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.

 

[O Grobbecker]

I'm with you here and as we evolve to a republic, hopefully this is remedied.

It should be noted we have a lot of entities that are not accountable to the people such as the courts, RBA and the IRC.

The difference though is the Voice is supposed to be the Voice of the people. So it is not comparable to these entities including the head of state.

If answerable, then to 3% of the people. There are supposed to be 500 different indigenous groups, that’s a big voice. It’s only advisory, or so we are told, so does it really matter ?

 

[Festerz]

Has there been any polling done? I'd love to see a state-by-state break down.

See: Polling – Voice to Parliament in the Constitution - The Australia Institute

It is a statistically robust survey of 1000 people across several states in June/July and provides a preliminary indication of the level of support for the Voice across several states. Bearing in mind this was prior to the release of the PMs draft proposals and the level of community understanding of what was proposed was, at best, superficial.





Not sure what else has been done since.

 

[Festerz]

I think that they say it’s an advisory body so implies multiple representatives. I don’t know the specifics however. It could be along the line you say or could be say 3 representatives per state (there may be too many “mobs/nations” to realistically actualise and would persons with multiple heritage get multiple votes?

This is from the original 2021 Discussion Paper. I have seen a more developed thinking on the proposed representation and election process but can't access atm.

The idea of the referendum is to get Australia wide support to allow the formation of such a body and to broadly define and limit its powers within the Constitution. The actual design, structure and functions of the Voice (and funding) to undertake that would obviously be something for the Indigenous community themselves and ultimately require the agreement of the majority of representatives of both Houses of the Australian Parliament (just as happens with any Federal Government body atm). .

 

[dockerfemme]

Linda Burney was on Insiders this morning. She referenced this paper often.

https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/indigenous-voice-discussion-paper_1.pdf

My reading of this paper is that the approach preferred is the Local and Regional Voices appoint members to the National voice. Local and Regional Voices are populated based on each Local and Regional preferred approach.

She seemed unclear to me whether there will be clarity and detail around these types of questions before the referendum.

 

[STFUJEFF]

The billionaire elites Rupert and the Ginas IPA using their proxy to maintain their voice

 

[Reynolds Number]

I've found a few of Price's biggest white male fans in the NT from the same Facebook page

So well done national party
Noel Pearson abusing David Littleproud...
One of the better moderates in the National party who were quick to accept climate change...

Come to think of it...
We all heard Noel Pearson

If the voice included indigenous health services...
The ones that wanted to keep grog out of communities...
And the government didn't...

Yeah

We heard that voice
And we are waiting for the next generation of starving kids to break into our cars and homes...

The the lawyers tell us how cruel we are locking up kids for stealing breaks and enter
Arson
And beating there wives to death.

There are voices in the first nations who need platform

But there is a lot of violence

That already enjoys too much platform.

I hear the voice
And it does no good for any of the mob that I have time for.

Do the crime
Do the time

You don't live a native title existence
So hand the royalties back
And the funding for health housing and education services you don't use or destroy.

You have plenty of voice
Too much violence
And nothing your loudest voices contribute is good

You wanted grog
You got grog
We don't need to hear you violent threatening abusive voices

We don't care how old you are living culture
We have been here just as long as any of your elders

 

[Crankyhawk]

This is from the original 2021 Discussion Paper. I have seen a more developed thinking on the proposed representation and election process but can't access atm.

The idea of the referendum is to get Australia wide support to allow the formation of such a body and to broadly define and limit its powers within the Constitution. The actual design, structure and functions of the Voice (and funding) to undertake that would obviously be something for the Indigenous community themselves and ultimately require the agreement of the majority of representatives of both Houses of the Australian Parliament (just as happens with any Federal Government body atm). .


View attachment 1567241

So the one which "more detail" comments apply is the National Voice then?
Would the referendum involve choice between "structurally linked" vs "direct election" - this could cause issues for yes voters who are wedded to one or the other model (I think this was an issue in the republic referendum)

 

[Festerz]

So the one which "more detail" comments apply is the National Voice then?

Both of them really as they are part of a set - the local/regional voice about the process of connecting with local mobs and communities and the national voice the representatives who wold formally meet to consider and advise Parliament on priorities and policies.

Would the referendum involve choice between "structurally linked" vs "direct election" - this could cause issues for yes voters who are wedded to one or the other model (I think this was an issue in the republic referendum)

As I understand it - no. The referendum is solely about seeking approval to formally establish an Indigenous consultative body as part of the Australian Constitution.

