal sovereignty.
We have an unfortunate pattern in this country of politicians being elected, and using the resources of a particular party to do so, and then once in office, jumping ship and becoming an independent – personally I find this galling and believe it encourages public cynicism in politics and politicians. Having said that, there is nothing constitutionally that prevents this behaviour although good faith with the electorate would, in my view, suggest that the politician resign from parliament and seek to be re-elected in their own right at the next election : as it is we now have Lidia Thorpe for another five years as an independent ‘loose cannon’.
Dutton has introduced a scare saying that he believes the Voice delegates will have ‘a seat at the Cabinet Table’ which is clearly a red herring as this has never been suggested as being the case. The proposal is that :
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.
Like any other lobbyist in Canberra the Voice delegate(s) will seek to influence ministers and the government and ultimately the parliament on Aboriginal issues but the Voice should have no greater access than any other lobbyist and certainly not a seat at the Cabinet table – unless by invitation to make a particular presentation. However, it is incumbent on Albanese to provide more in principle detail on how his government see the Voice as operating : just to keep on saying ‘just vote Yes in the referendum and we will sort out the details later in the parliamentary process’ is not satisfactory.
On the subject of lobbying, I remember a since retired minister saying that ‘you can’t even go to the toilet (in parliament house) without a lobbyist occupying the adjoining stall and pitching his/her ideas while your doing the business’.
Terence, the more ‘loose cannons’ the better. We need another 20 or 30 reps to walk away from the 2 Doppel-Ganger parties of LNP & Labor. Independents can sink stupid ideas uploaded by the majors. It’s group think that got us to here and reps unable to vote on conscience are yes men-women, useless eaters. We need policy debates based on intelligent input, not the ability to behave like parrots.
On the Voice issue, looks like the barely-elected Labor party are getting ready to throw another referendum under the bus of a poorly structured question. A weak, ambiguous question is going to waste an opportunity.
The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 governs how referenda are managed in this country. The act is under review at the present time and it was suggested that the provision dealing with the publication of a ‘pamphlet’ as required by section 11 may be dropped in favour of some online, digital alternative. As a result of pressure from the coalition, the government have agreed to maintain the ‘pamphlet’ provision.
Section 11 says that the pamphlet should be sent out to all registered voters and include :
(i) an argument in favour of the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words, authorized by a majority of those members of the Parliament who voted for the proposed law and desire to forward such an argument; or
(ii) an argument against the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words, authorized by a majority of those members of the Parliament who voted against the proposed law and desire to forward such an argument;
NB : the or – it is not mandated that a for and against argument be presented, it depends on how the parliament votes on the referendum question.
In other respects, the Commonwealth is not currently authorised to spend money on for and against arguments :
(4) The Commonwealth shall not expend money in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law except in relation to:
(a) the preparation, printing and sending, in accordance with this section, of the pamphlets referred to in this section;
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2022C00073
Referendum Update
The Albanese government seem very reluctant to formally adopt the Langton-Calma report as a blueprint for the Voice, yet they frequently refer us to this report when there are calls for more detail – confusing eh !
What does seem clear is that the Langton-Calma recommendation on the structure of the Voice will form the basis for those representing the Voice.
The National Voice will have 24 members, 18 being ‘base members’, two from each state and territory and two from the Torres Strait Islands. There are to be six additional members, five from remote areas and one to represent Torres Strait Islanders on the mainland.
Gender balance will be required, so it would seem that the body would have to be appointed rather than elected (?) – the base members from each jurisdiction are to be of different genders, and the others are to be gender-balanced over time. There are to be co-chairs of different genders. Membership of the National Voice is to be determined by the local and regional voices, but how is not clear.
It would seem that if gender balancing is to be a critical feature to the eligibility of those comprising the ‘base members’ having the Voice then it would be difficult for them to be selected by open democratic processes as inevitably some aspiring candidates would be excluded from selection by virtue only of their gender – am I right on this ?? – surely we need more discussion on this.
Terms are to be four years, with a limit of two consecutive terms, but, it appears, no limit on the number of non-consecutive terms. There is to be an Office of the National Voice, probably in Canberra to support its activities.
