You mentioned the right to vote when you stated the 1967 referendum didn't give them the right to vote. That's why I mentioned that they already had the right to vote.
Yes, because the exclusion of certain language didn't enshrine any recognition of Indigenous people and their rights. In saying that, the main ideal was simply to point out how ignored they were. Also, they didn't already have the right to vote. They were excluded until 1965 -and even then, not every state or territory adopted it immediately- and it was only in 1984 that they were required to enrol and to vote which gave them equal voting rights the same as everyone else.
You should read what the proposed new constitutional clause said. It didn't do any of the things you mentioned. If you actually understood what it said rather than what people argued about what it said you would see that it was a poorly drafted amendment that really didn't do anything. It was soundly defeated because of this.
It was soundly defeated because of racism. Simple as that. Most of the people who voted no had no idea about it. Remember the LNP's motto was "if you don't know, vote no". Simply saying, "if you don't understand, don't bother to read up or get the knowledge, stay dumb and vote no". I'm not parroting what people argued. I'm an academic, I'll do research and not just say what they say on tele. I'm bringing forward the information from every peak body, organisation, study, and article that mentions that The Voice was needed. Most importantly, I'm saying what First Nations scholars and experts have said about their voice and what The Voice would have done for them.
All it did was say a body called the voice should exist but the Parliament needed to legislate regarding it's composition, functions, powers and procedures.
A constitution is for the principles, not concept. So whilst you are technically correct, you are ignoring the crux. Whilst parliament could legislate the shape, i.e, it can have 24 members, it can have 15 members, parliament could not determine who those members are or where they came from. Parliament could also not get rid of the voice or disband it. They could also not institute who they wanted and how it was developed. This is the crux. There is a big difference here.
These could be changed by a Parliament of the future as they saw fit. I gave you an example of how under the proposed amendment the Parliament could render any such body irrelevant if it chose. I have said that the amendment would have done nothing that couldn't have been done without it.
This last part has already been disproved in terms of why that is not viable. If we don't need a referendum, then why don't we have recognition of First Nations people in the constitution? Why don't we consult First Nations people on matters pertaining to them. And I don't mean Jacinta Price, I mean actual First Nations people from the communities for whom we make laws and policies.
Here it is below in full.
View attachment 5088
This simplifies the nuances of how the voice would have worked. 87% of First Nations people were for the voice. And some of the remaining 13% were not fully against The Voice, they felt it wasn't enough and wanted Treaty. However, all that matters is that the majority of First Nations people were calling for this and that is what we should respect. It should not be us telling them what they deserve and should get.
The Voice would have been independent, selected by First Nations Peoples, community-led and reflect the diversity of First Nations communities. Our Constitution lacks safeguards for equality. Section 51 -often referred to as 'race power'- of the constitution allows for making laws about and for First Nations people without actually consulting them. It actually permits and enables racially discriminatory legislation. The government has used the 'race power' to enact legislation regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. However, there’s no requirement that these laws benefit First Nations peoples. The Voice would have changed this.
As to your last statement I don't believe that any specific group should have special mention in the Constitution. I don't think the Uluru statement should be adopted in the constitution. The Constitution outlines how Federal Government works and the relationships between the entities that formed it. That's it. Anything else can be legislated as indeed the Voice could be. I would be in favour of a legislated voice. That appears unlikely in the next few years due to the overreach of trying to place something that doesn't belong in the Constitution within it.
It's not a special group. It's the First people of the land. The people who were colonised, murdered, and systematically attempted to be wiped out. It is the people from whom everything was stolen, and on which we have built our riches. It is the oldest living civilisation, and that we can't even give them a simple thing as acknowledgement is truly a racist mark on this country.
Again, legislation can be chopped and changed, constitution requires referendum. Each of the five previous mechanisms which have been set up by parliamentary processes for the purpose of developing and supporting First Nations people have been abolished by successive governments cancelling programs, policies and investment with the stroke of a pen. The voice could be legislated tomorrow like you say, and you can bet that LNP, One Nation and Katter would whinge and fight it every single day. If it's in the constitution, then they have a responsibility and duty to uphold it. The Uluru Statement literally calls for constitutional recognition. If it should not be adopted, then it means you reject it and we are back to square one of the systemic racism against First Nations people. Rejecting the Uluru Statement, rejects all the work done to get to this document and this point. First Nations people definitely belong in the constitution.