As per the thread sticky the draft words to be added to the Constitution are:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

The draft question wording that will be put to the people for a yes or no answer in the Referendum is simply this:

"Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?"

It is then up to the Parliament to determine what form that body should take, its funding , roles and powers etc.

IMHO that is where a responsible political party would be putting its efforts - as happens with every other piece of legislation.- rather than taking a cheap political line of NO - we won't support the concept.

Every State Premier that has been in power over the past 3 years, Labor and Liberal, has been in strong support of the referendum and understands this.

 

[Northalives]

Yesterday, I spoke to a First Nations man, who quoted to me a line from From Little Things Big Things Grow: "No thanks, we know how to wait". Essentially, his point was that First Nations people have been waiting for 120 years for a Voice, and at least some of them are willing to wait a few more years to get it done properly. One of the reasons this referendum is as contentious as it is, is that the truth of First Nations history and experience hasn't permeated through much of mainstream Australian society. Maybe if it did, then there wouldn't be an effective argument against a Voice.

what's "get it done properly" mean?

 

[Northalives]

The fear is very real around taking children away.

I have worked remotely, I have seen first hand the paternalistic conversations had by people who are tryong to put us all in their box, their way of raising children.

We are different, our ways are different.

Different, does not mean we are doing it wrong or we are bad.

Sadly, until this attitude that we are a sub species because we are different changes, we as a country are stuck.Rigidly stuck.

First Nations people deserve better, we wont get it.
As some one said, patience grasshopper, we can and will wait.

Beautifully said brother.

 

[Northalives]

What will be different between the Voice and ATSIC in regards to managing corruption and effectiveness?

How will controls be implemented to avoid this becoming a political tool driving racial divide?

The difference Power Raid is that the Voice is to Parliament BEFORE bills are put up. It is not an ATSIC where, as they say in the classics, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

The Voice is an advisory mechanism enshrined in our Constitution so that the original inhabitants are entitled to have a say, a voice in what is prescribed for them. It may not sound like a big deal to some but the ramifications are huge. Finally, we won't have right wing Christian Nut jobs imposing "welfare cards" upon the indigenous people because they, "know what's good for them". Imagine mate walking into a store to do your shopping and having to flash a card to say that you have the right to do so. How demeaning is that? Other people on the dole, some form of welfare can go and spend their money how they wish but if you're a black fella, ah ah ahaaa, "you can't take care of yourself, you don't know what's good for you". What are we going to do next, get them to wear a yellow sign on their clothes alerting everyone that they are Aboriginal?

Matters concerning indigenous people will be debated and thrashed out in the Parliament before measures are put in place. What we have now, is that political parties, some very well meaning, put things into law and THEN, they are "debated", out in public and all manner of vested interests have a crack. The proper place for debate and discussion is in the Parliament before the fact and it's during this phase that vested interest can have a crack if the wish insted of them either running campaigns after the fact to try and keep the meausures in place or try and get rid of them. I would suggest that this would greatly reduce the race card being played in public and if it' is played, it will be played in the Parliament and then those that play it, will be subject to the electorate and not as it is now, where they get filth like Deves for example to bring up an "issue" and/or hide behind mobs like the IPA who do their racist and bigoted talking for them.

 

[Northalives]

I really really would suggest that everyone that is interested/concerned about the Voice To Parliament either listen to or, if you can, watch the Boyer lecture with Noel Pearson.

Boyer Lectures with Professor Michelle Simmons - ABC listen

Since 1959, the ABC's Boyer Lectures have sparked conversations about critical ideas.

www.abc.net.au

Boyer Lecture 2022: Noel Pearson

Indigenous community leader, lawyer, academic and land rights activist Noel Pearson reflects on "Who we were and who we can be", in his 2022 Boyer Lecture.

iview.abc.net.au

 

[Rob R]

The difference Power Raid is that the Voice is to Parliament BEFORE bills are put up. It is not an ATSIC where, as they say in the classics, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

The Voice is an advisory mechanism enshrined in our Constitution so that the original inhabitants are entitled to have a say, a voice in what is prescribed for them. It may not sound like a big deal to some but the ramifications are huge. Finally, we won't have right wing Christian Nut jobs imposing "welfare cards" upon the indigenous people because they, "know what's good for them". Imagine mate walking into a store to do your shopping and having to flash a card to say that you have the right to do so. How demeaning is that? Other people on the dole, some form of welfare can go and spend their money how they wish but if you're a black fella, ah ah ahaaa, "you can't take care of yourself, you don't know what's good for you". What are we going to do next, get them to wear a yellow sign on their clothes alerting everyone that they are Aboriginal?

