Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament - Part 2

[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.

 

[Carringbush2010]

There would be very small % who would vote no if there was a clear path demonstrated to be a success.

That depends on whether that success comes at a personal cost to voters.

I'm a firm believer that the bulk of the no voters are more self concerned than concerned about anyone else, including indigenous.

'It's great if we can help em but not at a cost to me' Fair enough, especially if you have not contributed to the ill treatment of the indigenous people, and no, for those chomping at the bit to guilt all and sundry just by being, sorry that doesn't fly.

That doesn't equate to these voters being the anti christ because they're looking out for no1 first, despite what some posters on here will tell you.

I'm a firm yes voter because I honestly believe that funds currently wasted will be funds much better used if we have the correct people giving the correct advice, and will not come at a personal cost to me.

 

[phantom13]

Are you saying you judge everyone equally regardless of skin colour?

Are you of the opinion that if they look the same they must think the same?

Starting to get a pattern here.

 

[QuietB]

Are you of the opinion that if they look the same they must think the same?

I have no idea what the relevance of that comment is either

 

[Stokey]

I have no idea what relevance this has to the indigenous voice vote but thats fine, you can think whatever you like.

I think you do know what the relevance is. And I will think whatever I want. Do you really want that?

 

[phantom13]

I think you do know what the relevance is. And I will think whatever I want. Do you really want that?

Im not being a smartass i truly dont, i genuinely dont know what youre actually getting at other than having a pretty serious obsession with peoples skin color and my assesment of them based on it.

 

[JackOutback]

I’m asking you to explain how you think.

It being ‘my’ country doesn’t equate to me having proprietary interests in the land - you know that I’m not saying that.

It means I have a moral right - within the confides of ‘Australia’ - to live, to participate in public/civic life etc. It’s where I’m from, and my parents, and their parents before them. It’s where my national identity is from.

So, again, if it’s not my country, is it Aboriginal people’s country?

Does a symbolic welcome to country recognising the nation's original inhabitants deny you the ability to live and participate in public/civil life?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I’m asking you to explain how you think.

It being ‘my’ country doesn’t equate to me having proprietary interests in the land - you know that I’m not saying that.

It means I have a moral right - within the confides of ‘Australia’ - to live, to participate in public/civic life etc. It’s where I’m from, and my parents, and their parents before them. It’s where my national identity is from.

So, again, if it’s not my country, is it Aboriginal people’s country?

So you think this is offensive? A waste of money?

 

[Stokey]

Im not being a smartass i truly dont, i genuinely dont know what youre actually getting at other than having a pretty serious obsession with peoples skin color and my assesment of them based on

I'm not at all surprised you found the total opposite meaning from my post.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

That depends on whether that success comes at a personal cost to voters.

I'm a firm believer that the bulk of the no voters are more self concerned than concerned about anyone else, including indigenous.

'It's great if we can help em but not at a cost to me' Fair enough, especially if you have not contributed to the ill treatment of the indigenous people, and no, for those chomping at the bit to guilt all and sundry just by being, sorry that doesn't fly.

That doesn't equate to these voters being the anti christ because they're looking out for no1 first, despite what some posters on here will tell you.

I'm a firm yes voter because I honestly believe that funds currently wasted will be funds much better used if we have the correct people giving the correct advice, and will not come at a personal cost to me.

But implementation of the voice doesn't cost per se. Sure there will be budgets to aid strategies but that happens anyway it's hoped. So it doesn't really cost other than waste which is more likely without the voice than with it agreed.

 

[CM86]

Tokenism is important, because it normalises ideas/concepts/views/people in our society.

That's why things like ANZAC day are almost universally supported, without question until more recently. Because it was normalised with tokenism.

In my opinion, arguing that you oppose something purely because it's tokenism... is arguing that you oppose it being normalised in society.

It's only tokenism, until it's irrelevant.
And clearly, with so many blatantly racist and/or ignorant views of what Welcome to Country is... This tokenism is desperately needed.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But implementation of the voice doesn't cost per se. Sure there will be budgets to aid strategies but that happens anyway it's hoped. So it doesn't really cost other than waste which is more likely without the voice than with it agreed.

Yeah this is exactly my view.

 

[Stokey]

I'd say they tapped into the existing racism and fear in people by lying their arses off with the help of a complicit media

a lot of people when asked what they wanted to do said yes

then the no campaign started saying to them well if you say yes all these bad things are going to happen to you

you're going to be discriminated against
why should someone else get something you wont
they're going to take away your holiday
they're going to charge you money
they're going to take your home

etc etc

and its pretty clear from the results that for a large enough percentage of the population that works

happy to do something they think is nice as long as it doesn't impact them

if they think it might impact them negatively then not interested

some of them would be racist, some just selfish and afraid

but the people pushing the message are racists

Even if something was 100% not racist you'd still find a way for it to be racist.

You can't exist in the world if you don't have a label for people who disagree with you.

 

[Gralin]

Even if something was 100% not racist you'd still find a way for it to be racist.

You can't exist in the world if you don't have a label for people who disagree with you.

are you suggesting the no campaign by Fair Australia is 100% not racist Stokey

 

[QuietB]

I think you do know what the relevance is. And I will think whatever I want. Do you really want that?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

If I were to guess you are a religious kook speaking in tongues like Morrison does but that is just a guess.

