Even before we know what the wording of the referendum is the ACSQ has supported the Voice to Parliment. This is the view of a cadre of activitists in head office and may or may not represent the views of ACSQ as a whole. This has not been discussed at Synod nor by any poll of church members. Support at this stage is premature when so little detail is known. Aboriginal people already have a voice to parliament through several elected MP's with indigenous heritage and through consultation by parliamentary committees during formulation of bills. I fear that a legislated "voice" will become an expensive talkfest for activists to push critical race theory.
p.s. This communication by the ACSQ Diocese is entirely top down. There is no feedback in the Anglican Focus web site nor on their facebook page.
I'm in America; I don't quite understand. The proposed committee wouldn't have a vote in parliament, would it?
And that's part of the problem. If it does have a vote or veto it usurps the Federal Parliament. Indigenous people already have a voice in parliament. As of June 2021, the 46th Federal Parliament includes six parliamentarians who identify as Indigenous or as having Indigenous heritage—two members of the House of Representatives and four senators. In addition indigenous people can make submissions during preparation of legislation that affects them (or any legislation). If it does not have a vote or veto then it becomes an expensive talkfest which I fear would be hijacked by activists who can say what they like without having to take responsibility.
Yeah, I see what you're getting at. Although, with today's climate, one's federal dollars are likely driven to expensive and hijacked talkfests anyway via the universities and such. In America, we've got the tribal organizations and like quasi-sovereign entities. I know in the Southwest, at least, the Native Americans can sort of localize their regulations and law enforcement by means of the reservations, since we're ostensibly past the era of long-walking entire populations to Oklahoma or Bosque Redondo. (IMHO) It works out much better than having a special federal committee like the proposed one in Australia, because then they can decide on what their actual people want; the Sioux are not the Hopi, and the latter are not the Iroquois. And that's saying something, because a tiny commission can actually underrepresent all the indigenous diversity and be oppressively 'hijacked' indeed. And it's the same situation with the Australian Aborigines, I imagine, in terms of diversity. According to my brief wikipedia reading, the Aboriginal reserves were disbanded. So, I assume that they don't have any special local authorities...? (Anyway, as always, I'm just chatting. I'm not that sure of anything involving law or politics these days.) The Diocese donated money to the campaign, largely from the schools? Is that a good use of the school's funds? I guess if it nominally goes to education reform. But would that money be better spent... establishing the relevant schools?
Thanks, Cat. So tribal organizations can work in specific areas. It's good to hear another point of view.
Please forgive me for moving off-topic, but I've a question, and can't figure out how to start a new topic. Is there any truth in the rumour that the Anglican Church has started to hold 'debaptism' ceremonies? I've been asked this, but no longer have Anglican family members I can ask. You are welcome to PM me with any replies, rather that derail this thread any further. Many thanks. Blessings. Paul
Thank you. I know that's the case for the RCC, and presumed it is the same for the Anglican Community. The notion is bizarre, but I needed to check. Strange times!
Have obtained ‘The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion’. In ‘Part VI: Ecclesiastical Rites; Principle 64: Conditional baptism; Article 1’ we read (my emphasis): ‘ Due to the indelibility of baptism, the minister of baptism must be satisfied that a candidate for baptism has not previously been baptised. I guess that answers my question. It’s a no! Many thanks for your time. Blessings.
So you believe that having 5% of the seats in the Senate and 1% of the seats in the House of Representatives gives the indigenous peoples of Australia a strong voice in their country?
From the main page select Forums. then the Group, say Questions?, then in the upper right you should see a button to Post new Thread.
At present, 3.2% of Australia's population identify as Aboriginal, so yo have just demonstrated that they do have roughly proportionate representation (over in the Senate and under in the house of Reps). However I wouldn't put too much weight on that since you then get into the game of trying to make a parliament that precisely matches the composition of the Australian population. e.g. Should we have 5.6% Chinese representation? Nor is the number of parliamentary representatives the sole source of representation. Just like anyone else aboriginal people can talk to their local member no matter what race or sex they might be. Aboriginal groups can lobby or make submissions just like anyone else.
I think that first the percentage of Australia's population represented by indigenous peoples is irrelevant. They are entitled to a strong voice. I calculated the percentage of representation they had in Australia's federal parliament because you cited numbers. It is not a significant number to give them a voice. They have a very small number of legislators and such small numbers are easy to ignore and dismiss. I do not think any country's legislature should represent its population by ethnicity, sex, religion, or anything else. I was simply following your line of argument that you thought the indigenous peoples of Australia were sufficiently well-represented and had a adequate voice in Australia's government.
As I said, Aboriginal people already have a voice to parliament through several elected MP's with indigenous heritage and through consultation by parliamentary committees during formulation of bills, and through their local members. I believe they are entitled to as much of a voice as anyone else gets, but I remain to be convinced that they require an extra-parliamentary QUANGO to achieve that. I believe it is premature at this stage for ACSQ to support the "Voice" when no details of the proposed referendum are available.
From what I have read and seen the indigenous peoples of Australia do not seem to be listened to so perhaps a body established for this purpose may enable their voice to be better heard. Perhaps judgement on how effective it is ought to be reserved until such time as it is brought into existence and has had some time to achieve something. No point in pre-judging a body that does not exist.
The issue is more about being expected to support the idea of the legislation without any detail. In the Woke and Wonderful World, we are being told not to be concerned about the detail. Once upon a time, there was a Premier of Queensland who would regularly tell people "Now don't you worry about that!" Now I have been around long enough to know that the time to worry about the detail is when you are being told not to worry about the detail, especially when it comes to those who make and administer our laws. Now I would say that we need to find ways to work for the betterment of all Australians, and some part of that will involve some remedial work to advance the welfare of the First Nations' People. Australians generally have a very healthy distrust of all in power, which is probably to be expected in a nation set up to be a penal colony. Gentleman Pickpocket and First Fleeter, George Barrington is credited with the words of Barrington's Prologue, which runs, True Patriots we for be it understood, We left our country for our country's good!