The Voice

[Malleeboy]

Constitutional wording to setup the voice, I have emailed and phoned people but no one is giving me answers to my questions. I have rung Labor, Libs and Julian Lesser's office, I have emailed various voice supporting groups.

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."

"on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples" that in my mind includes everything, it is almost universal in scope. The PM seems to think it won;t be be so broad, but no one can answer how it will be limited? Best answer is that they won't have the time/resource to be involved in everything but that just seems to be an open invitation to increase funding until the Voice can respond to everything.

"the Executive Government of the Commonwealth", Chapter II sections 61 to 70 covers what is meant by Executive, Monarch, GG, Federal Exec council, Ministers, Public Servants, GG as head of military. No limiting of who the voice can speak to. Exactly who can the Voice give advice to?

Now the PM says that line 3, that gives power to the Parliament to control "composition, functions, powers and procedures." means Parliament is in charge of the Voice but "subject to this Constitution" surely means that it is limited to what the High Court decides the constitutions directs. I do not trust the High Court not to see "penumbra" formed by unspecified "emanations" to limit the power of Parliament over the Voice. Everything in the constitution is subject to High Court deciding what it means, including "subject to this Constitution" appears to imply that the section framers, are not just leaving it at the ordinary expectation that the section will be reviewed by the High Court, as all section can be, but they are underlining or placing an expectation that the power of Parliament will be constrained by the rest of the
Constitution. Why place "subject to this Constitution" in the wording, what was it placed there to do, if not to explicitly limit Parliaments powers?

 

[Bob Crowley]

Most members of the Australian public haven't got a clue what "The Voice" is supposed to achieve, and even some indigenous leaders are against it.

Nobody has bothered to explain what it is, how it is supposed to work, or what it is supposed to achieve.

I wouldn't vote for it as things stand - no way in the world.

 

[Philip_B]

I think it is more complex and about addressing a justice issue for our nation's first peoples.

There are things about the way the question has been framed that I would prefer had been worded differently, in particular, I would have desired two questions. The first would have been about acknowledgement which I think would have been widely supported. The second is about the Voice.

Two things to observe, are that the Voice does not need a Constitutional Change, it could simply be legislated. If Albo and his mob think it is going to be such a good thing, and he has the power to do it now, then Why are we Waiting? Albo has suggested that we should trust the politicians with the detail, and yet the very call for the Voice is from people who feel they have been let down by politicians constantly doing and undoing, listening and not listening, and in all seriousness most of us feel the same, so whilst Albo might be seen as being in-touch this was one of his most out-of-touch suggestions, ever.

One of the reasons I am inclined to vote YES for it at the moment is that I suspect a NO vote will set the agenda back generationally.

The First Peoples of our Nation have been here since the time before Abraham, and (probably) the time before Noah. Yet the events of the last couple of hundred years have left them as strangers in a strange land.

I think that the place to begin a serious discussion about this is the Uluru Statement from the Heart which has been referenced far more often than it has been read.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I hve no disagreement with the fact that the indigenous people have been badly treated. But I still want to know what the nuts and bolts are of "The Voice". A clear explanation of the purpose, how it is supposed to work, and importantly how it will affect the rest of us has been distinctly lacking.

 

[Philip_B]

Well here we are, four months down the track and it concerns me the level of poverty in the debate on both sides of the argument.

The question is not if we should have The Voice or not, but rather if that proposition should be in the Constitution. Whilst I realise we are well used to ineptocracy, most of us feel that if we were to spend X million dollars on a new football stadium, we would consult with the various football codes likely to use it to ensure that it met their needs, and if it was likely to be used for other purposes such as concerts and the like we would likely talk to them as well. Likewise, if we are to spend money addressing issues for the first peoples of our nation, it would seem we would consult with them in a meaningful and proper way.

Whilst there have been a number of efforts in the area, numbers of these bodies have been dissolved for whatever reason, and so with little progress we return to the drawing board. In order to break this cycle, we seem to be being asked to put it in the Constitution so the body cannot be simply dissolved.

Much has been made of the cost of such a body, and little has been said of the cost of this not going ahead.

In general, my default position for any referendum is to vote no, yet on this issue I find myself increasingly of a mind to vote yes, however, that is not down to the yes or no campaign, both of whom are worthy of a Shania Twain lyric (that don't impress me much).

Given we are to have the Voice however we vote, and I believe it makes sense that we do, the real substance of the Referendum Question is the Recognition of the First Peoples of our Nation, which we ought to do.

How are other people travelling on this issue, and where are your thoughts leading you.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I'm still waiting for a clear explanation on a national level of how "The Voice" is supposed to work, and what safeguards will be in place to ensure it doesn't impact on the rights of the 96% (plus) of those of us who are not indigenous.

