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.

 

[Power Raid]

This is from the Uluru Statement from the heart,
"It asks Australians to walk together to build a better future by establishing a First Nations Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution".
The Close the Gap measures are a demonstrable failure, the Indigenous community has requested this and you dismiss it as a racist weapon? I'm not sure how you arrive at that.

it doesn't matter where it is born

the question remains, why enshrine racism in our constitution. we are beyond that and should be removing the sections rather than adding to it.

If government wanted indigenous input, they could set up steering committees but this isn't about input it is a political weapon based on divisiveness and race.

 

[Gough]

it doesn't matter where it is born

the question remains, why enshrine racism in our constitution. we are beyond that and should be removing the sections rather than adding to it.

If government wanted indigenous input, they could set up steering committees but this isn't about input it is a political weapon based on divisiveness and race.

A consensus of Indigenous leaders and a willing government trying to explore new ways to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous Australia, who is being divided and discriminated against here?

 

[Power Raid]

A consensus of Indigenous leaders and a willing government trying to explore new ways to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous Australia, who is being divided and discriminated against here?

ATSIC and NAC say hi

We should learn from the past and seek better ways

 

[Carringbush2010]

Simply untrue.

That is NOT what the 1967 referendum was about.

OK not an expert, still the point stands. Aboriginals as a collective were wrongly excluded - whatever that was.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Don't trust politicians. wilst ...

That’s 55 years ago. I can’t think of any law or regulation that applies to the indigenous tat doesn’t apply to everyone else.

The cashless debit card off the top of my head.

OK the law doesn't state it's only for Aboriginals in Aboriginal communities, but let's not pretend that wasn't the aim. Regardless of good intention or not.

 

[JackOutback]

ATSIC and NAC say hi

We should learn from the past and seek better ways

Soooo... exactly what they are trying to do? Learn from the past and find better ways to achieve the desired result?

 

[O Grobbecker]

The cashless debit card off the top of my head.

OK the law doesn't state it's only for Aboriginals in Aboriginal communities, but let's not pretend that wasn't the aim. Regardless of good intention or not.

I thought of that as I posted but the legislation, the Social Securities (Administration) Act, is race non-specific. Quite right, it's intended for the indigenous but it's not a regulation specific to the indigenouos, anyone in the communities selected is bound by the Act.

 

[Power Raid]

Soooo... exactly what they are trying to do? Learn from the past and find better ways to achieve the desired result?

I would suggest the complete opposite and definitely enshrine in the wrong place (the constitution shouldn’t be about race and time being permanent)

We need to treat people as people not as a race

 

[Crankyhawk]

Don't trust politicians. wilst ...

That’s 55 years ago. I can’t think of any law or regulation that applies to the indigenous tat doesn’t apply to everyone else.

Northern Territory intervention?
Cashless welfare cards being rolled out in high indigenous population areas?
Differential policing strategies

And on the benefit side

• closing the gap subsidies for medication
• separate (higher) education support (abstudy if that is still a thing)

 

[O Grobbecker]

Northern Territory intervention?
Cashless welfare cards being rolled out in high indigenous population areas?
Differential policing strategies

And on the benefit side

• closing the gap subsidies for medication
• separate (higher) education support (abstudy if that is still a thing)

Northern Territory intervention ?. That’s a tranche of legislation, all of which is aimed at territory, not the indigenous as a race. They bind anyone on the territory.
Cashless welfare cards Applies to territory, not races. The scheme’s been discontinued by the ALP but remains voluntary.
Differential policing strategies. That’s not law, that’s the application of law

Both Closing the Gap PBS co-payment Program and Austudy are still available. Isn’t it fair to say that any regulation that apply to indigenous only is discrimination for not against ?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Northern Territory intervention ?. That’s a tranche of legislation, all of which is aimed at territory, not the indigenous as a race. They bind anyone on the territory.
Cashless welfare cards Applies to territory, not races. The scheme’s been discontinued by the ALP but remains voluntary.

Differential policing strategies. That’s not law, that’s the application of law

Both Closing the Gap PBS co-payment Program and Austudy are still available.



Isn’t it fair to say that any regulation that apply to indigenous only is discrimination for not against ?

Both Closing the Gap PBS co-payment Program and Austudy are still available.

Isn’t it fair to say that any regulations that apply to indigenous only is discrimination for not against ?

​

Isn’t it fair to say that any regulation that apply to indigenous only is discrimination for not against ?

The territory intervention which only affected areas where First Nations people lived? It didn’t involve Darwin from what I recall.

And my examples of “positive “ discrimination was purely in response to your question for examples of laws or regulations affecting only indigenous

 

[O Grobbecker]

The territory intervention which only affected areas where First Nations people lived? It didn’t involve Darwin from what I recall.

And my examples of “positive “ discrimination was purely in response to your question for examples of laws or regulations affecting only indigenous

There are no laws that apply to the indigenous that don't apply to anyone else. The Commonwealth establishes programs to advantage the indigenous. Those that you chose all advantage the indigenous in medical treatment, education and preventative provisions for alcoholism and domestic violence.

