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.

 

[checkraiseulite]

thats my point though
there are a lot of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders saying they don't trust governments to actually do the right thing and why should they trust them this time when history says they shouldn't

and people who don't have to deal with the systemic racism tell them to stop being so negative or whatever else pops into their head because they like the idea of the voice, regardless of what the outcome will be

they want to bet on hope which is fine but they aren't the ones that will be impacted if it goes badly

WA has been against treaty from the start so McGowan would love the idea of doing something like this instead

there is a real risk that the momentum for the voice will finish with the vote and people will think everything is better like they have with countless other social issues

SSM being a really good recent example

i think this is a good post.

a lot of left leaning pro voice posters are saying no one should be scared of the influence of the voice because it will be just a body making representations government will ignore.

what will it do for indigenous people if the vote succeeds and they get a token body with no funding, no power and who no one listens to?

would that be better or worse for race relations - and outcomes for indigenous people - than what we have now?

 

[Rob R]

i think this is a good post.

a lot of left leaning pro voice posters are saying no one should be scared of the influence of the voice because it will be just a body making representations government will ignore.

what will it do for indigenous people if the vote succeeds and they get a token body with no funding, no power and who no one listens to?

would that be better or worse for race relations - and outcomes for indigenous people - than what we have now?

The government will need to give the voice a few "wins" early on - otherwise it will be hit from both sides, from one side ignored like the ACT voice which almost no indigenous people waste time voting or engaging with and from the other side attacked as a waste of money and used to discredit anymore commitment of funds to things like a treaty

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gough]

i think this is a good post.

a lot of left leaning pro voice posters are saying no one should be scared of the influence of the voice because it will be just a body making representations government will ignore.

what will it do for indigenous people if the vote succeeds and they get a token body with no funding, no power and who no one listens to?

would that be better or worse for race relations - and outcomes for indigenous people - than what we have now?

If it ends up like that and I'm confident it won't then it'll be just another of the many lobby groups who currently have a voice in Parliament but at least it will be there and it won't be there just by being able to afford to like so many other lobbyists.

 

[Saint]

If it ends up like that and I'm confident it won't then it'll be just another of the many lobby groups who currently have a voice in Parliament but at least it will be there and it won't be there just by being able to afford to like so many other lobbyists.

Absolutely this.

Instead of mining companies paying millions to have the ear of Govt to themselves, for no cost to them, the indigenous land owners get to have their seat at the table they've been ignored at for so long. They'll never have the votes to get everything they want, but a seat at the table equal with the entities lined up against them with billion dollar marketing budgets will be a great advancement for our democracy.

 

[FRUMPY]

The government will need to give the voice a few "wins" early on - otherwise it will be hit from both sides, from one side ignored like the ACT voice which almost no indigenous people waste time voting or engaging with and from the other side attacked as a waste of money and used to discredit anymore commitment of funds to things like a treaty

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Absolutely. The government will propose some things the government doesn't really want for the voice to stop from happening and make it look like it really has an impact.

As soon as the voice argues against something the government really wants it'll be a case of 'we heard you......but we have decided to go through with what we propose'

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[checkraiseulite]

Absolutely. The government will propose some things the government doesn't really want for the voice to stop from happening and make it look like it really has an impact.

As soon as the voice argues against something the government really wants it'll be a case of 'we heard you......but we have decided to go through with what we propose'

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

won’t the bigger problems (for parliament and the sitting government) be the things the voice wants on behalf of the people it represents?

the way i understand it is it could make positive representations as well as take referrals from government on new legislation proposed at the instigation of parliament.

 

[Gralin]

Absolutely this.

Instead of mining companies paying millions to have the ear of Govt to themselves, for no cost to them, the indigenous land owners get to have their seat at the table they've been ignored at for so long. They'll never have the votes to get everything they want, but a seat at the table equal with the entities lined up against them with billion dollar marketing budgets will be a great advancement for our democracy.

the millions will still win because they go into campaign coffers

our pollies are owned by corporate interests

they're all supporting the voice right now while defunding programs that actually help, increasing policing of those communities, opening up new mines against the wishes of TOs

the worst case scenario is this actually becoming a way for them to rubber stamp their s**t actions with support from the voice if they get their people on it like they do with land councils and other groups

 

[Gavin Excell]

Is there a reason why a specific date has not been yet set for the referendum? Does it need the passage of parliament?