Matters concerning indigenous people will be debated and thrashed out in the Parliament before measures are put in place. What we have now, is that political parties, some very well meaning, put things into law and THEN, they are "debated", out in public and all manner of vested interests have a crack. The proper place for debate and discussion is in the Parliament before the fact and it's during this phase that vested interest can have a crack if the wish insted of them either running campaigns after the fact to try and keep the meausures in place or try and get rid of them. I would suggest that this would greatly reduce the race card being played in public and if it' is played, it will be played in the Parliament and then those that play it, will be subject to the electorate and not as it is now, where they get filth like Deves for example to bring up an "issue" and/or hide behind mobs like the IPA who do their racist and bigoted talking for them.

Apart from being better informed and motivated - how is that different from the committee stages of reviewing papers before bills are voted on. (We all know debate in parliament is about the sound bites and not actually about getting the right policy)

They go to committees, people and groups provide comments, paper goes to parliament to inform bills and pollies essentially votes the way they were going to anyway (based on polls, lobbying and personal interest)

As I understand it, the voice can't do more than provide written recommendations to parliament, can't move amendments etc so what stops it being ignored like complaints or comments from other segments of the Australian population routinely are?



On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Power Raid]

The difference Power Raid is that the Voice is to Parliament BEFORE bills are put up. It is not an ATSIC where, as they say in the classics, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

The Voice is an advisory mechanism enshrined in our Constitution so that the original inhabitants are entitled to have a say, a voice in what is prescribed for them. It may not sound like a big deal to some but the ramifications are huge. Finally, we won't have right wing Christian Nut jobs imposing "welfare cards" upon the indigenous people because they, "know what's good for them". Imagine mate walking into a store to do your shopping and having to flash a card to say that you have the right to do so. How demeaning is that? Other people on the dole, some form of welfare can go and spend their money how they wish but if you're a black fella, ah ah ahaaa, "you can't take care of yourself, you don't know what's good for you". What are we going to do next, get them to wear a yellow sign on their clothes alerting everyone that they are Aboriginal?

Matters concerning indigenous people will be debated and thrashed out in the Parliament before measures are put in place. What we have now, is that political parties, some very well meaning, put things into law and THEN, they are "debated", out in public and all manner of vested interests have a crack. The proper place for debate and discussion is in the Parliament before the fact and it's during this phase that vested interest can have a crack if the wish insted of them either running campaigns after the fact to try and keep the meausures in place or try and get rid of them. I would suggest that this would greatly reduce the race card being played in public and if it' is played, it will be played in the Parliament and then those that play it, will be subject to the electorate and not as it is now, where they get filth like Deves for example to bring up an "issue" and/or hide behind mobs like the IPA who do their racist and bigoted talking for them.

Thanks

My concern is a couple of fold:

1) firstly I don't believe we should have an organisation based on race (add religion and sex). The catholic church once had a powerful voice and it often lead to negative outcomes and we have seen a ugly voice of the happy clappy church emerge in in recent years. A voice based on race, sex or religion is not the direction I feel is synergistic with our values on anti-discrimination.........but the voice is a popular idea and will happen regardless of what I think.

2) given we are going to have it, I'm concerned about the integrity of the organisation and the effectiveness. If it were democratic (voted by indigenous groups) and large in number (number of people) it becomes more difficult for politicians to corrupt, as the number of people that have to be bought and kept silent is difficult.

3) The effectiveness of an organisation is maintained by accountability. If it was introduced for a decade, its effectiveness could be assessed and in a decade refreshed by referendum for a longer period. After al, if the voice is required in perpetuity, this means the body was not effective.

4) The voice in my opinion is a political weapon. As if politicians wanted a "voice" they could simply call land councils today for their opinion on matters or set up steering committees......just like every other policy. Why is this different?

5) Many of the challenges faced by indigenous people and even non-indigenous people are local issues. Police, employment and health are local issues and not federal. Part of the peoblem isn't a "voice" (as there are many indigenous representatives in parliament) but an issue of federal govt over reach. We needed better and greater empowered local and state government.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Thanks

My concern is a couple of fold:

1) firstly I don't believe we should have an organisation based on race (add religion and sex). The catholic church once had a powerful voice and it often lead to negative outcomes and we have seen a ugly voice of the happy clappy church emerge in in recent years. A voice based on race, sex or religion is not the direction I feel is synergistic with our values on anti-discrimination.........but the voice is a popular idea and will happen regardless of what I think.