And when I see indigenous leaders saying they would vote "No", it doesn't do much to enhance my confidence in the proposed changes to the Constitution.

Explainer: Indigenous people opposing Australia's Voice referendum

Australia plans to hold a federal referendum later this year to constitutionally recognise its Indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Island people through the establishment of a representative Voice that will provide non-binding advice to the parliament.

www.reuters.com

So unless something happens to change my mind, I'll be voting "no".

 

[Malleeboy]

For those interested this is Frank Brennan's SJ wording for the Voice in the constitutions.

“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.”


This would deliver a voice but one that is only constitutionally guaranteed a voice, where the laws directly only impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders but allowed by the parliament to have a broader say as the parliament decides. It can only speak to Parliament not the executive.

This is a voice I could support.

FYI the current voice could make recommendations to the GG on use of the reserve powers, to the Federal Executive Council on all matters, it could also likely be able to address the military and public service directly.

 

[Philip_B]

For those interested this is Frank Brennan's SJ wording for the Voice in the constitutions.

“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.”

This would deliver a voice but one that is only constitutionally guaranteed a voice, where the laws directly only impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders but allowed by the parliament to have a broader say as the parliament decides. It can only speak to Parliament not the executive.

This is a voice I could support.

FYI the current voice could make recommendations to the GG on use of the reserve powers, to the Federal Executive Council on all matters, it could also likely be able to address the military and public service directly.

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;

At the time Fr Brennan wrote that, Feb 22, 2023, it was relevant, as at that stage the proposed wording was being discussed. Since the 19th of June 2023 this is a somewhat moot point, as the wording has been passed in both houses of parliament, so what the words might have been is essentially now above our pay grade, we now must deal with the words that are.

It is unclear what the force of the words 'Executive Government' might mean. Given that the words are being placed in the Constitution I think a reasonable person would conclude that would be governed by chapter 2 of the Constitution entitled "Executive Government."

Chapter II. The Executive Government.​

A fair reading of that section would suggest that The Voice might make representations to the Ministers of State which in practical terms we might understand to be the Cabinet generally of ministers separately. It would be difficult to see how the body could make representations to the Governor General outside of cabinet, or what the Governor General could do about such advice unless there was a clear breach of natural justice.

There are no doubt several champagne lunches for the lawyers to tease all this out.

The basic premise should be what the words mean when read plainly, rather than what someone might be able to construe them to mean. I think the words have a clear enough plain meaning.

 

[Malleeboy]

"Executive Government" is covered in Australian constitution under Chapter II The Executive Government

Here are the chapters....

CHAPTER II—THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT
61. Executive power 19
62. Federal Executive Council 19
63. Provisions referring to Governor-General 19
64. Ministers of State 19
Ministers to sit in Parliament 19
65. Number of Ministers 19
66. Salaries of Ministers 19
67. Appointment of civil servants 19
68. Command of naval and military forces 19
69. Transfer of certain departments 19
70. Certain powers of Governors to vest in Governor-General 20

To me it is plainly clear that that the GG and specifically the reserve powers covered in section 70 are under the term Executive Government in the constitution. Along with federal civil servants and naval and military forces.

The PM has chosen without properly consulting a wording that is too broad and expansive, just too risky for me. He should have used wording advice from Lesser etc. Albo has failed Australia IMHO.

 

[Philip_B]

"Executive Government" is covered in Australian constitution under Chapter II The Executive Government

Here are the chapters....

CHAPTER II—THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT
61. Executive power 19
62. Federal Executive Council 19
63. Provisions referring to Governor-General 19
64. Ministers of State 19
Ministers to sit in Parliament 19
65. Number of Ministers 19
66. Salaries of Ministers 19
67. Appointment of civil servants 19
68. Command of naval and military forces 19
69. Transfer of certain departments 19
70. Certain powers of Governors to vest in Governor-General 20

To me it is plainly clear that that the GG and specifically the reserve powers covered in section 70 are under the term Executive Government in the constitution. Along with federal civil servants and naval and military forces.

The PM has chosen without properly consulting a wording that is too broad and expansive, just too risky for me. He should have used wording advice from Lesser etc. Albo has failed Australia IMHO.

In part I agree with you and I certainly see where you are coming form, however, I would highlight section 63 for Chapter 2

63. Provisions referring to Governor-General​

The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.​

This makes plain that the Governor General does not exercise the same role as the American President, but rather acts with the advice of the Federal Executive Council. There is no meaningful sense in which the wording allows unprecedented access and influence. Section 70 effectively discusses the relationship between the Governors of the States and the Governor General. The effective amount of real power the Governors or Governor General have is relatively minimal and largely procedural.

The value of the Voice consulting with the Governor General is essentially mute, given that the seat of pragmatic power lies with the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and ultimately with all the people of Australia.

