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.

 

[burge13]

The contention was people don't care so they vote no. I'd argue the opposite, if you don't care enough to do any research yourself why wouldn't you just follow the advice of almost everyone but the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party and vote yes?

What could possibly go wrong just blindly agreeing to what a politician wants and * shock* the group themselves wanting something for them.

 

[Kwality]

Funny that the author of that post has no problem with how those with money seem to get access to politicians whenever they want. A voice is a counter to the existing “rich campaigner voice”

Not sure what 'rich' campaigner voice you are eluding to - political access can be bought no matter who is in Government & the most transparent example of that is the Union movement at the ALP National Conference.
Note, that is not a criticism.

 

[Kwality]

Already heard them moaning some people got extra postal votes sent out.

and of course that means people will vote yes twice - they’d never vote no twice.

Its not news that some people vote twice:

Electoral Backgrounder: Enrolment fraud and multiple voting

www.aec.gov.au

Of course , its the other lot that is cheating ......

 

[MrKK]

The contention was people don't care so they vote no. I'd argue the opposite, if you don't care enough to do any research yourself why wouldn't you just follow the advice of almost everyone but the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party and vote yes?

That's not at all how human psychology works when it comes to change. The vast majority are not early adopters and need to be convinced of the reason to change.

 

[Chief]

They have to listen, doesnt mean they do

Much like you have to do 50 in a 50 and not everyone does

Perhaps if you guys ever discussed things in good faith rather than just aim for gotcha moments on an anonymous forum you'd have more fun in life?

Very next post pretends that the claim is "this will definitely close the gap":

Oh man, the voice definitely would close all the gaps. Cant believe it wont get up, what with all the tangible actions involved.

Dude...

 

[Crankyhawk]

Not sure what 'rich' campaigner voice you are eluding to - political access can be bought no matter who is in Government & the most transparent example of that is the Union movement at the ALP National Conference.
Note, that is not a criticism.

Yes they key word being “bought” ie well funded organisations. These are the rich campaigners I mean. Can also be Uber rich individuals. While poor people often have * all access.
The voice is an avenue for a group that “in general” is poor/ has less.

I am surprised that you don’t find it a thing to criticise that access can be bought, but maybe you are more resigned to politicians being s**t, which is fair

 

[TheEscapeClub]

You would prefer they didn’t listen.

Thats how selfish you are, theres nothing in it for you either way. So you’ll keep ignoring people that don’t look like you.

The there's plenty in it for all of us if it can be fixed.

There doesn't need to be a Voice enshrined in the constitution to do that.

Now that a lot more people are hopefully aware, Albo can legislate a Voice if the No vote gets up tomorrow.

I lived and worked in the far northern Goldfields of WA for over a decade, I've seen these s**t towns and camps.

 

[Sphynx]

You would prefer they didn’t listen.

Thats how selfish you are, theres nothing in it for you either way. So you’ll keep ignoring people that don’t look like you.

Unfortunately the few have ruined it for the many, particularly in the major cities.

The damage was done in some industries years ago, not months ago.

You are probably oblivious to it tbh. Which is OK.

The main culprits are a select few ex AFL footballers and sportsmen.

They should be ashamed of themselves tbh and are some of the biggest hypocrites in the country atm.

 

[burge13]

Very next post pretends that the claim is "this will definitely close the gap":


Dude...

My point was actually this thing involves nothing tangible at all, hence it not getting up and it being a waste of time, energy, and resources. I'm not the only one to have said this but keep going I guess. Really serving the yes campaign well thus far

 

[MP_]

The there's plenty in it for all of us if it can be fixed.

There doesn't need to be a Voice enshrined in the constitution to do that.

Now that a lot more people are hopefully aware, Albo can legislate a Voice if the No vote gets up tomorrow.

I lived and worked in the far northern Goldfields of WA for over a decade, I've seen these s**t towns and camps.

so if we'd had a trial run of this through legislation 6 years ago when the uluru statement came out and it was showing to make a difference, you'd be voting yes now? It will certainly be interesting to see what both sides do now from the inevitable failure of this referendum to address the issues.

 

[phantom13]

The there's plenty in it for all of us if it can be fixed.

There doesn't need to be a Voice enshrined in the constitution to do that.

Now that a lot more people are hopefully aware, Albo can legislate a Voice if the No vote gets up tomorrow.

I lived and worked in the far northern Goldfields of WA for over a decade, I've seen these s**t towns and camps.

You want the PM to legislate a voice if the Australian public tomorrow says the don’t want a voice?

Can’t see any issue with that

 

[TheEscapeClub]

so if we'd had a trial run of this through legislation 6 years ago when the uluru statement came out and it was showing to make a difference, you'd be voting yes now? It will certainly be interesting to see what both sides do now from the inevitable failure of this referendum to address the issues.

Correct.

 

[Saint]

Even the more reason to engage ..... Dutton was looking for a way to be relevant & Albo accommodated him.

Dutton's looking for a way to turn younger voters off the Liberal Party forever and Albo gave it to him.

If I was a VERY cynical person, I'd say Albo wanted Dutton and the LNP to blow up the Referendum because he knows the LNP have just turned off 70% of all voters under 30 for most of their adult lives.