2) given we are going to have it, I'm concerned about the integrity of the organisation and the effectiveness. If it were democratic (voted by indigenous groups) and large in number (number of people) it becomes more difficult for politicians to corrupt, as the number of people that have to be bought and kept silent is difficult.

3) The effectiveness of an organisation is maintained by accountability. If it was introduced for a decade, its effectiveness could be assessed and in a decade refreshed by referendum for a longer period. After al, if the voice is required in perpetuity, this means the body was not effective.

4) The voice in my opinion is a political weapon. As if politicians wanted a "voice" they could simply call land councils today for their opinion on matters or set up steering committees......just like every other policy. Why is this different?

5) Many of the challenges faced by indigenous people and even non-indigenous people are local issues. Police, employment and health are local issues and not federal. Part of the peoblem isn't a "voice" (as there are many indigenous representatives in parliament) but an issue of federal govt over reach. We needed better and greater empowered local and state government.

Whilst I don't agree with all of that, well done.

To add, the difference between the Voice and ATSIC is that ATSIC had the additional function of implementing programs ergo funds ergo Geoff Clark's issues and corruption down the line. The Voice, according to Albanese, is just advisory so, the argument can be run, no harm because if/when the loonies control the asylum, all that's at stake will be expenses and a sensible Parliament can get on with it, continuing decades old failures. Maybe ask, what's the point of it all ?

 

[Northalives]

Thanks

My concern is a couple of fold:

1) firstly I don't believe we should have an organisation based on race (add religion and sex). The catholic church once had a powerful voice and it often lead to negative outcomes and we have seen a ugly voice of the happy clappy church emerge in in recent years. A voice based on race, sex or religion is not the direction I feel is synergistic with our values on anti-discrimination.........but the voice is a popular idea and will happen regardless of what I think.

2) given we are going to have it, I'm concerned about the integrity of the organisation and the effectiveness. If it were democratic (voted by indigenous groups) and large in number (number of people) it becomes more difficult for politicians to corrupt, as the number of people that have to be bought and kept silent is difficult.

3) The effectiveness of an organisation is maintained by accountability. If it was introduced for a decade, its effectiveness could be assessed and in a decade refreshed by referendum for a longer period. After al, if the voice is required in perpetuity, this means the body was not effective.

4) The voice in my opinion is a political weapon. As if politicians wanted a "voice" they could simply call land councils today for their opinion on matters or set up steering committees......just like every other policy. Why is this different?

5) Many of the challenges faced by indigenous people and even non-indigenous people are local issues. Police, employment and health are local issues and not federal. Part of the peoblem isn't a "voice" (as there are many indigenous representatives in parliament) but an issue of federal govt over reach. We needed better and greater empowered local and state government.

I will reply in detail Power Raid but right now, I've got a s**t load of things on my plate which I must do so please bare with me.

What I will say is that the referendum is only about giving a Voice to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders. It's not a convoluted Referendum like the Republican referendum where we were not only asked whether we wanted to be a Republic but also about the workings of this new Republic.

The Voice is just about whether or not to give the Aboriginal people voice being enshrined in the Constitution.

The workings of the Voice in Parliament is for later on. It could take six months, a year, 6 years to be negotiated but the important thing is that there will be a formal recognition that Aboriginals will have a say in laws that impact on them - it's the proper use of the word "mandate".

It's a simple question: Shall we give black fellas, the original inhabitants, a say in what happens to them or not? I wish the Republic referendum put was as simple as do we want to be a Republic and if it was accepted by the electorate that yes, we want to be a Republic, let the argy-bargy commence.

 

[Rob R]

I will reply in detail Power Raid but right now, I've got a s**t load of things on my plate which I must do so please bare with me.

What I will say is that the referendum is only about giving a Voice to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders. It's not a convoluted Referendum like the Republican referendum where we were not only asked whether we wanted to be a Republic but also about the workings of this new Republic.

The Voice is just about whether or not to give the Aboriginal people voice being enshrined in the Constitution.

The workings of the Voice in Parliament is for later on. It could take six months, a year, 6 years to be negotiated but the important thing is that there will be a formal recognition that Aboriginals will have a say in laws that impact on them - it's the proper use of the word "mandate".

