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]

It feels like for the people you know IRL, you know how they voted without even asking them.

 

[Roby]

The people i know who voted NO didn't want to discuss it.

But the same people that said that they voted Yes, that also complained about the possibility of reparations, land tax, but also simultaneously complained about the Voice not having any detail, doesn't add up.

If you really had issues with that, you wouldn't be voting Yes.

Of course these issues were easily debunked because:

- the Voice was set up only for making recommendations, so no government would make policies that would be so unpopular like land tax for reparations

- the Voice didn't have enshrined in detail, all the possibilities of all future recommendations because first of all, your cannot envisage every possible scenario in the future. Similarly most constitutional amendments in the past used this practical outlook, for example, workers rights.

But back to the initial point, people will say they voted Yes because they don't want to lose their rep and credibility on this forum, and so they lie so not be pinned with racists and white supremacists. Which is a reasonable self defence mechanism for someone that wants to keep appearances on this forum.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

But the same people that said that they voted Yes, that also complained about the possibility of reparations, land tax, but also simultaneously complained about the Voice not having any detail, doesn't add up.

If you really had issues with that, you wouldn't be voting Yes.

Of course these issues were easily debunked because:

- the Voice was set up only for making recommendations, so no government would make policies that would be so unpopular like land tax for reparations

- the Voice didn't have enshrined in detail, all the possibilities of all future recommendations because first of all, your cannot envisage every possible scenario in the future. Similarly most constitutional amendments in the past used this practical outlook, for example, workers rights.

But back to the initial point, people will say they voted Yes because they don't want to lose their rep and credibility on this forum, and so they lie so not be pinned with racists and white supremacists. Which is a reasonable self defence mechanism for someone that wants to keep appearances on this forum.

I had a one on one with an old friend.
He started the convo with "i'm kind of relieved this referendum is over and done for".
I was like "relieved why "?

The more we discussed it the less he wanted to, until he killed it with "well its all yesterday's news now ".

 

[ElectricG]

Of course these issues were easily debunked because:

- the Voice was set up only for making recommendations, so no government would make policies that would be so unpopular like land tax for reparations

- the Voice didn't have enshrined in detail, all the possibilities of all future recommendations because first of all, your cannot envisage every possible scenario in the future. Similarly most constitutional amendments in the past used this practical outlook, for example, workers rights.

I would call those things flimsy counter arguments rather than a debunking

 

[Romeoh1]

But the same people that said that they voted Yes, that also complained about the possibility of reparations, land tax, but also simultaneously complained about the Voice not having any detail, doesn't add up.

If you really had issues with that, you wouldn't be voting Yes.

Of course these issues were easily debunked because:

- the Voice was set up only for making recommendations, so no government would make policies that would be so unpopular like land tax for reparations

- the Voice didn't have enshrined in detail, all the possibilities of all future recommendations because first of all, your cannot envisage every possible scenario in the future. Similarly most constitutional amendments in the past used this practical outlook, for example, workers rights.

But back to the initial point, people will say they voted Yes because they don't want to lose their rep and credibility on this forum, and so they lie so not be pinned with racists and white supremacists. Which is a reasonable self defence mechanism for someone that wants to keep appearances on this forum.

Yep- they are full of it.

 

[Fluro Boots]

It wouldn't have.
It would have ensured that the concerns of aboriginals were not lost in the concerns of those who:

Want less tax
Want more education and health.
Want lower housing and utility costs.
etc etc

Its a small cost to listen.

Don’t the aboriginal population want those things too? As will all of us they can vote in accordance with their wishes for the country

 

[Maddo11]

It feels like for the people you know IRL, you know how they voted without even asking them.

I reckon i can confidently say all of my colleagues at work (6 people) all voted No.

With that being said, I suspect they think I voted No, when I voted yes. So maybe I'm wrong?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Don’t the aboriginal population want those things too? As will all of us they can vote in accordance with their wishes for the country

Yes. But they don't need a voice to communicate that sort of stuff.
They need the voice to communicate specific aboriginal problems or issues.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

But the same people that said that they voted Yes, that also complained about the possibility of reparations, land tax, but also simultaneously complained about the Voice not having any detail, doesn't add up.

If you really had issues with that, you wouldn't be voting Yes.

Of course these issues were easily debunked because:

- the Voice was set up only for making recommendations, so no government would make policies that would be so unpopular like land tax for reparations

- the Voice didn't have enshrined in detail, all the possibilities of all future recommendations because first of all, your cannot envisage every possible scenario in the future. Similarly most constitutional amendments in the past used this practical outlook, for example, workers rights.

But back to the initial point, people will say they voted Yes because they don't want to lose their rep and credibility on this forum, and so they lie so not be pinned with racists and white supremacists. Which is a reasonable self defence mechanism for someone that wants to keep appearances on this forum.

absolutely. some of the strongest arguers against the Yes case in this thread, bizarrely come from people who need to remind us regularly that they voted Yes. You'd really hope this is not some pissweak defence mechanism by gutless No voters to not have themselves dismissed as just another racist. Sadly during the lengthy debates, their masks generally slip.

 

[ElectricG]

No voter McCarthyism

 

[mcnulty]

Yes. But they don't need a voice to communicate that sort of stuff.
They need the voice to communicate specific aboriginal problems or issues.

That’s what the NIAA Is supposed to be for.

“The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) vision is to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered.

We recognise each First Nations community is unique. We work in partnership with community to make sure policies, programs and services meet their unique needs.”

What the Yes campaign did incredibly badly was putting forth the case that this model would actually make a difference.

 

[Rob R]

That’s what the NIAA Is supposed to be for.

“The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) vision is to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered.

We recognise each First Nations community is unique. We work in partnership with community to make sure policies, programs and services meet their unique needs.”