Albanese continues to say that the detail will be sorted out by the parliament – that’s the democratic way ! But inevitably the detail will have to be embodied in legislation and regulation that the Albanese government will put to the parliament. So, it is not unreasonable that more detail should be made available prior to the referendum.
Constitutional expert Professor Greg Craven noted recently that ‘by not talking about the legislation in detail, you are forgoing the opportunity to convince people…………..quite a lot of people think they can carry it [the referendum] through on the ‘vibe’, but what it shows is that legislation is incredibly important. If people don’t know, they will always vote against it as a matter of caution.’
“It would seem that if gender balancing is to be a critical feature to the eligibility of those comprising the ‘base members’ having the Voice then it would be difficult for them to be selected by open democratic processes as inevitably some aspiring candidates would be excluded from selection by virtue only of their gender – am I right on this ??”
No, you aren’t; or at least you are ignoring the fact that there are always aspiring candidates who are excluded by whatever the pre-selection process may be and gender is commonly one of the (unofficial) reasons for that exclusion. All that is needed is for two concurrent ballots in each area (assuming the gender balance is strictly men and women, although that does create issues with non-binary people) and a requirement for an equal number of nominees on each ballot.
It would be more useful if you would look at ways to make it work rather than continually picking holes in the concept.
Interesting comment, leefe.
I’m trying to be objective and maintain a discourse on this important subject but when there are ambiguous or unexplained situations I believe it is important that ‘we the people’ discuss these : all too often on this and other issues there is an assumption by some that discussion is racist or even ‘woke’.
I want to see the referendum get up but I’m concerned about the attitude that seems to prevail currently that says ‘just say YES and we’ll sort the details out later’. That’s not good enough in my view !
On the voting for the delegates we are not talking political parties (I hope) we are talking grass roots aboriginal people who want to represent their local area on the Voice to parliament – I cannot see how gender balancing will assist in achieving this democratic objective but I’m more than willing to discuss the mechanics of making it work.
Referendum Update
Anthony Albanese’s proposed wording to amend the Constitution is :
“There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
“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.
“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.”
The prime minister’s constitutional expert advisory group have , in the meantime , recommended an introductory sentence to be added to the proposed Voice to parliament amendment as follows :
“In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as the First Peoples of Australia” That could be fraught and could lead to disputation in the High Court on matters of sovereignty according to several constitutional experts.
In the meantime Frank Brennan a Jesuit priest and a respected academic expert on the constitution, has suggested an alternative wording to keep it simple :
“There shall be an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice with such structure and functions as the Parliament deems necessary to facilitate consultation prior to the making of special laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and with such other functions as the Parliament determines.”
Te Constitution already provides the gov with power to legislate for some sort of Voice
Referendum Update
This week the twenty-one member indigenous advisory group will deliver the results of its lengthy deliberations, consultations and recommendations to the government. The government of course are not obliged to adopt these recommendations but they would be very wary of getting this group, which includes heavyweights like Marcia Langton, Megan Davies and Noel Pearson, offside.
One suggested amendment to the constitutional power of the parliament has been [leaked] proposed to avoid legal litigation into the future. The original third clause read: “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”
The additional words proposed to be added to the end of this draft constitutional amendment are, “and the legal effect of its representations”. This amendment was evidently proposed by the Attorney General and it aims to retain the ‘power’ of the parliament over the legal implications of the Voice.
Funding of the referendum YES and NO cases is shaping up to be a potentially controversial area. The government has resisted calls to fund either campaign but last week it allocated $9.5 million to an Australia-wide public education and awareness push. It has also been revealed that the Paul Ramsay Foundation has donated $5 million and Anthony Pratt last week donated $1 million to the YES campaign – all of this tax deductible of course. It seems that there have been no big individual donors to the NO campaign, so far.
The government has not secured enough support in the senate to pass its Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill but it has agreed to maintain the explanatory pamphlet – mailed to all voters – which it had intended to drop in favour of using electronic platforms to convey its message. The coalition will not support the referendum machinery amendments and are demanding government funding for both the YES and NO campaigns – which considering the cash being generated in the private sector seems a bit pointless.