My comment about the laws being the same for all was in response to Carringbush's allegation
But there is no doubt that Aboriginal people as a collective have not been given equal opportunity or equal treatment with which I disagree.[/I]

With which I disagree. That the laws and regulations apply equally to the indigenous and the rest is in refutation that they have not been given equal opportunity or treatment.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

This is from the Uluru Statement from the heart,
"It asks Australians to walk together to build a better future by establishing a First Nations Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution".
The Close the Gap measures are a demonstrable failure, the Indigenous community has requested this and you dismiss it as a racist weapon? I'm not sure how you arrive at that.

A system designed to give a local representative for each area morphed into the 2 party system we have.
HOW do you become part of the Voice? Who is the "indigenous community" for that matter. Are you suggesting that if you are aboriginal you are automatically on the same wavelength as every other aboriginal?
Its a valid point that it can become a political weapon.

 

[Crankyhawk]

There are no laws that apply to the indigenous that don't apply to anyone else. The Commonwealth establishes programs to advantage the indigenous. Those that you chose all advantage the indigenous in medical treatment, education and preventative provisions for alcoholism and domestic violence.

My comment about the laws being the same for all was in response to Carringbush's allegation
But there is no doubt that Aboriginal people as a collective have not been given equal opportunity or equal treatment with which I disagree.[/I]

With which I disagree. That the laws and regulations apply equally to the indigenous and the rest is in refutation that they have not been given equal opportunity or treatment.

as a collective there was certainly very unequal historical treatment
some small positive discrimination probably does not balance out the earlier issues
but I have said in another thread, on the scale of passion to apathy on this topic, I'm closer to the apathy (so yeah, I'm only arguing for the sake of arguing)

 

[O Grobbecker]

as a collective there was certainly very unequal historical treatment
some small positive discrimination probably does not balance out the earlier issues
but I have said in another thread, on the scale of passion to apathy on this topic, I'm closer to the apathy (so yeah, I'm only arguing for the sake of arguing)

Discrimination that happened pre 1967 didn't happen to most indigenous. When it comes to balancing out former wrongs, there's a fair argument that ceasing that former wrong, perhaps apologising, is sufficient redress to those not directly involved. Your argument is fine, arguments keep us on our toes and help clarify our thoughts.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Discrimination that happened pre 1967 didn't happen to most indigenous. When it comes to balancing out former wrongs, there's a fair argument that ceasing that former wrong, perhaps apologising, is sufficient redress to those not directly involved. Your argument is fine, arguments keep us on our toes and help clarify our thoughts.

Umm. I will leave it to those who are perhaps a bit more passionate/ have skin in the game so to speak to answer whether an apology is sufficent to balance wrongs, particularly when there is intergenerational trauma involved...

 

[campbell]

Discrimination that happened pre 1967 didn't happen to most indigenous. When it comes to balancing out former wrongs, there's a fair argument that ceasing that former wrong, perhaps apologising, is sufficient redress to those not directly involved. Your argument is fine, arguments keep us on our toes and help clarify our thoughts.

Are you for fxxxking real.

 

[JackOutback]

Discrimination that happened pre 1967 didn't happen to most indigenous. When it comes to balancing out former wrongs, there's a fair argument that ceasing that former wrong, perhaps apologising, is sufficient redress to those not directly involved. Your argument is fine, arguments keep us on our toes and help clarify our thoughts.

Leaving out the more traumatic events (which we absolutely ******* shouldn’t) those wrongs entrenched a disproportionate amount of people into poverty. Breaking out of poverty is not always done by just force of will.

 

[sdfc]

Leaving out the more traumatic events (which we absolutely ******* shouldn’t) those wrongs entrenched a disproportionate amount of people into poverty. Breaking out of poverty is not always done by just force of will.

Spot on. The socioeconomic disparity is the issue. How is the voice going to help people break out of poverty?

 

[PJays]

It seems benign

Like here's this body, they can make recommendations and the Parliament can act on them if they wish

The Parliament can already act on any issue they want, making the Voice unnecessary.

However it may help mend bridges and increase mutual understanding between indigenous Australians and everyone else. A worthy goal.

I lean towards yes, subject to further information on the details.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Spot on. The socioeconomic disparity is the issue. How is the voice going to help people break out of poverty?

An issue rather than the issue. The other issue is status of the indigenous. Historically treated as sub-human, they seek acknowledgment. It seems to me that the Uluṟu Statement crowd, Pearson / Burney focus on this latter issue whilst others, Price / Mundine on the former.

 

[sdfc]

An issue rather than the issue. The other issue is status of the indigenous. Historically treated as sub-human, they seek acknowledgment. I seems to me that the Uluṟu Statement crowd, Pearson / McBurney focus on this latter issue whilst others, Price / Mundine on the former.

It is the only issue if you are concerned with the welfare of Aboriginal people.

There is no shortage of acknowledgement of the sins of the past.

 

[O Grobbecker]

It is the only issue if you are concerned with the welfare of Aboriginal people.

There is no shortage of acknowledgement of the sins of the past.

You fall into the Price / Mundine camp, then. Me too, at this stage.

 

[O Grobbecker]

However it may help mend bridges and increase mutual understanding between indigenous Australians and everyone else. A worthy goal.

I lean towards yes, subject to further information on the details.

Or it might polarise differences between the indigenous and the majority, exacerbating what it intended to redress. If the Voice is entrenched in the Constitution, then if it doesn’t work, we can’t get rid of it.

 

[sdfc]

You fall into the Price / Mundine camp, then. Me too, at this stage.

I fall into the camp that thinks Aboriginals deserve better.