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.

 

[Chief]

It’s not whether the public choose the right outcome, it’s that the outcome the public choose is the right one.

No it's the outcome the public choose. Right or wrong.

Now we all have to make it work. Move ahead. Listen. Support the people who are doing the work. It's almost like we don't know what's going to happen next. Good work for the No campaigners on that score. Instilling a bit of chaos.

 

[whattagun07]

Yes and No.

Some people do reject first nations, maybe not you.

Some don't want to listen to "them", most people either think they are already have a voice or they are being listen to too much. Not your point but you are just one person.

Voting no doesn't make you racists, but all racists voted no.

Majority are ok with Aboriginal people being re-cognized.

I would say that most people like yourself don't like uncertainty. The reason for no detail about the structure of Voice was because it would have been up to the Parliament to create, and change it over time.

My question is to you, why would you want a structure that was set in cement and couldn't be changed or adjusted?

We can recognise them in the constitution.

A quick google tells me 3.8% of Australians are Indigenous.
Of the house of reps and senate, 4.8% of reps are indigenous.
They're doing ok.
We just need to get better at all things Indigenous affairs, but creating a separation of indigenous and others isn't the answer imo.
You're definitely right on most of your points though. Thanks for not labelling me racist

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

TubbsFarquhar

Where indigenous representation is high, YES vote was high. I think it's sad the divide we already have between non indigenous and indigenous Australians. There was zero reason NOT to give them a voice. This was the beginning.

I think Beltana comes under Leigh Creek, but that would have been a high representation of indigenous voters.

Stirling North

Stirling North Primary School, 2-20 Beckman St, STIRLING NORTH SA 5710

Sat, 14 Oct 2023 7:26:17 PM AEDT

282

64

4

350

I voted yes, but it was always going to be in vain. The referendum was cactus once Dutton opposed it. It's hard enough for referendums to succeed with the set-up that it has let alone without bi-partisan support.

Dutton played political football and it backfired on him as his support has waned even further. The Yes campaign cocked it up as they failed to convince enough people what the benefits of the voice would actually entail, and didn't address enough myths about any damages the voice would do (creating division, removal of land etc.).

 

[revo333]

Should Dutton resign? He destroyed a referendum and his approval rating is still falling.

You are giving Dutton way too much credit.

 

[Noel Gallagher]

I voted yes, but it was always going to be in vain. The referendum was cactus once Dutton opposed it. It's hard enough for referendums to succeed with the set-up that it has let alone without bi-partisan support.

Dutton played political football and it backfired on him as his support has waned even further. The Yes campaign cocked it up as they failed to convince enough people what the benefits of the voice would actually entail, and didn't address enough myths about any damages the voice would do (creating division, removal of land etc.).

The removal of land, repatriations, etc we’re not a myth, all part of the agenda

 

[sherb]

The argument that if The Voice got up it would create "division" is just rubbish.

In reality, if The Voice had passed, it would have been legislated, started operating and that would been it. It would have hardly affected the average Australian in their day to day lives to the point that they would not have even noticed it was there after a period of time.

Just fear mongering like we saw with the anti-SSM crowd, the world wasn't going to end if The Voice referendum was approved. Far from it.

 

[sherb]

What the hell is up with QLD??
Near 80% No !!!!WTH?

Well, there's a shock...........

 

[ElectricG]

What extra rights, specifically?
It provides for representations to be made to parliament / advice to be given on matters impacting indigenous communities.
There's no veto right, no voting rights, anything like that attached to it.

An advisory body that represents one group to the exclusion of others

 

[Gibbke]

Well it wasn’t not an argument that was particularly on my radar, but I know the No campaign ran strongly with it.
The idea is that giving a specific race of people particular rights and recognition in the constitution, to the exception of others, amounts to a statement that they have a level of a right to be here that we (people who have arrived since) do not.

It might not be one you agree with, but it is coherent.

No, and this is the bit that was never going to be aired by either side because it had the potential to backfire either way - the legalities.

The referendum in 1967 set things in motion, but it was Mabo in 1993 that was the biggest bomb. It was now certified in law that actual people counted as Australian citizens (1967) were the actual owners of our continent (1993), overturning the legal principle of Terra Nullius. In our legal system, brought here in 1788, possession is an intrinsic part (as they say, 9/10), and we'd just carved into granite the admission that we'd taken the land from someone else! Our laws demand reparations, and that's why we're here - Australia is legally mandated to strike a deal because that's how our law operates, and this was always coming.

That "specific group" sits on one side of the table, every other Australian sits on the other, colonially descended or later immigrant alike. The idea doesn't state that one group has a right to be here and other doesn't, but it does utterly imply that a resolution must be reached.

If the Yes vote was to pump this, it makes a doom and gloom scenario, and the No side would jump all over the notion that we're under attack from a virtual invading force...there's your real "division". They went with the hindsight-shown mistaken notion that the "love is love" argument, that went great when we were voting over whether we could tell gay people how to live their lives when in reality we didn't care, but didn't when we were told we should (or should care harder, because we're not doing it good enough!) in regards to aboriginal issues. If the No camp brought this up, they lose, simple, because the Yes camp only has to say "yup, that's what it is"...if Albo had the power to change the constitution exactly as was proposed here and it didn't need a referendum, seriously, no one today would be giving a ****...!

