Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament

[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.

 

[mcnulty]

They're definitely giving it a go, that much is crystal clear.

Day after day they publish negative material about the voice, about the terrible people who might get a role in the voice if it is established, about the scary unknowns and the endless trouble and woe that will issue from the voice, about the risk and the cost, the threat to good White Aussies from outspoken indigenous people.

It's aimed at damaging the ALP and benefitting the LNP. They are evil and don't give a crap about people and our society.

Their goal is to pay less tax, abide by fewer laws, and make laws that hand them money and power. It is that simple. It's been proven time and again.

Well it’s the only way to explain support actually FALLING right? You know people who were yes and are now no. Or maybe they weren’t racist but now are? Were smart but now dumb? What else could it be?.

Trying to help you out here- to try and maintain your incredibly misplaced superiority complex it’s probably the safest bet.

 

[Chief]

Well it’s the only way to explain support actually FALLING right? You know people who were yes and are now no. Or maybe they weren’t racist but now are? We’re smart but now dumb? What else could it be?.

It's definitely a factor, no matter how sarcastic you want to be about it. Seeing the same LNP/IPA talking points as published by Murdoch and Nein, then repeated by people is very telling.

As we all know, there are a number of reasons to vote no. This has been discussed often. Some are that the voice goes too far, some that it doesn't go far enough.

Some people have had their innate human fears and prejudices amplified by grifters and racists looking for a pay day, that's undeniable. Even you, the Great Contrarian, have to admit that.



Blah blah with the rest of your post. Standard ad hom.

 

[mcnulty]

the Great Contrarian

Ah…arguing there are valid reasons for voting either way makes one a contrarian. Ill need to ponder that one…

But you’re not far off the total echo chamber in here. I’m sure you soon won’t have to worry.

 

[Chief]

Ah…arguing there are valid reasons for voting either way makes one a contrarian. Ill need to ponder that one…

But you’re not far off the total echo chamber in here. I’m sure you soon won’t have to worry.

You saw the yeah? Excellent.

"arguing there are valid reasons for voting either way"

There ARE for god's sake.

 

[Episode IV]

...Their goal is to pay less tax, abide by fewer laws, and make laws that hand them money and power. It is that simple. It's been proven time and again.

Sorry, I'm getting confused.
Which mob are we talking about here?

 

[Chief]

Sorry, I'm getting confused.
Which mob are we talking about here?

Did you see the post I quoted? That should clear it up.

 

[Sun Ra]

The other disingenuous argument some in the NO camp run that is frankly disgraceful is labelling the Voice,
the Canberra Voice and the Aboriginal leaders calling for it as being part of an "Elite" an "Aboriginal Elite",
implying they are only in it for themselves and are out of touch with "regular Aboriginals" out in the bush.

Dutton has run this line. A man with a nice QLD property portfolio who many would see as being part of "The
Real Bloody Elite". Pot calling the kettle black. Pun intended.

 

[mcnulty]

There ARE for god's sake.

Good of you to say so Chief. Not sure it will help the penny drop with a few of your fellow travellers in here, but at least you tried.

 

[mcnulty]

The other disingenuous argument some in the NO camp run that is frankly disgraceful is labelling the Voice,
the Canberra Voice and the Aboriginal leaders calling for it as being part of an "Elite" an "Aboriginal Elite",
implying they are only in it for themselves and are out of touch with "regular Aboriginals" out in the bush.

Dutton has run this line. A man with a nice QLD property portfolio who many would see as being part of "The
Real Bloody Elite". Pot calling the kettle black. Pun intended.

Fair point about hypocrisy, but I think it’s a valid sentiment. Political entities get controlled by the the most energetic and the most ambitious, and then everyone else tends to fall in line. Punters get screwed. It’s why people are sceptical that this won’t be more of the same. I mean look at the last leader of ATSIC…

 

[Sun Ra]

Fair point about hypocrisy, but I think it’s a valid sentiment. Political entities get controlled by the the most energetic and the most ambitious, and then everyone else tends to fall in line. Punters get screwed. It’s why people are sceptical that this won’t be more of the same. I mean look at the last leader of ATSIC…

Look at the last leader of the Liberal Party. Look at the current one.

 

[kalex6251]

They're definitely giving it a go, that much is crystal clear.

Day after day they publish negative material about the voice, about the terrible people who might get a role in the voice if it is established, about the scary unknowns and the endless trouble and woe that will issue from the voice, about the risk and the cost, the threat to good White Aussies from outspoken indigenous people.

It's aimed at damaging the ALP and benefitting the LNP. They are evil and don't give a crap about people and our society.

Their goal is to pay less tax, abide by fewer laws, and make laws that hand them money and power. It is that simple. It's been proven time and again.

the 'jacinta price in tears' article was a bit rich .... those bloody nasty lefties ... sheesh

 

[Festerz]

Many of those new indigenous are in fact progressive white people who (allegedly) have one great grandfather who's indigenous, or similar.

So someone with an Indigenous Grandparent is 'white' and not someone with a genuine claim to Indigenous heritage. Even worse that they happen to be 'progressive'.

Is this what you're saying?

Can you link to evidence of where this has happened and what issues have arisen as a result?

How do we know the 24 members of The Voice will be truly representative of struggling indigenous communities in the outback, and not just the progressive urbanites who have started identifying over the past few years?