Referendum Update
The reference group advising the prime minister have now delivered the proposed referendum question :
The question
A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Do you approve this proposed alteration?
and the proposed new chapter in the Constitution :
The proposed alteration
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. New Section 129 : Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
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 the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth 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 matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
This now has to be approved by the parliament and then by the Australian people.
Referendum Update
Today Attorney General Mark Dreyfus, introduced the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 legislation in the House of Representatives : no voting at this stage, it goes to a bipartisan committee process for review.
Quite disturbing when you consider that, with a couple of exceptions, the coalition chose not to front-up. Quite a slap in the face to the Aboriginal groups represented in the gallery and a full Labor turnout.
It appears that Peter Dutton had a prior commitment – possibly washing his hair – on what is a parliamentary sitting day – i.e. you are supposed to be there.
Terry, the photo of the near-empty chamber was damning.
76 Australians can accept or reject government legislation affecting all Australians. The same 76 can accept laws affecting Aboriginal people. The government has a voice mechanism for the former and the referendum will give a voice mechanism for the latter.
ps Terence tell the Pom, the referendum is to get Scotland and Wales mentioned in the British constitution and for Ireland to be unified.
pps Good one leefe, There is nothing like imposing on Aboriginal people that which doesn’t apply to non-Aboriginal people. Introduction of such restrictions on the general population by the current parliament will trickle down to the ‘voice’.
Sadly, our special fear of Aborigines, as exaggerated by porleen barnabee, mundeen, price and topped up by an ex loonie and AJones should get a ‘no’ home.
It’s a bit of a read (from 2019) – long before the Voice was proposed – but it contains a thousand reasons why I would support it.
Referendum Update
Finally the Liberal Party have come out with what they call a policy on the Voice……………the policy appears to be obfuscation defined as a deliberate strategy to make something less clear and more difficult to understand with the objective of creating confusion and uncertainty.
I’ll leave it at that !
The Liberal Party position on he Voice is a sham and whilst not worthy of much in the way of analysis it is relevant to point out that Dutton’s preferred model is, in his words “a local and regional body, so we can get practical outcomes for Indigenous people on the ground.”
The Calma/Langton Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process report recommended that :
‘ the Voice should comprise 24 elected members, with two drawn from each of the states and territories, two from the Torres Strait Islands, five additional remote representatives drawn from the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales, and one member representing Torres Strait Islanders on the mainland.’
So, it seems that Dutton’s local and regional body is, in fact, no different to that proposed by Calma/Langton beyond the fact that the latter will communicate with the national government and parliament which just happens to be in Canberra.
The ‘No’ campaign have now launched their website and their campaign against the Voice referendum : https://www.recogniseabetterway.org.au/#real-solutions
Confusingly, after many months of calling for more detail on the government favoured Voice model, the ‘No’ campaign are now in the situation of being asked for more detail on their opposition and their better way which it appears they have not yet considered.
If you’ve been wondering why Julian Leeser, Shadow attorney-general has been so quiet on the Liberals response to the Voice, particularly after his intimate involvement in the formulation of indigenous policy, well wonder no more : Leeser is resigning from the opposition frontbench over its position to oppose the Voice to parliament referendum.
Julian Leeser was one of the few intelligent and well informed straight shooters in the coalition and it now seems that he has been dragged down by the knuckle dragging neanderthals in the LNP (apologies to neanderthals).
Typical filth from the Murdoch media.
Peter Dutton took it upon himself to explain in a media encounter how the regional delegates to the Voice will be selected. Whilst many of us had thought that this would be by way of election, Dutton obviously has some inside information :
“it’s not an elected position. It will be an equal balance, as I understand it, of men and women of Indigenous heritage or people who identify as being Indigenous. They are appointed, as I say, not elected, and they represent Indigenous people across the country. That’s the proposal.”
Some blame for this confusion must be sheeted home to the Albanese government as something this fundamental as to who will make up the Voice and how will they be selected should be clearly understood. We have been told that members of the Voice would be elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.
We really do need some clarification on this or is Dutton just muddying the waters.
” … or is Dutton just muddying the waters?”
It’s all he ever does.
It isn’t Dutton’s mud…no.
Following on from Dutton’s comments that the regional representatives forming the Voice would be ‘appointed’ rather than elected from within their communities, Barnaby Joyce hopped on the bandwagon this morning when being interviewed on ABC RN by Patricia
Karvelas : he is adamant that he knows that the representatives will not be elected by their local communities but will be appointed by the federal government.
