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]

I can't think of an election that's been this divisive. Can you?

You seem to think its Albos fault that something supported by both sides until recently has become divisive.

Whilst claiming Dutton, Price and Murdoch are completely innocent, not divisive at all.

ffs just realised its another DARVO variant.

 

[Kram]

Completely agree. I'll consider this a cross against Albo's leadership.

All we'll get out of this referendum is a divided nation.

Just a complete waste of time and resources.

 

[Kram]

Forgotten about the bullshit pulled in the SSM plebiscite pretty quickly.

For the love of god can people stop bringing this up as if it has some sort of comparison as if it has any relevance, they are NOTHING alike.

 

[phantom13]

For the love of god can people stop bringing this up as if it has some sort of comparison as if it has any relevance, they are NOTHING alike.

You dont think the question

I can't think of an election that's been this divisive. Can you?

Is at all relevant to this discussion? Seriously?

 

[evolved2]

Forgotten about the bullshit pulled in the SSM plebiscite pretty quickly.

IIRC that wasn't nearly as divisive as this one. I remember the bullshit selling points from the no campaign then were just as bad, if not worse.

 

[phantom13]

IIRC that wasn't nearly as divisive as this one. I remember the bullshit selling points from the no campaign then were just as bad, if not worse.

So the bullshit selling points against SSM were just as bad, but you dont think it was as divisive?

Id suggest if you ask the LGBTIQ+ community they would vehemently disagree with you, just as the Indigenous population would note how ****ed this one has been.

It seems pretty easy if youre not actually in the community directly affected by the opposition to these changes none of it seems that bad.

Ironically the final numbers for SSM were 62% to 38%, good chance this winds up with very similar numbers just in opposition.

 

[CM86]

So it's deliberately vague by design, OK

No.

It's incredibly specific, what you're being asked to vote for at the referendum.


The legislation is not being stated, because it is NOT what is being voted for.
In fact, it would be incredibly misleading if the legislation was talked about in conversations about the referendum, because people may think that the legislation might be enshrined in the constitution.

The legislation must be, and will be adjusted over time to work towards the best possible outcomes.
That's assuming it isn't sabotaged by successive Governments.
So the legislation CANNOT be enshrined in the constitution.
Which is why it's so important that no one thinks that any of the legislation will be enshrined...




So people pushing the "lack of detail" line are either doing so:
1. Because they know the legislation MUST be separate from the Referendum, and it's a disgusting use of disinformation to muddy the water and create fear, hate and opposition.
2. Because they're too stupid to understand the difference between the constitution and legislation.
3. They've been sucked in by the incredibly well funded, international opposition campaign from Advance, IPA, etc, who are behind this disinformation, that Dutton adopted.



Here's an article from January... JANUARY!!! where this is explained by constitutional law expert Anne Twomey...
Indigenous Voice details should not be released, says constitutional law expert

However, constitutional law expert Anne Twomey says it would be inappropriate for the government to release draft legislation ahead of the vote.​

​

"It goes completely against the entire point of the referendum," Professor Twomey said.​

​

"If you start putting out a detail with the bill, et cetera, people will think that that's what they're voting on in the referendum."​

​

Labor has been consistent in saying those details would be covered by legislation if the Voice passes a referendum, repeatedly referring to the Calma-Langton report on the Voice as one of the documents that will inform eventual legislation.​

Here is a link to the Calma-Langton report... THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT!!!...


https://ncq.org.au/wp-content/uploa...nous_Voice_Co-Design_Process_Final-Report.pdf

Full of details based on a decade worth of work with and through Indigenous people and Indigenous communities.



The "no details" line is one of the most powerful and disgustingly dishonest talking points used to stop The Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
And all of Australian media, let it happen.

And it's one of the most common talking points you see, even here on BigFooty.

 

[Kram]

IIRC that wasn't nearly as divisive as this one. I remember the bullshit selling points from the no campaign then were just as bad, if not worse.

That was just such a non issue compared to this, barely caused a ripple and was pretty much a lock for yes to win. The issue itself is also absolutely nothing alike as well.

 

[phantom13]

That was just such a non issue compared to this, barely caused a ripple and was pretty much a lock for yes to win. The issue itself is also absolutely nothing alike as well.

