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.

 

[kalex6251]

have warren and jacinta outed the racists within their NO camp yet?

 

[Sun Ra]

I do wonder how many will vote no purely for the fact it's compulsory as a " FU for making me take 20 min out of my saturday "

I've always thought that referendums should be at the same time as and a part of general elections for this reason,
notwithstanding the issue being discussed is probably lessened and possibly lost by the election debate and the potential
for politics to leach into the discussion but given what's been going on here so far, I rest my case.

Referendum answer could also be "bundled in" with the "above the line" vote in the Senate ? How's that for a reform ?

 

[Not Important]

have warren and jacinta outed the racists within their NO camp yet?

they are their peeps.

 

[Festerz]

I’m talking about the reason being put forward in that particular opinion piece.

You really have nfi what you're talking about. Because you and old mate KKK clearly didn't read the article. Or if you did you totally missed the point entirely.

It was making a satirical point about the no camp and making a reference to the AUKUS deal.

The last paragraph of the article sums up beautifully the hypocrisy of Dutton et al perfectly...

Peter Dutton and others in the “No” camp are always asking for more details about the Voice. They say the public is entitled to know. Even if they are being disingenuous, they’re right in principle. Yet we go plunging into AUKUS without so much as a whiteboard presentation to explain it. And in the higher reaches of power, nary a yelp.

And the other point about the Voice and constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians being inevitable into the future, regardless of this year's referendum result? That is just a proposition of course. But an intelligent one imho - especially if the disparity in health and socio-economic outcomes for Indigenous Australians remains stark.

 

[MrKK]

You really have nfi what you're talking about. Because you and old mate KKK clearly didn't read the article. Or if you did you totally missed the point entirely.

It was making a satirical point about the no camp and making a reference to the AUKUS deal.

The last paragraph of the article sums up beautifully the hypocrisy of Dutton et al perfectly...

Peter Dutton and others in the “No” camp are always asking for more details about the Voice. They say the public is entitled to know. Even if they are being disingenuous, they’re right in principle. Yet we go plunging into AUKUS without so much as a whiteboard presentation to explain it. And in the higher reaches of power, nary a yelp.

And the other point about the Voice and constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians being inevitable into the future, regardless of this year's referendum result? That is just a proposition of course. But an intelligent one imho - especially if the disparity in health and socio-economic outcomes for Indigenous Australians remains stark.

I read your excerpt but not the whole article (didn't want to sign up). AUKUS was agreed by both major parties so there is zero appetite for either of them to open a discussion that I agree should happen. That won't change regardless of the Voice referendum outcome.

 

[Sphynx]

I read your excerpt but not the whole article (didn't want to sign up). AUKUS was agreed by both major parties so there is zero appetite for either of them to open a discussion that I agree should happen. That won't change regardless of the Voice referendum outcome.

Exactly.

A classified treaty first agreed to and developed by Dutton and Scomo that was then dived straight into by the ALP when they took power.

 

[Festerz]

Exactly.

A classified treaty first agreed to and developed by Dutton and Scomo that was then dived straight into by the ALP when they took power.

A substantial shift in Australian treaty obligations and a huge increase in taxpayer funding (as well as the cancelling of a major project Morrison himself had signed with the French Government) announced with the leaders of UK and the US via press conference with zero discussion and debate in Parliament or with any details provided to the Australian public. It's use as a pre-election political wedge trap was clear.

Further discussion on AUKUS and the manner in which it was arranged is off topic for this thread of course.

But the point being made in the article - and what is relevant to this thread - is that here was the most monumental shift in Australia's defence and International strategic policy relations in living history with a huge financial and potential military cost imposed on current and future Australians with no details provided at all. Added to that is the reality that Australia - unlike our US ally - can commit our country to a war on the whim of the PM with no details or Parliamentary agreement needed.

Contrast that with Dutton's bleating for more details on the Referendum proposal despite reams of details actually being provided on line for several years. The misinformation spread on details such as the Uluru statement just add to the BS.

That's the point of the article. It's truth is undeniable as is the hypocrisy of the LNP in one of the key planks of its opposition to the Voice - that it lacks details.

The irony is of course that those criticising the article haven't even bothered to read it in full.

 

[NSWCROW]

I've always thought that referendums should be at the same time as and a part of general elections for this reason,
notwithstanding the issue being discussed is probably lessened and possibly lost by the election debate and the potential
for politics to leach into the discussion but given what's been going on here so far, I rest my case.

Referendum answer could also be "bundled in" with the "above the line" vote in the Senate ? How's that for a reform ?

should've tacked it on with a republic referendum.

