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.

 

[Stokey]

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

You don't have opinions. You have other people's opinions.

And lol at fox news. You are nothing but a cliche..

 

[phantom13]

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.

Sure, again, i welcome any discussion and if this is a preferred outlet for interaction then at least do it genuinely.

 

[CM86]

Sure, again, i welcome any discussion and if this is a preferred outlet for interaction then at least do it genuinely.

I agree 100%

I've come across the wrong way, and I apologise.

 

[phantom13]

I agree 100%

I've come across the wrong way, and I apologise.

Nah you havent at all, no need to apologise. All good.

 

[CM86]

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?

It's because it will take more than a single term of Government, to change the outcomes.

It's because we've seen what you're arguing for, played out many times before.


We already argue that a single term of Government is too short for any actual impact and/or change.
Why pretend that it's different for Closing the Gap?


What's the point of arguing for another commission into reviewing Indigenous outcomes, followed by a targeted review, then a body that reviews the review, then a body that implements the review, and then a new Government or PM, who decides it's time for a review into why the previous review hasn't closed the gap! (It's been 12 months!!!). And a new targeted review is started... etc etc etc.

Regardless of legislation, this will be an official position of Indigenous people, and will have ongoing positions and views.
This, more than anything, means that Indigenous people will be less able to be used as a political football by all major and minor political parties.
A Voice...

 

[Stokey]

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.

You know nothing about me and I know nothing about you.

I engaged with you once a few months ago because you seemed generally interested. Why am I not surprised there was nothing genuine about it.

You seem to revel in being a campaigner. Your choice, just keep me out of it

 

[CM86]

You know nothing about me and I know nothing about you.

I engaged with you once a few months ago because you seemed generally interested. Why am I not surprised there was nothing genuine about it.

You seem to revel in being a campaigner. Your choice, just keep me out of it

I understand how I normally post on this forum.
And how most posters interact on this forum.

But I'm honestly not attacking you. I'm genuinely sympathetic to you, supportive, and want to engage.

It's not a 'gotcha', or some other underhanded attack.

I'm sorry for my many insults over the years, based purely on disagreeing with your opinions.

 

[Gralin]

I’m asking you to explain how you think.

My thinking is that your attitude to welcome to country and your support of Sam Newman combined with your gigachad avatar would be 3 indicators that you spend a lot of time complaining about great replacement theories on 4chan

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

Why do you think its your country though?

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.

why do you think you have a moral right to anything and why do you think welcome to country impinges on your moral right to anything?
also wtf is a national identity

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

It's just country, land, rivers, lakes, its not anybodies really, but there were people living here long before you or I came and nobody asked them what they thought, they just took it all

Many people got displaced from their homes, but they were there homes and you're getting pissy about one of their descendants welcoming you to an event on the land they used to live on before it was taken away

why would that be?

 

[CM86]

Spends 500 million on this but chucks a fraction for an inquiry about the pandemic.
Typical Labor, corrupt to the core.

What do you think the "500 million" is being spent on...?????

 

[HaroLad]

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

No? When did I ever implicitly or explicitly argue that it does?

The message these ceremonies convey implicitly is that an ethnic group has a right to morally gatekeep the activities that occur within certain parts of the country.

Enabling these groups to ‘welcome’ people also, by implication, means we are recognising their right to object to the use of land or peoples presence in that land.

As an Australian - I think that’s offensive.

The concept of ‘traditional ownership’ is also confusing. Does that mean that the borders controlled Aboriginal groups/cultures didn’t change at all in the 60,000 years or so from original habitation up until colonisation? I seriously doubt that. Did they not have wars and conflicts as between themselves - meaning land was ‘stolen’? It seems inaccurate and has the effect of homogenising Aboriginal cultures and entrenching an ‘us v them’ mentality and perspective of history.

 

[JackOutback]

The message these ceremonies convey implicitly is that an ethnic group has a right to morally gatekeep the activities that occur within certain parts of the country.

I would suggest Aboriginal people have had absolutely no input on what activities occur within parts of the country for, oh, 250 years now. Maybe some input would help resolve some of the issues we're having.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

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

Fellas like Sam Newman rallying the no contingent seem to have pivoted very quickly from "vote no to prevent division" to "boo indigenous people openly and loudly in public".

Some real "principled" behaviour on display at the first sign their fear campaign is paying dividends.