To be clear. i didnt imply in any way that the issue was alike but you clearly dont know a single member of the LGBTIQ+ community if you think it wasnt just as divisive, just as hurtful and just as ridiculous as this one.

Slippery slope arguments, unclear how it would be applied arguments, etc etc.

Its the same thing, just clearly you supported that one so it doesnt seem divisive to you. The major difference to me is it was pre covid, so way less cookers thinking theyre geniuses.

 

[MP_]

Completely agree. I'll consider this a cross against Albo's leadership.

All we'll get out of this referendum is a divided nation.

The referendum hasn't divided the nation it's just proven we were already divided

 

[Kwality]

OK

So it's a misleading opinion piece. That doesn't support itself.

How does that support your claim that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament would create a racial divide in Australian citizenship??


Unless this is an additional part of your claim, now?
That you are also claiming that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is comparable to "South Africa’s apartheid era and it still blights Malaysia, where citizens of Indian and Chinese descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities that are available to Malays"?
Is that your claim????

Are you claiming, like this opinion piece you've used to support your position is claiming... that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be permanent?
Using one of the slimiest lies told... that using a referendum to change the constitution, would somehow mean we can never change it again??

Really simple, that opinion supports my post as you requested.

You continue to put to try to put your words in my mouth.
'That you are also claiming that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is comparable to "South Africa’s apartheid era and it still blights Malaysia, where citizens of Indian and Chinese descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities that are available to Malays"?
Is that your claim????'

You made up/constructed that claim, not me.
By all means post my words that express my opinion, not 1 +1 equalling what you want it to be.

 

[Goroyals22]

house republicans have just nominated a maga-loving, jan-6 stolen election advocate for the speaker role

and this has only happened because a maga-loving, jan-6 stolen election advocate moved a motion to remove the previous house republican speaker - who happened to be a weak-willed trump apologist

and you question whether trump still wields influence in american politics? you may chose not to believe it, but changes of any magnitude in american politics has global ramifications - even here in little ol' australia

[edit] ...... lol

Well the dribbler currently in charge has done so well… two wars going on one in Europe one in the Middle East and the second one using the weapons he left behind in Afghanistan when he fumbled his way through that withdrawal…

Anyway Trump has nothing to do with this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[phantom13]

Really simple, that opinion supports my post as you requested.

You continue to put to try to put your words in my mouth.
'That you are also claiming that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is comparable to "South Africa’s apartheid era and it still blights Malaysia, where citizens of Indian and Chinese descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities that are available to Malays"?
Is that your claim????'

You made up/constructed that claim, not me.
By all means post my words that express my opinion, not 1 +1 equalling what you want it to be.

You said

“There is no place for a racial divide in Australian citizenship.“

Then provided an opinion piece that actually gives no facts or even substantiation to how the voice or the associated referendum would do that. You’ve just supported your opinion that this will racially divide the country with another opinion. To break that down, you’ve just found someone who thinks as you do, that doesn’t prove your point, it just proves someone else thinks the same way you do.

As for the words in your mouth, the other parts noted are from the same piece you quoted, you may not agree with them but you’ve said “here’s the supporting opinion to my opinion” and haven’t caveated which bits you do and don’t agree with. It’s reasonable to assume you agree with all of it.

The constitution already designates race, so if your concern is that this amendement will introduce the concept of race into the constitution, too late.

If youre concerned that the Voice will provide preferential treatment based on race, well, its intention is purely to bridge the current gap, thats likely going to mean some preferential funding, but its not being done to provide an advantage its being done to equalize the country.

Your claim and its supporting opinon piece is just fundamentally flawed.

 

[Rotayjay]

Resentment.

Messages are flowing thick and fast in my circles, mostly negative. I reckon I could summarise them all as resentful that some one or some group is getting something that is not for me.

As far as I can tell this is the whole no case. Why should I find out, there is nothing in it for me. Why should I take the risk, there is nothing in it for me. Why should I give something, anything to anyone else when there is nothing in it for me.

It is pure resentment and frankly it is sad.

We need to stop talking about Australia as the land of the fair go. It's become the land of * You, Got Mine. Precious few are interested in others getting a fair go, just themselves.

 

[the_interloper]

So the bullshit selling points against SSM were just as bad, but you dont think it was as divisive?

Id suggest if you ask the LGBTIQ+ community they would vehemently disagree with you, just as the Indigenous population would note how ****ed this one has been.