Dutton's opinion poll numbers have gone down the whole time, Dutton isn't scoring relevance points at all.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

You want the PM to legislate a voice if the Australian public tomorrow says the don’t want a voice?

Can’t see any issue with that

I've been saying this since the start, I haven't changed my position on it.

It should have been legislated from the start instead of this dog's breakfast it's turned into due to politics.

 

[Chief]

st blindly agreeing to what a politician wants and * shock* the group themselves wanting something for them.

Perhaps if you read up a bit on it you would regain your sight.

 

[MP_]

You want the PM to legislate a voice if the Australian public tomorrow says the don’t want a voice?

Can’t see any issue with that

i can see his point, many people want to see if this thing will work before fully committing to it. me i'm all for it, but i totally understand hesitancy in putting something in place without knowing if it will work.

 

[phantom13]

I've been saying this since the start, I haven't changed my position on it.

It should have been legislated from the start instead of this dog's breakfast it's turned into due to politics.

Could just vote yes then?

 

[South of the Yarra]

I agree but do you realise exactly where you are posting this haha.

How sad that politics and looking after people can’t go hand in hand. I

 

[Saint]

so if we'd had a trial run of this through legislation 6 years ago when the uluru statement came out and it was showing to make a difference, you'd be voting yes now? It will certainly be interesting to see what both sides do now from the inevitable failure of this referendum to address the issues.

That's what the LNP want because they know that if there's a trial of more than 6 years they'll be able to tear it down when in office during that time. Or still throw enough mud at it to vote against it in referendum.

They brought down ATSIC, they'll bring down any indigenous organisation.

 

[phantom13]

i can see his point, many people want to see if this thing will work before fully committing to it. me i'm all for it, but i totally understand hesitancy in putting something in place without knowing if it will work.

I mean just the mechanics of it. If the Australian public says they don’t want it it would be political suicide to then implement it anyway.

It’s also shifting goalposts again. We want to make sure it will work before we commit to it (which you know again, Indigenous Australia wants this but obviously we would know better).

Okay well the wording is broad enough that we can shift it’s make up and application to be more effective without impacting its core requirement.

No, no that’s an issue because then there’s not enough detail about it.

Okay, well here’s pages of how it will work, noting that it can still be changed to be more effective and current.

No, stop shoving it down my throat.

It’s all the same old s**t tbh.

 

[Festerz]

i can see his point, many people want to see if this thing will work before fully committing to it. me i'm all for it, but i totally understand hesitancy in putting something in place without knowing if it will work.

Imagine if the founding fathers had this don't know, vote no™ 'hesitancy' perspective when sitting down to draft the Australian Constitution itself.

The bloody thing would never have been written and we'd still be separate colonies kowtowing to Britain.

 

[Roby]

Okay, so again there is simply something wrong with the person asking the question. Asking “how much will it cost” is not a straightforward, intuitive, and fair question. It is an admission of bad faith on their part. Let’s just tell them that (which is good because even we don’t know! Phew!).

What about the other multitude of questions someone might have before deciding to vote yes? Do you have a cute excuse to dismiss those too?

What if the Voice ends up saving us money? What if it improves our country, and in turn increases our economy?

Are you really asking the right questions?

Shouldn't the questions be:

How much will it help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders?

How much of a benefit will it be to our society?


I was sitting in a cafe few days ago, went to order my coffee before sitting down not realising I had to pay before receiving it. They brought my coffee and told me I had to go pay immediately, and I told them I'll do it after I finish but they said that I needed to pay before. After a few words were exchanged, this nice old lady went up and paid it for me while she waited for her coffee.

She was sitting with two older people. I sat next to next to them listening to their conversations about the Voice. How it was going to bleed them dry financially. Amazing isn't it.

These people can pay for your coffee but won't give an inch to Aboriginals. I doubt if I was black they would've done the same thing; probably would've complained and said I was trying to get free coffee.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Maybe a little off topic, an ABC report reflecting that social media is heavily saturated by the yes position. Yet the polls reflect a no vote as the favoured.

Surprise surprise, actually it's not, what may seem the 'true' narrative on social media doesn't reflect what's outside in the real world, pick your topic, but I find this largely the case.

Polls can sometimes also be misleading, hopefully this time the polls are wrong and social media actually is on point this time.

Will be interesting to see the numbers tomorrow night.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Maybe a little off topic, an ABC report reflecting that social media is heavily saturated by the yes position. Yet the polls reflect a no vote as the favoured.

Surprise surprise, actually it's not, what may seem the 'true' narrative on social media doesn't reflect what's outside in the real world, pick your topic, but I find this largely the case.

Polls can sometimes also be misleading, hopefully this time the polls are wrong and social media actually is on point this time.

Will be interesting to see the numbers tomorrow night.

I have noticed that YES voters seem to be more social, more friendly than NO voters.
It makes sense that that translates across to social media.

 

[Kwality]

Yes they key word being “bought” ie well funded organisations. These are the rich campaigners I mean. Can also be Uber rich individuals. While poor people often have * all access.
The voice is an avenue for a group that “in general” is poor/ has less.

I am surprised that you don’t find it a thing to criticise that access can be bought, but maybe you are more resigned to politicians being s**t, which is fair

In my corporate life I was appointed to a State Government body. My employer (a top 50 ASX company) had donated to both sides of politics to get a seat at the table. There was a Union rep at the table,.