Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Link to the proposed Referendum, from the Referendum Working Group:

(Edited 6 April 2023)

These are the words that will be put to the Australian people in the upcoming referendum as agreed by the Referendum Working Group (made up of representatives of First Nations communities from around Australia):

"A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

As well as that, it will be put to Australians that the constitution be amended to include a new chapter titled "Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples".

The details would be:


View attachment 1636890

The Prime Minister has committed to the government introducing legislation with this wording to parliament on 30 March 2023 and to establishing a joint parliamentary committee to consider it and receive submissions on the wording, providing ALL members of Parliament with the opportunity to consider and debate the full details of the proposal.

Parliament will then vote on the wording in June in the lead up to a National Referendum.

The ANU has issued a paper responding to common public concerns expressed in relation to the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice here:

Indigenous Voice to Parliament | Australian National University

Responding to common concerns about an aboriginal and torres strait islander voice First Nations portfolio Background

www.anu.edu.au

Summary details of the key points from this paper may be found in Chief post here:

The Uluru Statement from the Heart:

Not specifically No. In any case it does not form part of the Referendum proposal.

View attachment 1769742

Seeing as things have gotten a bit toxic in here, let's try to return things to a more civil tone.

The following will result in warnings to begin with, and if said behaviour continues will be escalated:

• referring to another poster as racist without direct provocation.
• dismissing or deriding another poster's lived experience.
• personal attacks or one line posts designed solely to insult or deride.

You might notice that the final rule is from the board rules. Thought we should probably remember that this is against the rules in case it's been forgotten.

Let's play nicely from here, people.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

and yet the maori life expectancy gap as one indicator is roughly equivalent to the indigenous people here.

and a stack of them move here for better wages and better quality of life for their families.

what does this tell you?

Not much.

 

[South of the Yarra]

and yet the maori life expectancy gap as one indicator is roughly equivalent to the indigenous people here.

and a stack of them move here for better wages and better quality of life for their families.

what does this tell you?

The life expectancy gap is expected to close significantly in the next 5 years as the younger generations not exposed to the past continue to age.

 

[tandino]

There is also issues with the polls themselves.

One was for 300 people where 120 responses were excluded.

The other was with 15,000 but the % claiming to be Aboriginal was significantly higher than Census data suggests the rate is.

And both were commissioned by groups in favour of the Yes vote so we dont know if the questions were leading.

The questions would be public I would assume, if it's anything like the other polling done. I couldn't speak to the other points.

 

[Chief]

I'd rather see it legislated at both state and federal level, and then should a political party choose to repeal it or change it, voters have the ability to respond at the next election (just as they would with one established by the constitution).

The flaw with that is that it assumes single policy voting.

Take the existence of the voice out of the realm of wedge politics or distraction tricks or "dead cat" politics and make it immutable but for another referendum.

You still have to get the format and changes through both Houses of Parliament and so on, still able to be debated and voted on. But there must be one.

 

[ShanDog]

The flaw with that is that it assumes single policy voting.

Take the existence of the voice out of the realm of wedge politics or distraction tricks or "dead cat" politics and make it immutable but for another referendum.

You still have to get the format and changes through both Houses of Parliament and so on, still able to be debated and voted on. But there must be one.

Is it a flaw or a design feature? Whether this proposal is important enough to bypass the design of where it would ordinarily sit within the system to become immutable is obviously the big question.

 

[checkraiseulite]

The life expectancy gap is expected to close significantly in the next 5 years as the younger generations not exposed to the past continue to age.

it’d be interesting to see the latest stats for life expectancy at birth between the two populations and how they’re adjusted for socio-economic disadvantage and remoteness.

i expect the trend you indentify to be the same in australia.

 

[Chief]

Perhaps the constitution itself isn't all that perfect in the first place.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Were the people that wrote the constitution of good character?

Who chose them?

 

[Chief]

Your implication that she lacks compassion for her own

You saw where she denied that there is inter generational trauma due to colonisation and related injustices, yeah?

She lacks basic compassion.

 

[Number37]

Were the people that wrote the constitution of good character?

Who chose them?

Andrew Inglis Clark, co-author, was called a communist because he supported workers and women's rights.

Today's RWNJs would call him woke.

Our Constitution, that RWNJs so fervently defend, was written by a wokester.

RWNJs have twisted themselves in so much of a knot that they are now defending wokeness.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Dutton the racist misleader at it again. What a lowlife.

Linda Burney demands Peter Dutton apologise for comments on late Indigenous leader Yunupingu

Indigenous Australians minister scathing of opposition leader invoking late Yolŋu leader to argue against the voice

www.theguardian.com

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

She has seen things that no human should ever have to see. Born and bred in the red centre too, unlike the overwhelming majority of pretenders who take cheap potshots at her from the woke safe havens of inner city Sydney and Melbourne.

