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]

You are ignorant of Aboriginal cultures and I would appreciate it if you would not assume that some of us around here are not well read and only have a cursory knowledge of Australian Aboriginal peoples and their cultures. You have absolutely no idea as to what I and others have read nor where our professional lives have taken us.

You on the other hand, we can rightly assume from your utterances around here that you are spectaculary ignorant about Aboriginal Cultural Practices and how and why they are so.

It's getting late, sleep well.

 

[O Grobbecker]

So did my ancestors to only have morons abuse and denigrate them because they didn't conform to the British outlook. The same type of abuse and disregard that the British dished out the to Aboriginal Peoples of this country - still going, on innit?

Too obscure. If your ancestors who brought you here were anything like mine, 1/8 was British. They ALL said " this is a new country, we will not cop what we had to in the old countries", that's what we have today. They all worked hard, raised families, I'm proud of them all. Leave the Brits out of it.

 

[Northalives]

It's the birthright of EVERY Australian to be a bogan. I reckon that pre 1770, every tribe on the east coast had a young bloke with a mullett, perhaps like an Aristotle Pickett, saying to the Elders "F... kangaroo hunting, I'm going to the beach"

Answer my question about this heinous post of yours. Are you serious or are you just being a complete idiot thinking that what you have said is somehow funny?

 

[Northalives]

Too obscure. If your ancestors who brought you here were anything like mine, 1/8 was British. They ALL said " this is a new country, we will not cop what we had to in the old countries, that's what we have today. Leave the Brits out of it.

I that like being half caste or quarter caste is it?

 

[Northalives]

Too obscure. If your ancestors who brought you here were anything like mine, 1/8 was British. They ALL said " this is a new country, we will not cop what we had to in the old countries, that's what we have today. Leave the Brits out of it.

I was born here.

 

[O Grobbecker]

I was born here.

So was I, and my father and my grandfathers, both of them.

 

[O Grobbecker]

I that like being half caste or quarter caste is it?

Why are you raising caste or race ?

 

[O Grobbecker]

Answer my question about this heinous post of yours. Are you serious or are you just being a complete idiot thinking that what you have said is somehow funny?

Don't you dare call a statement that an Australian has a right to be a bogan, heinous.

To introduce a bit of humour to lighten the atmosphere, do you want the northern suburbs to invade ? For feck's sake, Grobbeckers will constitute a goodly proportion of them.

 

[campbell]

It bloody is. Our ancestors sailed for 3 months on boats that Health and Safety would ground in Victoria. Lighten up, Dude. Is that too American for you ? (it is for me but...) You haven't derailed the thread at all, I've enjoyed your imput.

Mine didnt.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Mine didnt.

Lucky bloody them. One of my great grandfathers brought his wife and 11 Children with him. 3 months on a tiny ship from the other side of the World !

 

[Crankyhawk]

Why do you say she hasn't been effective ? She's gone from daughter of a politician to deputy mayor of the Alice to the Senate. Her constituents think she's onto something, even if white, southern virtue signalers don't.

My assumption of political figures is ineffective (but not corrupt) as default. This is based on observed behaviour of other “managers”. I am open to evidence of individual effectiveness. Eg I admire Bridget archer for crossing the floor against her party room

 

[QuietB]

There’s a lot of unconscious bias the right can use to great effect to defeat this referendum:

Three in four people hold negative view of Indigenous people | Australian National University

Most Australians tested for unconscious bias hold a negative view of Indigenous Australians which can lead to widespread racism, new analysis from The Australian National University (ANU) shows. People’s bias is regardless of gender, age, ethnicity, occupation, religion, education level...

www.anu.edu.au

Albo has to be very careful, the right could launch a fearsome campaign with devastating consequences if they choose.

The last vote we had on a social issue was the Same Sex Marriage survey. It got up, but almost 40% were willing to vote No even though legalising gay marriage would have zero effect on them. All right wingers need to do is convince a further 10% over that that the Voice will be bad, maybe imply indigenous people will get special privileges white Australians won’t, and they can cause this to fail.

If it fails it’ll be a spectacular win for the right, Albo and the ALP will be politically damaged, indigenous rights put back decades and can expect to see Jacinta Price leading the Liberals soon after.

I want a Voice (and a treaty which I think is more important) but we need to be cognisant that there’s a lot of issues that need to be sorted beforehand and a lot of ways this can slip off the rails.

Jacinta Price will never lead the Liberals.

 

[Northalives]

Don't you dare call a statement that an Australian has a right to be a bogan, heinous.