Give the non-indigenous something 1st to " fatten them up ", for want of a better analogy

 

[Gralin]

 

[Gralin]

Pamphlets on the AEC website now

Yes/No case pamphlet

Yes/No case pamphlet

www.aec.gov.au

 

[Frederico_WA]

Pamphlets on the AEC website now

Yes/No case pamphlet

Yes/No case pamphlet

www.aec.gov.au

Theres a clear winner on who drafted the better argument ....

Discuss.

 

[tandino]

should've tacked it on with a republic referendum.

Give the non-indigenous something 1st to " fatten them up ", for want of a better analogy

I get the feeling this was also a bit of a trial run for the Republic referendum.

I think it will have to wait for another Prime Minister now.

 

[evolved2]

Watch what happens in the referendum and we can see the proportion.

I don't agree that 'no' voters are racist. You understand that labeling all 'no' voters racist is going to backfire on voting day, right?

People can see the institutional racism, white or not.

I feel that we generally accept and absorb other races quite well.

How much responsibility falls on the individual for institutional racism?

It doesn't mean everyone is a violent racist.


In what way?

There is certainly an inferiority complex held by some white progressives living in 'white' nations like Australia and the US that causes them to see their own culture as being inferior despite their nation being relatively successful on the global stage.

If we're doing it wrong, which countries are doing it right?

 

[kalex6251]

 

[ElectricG]

You really have nfi what you're talking about. Because you and old mate KKK clearly didn't read the article. Or if you did you totally missed the point entirely.

It was making a satirical point about the no camp and making a reference to the AUKUS deal.

The last paragraph of the article sums up beautifully the hypocrisy of Dutton et al perfectly...

Peter Dutton and others in the “No” camp are always asking for more details about the Voice. They say the public is entitled to know. Even if they are being disingenuous, they’re right in principle. Yet we go plunging into AUKUS without so much as a whiteboard presentation to explain it. And in the higher reaches of power, nary a yelp.

And the other point about the Voice and constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians being inevitable into the future, regardless of this year's referendum result? That is just a proposition of course. But an intelligent one imho - especially if the disparity in health and socio-economic outcomes for Indigenous Australians remains stark.

Nah. I bet becoming a republic felt inevitable at one point, and here we are over two decades later and the people who still bellyache over it just look like sour grapes.

“Vote yes because it won’t go away” will fall completely on deaf ears; it’s not an intelligent point. People have a bit more courage than that.

 

[Roby]

Theres a clear winner on who drafted the better argument ....

Discuss.

I can discuss this as much you like, but who do you think is the clear winner?

 

[NSWCROW]

I get the feeling this was also a bit of a trial run for the Republic referendum.

I think it will have to wait for another Prime Minister now.

100%


Add another decade at least if this goes down

 

[NSWCROW]

Cue another week of 2gb frothing over Kean

 

[the_interloper]

I do wonder how many will vote no purely for the fact it's compulsory as a " FU for making me take 20 min out of my saturday "

I reckon overall there’ll be a bit of “**** you I won’t do what you tell me” with the No votes

 

[JackOutback]

I don't agree that 'no' voters are racist. You understand that labeling all 'no' voters racist is going to backfire on voting day, right?

I feel that we generally accept and absorb other races quite well.

How much responsibility falls on the individual for institutional racism?

There is certainly an inferiority complex held by some white progressives living in 'white' nations like Australia and the US that causes them to see their own culture as being inferior despite their nation being relatively successful on the global stage.

If we're doing it wrong, which countries are doing it right?

For at least 150 years, the country entrenched Aboriginal people in poverty, denied them education, introduced booze and addiction into communities, created generational problems, then half-heartedly changed the rules (without changing plenty of attitudes) and asked why Aboriginal people as a whole haven't resolved it all in less than one generation. Must be on them, right, they must be lazy?

 

[Sun Ra]

Emboldened to act like this ?

Vandals damage Indigenous birthing tree sacred to Victoria’s Djab Wurrung people

Police investigate vandalism of tree that was set to be demolished for major road project before large protests in western Victoria

www.theguardian.com

 

[evolved2]

For at least 150 years, the country entrenched Aboriginal people in poverty, denied them education, introduced booze and addiction into communities, created generational problems, then half-heartedly changed the rules (without changing plenty of attitudes) and asked why Aboriginal people as a whole haven't resolved it all in less than one generation.

Do you feel personally responsible?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Why is there such a strong campaign for No? What do these people actually stand for?

Where were they the last the last ten years when this was proposed? Why didn't propose something before? Why are they coming out of the woodwork now?

Why hasn’t more been made of mundinea backflip on the voice (this is the type of hypocrisy that usually the media kick labor for after all) yet crickets

 

[JackOutback]

Do you feel personally responsible?

No, but I still want to do something about it.

Hard to believe but not everything should be about me. Or you.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Give it a few years. If this hurts us whiteys, we can campaign for our own voice.

Vote YES