We know that the preferred model for the representative body will be made up of twenty-four [elected] members from around the country but their term of office has not yet been determined. The emphasis will need to be on ensuring that the representative body is regularly refreshed to avoid these positions – which will be well remunerated – becoming entrenched by individuals or family groups.
We really need this to be clarified well prior to the referendum : Albanese could be digging himself into a hole that the opposition will exploit if he doesn’t clear this up right now.
A browse of the substack-com by Josephine Cashman, Aboriginal Aust lawyer, leaves Labor with a lot of explaining to do if it wants to get over the line. But as always, when the Mudroch Corpse-oration wants something on behalf of the globalists, who can they rely on? The useful idiots of Labor & Libs of course, that’s WHO.
Referendum Update
There are eleven people of Aboriginal heritage in our federal parliament. The ABC approached each of them for their take on the Voice. These are their responses :
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-01/first-nations-mps-senators-on-voice-to-parliament/101976080
Not too many surprises there, Terry. Still a few complaining about the lack of detail, which tells me they haven’t bothered to read anything.
The LNP never gagged anybody? They are the past masters of gagging dissenting views and having Mr NO! (his son P. Duddy No! is busy elsewhere looking for other things to shout, “No!” at) at the committee would be a travesty.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/tony-abbott-gagged-by-voice-committee-inquiry-20230430-p5d4bq.html
So, the narrative below remains the proposed amendment to our constitution with the only evident contention being the words and the Executive Government. The concern among some is that, by having constitutionally guaranteed access to the Executive could imply that the Voice would have a permanent seat at the Cabinet table.
Law professor Father Frank Brennan — who supports the Voice and would vote for it in its current form — said changing executive government to ministers of the state could broaden support for the referendum among Coalition politicians. His proposed change would allow the Voice delegates to speak to individual ministers (as any Lobbyist would) but not the Cabinet as an entity (i.e. the Executive). The change is subtle but could avert challenges to the High Court.
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. New Section 129 : Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
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 the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth 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 matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
Referendum Update
A new survey [17 May 2023] shows that 44 per cent of voters support the Voice and 39 per cent oppose it with another 18 per cent undecided.
The Resolve Political Monitor ‘found there was majority support in a majority of states for the Voice at the beginning of this year, but support had now fallen below a majority in Queensland and results from South Australia and Tasmania were volatile from month to month.’
The poll, conducted for Nine publications by Resolve Strategic, confirms a slide in support for the Voice that has continued for more than six months.
As a resident of Far North Queensland I am hearing some murmurs of disquiet about the power of the proposed Voice when it comes to native title. It may be scuttlebutt but my attention was drawn to articles in the Queensland Courier Mail (pay-walled) about some aboriginal groups closing off access to land and beaches that have been granted native title.
Evidently some descendants of the Butchulla people of the Fraser Coast area acquired 79,608 hectares of land as part of a native title determination in 2019. Included in that was 17,2019 hectares granted exclusive title including beachfront and an adjacent carpark which local residents and visitors have now been excluded from by the native title holders.
This article (not pay-walled) explains the concerns over what has occurred :
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11870035/Native-title-separating-residents-beach-Burrum-Heads-Queensland-leaves-locals-furious.html
Whilst this issue has little if anything to do with the Voice it does help to explain why there is some disquiet in parts of Queensland and it plays into the ‘NO’ argument that a constitutional Voice will be divisive.
It is noticeable that the TV advertisements by Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the newly appointed shadow minister for Indigenous Australians in the coalition appears, alongside her husband (Scottish-born musician Colin Lillie) speaking about how they did not want their “blended family” divided by race.
The AFL Commission has just announced its support for a Voice to Parliament. 👏
Terence, people are getting mixed messages. One day ‘The Voice’ is being heavily sold by the media as a definite YES, the next day it’s an open-ended ‘Path to Treaty’, no questions asked, no details given. No wonder the YES vote is sliding.