It seems pretty easy if youre not actually in the community directly affected by the opposition to these changes none of it seems that bad.

Ironically the final numbers for SSM were 62% to 38%, good chance this winds up with very similar numbers just in opposition.

I think most of the bullshit against SSM were religious based arguments, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve etc. I didn't hear any decent arguments against a Yes then, I have heard some which seem valid against the Voice. Ehh, either way I'll be glad when this referendum is done it's been a shitfight.

 

[Rotayjay]

i call that entitlement and i'm seeing it more in society now than 20 years ago.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's reflected in the fact that road deaths per capita are rising again after falling for decades. Many think they're entitled to drive however they want. Some white people are convinced that Indigenous people receive some magical extra entitlement and the Voice will give more.

 

[phantom13]

I think most of the bullshit against SSM were religious based arguments, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve etc. I didn't hear any decent arguments against a Yes then, I have heard some which seem valid against the Voice. Ehh, either way I'll be glad when this referendum is done it's been a shitfight.

Yeh again, thats because you supported it.

Plenty of people gave plenty of creedence to the idea that SSM would lead to people marrying children and their dogs. It wasnt clear if it would be forced on Churches and private business etc etc.

Its honestly the same play book its just that people seem to be more open to SSM than the voice added with everyone all of a sudden seems to be 1 - STAUNCHLY defensive of the constitution and 2 - A constitutional law expert that wants the full wording and explicit detail and implementation plan of a legistalvie change before they can support or oppose it.

 

[the_interloper]

Yeh again, thats because you supported it.

Plenty of people gave plenty of creedence to the idea that SSM would lead to people marrying children and their dogs. It wasnt clear if it would be forced on Churches and private business etc etc.

Its honestly the same play book its just that people seem to be more open to SSM than the voice added with everyone all of a sudden seems to be 1 - STAUNCHLY defensive of the constitution and 2 - A constitutional law expert that wants the full wording and explicit detail and implementation plan of a legistalvie change before they can support or oppose it.

Yeah I think the parallel in this referendum would be you having to pay money to the local Indigenous tribe or whatever it was I read "on Twitter".

 

[phantom13]

Yeah I think the parallel in this referendum would be you having to pay money to the local Indigenous tribe or whatever it was I read "on Twitter".

That is just an extension of the "slippery slope" argument.

"allow SSM and theyll be marrying their dogs next"

"allow the voice and theyll be kicking you out of your house next"

 

[HairyO]

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

Other than the ABC who have a number of stories every day on it painting it in a positive light?

Are you saying Labor just didnt bother? Id say its far more likely they have been intentionally vague because they dont want people voting based on the actual plan, just on what feels right.

 

[QuietB]

Completely agree. I'll consider this a cross against Albo's leadership.

All we'll get out of this referendum is a divided nation.

That is 100% on Dutton. 18 months ago this was a bipartisan issues. Dutton flipped, not Albanese.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Problem is, he wont shut up.

Don't listen to him then.

I'm not sure I could tell you anything he has said on this matter to a level where it's what he actually said.

Albo has been telling us it's the right thing to do, outside of that I couldn't tell you if he's said anything more substantive on it.

Price, Mundine x 2 and Thorpe all say no for differing reasons and Langton says we're racist idiots, Ray Martin says we're dinosaurs and I can't remember what the heck Stan Grant said but I know he'd be having a sook about it.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

I’ve seen the value of The Voice in action

Working in the Tiwi Islands, where Tiwi decisions are in Tiwi hands, shows me the value of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament says University of Melbourne expert

pursuit.unimelb.edu.au

That's actually a good story for not having the voice. The Tiwi Islanders are where they are without one, it demonstrates great leadership.

 

[evolved2]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's reflected in the fact that road deaths per capita are rising again after falling for decades. Many think they're entitled to drive however they want. Some white people are convinced that Indigenous people receive some magical extra entitlement and the Voice will give more.

https://www.officeofroadsafety.gov.au/data-hub/fatalities-data

There's nothing in that data to support your conclusion. A drop during covid and increase as more people hit the roads again is logical.

 

[evolved2]

That is 100% on Dutton. 18 months ago this was a bipartisan issues. Dutton flipped, not Albanese.

How much influence has Dutton had on the result? He's hardly Mr Popular.