A question on the Voice - why not create the advisory body now?, page-2 - HotCopper | ASX Share Prices, Stock Market & Share Trading Forum

Originally posted by Scarpa: ↑

IMO, you don't need constitutional change to put in place a body that represents aboriginal persons as per the Voice IMO. You can just create a body under legislation in the now IMO and also legilslate how it is to be constructed and represented by Aboriginal groups. Then voters can see how it operates in reality and what areas of policy aboriginal persons are seeking to advise on, rather than the 'trust me' approach of government after a Voice referendum is done.

After that, in a year or so after the body is created and people can see how it operates, you can do a referendum on constitutional recognition of First Nations people in the constitution as voters then have a complete view of what areas of public policy the Voice actually is targeting and whether the scare campaign put by some/many is valid or not. It is not hard to run a scare campaign on the Voice. People get to see what the 'advisory body' actually does and how it works and whether their fears were founded or not.

My views on the Voice referendum as it is viewed today on vote first, then put in the advisory body after is as below. IMO it might better to legislate a body first, see how that body operates and then have a referendum vote on constitutional recognition. If this goes to a vote this year as the government intends to do, I can see it failing, and I think it would be a given it would certainly fail in WA (before look at any other State) given the new legilsation introduced in WA commencing 1 July 2023 which give the 'No' campaign a lot of political capital to argue a point when uncertainty is around. Constitutional change requires i.) four states to say yes and ii.) a majority of Australians to say yes, so maybe a hard ask at this stage IMO if seek a referendum this year.

All IMO

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Ultimately boils down to detail on how the Voice is to apply to the every day workings of government, a bit like the republican vote where most Australians wanted a republic - yes I know the No vote at the time believd all 55% of Australians who voted No loved and adored the Monarchy bla bla bla - but many in the yes camp voted no at the time because details were scant on what a Republic meant in terms of mechanisms of government and/or did not like Parliament deciding the 'President'.

A bit like here - detail on how and what the Voice actually means is very very very scant. Without more understanding on how the "Voice' is intended to work I feel it is likely to fail the closer one gets to the vote if details are not provided. Just take the article below - it will aid the No case in making Australians uncertain of what the Voice means - the scare campaigns will run deep is my point if more details are not released. More details on what the Voice means and what does First Nations people advising government about policies affecting Indigenous people actually mean and in what areas is needed - provide actual examples of where this consultation is required to occur would be a very very very good thing for government to provide to the community.

Also what happens when Government disagrees with the views of the Advisory body the Voice establishes since theoretically it has no power to overule Parliament (i.e. no veto power) but does it stop there if government disagrees - if Government disagrees does this Advisory body have the power to go to the courts etc etc. Again it is the role of Albanese to provide Australians with the requisite information to nullify the 'scare campaigns' not high level statements that if you vote 'No' you are rascist which is just nonsense.

How will the Advisory body be established since First Nation peoples as one like to refer to Australia before Captain Cook was infact a series of separate States. How we the Advisory body be constituted and who are its representatives, and how will disagreements in the Advisory body itself be dealt with??.

Personally, I felt i.) Mabo would have addressed and improved the lives of Aboriginal People and I just wonder where all the monies derived from Mabo actually went (whose pockets did they align and why hasn't aboriginal well being improved from monies there), ii.) as would the government programs been done fro State and Federal budgets, and iii.) even the 1967 Referendum. If the Voice doesn't improve aboriginal well being, assuming it gets up, then what??? Sometimes you have to help yourself, rather than dwell in the past. Most Nations have a history, and many move on - WW1, WW2 etc etc etc

The crime statistics are appalling to say the least, and will the Voice been passed reduce crime? There are more issues involving aboriginal health and well being that need to be attended to, and I personally see the Voice as a 'feel good' measure that will not achieve anything in this area (without active action by government to improve aboriginal well being).

People intergrate. Australia current population has more than 50% of peoples either born overseas directly in the now and/or are first or second generation descendants of migrants, and I am not sure what the Voice actually means to them, especially those coming from war torn countries etc etc. Directly, about 30% of the current population were born overseas, hence why I say taking the next generation or two makes it well over 50% -30% of Australia's Population Born Overseas | Australian Bureau of Statistics (abs.gov.au)

All IMO

Expand

Don't know how often you visit here @Scarpa but many have been posting same since the last election.

The cynic in me feels that they don't want to do this because of the disaster that was ATSIC.

In the mid 1990's I had a loreman in the Pilbara tell me that ATSIC stood for Aboriginals Talking Shyte In Canberra