 

[Malleeboy]

Phillip,

Reserve powers are exercised outside of advice from the FEC or PM.
Kerr as GG sacked Whitlam under reserve powers, without either consulting the Queen nor PM.
(In case you think this was a one off, State Governers have sacked Premiers using Reserve Powers as well.)

While the reserve power to dismiss a government has not been used in the United Kingdom since 1834, this power has been exercised more recently in Australia, on two occasions:​

​

1. On 13 May 1932, when the Governor of New South Wales Sir Philip Game dismissed the Government of New South Wales.
2. On 11 November 1975, when the Governor-General of Australia Sir John Kerr dismissed the Commonwealth Government.

In both cases an election was held very soon afterwards and, again in both cases, the dismissed government was massively defeated by popular vote.​

​

In Queensland in 1987, during a tense period of leadership succession, the Governor of Queensland, Sir Walter Campbell, exercised reserve power in declining to follow the advice of the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Campbell initially refused to redistribute ministerial portfolios on the sole advice of the premier, who lacked the confidence of his cabinet. Subsequently, during a period when Queensland had a "Premier who is not leader" and the governing party had a "Leader who is not Premier",[4] there was speculation on the potential exercise of vice-regal reserve power by Campbell, in dismissing the premier in the absence of a parliamentary motion of no confidence. Ultimately, Campbell was praised for his handling of the undesirable situation.[5]​

I don't think the GG will listen to the advice of the Voice, it is just highlights how over broad the wording is.
The Voice has the constitutional right to make such an approach, the GG has to accept the advice, and then choose to ignore it.
Whilst the PM will respond that this will never happen, I can see Lidia Thorpe types on the Voice, doing so just to make a pointless point. (eg attempting to amend the swearing in oath to the Senate)

 

[Philip_B]

I can see Lidia Thorpe types on the Voice, doing so just to make a pointless point. (eg attempting to amend the swearing in oath to the Senate)

The Right Honourable Lidia Thorpe has taken a stance that I suspect integrity would require her not to take a seat on the Voice, however, given that she gained her seat in The Senate courtesy of the Greens whom she alleges she infiltrated, and now as an independent Senator seeks as an infiltrator to bring down the Colonial Institution of Parliament. In a normal position of employment that would bring about an early exit from employment, however not so for honourable senators, and she, failing a double dissolution or some personal catastrophe, is likely to hold the position for a further four years and nine months.

I suspect it would be ill-advised to conclude that the RHLT is a reasonable representative of the first peoples of our Nation, and I am pretty sure a good number of them feel she is not helping anyone. It is of course possible that she is suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome. Regardless I am glad that my theology helps me see that each of us, including the RHLT are unique persons, and there is no duplicate.

Reserve powers are exercised outside of advice from the FEC or PM.

This is clearly abnormal, though as you rightly point out, not without precedent. In each case, there was a compelling reason which informed the action, (right or wrong), and that merely serves to demonstrate that the G's and GG's do not operate in a vacuum, (unlike lawyers) and need to be abreast of what we like to refer to as the real world.

 

[Malleeboy]

Anywho, on a lighter note and apologies to Whispering Jack....

It's the Voice, try and understand it,
No we can't, that's why we're vo-oting
No-woooo-woo-o-woo-woo-oooo

I wish I could have voted yes....

 

[Philip_B]

Anywho, on a lighter note and apologies to Whispering Jack....

It's the Voice, try and understand it,
No we can't, that's why we're vo-oting
No-woooo-woo-o-woo-woo-oooo

I wish I could have voted yes....

It will be interesting to see what this does. In some sense, it has changed the temperature of the debate. I suspect that it is too late and that the horse has bolted ...

There was movement at the station, for the word had passed around
That the colt from old Regret had got away,​

 

[Aussie Pete]

Well here we are, four months down the track and it concerns me the level of poverty in the debate on both sides of the argument.

The question is not if we should have The Voice or not, but rather if that proposition should be in the Constitution. Whilst I realise we are well used to ineptocracy, most of us feel that if we were to spend X million dollars on a new football stadium, we would consult with the various football codes likely to use it to ensure that it met their needs, and if it was likely to be used for other purposes such as concerts and the like we would likely talk to them as well. Likewise, if we are to spend money addressing issues for the first peoples of our nation, it would seem we would consult with them in a meaningful and proper way.

Whilst there have been a number of efforts in the area, numbers of these bodies have been dissolved for whatever reason, and so with little progress we return to the drawing board. In order to break this cycle, we seem to be being asked to put it in the Constitution so the body cannot be simply dissolved.

Much has been made of the cost of such a body, and little has been said of the cost of this not going ahead.