 

[JackOutback]

wrf is wrong with this prawn?

Peter Dutton compares Indigenous Voice to Orwell's 'Animal Farm'

The Opposition Leader said the referendum could 'have an Orwellian effect where all Australians are equal, but some Australians are more equal than others'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Playing to the idea Aboriginal people get special treatment. Because all white people would love to trade places and enjoy their 'special treatment'

 

[FRUMPY]

the millions will still win because they go into campaign coffers

our pollies are owned by corporate interests

they're all supporting the voice right now while defunding programs that actually help, increasing policing of those communities, opening up new mines against the wishes of TOs

the worst case scenario is this actually becoming a way for them to rubber stamp their s**t actions with support from the voice if they get their people on it like they do with land councils and other groups

and all of a sudden certain aboroginal groups will start getting a piece of the pie, which the voice will count as a win....

 

[Ghost Patrol]

and all of a sudden certain aboroginal groups will start getting a piece of the pie, which the voice will count as a win....

Would you prefer they were excluded?

Or if they only had a voice if they were employed by Woodside?

 

[Not Important]

a lib with a social conscience.

 

[Gralin]

and all of a sudden certain aboroginal groups will start getting a piece of the pie, which the voice will count as a win....

lol what

I'm talking about the fact that corporate donors are a massive issue that the voice won't be able to counter because these companies pay money directly to pollies to get them elected

and the voice isn't going to be the same or a counter to corporate lobbying, because unlike lobbying its funding comes from the government and legislation will control what it can do and when and how, also unlike lobbying

 

[jim boy]

a lot of left leaning pro voice posters are saying no one should be scared of the influence of the voice because it will be just a body making representations government will ignore.

what will it do for indigenous people if the vote succeeds and they get a token body with no funding, no power and who no one listens to?

That's a cynical view and not really how government works. When government civil servants make briefs for their ministers to act on, they do so in quite some depth and will have to include the "voice's input" as a stakeholder where it is pertinent and such briefs include recommendations that are made in light of legal responsibilities, including the voice. If that input isn't included, then it opens up the possibility of any activity that pertain to indigenous governance being challenged - government departments are usually very keen to avoid that. Of course the minster cannot accept the overall recommendation of the brief, which is informed by the voice, and pursue a different course of action. Well, that is their right as ministers, and as the minister has been informed by the department that includes the voice stakeholder input, then all perfectly legal (assuming no other legal impediments). Largely though, this doesn't happen.

 

[FRUMPY]

lol what

I'm talking about the fact that corporate donors are a massive issue that the voice won't be able to counter because these companies pay money directly to pollies to get them elected

and the voice isn't going to be the same or a counter to corporate lobbying, because unlike lobbying its funding comes from the government and legislation will control what it can do and when and how, also unlike lobbying

So you cant see the government 'donating' money to aboriginal causes/groups to get the voice to agree with things they want done?

 

[FRUMPY]

Would you prefer they were excluded?

Or if they only had a voice if they were employed by Woodside?

I dont really care tbh, but i have zero doubts there will be groups that all of a sudden get 'donations' or 'gifts' so they dont block anything the government really wants.....a sweetener if you will, happens all the time in governments and now those who will be behind 'the voice' will get their share.

 

[campbell]

Playing to the idea Aboriginal people get special treatment. Because all white people would love to trade places and enjoy their 'special treatment'

As an Aboriginal person, can I get some of this supposed special treatment.

I get jack s**t.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I dont really care tbh, but i have zero doubts there will be groups that all of a sudden get 'donations' or 'gifts' so they dont block anything the government really wants.....a sweetener if you will, happens all the time in governments and now those who will be behind 'the voice' will get their share.

If you don't really care, how come you only complain now that it might be an indigenous person in that position?

