Meet Australian Aborigines

Rev.FrankSmith · Sun 26 Mar 2023

Our sacred race is all that matters - not money or her.

Br.IanVonTurpie · Thu 30 Mar 2023

"THAT'S RACIST!" Dutton misses historic moment in Parliament. You won't believe why.

James Robertson | The New Daily (Australia) | 30 March 2023

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/2023/03/30/peter-dutton-skip-voice-legislation

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has refused to say if he was making a political statement against the Indigenous Voice when he and most of his Coalition colleagues were absent when it was introduced to parliament on Thursday

Mr Dutton did not respond to questions from TND about whether his absence from the bill's introduction was also intended as a statement – but to the opposite effect.

Nor did he shed much light during his regular spot on the Ray Hadley program on Sydney's radio 2GB later on Thursday. Instead, Mr Dutton repeated his criticism of the government's proposal as lacking in detail as a reason for not attending the bill's introduction.

"I think there are a lot of questions that are still out there that reasonable Australians have and that they want answered," he said.

"They want a better outcome for Indigenous Australians, particularly in places like the Northern Territory, but they want to know what the Voice is about.

"It's obvious now that it applies to all areas of public policy, whereas the Prime Minister at one point was saying, 'well, it's only about health and education and law and order'.

"It clearly goes into defence and budget priorities.

"When the Prime Minister stands up in Parliament, he should be answering the questions."

In February, Mr Dutton apologised publicly for skipping another significant Indigenous milestone – then PM Kevin Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generations 10 years ago.

In a speech to the House marking the milestone, he said he "failed to grasp at the time the symbolic significance to the Stolen Generations of the apology".

He was also recently mocked by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for what the PM said was a "game" of asking for more details on the Voice referendum without intending to offer his support.

"We know from the republic playbook that occurred last century that it is nothing more than a tactic, and it lacks genuineness to just continue to say, 'We don't have the detail'," Mr Albanese said last week.

"No matter how detail is put out, Peter Dutton will say,'What about more detail'. That's the game that's being played here, and he should make a decision of where he stands on the issue."

The Liberals are yet to declare a position on the Voice. The junior Coalition partner, the Nationals, moved late last year to oppose the creation of an advisory body.

That decision prompted MP Andrew Gee to quit the Nationals. He, along with most other crossbenchers, was in the House when Mr Dreyfus introduced the Voice legislation on Thursday.

I wonder what a "Reasonable Australian" is?! Who is more "Reasonable" than whom? I guess the Govt would probably say myself and @Rev.Cambeul are not "reasonable Australians" because we rightfully reason that Abos are not equal to Whites and are not evolved equally? It was official government opinion until 1967!

They would probably say an Abo that lives on a community in the sticks that did nothing from cradle to grave is more "reasonable"? Since they are protected species and all?

Br.IanVonTurpie · Thu 30 Mar 2023

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11918391/Indigenous-Voice-Parliament-line-sparked-fears-slippery-slope.html

A single clause in the Indigenous Voice to Parliament constitutional amendment could render it unworkable, with issues as broad as tax policy and even roads coming under its remit, legal experts fear

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese today introduced legislation to parliament which would enshrine the advisory body into the constitution if the proposal wins the referendum

The bill includes the language that would be inserted into the constitution to create the Voice and establish its basic functions.

However, the second clause of the wording has raised concern that it is too broad, goes far beyond the originally intended human rights issues and could create unintended bureaucracy and legal squabbling

The line in question says the Voice shall be allowed to 'make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples'.

One expert fears there will be virtually no issue in Australia that won't come under the remit of the line, even things like tax policy, because it also affects Indigenous Australians in the same way it affects everyone.

Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay, a former constitutional law academic, outlined her issues with the wording in an op-ed for The Australian.

Ms Finlay, a longtime critic of the Voice who was appointed by former prime minister Scott Morrison, wrote it was not the modest proposal Mr Albanese insisted.

Her first issue was the inclusion of 'executive government' in the clause, which she argued 'substantially increases the risks of bureaucratic complexity, legal uncertainty and judicial activism'.

Including 'executive government' has been hotly debated in parliament and elsewhere over the past two weeks with the PM at odds with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton over it.

Her second point, which was echoed by other legal experts, was that the scope of the Voice as outlined was far too broad.

The clause also went far beyond 'matters that would affect their rights', the wording used in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Ms Finlay argued it was 'difficult to think of' a political issue that wouldn't fall under the broad wording because they all related to Indigenous Australians as much as they did to all other citizens.

The PM argues the third clause of the amendment gives parliament the power to determine how the Indigenous Voice operates.

'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,' it reads.

However, Ms Finlay argued parliament was subject to the constitution, and thus would be bound by the content of the second clause.

'A straightforward reading of this second clause suggests the questions of to whom and about what the voice may make representations are locked into the Constitution,' she wrote.

Parliament could try to make minor tweaks, but any changes that arguably conflicted with the wording in the constitution could be challenged in court.

'Exactly where that line is drawn will be for the High Court to decide. Once that decision is made there is no democratic recourse through parliament if the voice turns out to be something entirely different from that which Australians thought they were agreeing,' Ms Finlay wrote.

University of NSW professor George Williams agreed the second clause was problematic because parliament couldn't change it one it was added.

'That's the point of putting things in the constitution, it puts them beyond the parliament,' he told The Australian.

He disagreed with Mr Albanese's assertion that the Voice would only be able to make representations on issues that 'directly' affected them.

'It can't be making representations on tax policy without any connection to its community but if it made a representation arguing for tax deductions specific to Indigenous peoples or different zones of tax specific to Indigenous peoples, that would be matters it could make representations on because it is provided for by the constitutional change. It's all about context,' he said.

University of Sydney professor Anne Twomey said parliament and the government could decide how it considered and responded to the Voice recommendations.

However, she said the scope of what the Voice could make representations about would be defined entirely by the second clause.

The more they reveal about the Voice the more disgusted I am with it all!