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.

 

[ElectricG]

No, you do not have to respect opposing views no matter how ridiculous they are, that's bullshit.

Of course its great for muddying the waters, treating everything said as of equal value, its been used very successfully to spread misinformation

why would you support that?



again why is it always the idea that if you aren't polite enough people will side with facsism and racsim

like they people whose ideals are anything but civil, if a few swear words gets you to vote with them then you were always going to vote with them

civility is another tool used to tone police and censor discussion and again it serves the purposes of one group


if someone is going to vote no on the referendum because of an anonymous post on an internet forum (hint they aren't) what does that say about what kind of world you think we live in

you really think the No campaign is polite and civil and that's why people vote no?


bloody both siding

this warped lens of how politics should work, again it serves one group very well, but its not the group that would be voting to make the wold a better place so why do you keep insisting on doing their work for them?

Blimey. There is nothing wrong with both sidesing this referendum, in fact that’s what a discerning voter should be doing. We aren’t being asked to vote in favour of genocide mate.

 

[Cmarsh]

Has there been any documented costing to the establishment of the Voice?

I think it would be in the public interest to know the salaries of the members of the Voice, associated Voice administration positions etc.

 

[CM86]

No chance I cave to your blustering attempt to cancel opinion that you dont agree with.

You posted hateful misinformation.

I asked you to delete it.

You obviously knew it was a lie all along. And now you're desperate to paint yourself as a victim.

This is why you normally stick to posting vague nothings.

 

[ElectricG]

Has there been any documented costing to the establishment of the Voice?

I think it would be in the public interest to know the salaries of the members of the Voice, associated Voice administration positions etc.

That would be asking for detail.

 

[QuietB]

Has there been any documented costing to the establishment of the Voice?

I think it would be in the public interest to know the salaries of the members of the Voice, associated Voice administration positions etc.

Given it is not legislated yet how would anyone know?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Has there been any documented costing to the establishment of the Voice?

I think it would be in the public interest to know the salaries of the members of the Voice, associated Voice administration positions etc.

Parliament would decide and vote on this as part of the legislation process.

That's the politicians job, that's why we vote for them.

 

[CM86]

Has there been any documented costing to the establishment of the Voice?

I think it would be in the public interest to know the salaries of the members of the Voice, associated Voice administration positions etc.

How much would you consider to be reasonable?
How much is too much?

 

[QuietB]

Anyone mentioned Soros yet

 

[CM86]

Why would I vote for something that I am unwillingly funding? The YES campaign gets all of my tax dollars but the NO gets nothing, it is not a democracy without fairness and debate.

With so many questions left unanswered.

Carringbush2010

 

[ElectricG]

Given it is not legislated yet how would anyone know?

So the answer is “we don’t know because we can’t know?”

 

[Ghost Patrol]

It's the same 4 questions on repeat. You have answers. It's pretty ****ing simple.

Why are people so unmind?

 

[Gralin]

Blimey. There is nothing wrong with both sidesing this referendum, in fact that’s what a discerning voter should be doing. We aren’t being asked to vote in favour of genocide mate.

No a discerning voter should not be both sidesing the referendum based on what people are posting on bigfooty and deciding from that

they shouldn't be reading all the headlines and articles and giving everything equal weight

because not all the information out there is of equal truth

 

[Cmarsh]

Given it is not legislated yet how would anyone know?

Parties would usually make at least an attempt at making costings public in policy making before legislating.

 

[Romeoh1]

Why would I vote for something that I am unwillingly funding? The YES campaign gets all of my tax dollars but the NO gets nothing, it is not a democracy without fairness and debate.

With so many questions left unanswered.

Doesn’t need every question answered- it’s a seat at the table- not asking much. My elderly neighbour hasn’t got very good English but she is able to get it. Amazing how many people left their heart at the door on this.

 

[CM86]

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.

Has there been any documented costing to the establishment of the Voice?

I think it would be in the public interest to know the salaries of the members of the Voice, associated Voice administration positions etc.

Parties would usually make at least an attempt at making costings public in policy making before legislating.

That would be asking for detail.

 

[Cmarsh]

How much would you consider to be reasonable?
How much is too much?

I'd like to know that from the yes campaign.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Parties would usually make at least an attempt at making costings public in policy making before legislating.

Perhaps you could ask LNP for the details of cost, as they were in government for most of this process that they supported until recently.

So they should know, right?

 

[QuietB]

Parties would usually make at least an attempt at making costings public in policy making before legislating.

It will cost somewhere between maintaining the flag on Parliament House and the cost of coal and gas subsidies.

Most people acknowledge money is not the issue - there is plenty of money directed at aboriginal people.

The Voice is meant to be a way to use that money better.

On another note, conservatives did not pipe up about the cost of making Tony Abbott the envoy for aboriginal people, and that achieved SFA.

 

[CM86]

Has there been any documented costing to the establishment of the Voice?

I think it would be in the public interest to know the salaries of the members of the Voice, associated Voice administration positions etc.

How much would you consider to be reasonable?
How much is too much?

I'd like to know that from the yes campaign.

You want... Your opinion... to be given to you, by the yes campaign??

 

[QuietB]

So the answer is “we don’t know because we can’t know?”

The true answer is the Voice will more than likely be made of people and groups that already receives public funding. But until parliament sets the model we cannot be sure.

 

[burge13]

Doesn’t need every question answered- it’s a seat at the table- not asking much. My elderly neighbour hasn’t got very good English but she is able to get it. Amazing how many people left their heart at the door on this.

How has your elderly neighbour with not very good english got a seat at the table but indigenous people dont?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

How has your elderly neighbour with not very good english got a seat at the table but indigenous people dont?

You clearly didn't understand the post you quoted. Try reading it again.

 

[Romeoh1]

That would be asking for detail.

Like this is the sort of question that you usually ask at every election?

 

[burge13]

You clearly didn't understand the post you quoted. Try reading it again.

Read it enough. Theyre talking about a seat at the table then their elderly neighbour having it, insinuating indigenous dont. Again i ask, what do they have different please?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Read it enough. Theyre talking about a seat at the table then their elderly neighbour having it, insinuating indigenous dont. Again i ask, what do they have different please?

No, they said the elderly neighbour understands.