Calls to strip Sam Newman of AFL life membership over Welcome to Country comments

Gillon McLachlan and Daniel Andrews have rejected Sam Newman's comments. Read more here.

au.sports.yahoo.com

 

[CM86]

Apart from things specifically involving Geoff Clark, what was wrong with ATSIC????

This was my question.

This was the replies...

So many

The obvious issue was the four biggest challenges faced by indigenous people are:
Health
Education
Incarceration
Property rights settlement

All these are state based issues so it was the wrong layer of government

Not an answer...

The other issue was ATSIC was a race based weapon which should never be repeated

The Geoff Clarke issue attests to that and sadly racial divide politics will be repeated if the voice is supported

This probably explains why those old enough to remember race based weapons and race based politics are against the voice

After realising the previous post wasn't an answer... this propagandist posted again, with lies, and had nothing but explicit appeal to Geoff Clark...


This person has no idea why they hate and oppose ATSIC... other than the fact that Howard and (Francesco Madafferi) Vanstone (Ambassador to Italy that same year) had a huge media campaign against it. Regardless of the overwhelming Indigenous support.

 

[CM86]

No? When did I ever implicitly or explicitly argue that it does?

The message these ceremonies convey implicitly is that an ethnic group has a right to morally gatekeep the activities that occur within certain parts of the country.

Enabling these groups to ‘welcome’ people also, by implication, means we are recognising their right to object to the use of land or peoples presence in that land.

As an Australian - I think that’s offensive.

The concept of ‘traditional ownership’ is also confusing. Does that mean that the borders controlled Aboriginal groups/cultures didn’t change at all in the 60,000 years or so from original habitation up until colonisation? I seriously doubt that. Did they not have wars and conflicts as between themselves - meaning land was ‘stolen’? It seems inaccurate and has the effect of homogenising Aboriginal cultures and entrenching an ‘us v them’ mentality and perspective of history.

The fact of the matter is that you don't understand what "Welcome to Country" is.

And you're irrationally opposed to it.

Why are you irrationally opposed to it?
You clearly have access to the internet, so why haven't you spent any time looking this information up? Why are you just using the internet to post your anger against something that you don't understand??

 

[CM86]

I prefer to see ourselves as one AND I support a treaty with massive property right damage claims like we have already seen in WA

As you've now repeatedly made this fear-mongering accusation.
I ask that you either please supply any evidence to support "Massive property rights damage claims like we have 'already' seen in WA", to The Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

If you cannot actually make any honest connections to The Voice, I ask that you stop promoting this fear campaign in this thread, as it's disinformation.

 

[Gralin]

I would suggest Aboriginal people have had absolutely no input on what activities occur within parts of the country for, oh, 250 years now. Maybe some input would help resolve some of the issues we're having.

HaroLad telling you what he'd do given the opportunity I reckon

 

[MP_]

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?

The voice allowed for a permanent body to put in place so that regardless of government changes this body would still be there. I posted a link yesterday or the day before which showed that under three different liberal leaders the party chose to ignore the needs of indigenous people which concluded a 'voice' was required. This voice referendum will allow our indigenous people to have a permanent voice in parliament which cannot be taken away easily from them unlike any other thing we have done for them. It's more the Voice or back to square one, surely the voice is better option ?

 

[Gethelred]

Seriously? I can't believe this was posted by a Mod and liked by another one. Perhaps this article should be stickied so this misinformation about phone polls can stop being repeated.

Yes voters need to snap out of polling denial — the numbers are real

There are a lot of false claims on social media about the accuracy of polls. Here's a rundown of just how wrong some of those claims are.

www.crikey.com.au

I think - if you're going to continue to call moderators out - you might want to consider that we were posters on this forum first. We have our own opinions, and we are allowed - shock horror - to post on this forum as contributors. We are even allowed to make jokes.

If you wish to continue down this particular road further, do so in PM. If you have a specific complaint - or think some things shouldn't be joked about - get in touch with us.

Outside of that, stick in your own lane.

 

[Gethelred]

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

Welcome to the SRP, Jab.

You can check out any time you like, but...

 

[campbell]

The No campaign can't touch this...

No? When did I ever implicitly or explicitly argue that it does?

The message these ceremonies convey implicitly is that an ethnic group has a right to morally gatekeep the activities that occur within certain parts of the country.

Enabling these groups to ‘welcome’ people also, by implication, means we are recognising their right to object to the use of land or peoples presence in that land.

As an Australian - I think that’s offensive.