People in Indigenous communities will vote for who THEY want to represent them in the Voice. Why is that a problem?

Are you really suggesting that people of the APY Lands, for example, will vote for 'progressive urbanites' (whatever the feck that means) who you say are not really Indigenous at all?

That Indigenous Australians, unlike you, will be easily fooled by someone pretending to be Indigenous when they really are just 'progressive whites'? My experience with remote communities is exactly the opposite - they can spot a pretender from a mile away, regardless of what skin they're wearing.

 

[Chief]

the 'jacinta price in tears' article was a bit rich .... those bloody nasty lefties ... sheesh

After publishing attack upon attack on anyone they want to undermine.

 

[Crankyhawk]

It's a well established set of criteria for government purposes.

There's no valid reason for someone to bring it up unless the person wants to join in the campaign for the no vote.

My thought is that I would find it odd if a non indigenous person was a voice representative (as I think it then gets to being someone talking for them not of them ie not representative)

 

[Crankyhawk]

So someone with an Indigenous Grandparent is 'white' and not someone with a genuine claim to Indigenous heritage. Even worse that they happen to be 'progressive'.

Is this what you're saying?

Can you link to evidence of where this has happened and what issues have arisen as a result?

If they identify and are accepted by the indigenous community as indigenous that fits my definition.
(Really don’t see the problem with my definition earlier)

 

[Chief]

My thought is that I would find it odd if a non indigenous person was a voice representative (as I think it then gets to being someone talking for them not of them ie not representative)

I suppose whoever Indigenous people vote for will be involved.

 

[mcnulty]

Look at the last leader of the Liberal Party. Look at the current one.

Again I agree. We are generally terribly served by our politicians. Thank god they can’t **** things up too much, because people will get on with things regardless (there’s also a Constitution that doesn’t allow them too much power).

But there’s good reason people are very cynical that the politicians can actually accomplish much.

 

[campbell]

The number of indigenous people in this country has increased by 73% in a decade. Almost doubled.

Many of those new indigenous are in fact progressive white people who (allegedly) have one great grandfather who's indigenous, or similar.

How do we know the 24 members of The Voice will be truly representative of struggling indigenous communities in the outback, and not just the progressive urbanites who have started identifying over the past few years?

Reasonable question. Not "disingenuous" at all.

wow.

Think harder.

 

[aj1992]

https://www.news.com.au/national/we-havent-messaged-this-well-startling-admission-as-wa-farmers-rage-at-aboriginal-cultural-heritage-act/news-story/c35abddcbd55bf372dadb8698a8f8752

Well every farmer in WA voting no?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Trying to help you out here- to try and maintain your incredibly misplaced superiority complex it’s probably the safest bet.

See this is exactly the sort of sniping that the yes campaign is kicking their own goals with.

The rest of your salient post is now in the shadow of your drive by here. You just shot yourself in the foot.

 

[PJays]

So someone with an Indigenous Grandparent is 'white' and not someone with a genuine claim to Indigenous heritage. Even worse that they happen to be 'progressive'.

Someone with 7 white great grandparents and 1 indigenous great grandparent and lives in Melbourne can identify how they like, but biologically (and probably culturally) they're white.

More importantly they'd likely have more in common with other white urbanites rather than the disadvantaged rural indigenous.

People in Indigenous communities will vote for who THEY want to represent them in the Voice. Why is that a problem?

How do we know it'll be a vote?

The Uluru Dialogues were invite only. That is, the process that led to this referendum. The supposed "extensive community consultation" that ultimately led to this referendum wasn't democratic at all.

We have no idea how this will work.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The number of indigenous people in this country has increased by 73% in a decade. Almost doubled.

Many of those new indigenous are in fact progressive white people who (allegedly) have one great grandfather who's indigenous, or similar.

How do we know the 24 members of The Voice will be truly representative of struggling indigenous communities in the outback, and not just the progressive urbanites who have started identifying over the past few years?

Reasonable question. Not "disingenuous" at all.

Well you'll know these 'progressive impostors' (that seems your implication) will likely have the voice at heart, coz they're progressive - so yeah pretty easy to determine they'll be the representatives of those that need it.

 

[MPMonkeys]

The other disingenuous argument some in the NO camp run that is frankly disgraceful is labelling the Voice,
the Canberra Voice and the Aboriginal leaders calling for it as being part of an "Elite" an "Aboriginal Elite",
implying they are only in it for themselves and are out of touch with "regular Aboriginals" out in the bush.

Dutton has run this line. A man with a nice QLD property portfolio who many would see as being part of "The
Real Bloody Elite". Pot calling the kettle black. Pun intended.

Bit of a silly argument from both sides. I would bet, pound for pound Labor, Teal and Greens parliamentarians would be worth more personally on average than their Coalition counterparts. And that includes taking away any outliers like Charlton and co.

But I digress.

 

[killtaker1993]

Just because I’m voting no, doesn’t mean I don’t have those characteristics as well; I have those characteristics.

I respect your decision to vote yes, as should you respect mine to vote no.

Yes it does, and no I shouldn't (I don't)

 

[aj1992]

Yes it does, and no I shouldn't (I don't)

So everyone is entitled to an opinion but only if it's the same as yours? That's called communism mate go live in China. Bet your a Chomo supporter too.