I believe Maoris are the only people who NEVER ceded sovereignty to ‘invaders’. That is something to aim for in my view, and Aus Aborigines are in the drivers’ seat if they have some good negotiators in their ranks. Whether Voice or Treaty, they will be dealing with the registered State and Federal Corporations (Libs, Labor, Greens). The smart move would be to get the government into such a tangle they all quit Parliament, thereby doing us all a favor.
Referendum Update
The legislation to facilitate the Voice referendum was passed in the lower house, 121 in favour of the bill, 25 against. It now goes to the Senate.
As the numbers indicate, quite a few Liberals voted in favour not wanting to be seen on the wrong side of history : the Nationals of course maintained their opposition.
Referendum Update
Tony Abbott has decided to spread misinformation about the referendum.
He has stated that the federal government has given tax deductibility for donations to the Voice’s ‘Yes’ campaign but not the ‘No’ campaign.
This is a lie, the ‘No’ campaign didn’t apply for tax deductibility until March 2023, it was approved but it then withdrew its application as it was merging with another entity.
Abbott says the government is trying to give the ‘Yes’ campaign an advantage by granting it tax deductibility status, without doing the same for the ‘No’ camp.
This is misleading and deceptive. Eligible organisations can apply for tax deductibility at any time.
We will all need to be alert to this type of misinformation which has already been swallowed whole on social media without fact checking although Facebook is flagging the posts :
“Missing context
Independent fact-checkers say that this information is missing context and could mislead people. You can choose whether to see it.. .”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-11/key-no-camps-merge-to-strengthen-referendum-campaign/102329478
The AEC having published a straightforward and concise brochure on the Referendum question and clearly explained that you must insert in the box either YES or NO they have now thrown the whole thing up in the air by saying that they will accept a tick as a YES but not a cross as a NO.
Rude drawings of male appendages will be classed as a DON’T KNOW and other squiggles and WTF etc will be considered a NO.
What’s going on ? If you can’t write YES or NO should you really be participating in this referendum ?
Terence Mills, never overestimate the intelligence of the body corpus of Australiana. A significant coterie of low bar citizens for whom a challenging night includes settling in to the latest iteration of whatever reality TV show is on, or cooking comps, or the footy in whatever guise wherever; or if not these brain-straining activities, kicking back with streaming vids funnelled in from the Great Satan while chugging beers and engaged in mind-numbing inanities. A cross is as good as a tick, and a YES or NO is barely registered as a conscious and considered response to this significant question being posed. For many, I imagine, the requirement to respond to the referendum will be viewed with disdain and reluctance, and they will mark their papers accordingly.
Referendum Update
In far North Queensland where I live I would have conceded until recently that the NO vote would prevail but in recent weeks and as information is delivered by the YES case, I believe I am seeing a change as some of the misinformation is being dispelled.
Those who have said that they don’t have enough information (and actually want some additional information) are coming around to understand that not all information can be embraced in a simple referendum question and that the detail will be thrashed out in our parliament by our elected members as is the democratic norm.
Even those who say they would only support a legislated Voice are coming around to understand that, in fact, the Voice will be a legislated instrument, the constitutional change is merely the anchor that gives the Voice some permanence.
You can always tell when things are not going well when one side starts attacking the man and not the issue. Warren Mundine has claimed without evidence that the prime minster, Anthony Albanese, has “attacked” opponents of the voice, unleashing “horrible racial abuse”. He seems to be referring to comments Albanese made about those who are “doomsayers” and “Chicken Littles” in the NO campaign : these comments are the only ones I can find where Albanese has made what could remotely be considered as an ‘attack’ and clearly is not ‘racist’.
Mundine has also said that the NO campaign have got Queensland ‘stitched up’ – well, we’ll see about that won’t we ?
I see that the NO campaign has even trundled out John Howard onto SKy where he rather confusingly called upon the nation to ‘maintain the rage’. It has been suggested that he may have thought he was still in the marriage equality debate !
In a way it might be good for the YES vote to win.
That way we can go straight to Treaty without any direct input from the public.
Let the political elite and Aboriginal elite formulate the terms and conditions behind closed doors.
If the NO vote wins then there might be calls for transparency.
Better to just do the Treaty behind the public’s back, spring it on them as surprise.
Vote YES.
This is really rather good with Briggs and it has gone viral : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvZhO2Q2khM