 

[CM86]

Is this a more streamlined way for indigenous people to be heard? Meaning, is this a way for indigenous people to table their recommendations without having their voices filtered by the current hierarchy?
It’s obvious that indigenous voices get drowned out very quickly here in Australia so I want to see what this will do for them.

It's not streamlined, in fact it's almost the opposite.

It's giving specific locations/communities/groups etc, a specific way of giving their input into legislation/policy that's targeted at 'improving' those outcomes.

So instead of blanket policy across all of Australia, or all of a State or Territory... There can be deliberate and targeted policy and legislation to impact different areas in different ways.

A good example previously supported by the 'No' side, is Alice Springs in the NT. Where the community wanted to keep specific restrictions, but were ignored and impacted by blanket policy from the ACT.
Which has now been basically reversed.

(and everyone's forgotten to pretend they care about Alice again).

I also want to know why the ‘no’ crew want to stop this change and what stopping this will do for them as well. That’s if you know their general reasoning.

There are many reasons why the 'No' crew want to stop this. Most of the time, the majority of these reasons can be boiled down to ignorance or racism.
But that isn't to say that 'No' voters are racist.
In fact, many 'No' voters believe they are voting 'no', in support of Indigenous people. But that's a whole other chapter in ideology and/or misinformation.

 

[Not Important]

Even if something was 100% not racist you'd still find a way for it to be racist.

You can't exist in the world if you don't have a label for people who disagree with you.

what would you suggest are the major reasons for opposing the 'voice'. excluding racism and mindless fear?

 

[CM86]

Hey Stokey.
Surely you support Closing the Gap?

Stokey just asking again, in case you missed it.

You might have me on ignore, in which case I'd assume that you do support closing the gap.

 

[phantom13]

I'm not at all surprised you found the total opposite meaning from my post.

Because like 5 other people have got no clue what the **** you’re on about? Yeh I wouldn’t be surprised either.

 

[Stokey]

are you suggesting the no campaign by Fair Australia is 100% not racist Stokey

I'm suggesting you can't exist in a world where you can't label anyone you disagree with. Whether it be TERF, incel, cooker or whatever tomorrow's fashionable words or acronym is. I know you think it means something and makes you seem knowledgeable but it is totally the opposite.
I've never come across anyone whose whole existence is based around what they think other people think they should think
Must be utterly tiring.

 

[Jabba73]

Wilful ignorance is no excuse people, educate yourselves and exercise your right to vote responsibly.

 

[CM86]

Because like 5 other people have got no clue what the * you’re on about? Yeh I wouldn’t be surprised either.

Stokey has been through a lot over the last few years. And it's (give or take) 5am for him.

He's not a bad person, he just has problematic views that can be adjusted.


The point he is trying to make... is that anyone supporting Indigenous recognition... is bringing race into the conversation.
This may seem insane to many people, but it's not hate, it's just ignorance.

As in, there is no racism, so any conversation about racism is directly creating the racism.

It's probably from some Thomas Sowell quote about racism only existing because it's still discussed.

 

[phantom13]

Stokey has been through a lot over the last few years. And it's (give or take) 5am for him.

He's not a bad person, he just has problematic views that can be adjusted.


The point he is trying to make... is that anyone supporting Indigenous recognition... is bringing race into the conversation.
This may seem insane to many people, but it's not hate, it's just ignorance.

As in, there is no racism, so any conversation about racism is directly creating the racism.

It's probably from some Thomas Sowell quote about racism only existing because it's still discussed.

I didn’t suggest he was a bad person but he’s engaging in discussion really poorly and then making out like it’s everyone else’s issue.

I don’t know if what you’re saying is actually his position, he could just clarify it but that’s his decision.

 

[Gralin]

I'm suggesting you can't exist in a world where you can't label anyone you disagree with. Whether it be TERF, incel, cooker or whatever tomorrow's fashionable words or acronym is. I know you think it means something and makes you seem knowledgeable but it is totally the opposite.
I've never come across anyone whose whole existence is based around what they think other people think they should think
Must be utterly tiring.

Oh no I have opinions, it must be so tiring to have opinions says person who gets their opinions from fox news

 

[CM86]

I didn’t suggest he was a bad person but he’s engaging in discussion really poorly and then making out like it’s everyone else’s issue.

I don’t know if what you’re saying is actually his position, he could just clarify it but that’s his decision.

I 99% sure he has me on ignore, so probably can't see my posts.


I support and understand your position.
I'm just concerned about his wellbeing. He has lost a lot over the last few years. And this might be one of his only outlets.

 

[Stokey]

what would you suggest are the major reasons for opposing the 'voice'. excluding racism and mindless fear?

From a voter point of view it's quite simple. Other than the recognition question there is nothing stopping all the things promised to be started now. All the things promised by the Yes campaign can be implemented now. There is no barrier. A constitutional change is not warranted.

The only argument against this is the LNP will reverse it when in power. Such a weak argument. Why can't Labor introduce a policy with an indigenous advisory board's input? What in the amendment stops this from happening now?

i found it a bit disheartening that the PM of Australia would say 'if the voice doesn't get up nothing with change.' Isn't it his job to affect change and if they encounter a road block to find a compromise. Why is it the Voice or nothing?