You Ask We Answer: Why can't the Voice to Parliament just be legislated?
- 8 months ago
#Voicetoparliament #politics #referendum #IndigneousAustralians
This time next week some Australians will vote in the first referendum in 24 years, with early voting for the Indigenous Voice Parliament starting on October 2. But even though early voting is about to begin, many people still have questions about the proposal; one of these; Why can't it become law? Legislating Voice is of course an option, and something the government has committed to doing if referendum is successful. But doing so would not respond to the demand made in the Uluru Heartfelt Statement, which included more than 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and was delivered by 250 delegates in 2017. This statement calls for “the creation of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.” Uluru's Heartfelt Statement calls for a constitutionally enshrined First Nations Voice. Recognition on the country's birth certificate The Voice of Parliament proposal, submitted on October 14, also provides for constitutional recognition. Legalizing the body will not achieve this result. In its current form, the Australian constitution makes no mention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The word Aboriginal was mentioned twice before the 1967 referendum, but this was for exclusion rather than recognition purposes. The proposal, presented Australians in referendum to be held next month, aims officially recognize Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in the constitution through indigenous advisory body. Here is the text of the referendum question, which will ask Australians to vote Yes or No In addition, amendment the constitution to include a new section titled "Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples" will be brought to attention Australians. Details will be as follows For the purpose of recognizing 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. Protection against removal Another reason why body should be constitutionally enshrined, as government and Yes campaigners argue, is that doing so would significantly reduce risk of Voice being scrapped by future governments. The body's inclusion in the constitution means that the Voice can only be disbanded if it is approved in a later referendum. This will prevent a repeat of the past where many institutions were abolished. Uluru Dialogue co-chair Megan Davis wrote in her Quarterly Essay, Voice Reason On Recognition and Renewal, that the lack of permanence limits the impact any advisory body. "Disrupting replacing such mechanisms has a devastating impact on communities their finances, short-term and long-term planning, quality of health, social cohesion prospects for the future," Professor Davis said. “A Voice cannot be truly independent or provide candid advice if it lives under the threat of removal.” Both major parties abolished Indigenous representative bodies,
This time next week some Australians will vote in the first referendum in 24 years, with early voting for the Indigenous Voice Parliament starting on October 2. But even though early voting is about to begin, many people still have questions about the proposal; one of these; Why can't it become law? Legislating Voice is of course an option, and something the government has committed to doing if referendum is successful. But doing so would not respond to the demand made in the Uluru Heartfelt Statement, which included more than 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and was delivered by 250 delegates in 2017. This statement calls for “the creation of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.” Uluru's Heartfelt Statement calls for a constitutionally enshrined First Nations Voice. Recognition on the country's birth certificate The Voice of Parliament proposal, submitted on October 14, also provides for constitutional recognition. Legalizing the body will not achieve this result. In its current form, the Australian constitution makes no mention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The word Aboriginal was mentioned twice before the 1967 referendum, but this was for exclusion rather than recognition purposes. The proposal, presented Australians in referendum to be held next month, aims officially recognize Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in the constitution through indigenous advisory body. Here is the text of the referendum question, which will ask Australians to vote Yes or No In addition, amendment the constitution to include a new section titled "Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples" will be brought to attention Australians. Details will be as follows For the purpose of recognizing 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. Protection against removal Another reason why body should be constitutionally enshrined, as government and Yes campaigners argue, is that doing so would significantly reduce risk of Voice being scrapped by future governments. The body's inclusion in the constitution means that the Voice can only be disbanded if it is approved in a later referendum. This will prevent a repeat of the past where many institutions were abolished. Uluru Dialogue co-chair Megan Davis wrote in her Quarterly Essay, Voice Reason On Recognition and Renewal, that the lack of permanence limits the impact any advisory body. "Disrupting replacing such mechanisms has a devastating impact on communities their finances, short-term and long-term planning, quality of health, social cohesion prospects for the future," Professor Davis said. “A Voice cannot be truly independent or provide candid advice if it lives under the threat of removal.” Both major parties abolished Indigenous representative bodies,