The concept of ‘traditional ownership’ is also confusing. Does that mean that the borders controlled Aboriginal groups/cultures didn’t change at all in the 60,000 years or so from original habitation up until colonisation? I seriously doubt that. Did they not have wars and conflicts as between themselves - meaning land was ‘stolen’? It seems inaccurate and has the effect of homogenising Aboriginal cultures and entrenching an ‘us v them’ mentality and perspective of history.

Please, step away from your computer.

You appear to have entered an alternate universe, of um, ye na....



So, we are an ethnic group eh.

Sad thing is, you vote.

Gawd help all of us.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

No? When did I ever implicitly or explicitly argue that it does?

The message these ceremonies convey implicitly is that an ethnic group has a right to morally gatekeep the activities that occur within certain parts of the country.

Enabling these groups to ‘welcome’ people also, by implication, means we are recognising their right to object to the use of land or peoples presence in that land.

As an Australian - I think that’s offensive.

The concept of ‘traditional ownership’ is also confusing. Does that mean that the borders controlled Aboriginal groups/cultures didn’t change at all in the 60,000 years or so from original habitation up until colonisation? I seriously doubt that. Did they not have wars and conflicts as between themselves - meaning land was ‘stolen’? It seems inaccurate and has the effect of homogenising Aboriginal cultures and entrenching an ‘us v them’ mentality and perspective of history.

Doesn't 65,000 years of custodianship mean anything to you?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I don't gaf what MCHammer thinks about it.
I mean, there's an instinctive reaction "If he's for it, I'm agin it"
But you just have to grow up and ignore the twat.

You really should reflect on comments you make in the US political threads before attacking MCHammer like this.

 

[HaroLad]

Why do you think its your country though?

From a civic/legal perspective I am a citizen - a shareholder - of the Commonwealth. I pay taxes, I vote to decide who runs it. If all other shareholders were to perish, I would find myself in sole command of the legislature and executive - it would be my country alone (ignoring entitlements of the Crown). So maybe I do have a proprietary claim to the country. But beyond that, from an identity perspective - I was born here, of Australian parents, and raised here. My culture is from here.

why do you think you have a moral right to anything

This is a bit of an abstract question, don't you think? I wish you would make more pressing arguments or ask better questions.

also wtf is a national identity

You know what it is understood to mean - are you disputing its existence?

It's just country, land, rivers, lakes, its not anybodies really

Are you suggesting that every human being on earth has equal claim to every part of the planet? That the public of Australia have equal right to the land, rivers and lakes in Australia as the public of China or Somalia? Nobody owns land? Nobody or no group has any moral claim to any land at all? Or do Aboriginals? I'm not sure what your view is.

Many people got displaced from their homes, but they were there homes and you're getting pissy about one of their descendants welcoming you to an event on the land they used to live on before it was taken away

why would that be?

For the reasons I explained above, and will summarise again:

The fact of their continual engagement at public events (and the use of acknowledgements by the laptop class multiple times a day), and the acquiesce of the public, subliminally constructs (or strengthens) a narrative within the public consciousness. That narrative is that these Aboriginal groups have a moral claim to segments of land within the country - a claim not afforded to many other historical ethnic/culture groups elsewhere in the world, or previous owners of the same tracts of land. Repeated exposure to these messages influences social beliefs. It creates a culture of national guilt. It fosters the idea that we do not belong here - a suggestion I find offensive.

Also, it is by perpetuating this aggrieved narrative, particularly with respect to land and land rights, that we are led towards financial compensation, reperations etc. 'Welcome to Country' ceremonies are a step in the stepping stones towards threatening land rights, higher taxes and the entrenchment of the concept of two classes of citizens under law (AKA the execution of a treaty/ies).

 

[HaroLad]

I would suggest Aboriginal people have had absolutely no input on what activities occur within parts of the country for, oh, 250 years now. Maybe some input would help resolve some of the issues we're having.

I didn't realise they haven't been able to vote for the last sixty years? What are the 11 ATSI federal Parliamentarians up to? Where has all the hundreds of millions (probably more like billions) of dollars spent on ATSI lobby groups, organisations etc. gone? What does the Native Title Act do?

They do have a say - I would hazard a guess that they are overrepresented on a per capita basis in the federal Parliament. That's not 'absolutely no input', is it?

 

[HaroLad]

Doesn't 65,000 years of custodianship mean anything to you?

It might - but to accept that belief would be to contradict fundamental tenants of liberalism