Sky News Australia to launch new channel dedicated to covering Indigenous voice
Sky News Australia to launch new channel dedicated to covering Indigenous voice
Murdoch-owned rolling news channel will show news, analysis, commentary and documentary programming about the impending referendum
You're viewing a single thread.
As a non-Australian who stumbled across this on my All feed, I'm wondering if someone could provide some links that explain the situation this is all about?
I'm getting the jist that indigenous people are at risk of being subdued in regards to their rights, however this could be an incorrect analysis. Just looking to educate myself a little.
If this is side-stepping discussion too much, I apologise and I can delete this post if so. Do let me know either way, thank you.
Not fucking side-stepping at all mate, doubt much of the world know about the internal going-ons of Australia, so always happy to share a yarn.
I'll break it down, but I'm by no means an expert and will probably get it a bit wrong.
I'm confident about this. Sky News is Murdoch's Australian version of Fox, he's started pumping out freely to rural Australia, where they usually have to pay for view and satellites and shit. It's picking up background steam and infiltrating the right wing of Australia, trying to do what it did in the US (hopefully he dies before this gets too far on). It's also shown for free in lots of gambling/sports betting places and pubs etc, where tradies/working class people are more likely to congregate.
He's making a spin-off channel dedicated solely to talking about a single issue, the creation of a layer between the two houses of government that is made up entirely of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples, they wouldn't have any legislative power, but a special advisory layer? to give a more enshrined voice to the the original inhabitants of Australia. This is called 'The Voice'.
The Voice, is part of a petition called the "Uluru Statement from the Heart". To quote the wiki "These reforms can be summarised as Voice, Treaty and Truth." Treaty should be pretty self-explanatory (and something that will finally get the Kiwi's to stop feeling so bloody special) and is proposed to be done through a commission (a public inquiry) called the "Makarrata Commission", and the Truth - which is I guess creating a historical record of what exactly happened, to who, to where, to what, to why, when and acknowledging all the bad shit done.
The truth and treaty aren't getting much flack, but the right is trying to create this impression that the voice would allow Aboriginal people to unfairly control the democratic process (despite having no authority) and is trying to drum up dog-whistling racist shit.
tl;dr: Just the slow, monotonous drum of the Americani
zsation of Australia and an attempt at going the opposite path.Some futher links: https://ulurustatement.org/ https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/UluruStatement
Minor correction... The Voice doesn't exist between the two houses of government. It will be an advisory body to parliament, thats it.
@[email protected] To be clear, the referendum is only on the Voice to Parliament. Treaty and makarrata are separate issues that the current Labor government, to my knowledge, has not committed to addressing. This is why some, in what is known as the "Progressive No" campaign, reject the Voice. They believe it falls well short of what is needed and will be used by current and future governments to delay progress on Indigenous rights. Governments will be able to point to the Voice as evidence of them listening, whilst being under no legal obligation to actually listen to or act on any of the recommendations being made.
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that it will be a non voting position for an indigenous person in parliament to directly address parliament. Indigenous people have been very marginalised and suffer from multi generational discrimination. This will just be a way to hear and recognise their opinions directly rather than it having to go through the filter of politicians.
The counter to it is that it undermines democracy where the majority speaks. Personally I don't buy that; the hallmark of a civilised society is helping those in need - and we've pushed our indigenous people into a deep hole.
I have never heard of it being a 'non-voting indigenous representative in parliament'.
If this was the plan for the Voice, then all we would really be doing is adding a representative with less sway in the parliament than an Independent, think Kate Chaney, Helen Haines. They can get things done, but their resources are limited. A 'non-voting indigenous representative in parliament' wouldn't have the bandwidth for the amount of projects they'd be expected to take on, on day one.
To be clear, per the constitional proposal, i think a 'non-voting indigenous representative in parliament' could fit the constitutional requirement, as it doesn't impose any organisational structure requirements on the Voice. The constitutional language, (aka what us plebs are voting on), is kept vague deliberately to allow change over time, but hard to abolish altogether. Thats how i've come to understand it.
I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that it will be a non voting position for an indigenous person in parliament to directly address parliament.
This is misleading, the Voice is not one person nor is it "in parliament". It is a permanent advisory body that can make recommendations to Parliament and/or government. If you are confused on the difference, just look at the name; it is a Voice to Parliament, not a Voice in Parliament.
Fair enough on it being a board rather than a single position, the intent is still the same, it's a way for indigenous issues to be presented directly to parliament without being filtered by existing politicians.