To introduce a bit of humour to lighten the atmosphere, do you want the northern suburbs to invade ? For feck's sake, Grobbeckers will constitute a goodly proportion of them.

So you are saying that you were only making a joke then?

 

[Northalives]

Why are you raising caste or race ?

Because you said you are 1/8 British so I was asking the same disgusting eugenics type question that is still prevalent in Australia today. Just read Andrew Bolt and how he was "outraged" that he was found to have contravened the Australia Discrimination Act by saying that a blue eyed blond sheila can't be an Aboriginal.

I found it strange that you would say 1/8th British. It's something that I find quite disturbing, that is, people describing someone as part this or part that. I am sorry if I offended you.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Because you said you are 1/8 British so I was asking the same disgusting eugenics type question that is still prevalent in Australia today. Just read Andrew Bolt and how he was "outraged" that he was found to have contravened the Australia Discrimination Act by saying that a blue eyed blond sheila can't be an Aboriginal.

I found it strange that you would say 1/8th British. It's something that I find quite disturbing, that is, people describing someone as part this or part that. I am sorry if I offended you.

The admission that one of my great grandparents was British is a dig at your post 851, defiance, if you like. No offence taken at all.

 

[O Grobbecker]

My assumption of political figures is ineffective (but not corrupt) as default. This is based on observed behaviour of other “managers”. I am open to evidence of individual effectiveness. Eg I admire Bridget archer for crossing the floor against her party room

In the spirit of innocent until proven guilty and fair go, shouldn't you assume that a political figure is effective until he/she proves otherwise ?

 

[Crankyhawk]

In the spirit of innocent until proven guilty and fair go, shouldn't you assume that a political figure is effective until he/she proves otherwise ?

no, becuase the trend of previous is ineffective.
I suppose it is the scientist in me which assumes treatment is ineffective until there is evidence of effect.

As such I am not insulted by being called ineffective either.

And as I said, at least I am not assuming corrupt to start with. So thats the fair go I am giving them.

 

[O Grobbecker]

In a way that is kind of the reason given by the nationals to oppose (along many others that didn’t make sense) it was how do you decide on one voice/ committee when there is a diversity of views held by First Nations people? That’s an issue I would like to see how they intend to approach to solve; and safeguard against hijacking.

The Nationals oppose the Voice on the ground that it's race based. They say that it won't do anything to bridge the gap but it's an objection on the raced-based principle. The "diversity of views held by First Nation people" position isn't a ground for their objection. I think you are confusing that with Price's criticism of the Uluru Statement that 250 unelected individuals signed a statement on behalf of the entire Aboriginal population of the nation.

 

[Northalives]

The Nationals oppose the Voice on the ground that it's race based. They say that it won't do anything to bridge the gap but it's an objection on the raced-based principle. The "diversity of views held by First Nation people" position isn't a ground for their objection. I think you are confusing that with Price's criticism of the Uluru Statement that 250 unelected individuals signed a statement on behalf of the entire Aboriginal population of the nation.

You have just shown your absolute ignorance once again. The Uluru Statement wasn't a collection of 250 unelected individuals signing a statement on behalf of the entire Aboriginal population of the nation. The statement was years in the making after the elders of the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders had spoken and conveyed their wishes.

Elders in Aboriginal society are listened to and obeyed. After the Garma festival at which Albanese spoke, a huge insight into the way things are done in Aboriginal societies went by largely unnoticed and that was how the younger Aboriginal people bowed to the wishes of their elders. Stan Grant is an example. When he was commenting on the Voice after Albanese's speech, he hinted that he wanted a more radical prescription but said words to the effect that who is he to argue with the elder's decisions.

The nationals are representatives of the squatocracy who shot darkies for fun and they have been emboldened because they picked up a few seats in Victoria and held their seats at the last Federal election. They now see themselves as being relevant; they are not! They are the dregs of the white supremacist land owning gentry as portrayed by the Joyces, Anthonys, Sinclairs, McEwins ..... of this world.

The Voice is fundamental to closing the gap and it should be obvious even to the most simple of simpletons for the very fact that it will be Aboriginals telling us what is needed to close the gap and not Tony Abbott, Peter Dutton, Stewart Robert, Scott Morrison, Pauline Hanson etc

As for this "race based" malarky, what an insult to the intelligence of every decent, thinking Australian. Aboriginal people are being discriminated against because of race, that is, their wishes and opinions are not taken into consideration because of the paternalistic system of rule that exists at present which in itself, is intrinsically racist! What else can you call a system of Government that pays no attention to the Indigenous people and is indifferent at best, to their wishes and desires?