And the real headscratcher - how can anyone, in light of this, knowing it means the inevitability of the Voice, or a Treaty, or an Aboriginal Party of Australia, or a separate Aboriginal state via sovereignty, or an interesting chat with the UN, or a big firesale - how can anyone have walked into a voting booth yesterday, LNP or ALP bias alike, and not have realised the best deal was sitting on the table right in front of them...? A chance to talk things through, thrash out details in the parliamentary setting with no strings attached, and if we're going to the polls in the future over subsequent aboriginal/Aus negotiations than we've got details to work with...but now it's all set to start again, and this time probably with fewer manners...!

And if anyone thinks neither side, especially the LNP, was doing this as a political point scoring exercise and a chance to belt the **** out of the sitting PM, and it was all about the good of aboriginal Australia, then they are truly a naive idiot...

 

[gutsroy]

An advisory body that represents one group to the exclusion of others

Advisory body.
Not a supervisory board with any sort of coercive / veto power.
Advisory.

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

The removal of land, repatriations, etc we’re not a myth, all part of the agenda

The "agenda" would've had to involve the voice recommending it to parliament, which they would then have to agree to put through. Of course, doing so would be political suicide.

Could removal of land/repatriations have been a chance? Yeah, but as big of a chance of happening as a North vs West Coast GF next season.

 

[Jello_B]

It mentions a specific group of disadvantaged people who have been treated like crap for 200 years and don't rate a mention in the constitution even though they've been here 60,000 years longer.
Nothing wrong with naming a specific group in this case at all.
Government messaging was truthful and not misinformation although 'close the gap' should have been the message imo.
The world press are rightly looking at this as a racist vote.

You don’t need to sell me. Albo’s job was to get out there and sell this. He failed.
I voted yes because of work I’m doing personally, despite the government being a hopeless bunch of campaigners.
My support rests with the First Nations people.

 

[sherb]

An advisory body that represents one group to the exclusion of others

So it's a fairness issue for you then?

 

[Purple7x08_24]

I voted yes, but it was always going to be in vain. The referendum was cactus once Dutton opposed it. It's hard enough for referendums to succeed with the set-up that it has let alone without bi-partisan support.

Dutton played political football and it backfired on him as his support has waned even further. The Yes campaign cocked it up as they failed to convince enough people what the benefits of the voice would actually entail, and didn't address enough myths about any damages the voice would do (creating division, removal of land etc.).

You can't convince stupid. People were stuck in their ways and listened to the spin from Dutton and co. Like I said. Guys at work were talking about having our land taken from us. You can't change people's minds when they've already made up their mind. Have a look what happens whenever AFL clubs want to do inclusive stuff. They're smashed on socials.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

You don’t need to sell me. Albo’s job was to get out there and sell this. He failed.
I voted yes because of work I’m doing personally, despite the government being a hopeless bunch of campaigners.
My support rests with the First Nations people.

It was always a tough ask without bipartisan support and Dutton using the two right-wing Indigenous sell outs to front his disinformation campaign.

 

[Gibbke]

Why should anyone want to welcome our sports teams today?

In fairness, they were the one line of work which seemed to be unanimously pro-voice...they might be feeling a bit miffed...!

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

You can't convince stupid. People were stuck in their ways and listened to the spin from Dutton and co. Like I said. Guys at work were talking about having our land taken from us. You can't change people's minds when they've already made up their mind. Have a look what happens whenever AFL clubs want to do inclusive stuff. They're smashed on socials.

The treaty doesn't have to go to a referendum, it can be legislated, so that's the next aim.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Well, there's a shock...........

My aunt lives in Queensland and she's ****ing fully baked. Pot head dumb ass Pauline Hanson lover.

 

[Kram]

I know people behind it are disappointed in didn't get up and that's understandable but geez at least try and show a bit of dignity.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

plain wrong.

that's why the result is what it was.

keep pretending reality isn't reality though, will fail again next time too.

You didn't get the pamphlet?

 

[Jello_B]

You can't convince stupid. People were stuck in their ways and listened to the spin from Dutton and co. Like I said. Guys at work were talking about having our land taken from us. You can't change people's minds when they've already made up their mind. Have a look what happens whenever AFL clubs want to do inclusive stuff. They're smashed on socials.

Rubbish. People can be convinced and it happens
Saying we can’t convince stupid is a cop out, creates further division and delivers no ability to improve.

 

[revo333]

4. The vote was as much about the Voice as it was about other issues. For a lot of people, it was like a by-election, a chance to give the government a whack over cost of living etc. That's reflected in the alignment between No votes and socio-economic status. It's basic Maslow, really. It's probably seen by a lot of those people as an identity issue and that always ranks lower than immediate needs.

Spot on.

I have hardly seen this mentioned but this was more of a factor than the racist factor.

 

[mcnulty]

For those that don't know, Pauly is a highly respected Indigenous leader and former sportsman who has played a leading role within the AFL and in the community generally in building bridges with Indigenous players and communities, including in Aboriginal Lands and remote locations.

His disappointment at the Referendum result is deep and genuine and reflects how Indigenous players who play such a pivotal role in the game we love must be feeling today.

Given this is an AFL Footy forum I think all of us should maybe take the time to reflect on that.

That’s just a fundamental lie. People who voted No aren’t necessarily against him and his people.

 

[Chief]

In fairness, they were the one line of work which seemed to be unanimously pro-voice...they might be feeling a bit miffed...!

They're probably fine with it in solidarity.

 

[Jeba]

I do agree the general population was not sufficiently intelligent to be a part of this.

What makes you think you are not intelligent enough to take part ?