Comments by "Invisible huh?" (@Whoisthis1111) on "Warren Mundine says there is “not enough information” about the Voice referendum | 7.30" video.

Well spoken Warren Mundine. You’re representing the “No” case eloquently and accurately. There’s two sides to this debate and multifaceted arguments on both sides. While I will vote no, I recognise that the “Yes” case are trying to help Indigenous Australians, the issue is that changing the status quo through a Constitutional is not the way. Legislate it 100%, but don’t enshrine it seeing as we don’t even know if it will work.
41
@danielpage5597 I understand this 100%. But clause 2 is of issue, 3 is not. Specifically the “may make representations” bit as a result of the ambiguity of the word “may” and the “executive government” portions are of legal issue. Why can’t we legislate the voice first? It would go a long way in proving something like the Voice already works seeing as the Voice can end up being another ATSIC. The gov can give it that type of power which is an issue. Albanese could have very well then put it through a referendum process using these words as the public would be far more inclined to vote yes if things were actually changing. Legislation keeps the Voice versatile and doesn’t enshrine something in the Constitution that we may not need. If we try to even remove it later on, we know the type of response we will see from proponents. My issue is the unforeseen consequences make this idea unviable in my eyes and far better for implementation through a legislated model rather than placing Constitutional roots down. There’s a reason soo many previous models of representation have failed. Either way, the liberals do support a so called “Canberra Voice”, the only way they differ is that they want “regional and local” voices to feed into a voice to parliament. Their model is about ensuring that smaller groups of Indigenous Australians are heard and that we make targeted reforms. IMO the voice will not do much in terms of turning around the current issues. This is as much a cultural and mindset problem as it is anything. We’ve reinforced difference, which is something we should’ve moved away from and instead should’ve focussed on integration, just like migrants have integrated into society. This doesn’t mean assimilation, but rather practicing of cultural and religious beliefs privately and contributing to society publicly. There are of course many other issues that feed into this, but this is an abstract issue that I don’t think anyone really has addressed and it was started under Whitlam as a complete 180 from the stolen generation. Both extremes have negative consequences and we should’ve instead looked towards the middle.
4
@danielpage5597 the point of that criticism is that we don’t even know the model Albanese wants to implement. He could very well implement a model with lots of power (although this would not be in the Constitution). I think the main issue I have is that with the Constitutional wording, the gov did ask the working committee to change the words. They asked to get rid of the executive government clause, which is what the opposition and opponents are against. The working committee refused. This was after the SG gave them private advice. Pretty much all lawyers admit that there’s a risk. This includes Constitutional lawyers and High Court judges, even those who are Yes voters or do want to see a Constitutional voice but don’t agree with this model as a result of the risk. If they simply changed Executive Government to head of government or something that states what they actually mean rather than this broader statement, they would take away one of the pillars of the No argument. Even as of last week, with lobbying by Julian Leeser, the guy who alongside others came up with the voice concept, to remove the executive gov portion, Albanese opposed this change. We’ve had a history of activist high court judges; it is my opinion that, from what I’ve read in terms of the wording itself and possible implications, that the risk for interpretations is too high. It could result in damaging effects and even the possibility is a major red flag.
3
@danielpage5597 thanks for your explanation. It’s full of insight and I see your point of view on this. Like I said, I respect your stance and after all, we just want to fix the issues that exist for our fellow Australians. I think this is really down to legal interpretation. The SG report that was released looked like it was cleaned up, as it was written a couple days prior to the actual release. I think for an informed decision we do need to see the private SG advice, 3 of these reports exist that we know of, as that was what got the AG to ask the working committee to change the words regarding executive gov, which they refused to do. I think for me it really is the principle in this case. Enshrining a body for one race into the Constitution also seems wrong to me. It’s introducing race which is the opposite of what the 67 referendum was about. We removed references to Indigenous Australians which negatively impacted them. Now we’re giving them lobbying power Constitutionally which is providing one citizen more power to influence gov than other citizens who are not of Indigenous descent. Personally I’d rather see a legislated model. I think it’s the most versatile. To enshrine this in my opinion is wrong in itself. I do see your point on the fact it can be repealed and modified. I agree there is modularity with the Constitutional model as well, but it’ll be something that’s there forever. I don’t ever see it being removed, especially with the trends I’ve observed in society. Even if the voice leads to equality of opportunity and a reduction in disadvantage, they will hold an extra lobbying power that every other citizen of our nation wouldn’t get. All this would be based on race. In terms of the funding powers etc. Albanese currently says it won’t, but the constitutional reform would allow for it. That’s my point. He’s left the whole thing too open ended. By leaving it open ended, it’s causing speculation on what the voice will look like and how it will operate. If Albanese had gone to the referendum with an outline of the Voice and with legislation ready as soon as the referendum passed, I think even then we’d have more support. I personally would still vote No for the referendum in terms of Constitutional implementation but would want it to be legislated. Giving people that detail is what would make the whole process genuine. The way Albanese has gone about this in my opinion is wholly disingenuous. He had ample opportunity to consult with the opposition on wording. They were calling the wording out from the very beginning but in political point scoring exercises, so that they could call the Coalition the “no-alition” they refused to work with the Coalition on this and a lot of other legislation. The liberals also could’ve compromised on other legislation but they stuck to their guns as well, in terms of the voice they were willing to work on it with them. The liberals could very easily have come around to the voice I think, but now that they’re against it they’re not going to switch sides. The politics did work out for Labor though with their primary vote skyrocketing from lower than the LNP to around 42% at peak so there’s that. That last paragraph might be the cynic in me lol.
2
@danielpage5597 Pretty much everyone else who I’ve talked to about this has resorted to calling me racist, thank you for hearing me out. It’s a rarity these days, hope you have a great day too!
2
@aggressivecalm I believe I do mention this in my replies to the other person I discussed this with. The powers that could be interpreted from the current wording as it stands are possibly hazardous for our nation. It’s why I’m in favour of testing a federal voice, but not in the Constitution. I agree this could lead to a reduction in efficiency and could result in major implications on how future governments run with this body present. However, it is once again all down to interpretation of the legislation. I personally believe that the fears are real and that Albanese has gone about this incorrectly. We needed proper consultation with Constitutional lawyers. Not what we’ve seen under his government. I still wouldn’t support it in principle as I’m a believer in keeping race out of our nation’s founding document but it would appeal far more to the voters if it was a more moderate reform.
1