Your implication that she lacks compassion for her own or doesn't put in the hard yards is nothing short of staggering. Rest assured - nobody works harder for their own than Price. It's clear to me that you know little about her and what she stands for.

I mean, when you compare the articulate and passionate Price with the deer in the headlights Burney it really is no wonder the two are poles apart. I can think of no better candidate for an Aboriginal PM than Price. That would truly be the ultimate voice.

Price is a sellout, liar and an enemy of ordinary Indigenous people. Everyone knows that. She hangs out with a pack of right wing racists all day mate.

 

[Sttew]

People voting on the issue, not simply along party lines.

And Tasmania, the only state in Australia run by a Liberal government...

 

[winty]

Is there anything the No campaign won't lie about? Love the slap down from the AEC though...

 

[campbell]

 

[winty]

Well, what do we have here? If he doesn't represent his own people, who is he representing?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Well, what do we have here? If he doesn't represent his own people, who is he representing?

IPA and CPAC.

 

[Swan4Life]

Why are you placing her and her opinion above the majority of what First Nations want?

How have you come to that conclusion?

You implied / expressly stated that (a) she doesn't work hard and (b) she has turned her back on her people. Both of those are patently untrue.

And you say that 80% of ATSI people support the voice - you don't know that for sure. Have you polled all the remote Aboriginal communities? This is just a guess. And even if it were accurate, are the views of the minority not valid or less valid?

The opinions of all ATSI peoples should be heard and respected, I have never and would never claim otherwise.

 

[Engimal v3]

The Voice issue came up at work. There were maybe 2 Indian guys, a Pakistani, and an Australian born Chinese person discussing - all live in Melbourne.

I kept tight lipped (weird thing to discuss at work), but discussion was overwhelming siding with "No". There were a few Liberal talking points in there ("first this group, who's next?") but ultimately what I noticed is that they had very little clarity on what the Voice is. While the Coalition has done a good job in confusing people, it's hard not to feel like the ALP have absolutely bungled the marketing of this.

 

[Kwality]

You saw where she denied that there is inter generational trauma due to colonisation and related injustices, yeah?

She lacks basic compassion.

You question her compassion ...... you might take time to review your own comprehension of the answer she gave at the Press Club - think context.

 

[sansian]

The way I understand it, the voice can advise the Government on issues. The Government does not have to act on the advise.

So my question is, if the Government does not act on the advise, it will probably get taken to the high court.

I would think that the high court would check that the voice was heard. If the government has listened to the submission, end of issues.

The high court will not be able to make the government act on the advice.

Do I have this correct?

 

[10571z]

The Voice issue came up at work. There were maybe 2 Indian guys, a Pakistani, and an Australian born Chinese person discussing - all live in Melbourne.

I kept tight lipped (weird thing to discuss at work), but discussion was overwhelming siding with "No". There were a few Liberal talking points in there ("first this group, who's next?") but ultimately what I noticed is that they had very little clarity on what the Voice is. While the Coalition has done a good job in confusing people, it's hard not to feel like the ALP have absolutely bungled the marketing of this.

The best part was when Albo told us all the major brands in australia like Coles, Woolworths, BHP, Rio Tinto will be supporting the voice… like that’s some sort of reason to vote yes..

Completely out of touch.

 

[winty]

The Voice issue came up at work. There were maybe 2 Indian guys, a Pakistani, and an Australian born Chinese person discussing - all live in Melbourne.

I kept tight lipped (weird thing to discuss at work), but discussion was overwhelming siding with "No". There were a few Liberal talking points in there ("first this group, who's next?") but ultimately what I noticed is that they had very little clarity on what the Voice is. While the Coalition has done a good job in confusing people, it's hard not to feel like the ALP have absolutely bungled the marketing of this.

How could the ALP market it when MSM constantly platformed the No campaign and did little to platform the Yes campaign?

 

[10571z]

The way I understand it, the voice can advise the Government on issues. The Government does not have to act on the advise.

So my question is, if the Government does not act on the advise, it will probably get taken to the high court.

I would think that the high court would check that the voice was heard. If the government has listened to the submission, end of issues.

The high court will not be able to make the government act on the advice.

Do I have this correct?

That’ll be sorted out once the yes vote is in DW…

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The way I understand it, the voice can advise the Government on issues. The Government does not have to act on the advise.

So my question is, if the Government does not act on the advise, it will probably get taken to the high court.

I would think that the high court would check that the voice was heard. If the government has listened to the submission, end of issues.

The high court will not be able to make the government act on the advice.

Do I have this correct?

Doubt it.

A formal parliamentary hearing would make it obvious that the voice had been listened to, and wouldn't need to go anywhere near a court. It would be ridiculous to have a system that repeatedly used the court system.