Sir Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2022 at 9:58pm:

There would have been a time (a blink of an eye since the passing of  their general acceptance in the timeline of human history) when the likes of absolute monarchy, slavery and restrictive/privileged suffrage were accepted as normative. Now, not so much.

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2022 at 9:30pm:


But not a race, eh?

Inferior culture, innit.

You're not racist, no? You totally deny it.

Well, Albo has begun walking back already from Saturday's claim that the referendum would be held before any detail about what The Voice to Parliament would actually look like.

It's a start.

Albanese shifts and says parliament will debate Voice details before referendum

James Massola
By James Massola
August 3, 2022 — 6.44pm

Federal parliament will hammer out key details of what an Indigenous Voice to parliament will look like and when a national vote is held, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says, in a shift from his position that much of the detail would happen after a referendum.

He has indicated the model for the Voice outlined by Professors Marcia Langton and Tom Calma in a 2021 report to the former Morrison government will be central to the debate and design.

Last Saturday, Albanese announced Australians would be asked whether they supported or opposed enshrining an Indigenous Voice in the constitution, and the three sentences that would be added to what he dubbed Australia’s “birth certificate”.

On Sunday, the prime minister said much of the detail about the structure of the Voice would not be known until after the referendum was held as he wanted to avoid a repeat of the failed republic referendum in 1999 when opponents were looking at the detail of the proposal “and saying, ’well, if you disagree with these 50 clauses, if you disagree with one out of the 50 but 49 are okay, vote no. We’re not doing that.”

But on Wednesday Albanese said he wanted to give Australians space to “walk on this journey” and discuss the proposed referendum – which the government has indicated it would like to hold before the 2025 election – and confirmed more detail would be available about the proposed model before a vote.

“I respect people having different views on this. I want a national conversation ... what I did on Saturday was provide a framework for the conversation to enable it to move forward,” he said.

“We will need a referendum, legislation has to occur for that to advance, there will be a debate in the parliament as well. Inevitably, as part of that debate, there will be discussion about the extensive work of Marcia Langton and Tom Calma, extensive debate, about what a Voice to parliament might look like in terms of regional structures.”

“A particular model [has] been put forward by them that envisages a national model, but also with equal representation of male and female representatives. Particular quarantining of representation to ensure remote communities are represented and a regional structure as well ... that will be advanced during the legislative debate. It will determine, when it is clearer, what an appropriate date for a referendum should be.”

The Langton and Calma model also has electing or appointing members flagged as options.

The prime minister said the media, during the national debate, had a “big responsibility to look at and promote what unites us and to put that in a coherent way whilst recognising there are different views”.

The model proposed by Calma and Langton had 24 members, comprising two from each state, territory and the Torres Strait and a further five members from remote areas of the NT, WA, Queensland, WA and SA and a Torres Strait Islander living on the mainland.

There would be two co-chairs of different genders who serve two-year terms and who would be paid as the positions would be full-time roles.

The body’s membership would be gender balanced, members would serve four-year terms, with half the membership replaced every two years and a limit of two consecutive terms per member. It would be supported by an independent Office of the National Voice.

The Voice would not provide service delivery functions for Indigenous Australians or manage government programs and a set of “consultation standards” that provide guidance on when, how and on what types of matters the Voice should be consulted by the parliament.

The body would also be linked to separate regional and local Voices that would be developed.

Jesus, Albo is coming across as Mr Wishy-Washy...

OOPS, Australia...

“We will need a referendum, legislation has to occur for that to advance, there will be a debate in the parliament as well. Inevitably, as part of that debate, there will be discussion about the extensive work of Marcia Langton and Tom Calma, extensive debate, about what a Voice to parliament might look like in terms of regional structures.”

Let me just analyse that for a second....

Legislation is ONLY to enable a referendum... nothing more or else....... 

The work people have put in has zero bearing on the reality of whether or not a referendum should be initiated ..... that decision is on merit alone .......

If the final solution of such debate is to get an idea of what it MIGHT look like - NO DEAL!  We want the whole box and dice laid out right there... or never!

I suppose Albo could then always fall back on what that Labor sheila said to business - 'give women 50% of the top jobs or we will legislate it over you!'.... pure fascism...

Equivalent position here - "Vote for what we want or we will legislate it over the top of you anyway!"

I say NO!

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 4^th, 2022 at 12:32am:

A wise move.

The Australian people must be given the opportunity to consider the full definition of 'voice' prior to a referendum on whether there should be one.

Sanity restoration 101:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Commission

"For some time after Clark's appointment, the Howard government had been expressing doubts as to the value of continuing to have ATSIC at all. Following Mark Latham's election to the leadership of the (Labor) Opposition in December 2003, Labor agreed with the government that ATSIC had not worked.[citation needed] In April of election year 2004, both parties pledged to introduce alternative arrangements for Indigenous affairs, with Labor proposing a new elected national body.[4]

The government's plan was to abolish ATSIC and all of its regional and state structures, and return funding for Indigenous programs to the relevant line departments. Labor's view was that ATSIC itself should be abolished, but many of the regional and state sub-organisations should be retained, to continue to give Indigenous people a voice in their own affairs and within their own communities. It rejected the notion of merging Indigenous funding into funding for Australians generally as "tried and failed", but had not announced its alternative proposals.[citation needed]

Howard announced the agency's abolition on 15 April 2004, saying that "the experiment in elected representation for Indigenous people has been a failure".[6] On 28 May 2004 the government introduced into the Federal Parliament legislation to abolish ATSIC. The Bill finally passed both houses of Parliament in 2005, and ATSIC was formally abolished at midnight 24 March 2005."