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.

 

[sherb]

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

I can certainly understand why he would feel that way, can't you?

 

[mcnulty]

I can certainly understand why he would feel that way, can't you?

No

 

[Purple7x08_24]

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.

So when a guy at work consistently blurts out misinformation and you completely call him out for the misinformation citing facts and he just contradicts himself, sounds confused trying to argue his point and moves on.

The people who believe their land is going to be taken away, are absolutely convinced as much as they believe their crack pot conspiracy theories. You can't change their mind.

 

[Gralin]

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

Only on issues related to that group and really only if the Government decided the issue was related.

 

[Festerz]

but creating a separation of indigenous and others isn't the answer

That simple fact is that 'separation' has existed for over two centuries.

And that separation, measured in terms of the gap between the life expectancy and health and socio-economic outcomes between 'indigenous and others' is growing. NOW.

Do some reading.

Governments falling short on Closing the Gap commitments

The report sets out the Commission’s findings and recommendations on the ongoing implementation of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap by highlighting areas of improvement and emphasising where additional effort is required to close the gap.

www.pc.gov.au

 

[mcnulty]

And there is a big part of this whole issue, a complete lack of empathy and consequent inability to even consider what it's like to be in someone else's shoes.

That’s not it at all. If the question was about affording indigenous Australians the same rights as everyone else he’d have a point.

Now you can argue all you like the merits if voting yes or no (soft yes here), but to suggest a no vote is anti Aboriginal people is a flat lie.

 

[Chetan Gupta]

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.

Can it still be legislated? Why didn't Albo do that in first place?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yep- fair enough.

Which was what I basically replied to you.

 

[ElectricG]

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

It’s time, resources, representation, access to parliament.

 

[Chief]

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

Not surprised.

 

[Gibbke]

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

There's a polar difference between representing your culture and representing your party.

If an indigenous person is elected to a seat, they represent their electorate. If their party line on a particular issue is against a stance put forward by opposing aboriginal groups, then they are obliged to vote with the party direction or they have to cross the floor, which is a huge call for any politician.

So tbh, they're not doing ok. Australia has just said we're not listening.

 

[Chief]

It’s time, resources, representation, access to parliament.

Yes - would have been great.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Only on issues related to that group and really only if the Government decided the issue was related.

Which is basically everything as Indigenous people are involved in all walks of life.

 

[eastfreo75]

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

It's good have indigenous % in the parliament.

Just remember that are part of the Political teams and need to go with the party line.

Another issue, is some of the members hold views that don't reflect the majority. Case in point is Jacinta Price believing that settlement has no longer consequences.

Then you have Lidia Thorpe who needed to leave the Greens to represent the Black Sovereignty Movement. You could argue she never was voted into Parliament by first nations people and that she is represent the greens or Victoria.

Indigenous members priorities are divided,

 

[sherb]

That’s not it at all. If the question was about affording indigenous Australians the same rights as everyone else he’d have a point.

Now you can argue all you like the merits if voting yes or no (soft yes here), but to suggest a no vote is anti Aboriginal people is a flat lie.

You are stating that what he said it is factually untrue (ie a lie). So presumably that is something you can prove? No, of course you can't. So you can cut out assessing what he said with such certainty.

In any case, it's a statement of how he is feeling at the moment. He is clearly devastated. It's where the empathy kicks in - trying to understand how he feels.

You don't want to do that - fine. But it simply highlights part of the wider problem here, in that too many people didn't want to consider the First Nations people in all of this.

 

[Gralin]

Which is basically everything as Indigenous people are involved in all walks of life.

You've mistaken me for someone who cares what you think.

You're also as usual wrong

 

[gutsroy]

It’s time, resources, representation, access to parliament.

As opposed to all of the existing interest groups and lobbyists you have expressed precisely zero issues with?

 

[mcnulty]

You are stating that what he said it is factually untrue (ie a lie). So presumably that is something you can prove? No, of course you can't. So you can cut out assessing what he said with such certainty.

In any case, it's a statement of how he is feeling at the moment. He is clearly devastated. It's where the empathy kicks in - trying to understand how he feels.

You don't want to do that - fine. But it simply highlights part of the wider problem here, in that too many people didn't want to consider the First Nations people in all of this.

I’m assuming he knows its untrue, and is posting that in bad faith.

 

[eastfreo75]

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.).

100%

Yes failed because we failed to plan.

 

[Chief]

Which is basically everything as Indigenous people are involved in all walks of life.

Back to this again.

Round and round we go, lads.

 

[Festerz]

That’s not it at all. If the question was about affording indigenous Australians the same rights as everyone else he’d have a point.

Now you can argue all you like the merits if voting yes or no (soft yes here), but to suggest a no vote is anti Aboriginal people is a flat lie.

Can say with absolute certainty that Pauly has a far greater and deeper understanding of and connection with the Indigenous community and reality of their perspective than you will ever have.

Especially given your complete failure to recognise that he is speaking from his social media platform in the context of continual ongoing racial abuse of Indigenous Australians in the AFL community over decades.

 

[ElectricG]

As opposed to all of the existing interest groups and lobbyists you have expressed precisely zero issues with?

Well what if I think those are bad too?

Can we get it out in the open, yeah?

The claim: giving indigenous people certain provisions in the constitutions is dividing us

The response:
It’s not, because ???

OR

It is, but it’s justified because of indigenous disadvantage and the history of colonisation

 

[mcnulty]

Can say with absolute certainty that Pauly has a far greater and deeper understanding of and connection with the Indigenous community and reality of their perspective than you will ever have.

And of course you fail to understand that he is speaking in the context of continual ongoing racial abuse of Indigenous Australians in the AFL community over decades.

So he should probably choose his words more carefully

 

[Kram]

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

They are a different breed up there, that's for sure.

 

[sherb]

I’m assuming he knows its untrue, and is posting that in bad faith.

Ah, so you ARE willing to put yourself in his shoes, so long as it is to confirm a negative bias and/or perception.