What the Yes campaign did incredibly badly was putting forth the case that this model would actually make a difference.

Isn't the NIAA just another failing Canberra organisation that actually employs relatively few indigenous people. It is probably one of the organisations that a successful voice could have largely replaced (which would have been a good yes message that it is replacing hundreds of ineffective wasteful Canberrans)

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Punter]

Happy to discuss them.

What's one of the main obvious and easy to avoid errors that you believe impacted the results?

And when do you think the next campaign for Indigenous recognition and closing the gap will be?

For a start, many people associated with the yes campaign were happy to wax lyrical about what they consider the motivating factors behind the campaign against the voice. Regardless of the accuracy of those thoughts, it was only going to drive a section of the community away, sections the voice needed to succeed. Elections are about doing what is required to win, especially when all that would have been required in this care (I want to be clear, I mean all they needed to do to address this issue with the campaign, not that this is the only thing that was missing in order to win) was not to use pejorative terms about their opponents. In short, the campaign lacked message discipline.

The government was damned if they did and damned if they didn't with regards to providing detail, specifically what the legislation would look like post a successful referendum. If both doors lead to damnation, provide the detail and then at least you are doing what your opponents do not expect, and the information is there to sell.

So that is two obvious errors IMO. Would it have made the difference in winning? Probably not, considering the lack of bipartisan support which dooms all referenda, but I'm sure the yes vote would have been higher.

Is the gap closed? Do we have indigenous recognition? Those campaigns are ongoing, although I was talking about the almost certain likelihood that political activists will continue to find themselves in political campaigns.

 

[mcnulty]

Isn't the NIAA just another failing Canberra organisation that actually employs relatively few indigenous people. It is probably one of the organisations that a successful voice could have largely replaced (which would have been a good yes message that it is replacing hundreds of ineffective wasteful Canberrans)

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I have no idea how many indigenous people the NIAA employ. But given indigenous people are well represented in the public service proportionally to the population you’d have to think more than a few.

Irrespective, if you're going to ask people to enshrine another organisation into the Constitution, you need to explain a bit better why this one is likely to be an improvement.

 

[Chief]

That’s what the NIAA Is supposed to be for.

“The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) vision is to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered.

We recognise each First Nations community is unique. We work in partnership with community to make sure policies, programs and services meet their unique needs.”

What the Yes campaign did incredibly badly was putting forth the case that this model would actually make a difference.

Don't tell the cooked No voters - "But we voted against that!!!!1!1!"

 

[Chief]

you need to explain a bit better why this one is likely to be an improvement.

The information was there. Yes campaign over estimated the average voter, is what I am hearing.

 

[Chief]

mcnulty just read this thread for many examples of information on anticipated improvements.

It's wilful ignorance to claim this information was not out there.

The Yes campaign underestimated the average voter - their willingness to seek out opinions and information. Their ability to look past mindless slogans. They needed more firepower than they thought they needed.

 

[Kram]

Geez.. some of you blokes need to get over yourselves and move on.

 

[mcnulty]

@mcnulty just read this thread for many examples of information on anticipated improvements.

“Information on anticipated improvements”, farking lol.

First of all, no one has any real idea on whether this would have been effective at all. Secondly the Yes campaign can “anticipate“ all the improvements it likes but that’s not much good if you can’t convince people. Heck pretty much every Yes voter I know was still very sceptical about it providing tangible benefits where it was most needed.

 

[South of the Yarra]

“Information on anticipated improvements”, farking lol.

First of all, no one has any real idea on whether this would have effective at all. Secondly the Yes campaign can “anticipate“ all the improvements it likes but that’s not much good if you can’t convince people. Heck pretty much every Yes voter I know was still very sceptical about it providing tangible benefits where it was most needed.

Well let's anticipate how much improvement the NO vote has made to Aboriginal people. I can tell you. NONE. In fact, it has deeply impacted many in a negative manner.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

That’s what the NIAA Is supposed to be for.

“The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) vision is to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered.

We recognise each First Nations community is unique. We work in partnership with community to make sure policies, programs and services meet their unique needs.”

What the Yes campaign did incredibly badly was putting forth the case that this model would actually make a difference.

From the NIAA website.

"We work to support the Minister for Indigenous Australians" IE , the Government.

 

[mcnulty]

From the NIAA website.

"We work to support the Minister for Indigenous Australians" IE , the Government.

Yes…a government department to provide advice to and support for the government of the day.

The Voice will be another government bureaucracy providing advice to the government. I understand people’s scepticism.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Isn't the NIAA just another failing Canberra organisation that actually employs relatively few indigenous people. It is probably one of the organisations that a successful voice could have largely replaced (which would have been a good yes message that it is replacing hundreds of ineffective wasteful Canberrans)

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

You might be right. But if they were doing their job properly it wouldn't matter if they were employing indigenous people or not. The idea of such an agency isn't to be an employment service.
Surely they employ the best available.
Under education is one of the issues facing aboriginal communities , and while they should be encouraged and helped to gain qualifications.
While there are no doubt roles that Aboriginals can have in such an agency, it would be foolish if agencies such as this should employ under qualified people.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yes…a government department to provide advice to and support for the government of the day.

The Voice will be another government bureaucracy providing advice to the government. I understand people’s scepticism.

They wouldn't be providing advice to the government. They would be voicing their concerns to Parliment.
Its different.

 

[Roby]

absolutely. some of the strongest arguers against the Yes case in this thread, bizarrely come from people who need to remind us regularly that they voted Yes. You'd really hope this is not some pissweak defence mechanism by gutless No voters to not have themselves dismissed as just another racist. Sadly during the lengthy debates, their masks generally slip.

That's why I put them on ignore, indefinitely. They don't fool me.