It's a simple question: Shall we give black fellas, the original inhabitants, a say in what happens to them or not? I wish the Republic referendum put was as simple as do we want to be a Republic and if it was accepted by the electorate that yes, we want to be a Republic, let the argy-bargy commence.

I disagree with you on the Republic and believe that there needs to be an agreed (either republicans get aligned or a preliminary referendum to pick a preferred model) competed given the final model may not be better than the current one for the majority of Australians.

However on reading your words, I am thinking that if our indigenous brothers and sisters are happy for pollies to work out the model for the voice later and update it as required then that is their decision and not one the rest of us should worry about.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[QuietB]

Imagine if First Nations people were consulted on - “hey, is it a good idea if we take your children?”

First Nations people have had the absolute opposite of a voice for a very long time now and conservatives didn’t scream racism then.

 

[Power Raid]

Imagine if First Nations people were consulted on - “hey, is it a good idea if we take your children?”

First Nations people have had the absolute opposite of a voice for a very long time now and conservatives didn’t scream racism then.

imagine if we removed the sections in the constitution that empowered government to do this. Specifically removing the racist sections.

I would much prefer we remove this racist sections than add to it.


I appreciate I'm in the minority on this but working through issues like this and properly identifying the problem is healthy for debate

 

[Power Raid]

Whilst I don't agree with all of that, well done.

To add, the difference between the Voice and ATSIC is that ATSIC had the additional function of implementing programs ergo funds ergo Geoff Clark's issues and corruption down the line. The Voice, according to Albanese, is just advisory so, the argument can be run, no harm because if/when the loonies control the asylum, all that's at stake will be expenses and a sensible Parliament can get on with it, continuing decades old failures. Maybe ask, what's the point of it all ?

Off topic but you had me thinking about something I saw this morning............



One thing I saw this morning was the establishment of a Indigenous Chamber of Commerce. It is opening up across the road from Subi Oval on the Princess Margaret Hospital site.

What I like about this is it can overcome the barrier being the lawyers to the indigenous land councils and more importantly the elders behind them. By opening up direct commercial organisations, I can see empowerment through opportunity.

One opportunity I am creating in the Exmouth area is offering 10% of my company to the locals for $0. The business is making green cement and a unique "hydrogen on demand". The reason for doing this is I'm hoping to demonstrate there is opportunity everywhere, even in ones back yard. The other is it is a practical chemistry lesson which will hopefully drive interest in the sector.

What was missing, such that the locals didn't see this opportunity? Simple.......capital, opportunity and experience. Hopefully the Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, along with got and industry, unlocks these three things.

 

[QuietB]

imagine if we removed the sections in the constitution that empowered government to do this. Specifically removing the racist sections.

I would much prefer we remove this racist sections than add to it.


I appreciate I'm in the minority on this but working through issues like this and properly identifying the problem is healthy for debate

I honestly don’t see it as a race issue. First Nations people in Australia hold a truely unique position. We should be doing everything we can to allow their culture to remain, thrive and be celebrated. Until now we have done the exact opposite. We have actively tried to destroy it.

The rest of us are part of some big Australian multicultural experiment and frankly we are for the most part doing fine.

First Nations people are separate to that. If that means they get special treatment so be it.

 

[Power Raid]

I honestly don’t see it as a race issue. First Nations people in Australia hold a truely unique position. We should be doing everything we can to allow their culture to remain, thrive and be celebrated. Until now we have done the exact opposite. We have actively tried to destroy it.

The rest of us are part of some big Australian multicultural experiment and frankly we are for the most part doing fine.

First Nations people are separate to that. If that means they get special treatment so be it.

I guess I see all people as equal

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I guess I see all people as equal

You say that as a person who has considerable advantage, so that's not a surprise

 

[QuietB]

You say that as a person who has considerable advantage, so that's not a surprise

It is also said after 200+ years of abuse that has been anything but equal.

It is literally the equivalent of "look, I know I've been a complete campaigner for 200+ years, but now that I have everything that I want lets just agree that we can be "equals" from now on".

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It is also said after 200+ years of abuse that has been anything but equal.

It is literally the equivalent of "look, I know I've been a complete campaigner for 200+ years, but now that I have everything that I want lets just agree that we can be "equals" from now on".

No-one here has been alive 200 years. I know its stating the obvious.
Are you holding a grudge against dead people?