What are your thoughts on the governments chances of getting this up!
None and SFA in my opinion!
A bit more here on the voice in parliament ideahttps://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/morrison-to-veto-voice-as-part-...Morrison to veto ‘voice’ as part of Constitution
Scott Morrison will veto any move to enshrine an Aboriginal “voice to parliament” in the Constitution, urging his government to pursue indigenous recognition without supporting all the recommendations in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
The Australian has been told the Prime Minister remains opposed to enshrining the voice in the Constitution, a move he declared last year would create a “third chamber” to parliament.
Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt, who was elevated to cabinet by Mr Morrison after the election, declared in a landmark speech on Wednesday that the government would consider creating a voice to parliament through legislation, and left the door open to enshrining it in the Constitution.
Senior government sources said yesterday Mr Morrison would not support a constitutionally enshrined indigenous advisory body. He would consider backing a national body that would bring existing indigenous organisations together through legislation, while also seeking to build a consensus position on constitutional recognition.
“A voice to parliament enshrined in the Constitution is not going to happen on his watch,” a government source said.
The move risks a brawl with Labor and key indigenous figures but is aimed at encouraging them to shift their support away from full adoption of the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, which includes constitutional enshrinement of a voice.
Mr Wyatt told The Australian yesterday that indigenous people could have “multiple voices” to the parliament — including the nation’s most disadvantaged and remote indigenous people — without having a voice enshrined in the Constitution.
“I think most people I talk to are not asking for the voice to be enshrined in the Constitution,” Mr Wyatt said.
“They want to be heard. It’s not just one voice. It’s not just one model. I want to hear from Aboriginal people in the regions as to what they want.
“We’ve got to consider the range of ways in which the voice has meaning. We have to focus on what the pragmatic realities are that are going to make a difference to the lives of indigenous Australians.”
GRAPHIC: The long road to recognition
Asked if he believed a voice to parliament needed to be in the Constitution in order to be effective, Mr Wyatt replied: “I don’t think it does.”
He said people spoke about the issue “at a national level but we are not listening to voices at the community level”.
“If we enshrined the voice in the Constitution it is not going to change what I have just described,” he said.
Indigenous academic Marcia Langton said the voice needed to be constitutionally enshrined to prevent it from being dismantled. She cited the Howard government’s decision to abolish the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission in 2005.
“Going back to the 1970s, there is a long history of it,” Professor Langton said. “No effort to involve indigenous people in the government system has survived very long. They have always been abolished after one or two terms.
“It is one of the reasons why policies fail over and over again.”
Labor senator Pat Dodson, who would have been indigenous affairs minister if Bill Shorten had won the election, said Labor should not waver in its commitment to the recommendations from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which was handed down by the federal government’s Referendum Council two years ago. He said Mr Wyatt would “not be keeping faith” with supporters of the Uluru statement if he refused to take a constitutionally enshrined voice to a referendum.
“People at Uluru wanted some kind of permanency and stability in the entity that gets to represent their views to the parliament,” Senator Dodson said.
Referendum Council co-chair Patricia Anderson said a constitutionally enshrined voice was the “only viable option” for indigenous recognition.
“The consensus at the dialogues and Uluru was to rule out symbolism,” Ms Anderson said. “Symbolism won’t close the gap. The consensus outcome was a constitutionally enshrined voice to the parliament.”
Anthony Albanese yesterday declared it was “realistic and doable” to hold a successful referendum on constitutional recognition in this term of parliament.
When asked if he thought it would be difficult to enshrine a voice into the Constitution, the Opposition Leader said he was optimistic about “getting an outcome”.
“I hope that this change happens during this parliament and I have offered to work constructively with Prime Minister Morrison,” Mr Albanese said.
“That’s the commitment from Labor to make sure that we get an outcome, not just any outcome, an outcome that has the support of indigenous Australians.”
Opposition spokeswoman for indigenous Australians Linda Burney said Labor would push the government to adopt the recommendations from the Uluru statement. But she indicated Labor could be willing to amend its position during the “co-design” process, if it ensured bipartisan support for constitutional recognition.
“Labor’s position at the moment is that we embrace the Uluru statement in its entirety,” Ms Burney said.
Cont
Forum
Pages: 1 