 

[FRUMPY]

If you don't really care, how come you only complain now that it might be an indigenous person in that position?

This thread is about the Aboriginal voice....

Why would I complain about non Aboriginal issues in this thread? That would be strange.

Im always laughing at the other government threads and how s**t and dirty all politicians are. Mods usually ban me for it tbf

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Blue Arrow]

Has Shaq been much help in this process, he did offer to help after all

Jacinta Price slams Anthony Albanese over Shaquille O'Neal stunt

Aboriginal Senator Jacinta Price has labelled Albanese 'pathetic' and 'attention-seeking' in a scathing newsletter after the PM's political stunt involving former NBA star Shaq.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[CakeEater]

Has Shaq been much help in this process, he did offer to help after all

Jacinta Price slams Anthony Albanese over Shaquille O'Neal stunt

Aboriginal Senator Jacinta Price has labelled Albanese 'pathetic' and 'attention-seeking' in a scathing newsletter after the PM's political stunt involving former NBA star Shaq.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yep, Shaq has said if they dont start getting along hes going to lock them all in a room together and make them watch Kazaam on a repetive loop.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

This thread is about the Aboriginal voice....

Why would I complain about non Aboriginal issues in this thread? That would be strange.

Im always laughing at the other government threads and how s**t and dirty all politicians are. Mods usually ban me for it tbf

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Nah, I can see what reasons you‘ve been banned for. It’s not for laughing at politicians lol

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The representative of Australia's indigenous people, will be essentially like an independent MP without any alliances.
They can shoot their mouth of as much as they like , but no-one needs to do anything about it.

But it could become a political tool.
For example, If a major party wants to ban Uranium mining , and the Indigenous Voice agrees that they also want to ban Uranium mining, it gives more weight or more legitimacy to the act of banning uranium mining.

Then of course there would be issues where the "Voice " gives its opinion on something, and other indigenous groups claim that the voice doesn't really represent them on that matter.
How do they deal with matters where there is no consensus amongst the people they represent?
( Some people seem to act as if Indigenous people have a hive mind or something ).

 

[Cap]

The representative of Australia's indigenous people, will be essentially like an independent MP without any alliances.
They can shoot their mouth of as much as they like , but no-one needs to do anything about it.

But it could become a political tool.
For example, If a major party wants to ban Uranium mining , and the Indigenous Voice agrees that they also want to ban Uranium mining, it gives more weight or more legitimacy to the act of banning uranium mining.

Then of course there would be issues where the "Voice " gives its opinion on something, and other indigenous groups claim that the voice doesn't really represent them on that matter.
How do they deal with matters where there is no consensus amongst the people they represent?
( Some people seem to act as if Indigenous people have a hive mind or something ).

I like being cynical.

I think you have out cynicalled me.

I'm just hopeful that they are less annoying than say Barnby Joyce or Matt Canavan

 

[Saint]

The representative of Australia's indigenous people, will be essentially like an independent MP without any alliances.
They can shoot their mouth of as much as they like , but no-one needs to do anything about it.

But it could become a political tool.
For example, If a major party wants to ban Uranium mining , and the Indigenous Voice agrees that they also want to ban Uranium mining, it gives more weight or more legitimacy to the act of banning uranium mining.

Then of course there would be issues where the "Voice " gives its opinion on something, and other indigenous groups claim that the voice doesn't really represent them on that matter.
How do they deal with matters where there is no consensus amongst the people they represent?
( Some people seem to act as if Indigenous people have a hive mind or something ).

There will always be times that indigenous people disagree with what "The Voice" advises Parliament. People like Warren Mundine will always oppose it and be reliable for a quote in opposition.

I think the Voice will be progressive for Aboriginal rights, which is the point. And those concerned about closing the gap and indigenous rights will be able to point to their representations as being ignored. It'll give the do-gooders on the left something to get behind rather than assuming they speak for, or know best, for indigenous people. (even more so for conservatives who don't actually think they're doing what's best for indigenous people, but say they do when they do silly things like "the intervention" or trying to force them off country.