The Voice to Parliament could advise on how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges can help the country prepare for and lessen the damage of natural disasters such as bushfires.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at New Zealand Parliament beside senior cultural adviser to Parliament Kura Moeahu during a Māori welcome ceremony.
AAP Image/Mark Coote
Despite the claim ‘there is no comparable constitutional body like this anywhere in the world’ many countries have similar institutions to the proposed Voice.
The Voice to Parliament referendum is bringing about harmful discussions, affecting First Nations people. There are ways to support better wellbeing during this time.
A Voice to Parliament would advise the “executive government” – that is, ministers and the public service – on issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Some Voice opponents are claiming the new advisory body could lead to the conversion of private land title to native title. But this is not how native title law works.
What we are already hearing today from those leading the “no” campaign is an echo chamber of Trumpist sentiments for his supporters and acolytes in Australia.
Constitutions are by nature short and incomplete documents. In Australia, parliament puts the flesh on the bones of the Constitution, including how a proposed Voice would operate.
Two big ethical questions have emerged during the Voice to Parliament campaign: is it fair non-Indigenous people will get the majority say? And is it fair one group will get something others don’t?
From a legal standpoint, there is a difference between a state and a territory, and for some that justifies giving territory voters less say over changes to the national constitution.
The ‘no’ side is successfully engaging young people on TikTok by combining volume (posting multiple TikToks a day) with authenticity, use of personal narratives and humour.
Unfortunately we’re a bit out of practice in how to conduct ourselves in a referendum. These seven rules may help.
Although both Pauline Hanson and Lidia Thorpe are campaigning for a ‘no’ vote, it’s important to note they are coming from two different sides.
AAP Image/Mick Tsikas
As the referendum date approaches, campaigns may use misinformation to spark emotions in people to get them to vote a certain way. Here are some ways to spot dishonest claims and misinformation.
Constitutions are by nature short and incomplete documents. In Australia, parliament puts the flesh on the bones of the Constitution, including how a proposed Voice would operate.
Even though there is strong Indigenous representation in parliament, this does not guarantee Indigenous communities a say in laws and policies made on their behalf.
In their 1881 petition, Aboriginal people from the Maloga mission who sought greater freedom from missionary control called for the government to grant them their own parcel of land.
We now know the wording of the Voice referendum and proposed constitutional amendment. But what may have been forgotten is how we got here in the first place – and why it matters.
Invasion Day rallies across the country included First Nations people campaigning against a Voice to Parliament.
AAAP Image/Bianca De Marchi
Right-wing opposition of the Voice to parliament has been dominating the so-called ‘no’ campaign. First Nations communities calling for more detail and more discussion also have reason to oppose it.
The sad reality is that if the demands of these early activists had been met nearly a century ago, we would not be suffering the severe disadvantage that hovers over Aboriginal lives still today.
Cooper walking on Nicholson Street Footscray. Obtained with permission.
Esmay Mann Collection.