Have you ever been to New Zealand? I suggest you go if you haven't to see how the Maori people of New Zealand, the indigenous peoples of New Zealand are respected and how proud the non-Maori people are of the Maori people and cultures and of sharing the land with them. This didn't just happen because the Christians that colonised New Zealand were better Christians than the lot that landed here. It happened because the Maori are part of the system! There has been a treaty in place since 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi and that is why white fellas and all other immigrants live in relative peace and harmony with the Maori and the Maori are free to observe their practices.

The only reason that there is any objection, any resistance to a Voice to Parliament is that there are those in Australia that are trying desperately to hang on to the grotesque notion of white Christian primacy.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The Nationals oppose the Voice on the ground that it's race based. They say that it won't do anything to bridge the gap but it's an objection on the raced-based principle. The "diversity of views held by First Nation people" position isn't a ground for their objection. I think you are confusing that with Price's criticism of the Uluru Statement that 250 unelected individuals signed a statement on behalf of the entire Aboriginal population of the nation.

I was quoting Bridget McKenzie who was being interviewed on abc by raf a couple of days ago (Tuesday) that was the impression she gave me (as well as the treating one race as special she was also disputing how you get consensus from that representative)

 

[O Grobbecker]

You have just shown your absolute ignorance once again. The Uluru Statement wasn't a collection of 250 unelected individuals signing a statement on behalf of the entire Aboriginal population of the nation. The statement was years in the making after the elders of the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders had spoken and conveyed their wishes.

Elders in Aboriginal society are listened to and obeyed. After the Garma festival at which Albanese spoke, a huge insight into the way things are done in Aboriginal societies went by largely unnoticed and that was how the younger Aboriginal people bowed to the wishes of their elders. Stan Grant is an example. When he was commenting on the Voice after Albanese's speech, he hinted that he wanted a more radical prescription but said words to the effect that who is he to argue with the elder's decisions.

The nationals are representatives of the squatocracy who shot darkies for fun and they have been emboldened because they picked up a few seats in Victoria and held their seats at the last Federal election. They now see themselves as being relevant; they are not! They are the dregs of the white supremacist land owning gentry as portrayed by the Joyces, Anthonys, Sinclairs, McEwins ..... of this world.

The Voice is fundamental to closing the gap and it should be obvious even to the most simple of simpletons for the very fact that it will be Aboriginals telling us what is needed to close the gap and not Tony Abbott, Peter Dutton, Stewart Robert, Scott Morrison, Pauline Hanson etc

As for this "race based" malarky, what an insult to the intelligence of every decent, thinking Australian. Aboriginal people are being discriminated against because of race, that is, their wishes and opinions are not taken into consideration because of the paternalistic system of rule that exists at present which in itself, is intrinsically racist! What else can you call a system of Government that pays no attention to the Indigenous people and is indifferent at best, to their wishes and desires?

Have you ever been to New Zealand? I suggest you go if you haven't to see how the Maori people of New Zealand, the indigenous peoples of New Zealand are respected and how proud the non-Maori people are of the Maori people and cultures and of sharing the land with them. This didn't just happen because the Christians that colonised New Zealand were better Christians than the lot that landed here. It happened because the Maori are part of the system! There has been a treaty in place since 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi and that is why white fellas and all other immigrants live in relative peace and harmony with the Maori and the Maori are free to observe their practices.

The only reason that there is any objection, any resistance to a Voice to Parliament is that there are those in Australia that are trying desperately to hang on to the grotesque notion of white Christian primacy.

"Ignorance" ? That's a quote from Jacinta Price, not me. You don't read, do you. The rest is the rantings of a hyper emotional ideologue. I've highlighted a couple of the more bizarre instances of sloganeering. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously ?

.

 

[Gough]

"Ignorance" ? That's a quote from Jacinta Price, not me. You don't read, do you. The rest is the rantings of a hyper emotional ideologue. I've highlighted a couple of the more bizarre instances of sloganeering. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously ?

.

It's a bloody good thing a rational centrist like you is here to guide us through the racist posturing.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Funny how those who oppose the Voice on the grounds of race and exclusion are happy for our sovereign to be chosen by methods centred on nepotism and exclusion.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

"Ignorance" ? That's a quote from Jacinta Price, not me. You don't read, do you. The rest is the rantings of a hyper emotional ideologue. I've highlighted a couple of the more bizarre instances of sloganeering. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously ?

.

Jacinta Price is a hyper emotional ideologue.

 

[O Grobbecker]

It's a bloody good thing a rational centrist like you is here to guide us through the racist posturing.

Always willing to assist.