In general, my default position for any referendum is to vote no, yet on this issue I find myself increasingly of a mind to vote yes, however, that is not down to the yes or no campaign, both of whom are worthy of a Shania Twain lyric (that don't impress me much).

Given we are to have the Voice however we vote, and I believe it makes sense that we do, the real substance of the Referendum Question is the Recognition of the First Peoples of our Nation, which we ought to do.

How are other people travelling on this issue, and where are your thoughts leading you.

I was married to a part aboriginal woman (not that she looked it) and my two children identify as aboriginal. I am against the Voice proposal. All you have to do is look at the disaster that was the WA government's attempt to kow tow to aboriginal extremists in that state. There is no cost of not going ahead. Recognition? Just about every public and private organisation includes some statement recognising aborigines.

No one "owns" the earth. It belongs to God. He made it and He can do with it as He pleases. The aborigines prior to the British worshipped demons and the creation rather than the Creator. Many, if not most, still do. The government has created an apartheid system. We have the insane situation where government officials have to pay for the right to enter aboriginal lands. That includes representatives of the welfare departments that seek to help the aborigines with taxpayers money.

I don't know how you solve the problems, or even if they can be solved. Throwing money at the situation has achieved little. The only thing that will satisfy some activists is for all non Aborigines to be expelled from Australia.

 

[Philip_B]

I don't know how you solve the problems, or even if they can be solved. Throwing money at the situation has achieved little. The only thing that will satisfy some activists is for all non Aborigines to be expelled from Australia.

We live in an ineptocracy. We get people in offices to send memos to people in offices to send memos to people in offices, and then collate all this to form a committee to review all this and then form a sub-committee who in turn get people in offices to send memos to people in offices ....

Governments are not good at spending money. We invested millions of millions to support struggling people in the pandemic, and we did such a good job of it that the 200 wealthiest people in Australia doubled their wealth, and they were not starting from a low base.

Would we spend 50 million dollars on a football stadium without asking the football codes likely to use it what they would want and need for it to go well? I suspect we would, but most of us can see we should.

On this point I agree with Albo, if we keep doing what we are doing we will get the same result. The argument for consultation seems obvious to me, and on that basis, I am supporting the Voice as a means of achieving it. I want to spend more money on the problem and less money on the bureaucrats, and hopefully less money overall. Nonetheless, I respect your opinion and concur with many of the points you make.

 

[Bob Crowley]

One of the problems has been the political divisions which have poisoned the debate on both sides. Right now I still tend to veer towards the "No" vote, but this message by our Archbishop reminded us of the moral and ethical dimensions of "The Voice" referendum vote.

I suppose the whole thing reminds me of my old Presbyterian pastor saying that people's politics tends to become their religion.

A Pastoral Statement on the Referendum - Archdiocese of Brisbane

Original Art – ‘Reconciliation with Aborigines’ © Michael Galovic – 1999 The Referendum on the Voice brings Australia to a threshold moment, since it looks not only to our past but to our future, not only to what we have been but to what we can become. There is no doubt that Australia has...

brisbanecatholic.org.au

 

[Malleeboy]

Hard to imagine the Yes case winning with the current polling, QLD, WA look locked to No, SA strongly leaning no.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I don't think the "yes" vote has a chance. I think it's a foregone conclusion.

They've got nobody to blame but themselves - insufficient detail, no statements about how it will work, how many staff it will require, and no assurance that it won't unduly affect the 96% of us who are not indigenous.

There's been enough money thrown at the indigenous without any accountability (billions of taxpayer dollars) and I for one don't trust it.

 

[Philip_B]

I don't think the "yes" vote has a chance. I think it's a foregone conclusion.

They've got nobody to blame but themselves - insufficient detail, no statements about how it will work, how many staff it will require, and no assurance that it won't unduly affect the 96% of us who are not indigenous.

There's been enough money thrown at the indigenous without any accountability (billions of taxpayer dollars) and I for one don't trust it.

We live in an ineptocracy. We get people in offices to send memos to people in offices to send memos to people in offices, and then collate all this to form a committee to review all this and then form a sub-committee who in turn get people in offices to send memos to people in offices ....

Governments are not good at spending money. We invested millions of millions to support struggling people in the pandemic, and we did such a good job of it that the 200 wealthiest people in Australia doubled their wealth, and they were not starting from a low base.

Would we spend 50 million dollars on a football stadium without asking the football codes likely to use it what they would want and need for it to go well? I suspect we would, but most of us can see we should.

On this point I agree with Albo, if we keep doing what we are doing we will get the same result. The argument for consultation seems obvious to me, and on that basis, I am supporting the Voice as a means of achieving it. I want to spend more money on the problem and less money on the bureaucrats, and hopefully less money overall. Nonetheless, I respect your opinion and concur with many of the points you make.