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.

 

[Jabba73]

Harm done in the past - how far back do we go?

Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders were officially recognised as Australian Citizens in 1948, about 75 years ago.

They were finally allowed to vote in all states in 1965, less than 60 years ago.

That is less than a third of the time since colonisation began and a mere speck of time in the 60,000+ years of continuous history of the country. Reckon that might be recent enough to count.

 

[campbell]

Yes, but I fail to see what that has to do with land.

Goodness.
Give up your biased rubbish.

 

[Roby]

The No campaign can't touch this...

Some said this wouldn't bat an eyelid on the world stage, I guess you guys we're wrong.

 

[Jabba73]

Oh, if they were here first, absolutely that should be recognised!

Doubt there is any "if" as even the British write stories about the spear throwing natives they encountered when they landed in Australia. Is there any credible evidence they were not?

And of course, they are very welcome to give input into policies and the law through their right to form political parties and vote for members of the House of Representative and the Senate.

True, does not seem to have helped much given they are less than 4% of the population, hardly enough to beat even the most minor of fringe parties to a senate seat, forget the House of Reps as 4% wont even get your electoral expenses refunded.

Oh, and they are very welcome to form lobbying groups, also.

Which is exactly what they are asking for with the Voice. Glad we agree.

But you seem to be suggesting that this is not sufficient, correct?

If they had any of the power that the other lobby groups like the Business Council of Australia, the mining groups, the unions, religious organisations, the media barons, or any of the other groups that get special treatment ... then it would be sufficient. They clearly do not have that level of influence to get their voice heard.

That they should have a greater right to representation than the rest of the citizenry?

They have the right to the same representation as the rest of the citizenry, yet they do not currently have that. A special lobby group on issue that affect First Nations People needs to be enshrined so it cannot be taken away at the whim of a political party. A level playing field if you will.

I'm not sure I agree with that...

I don't agree they have a greater right, all they need is an equal right.

Governments have made policy that affects First Nations People for generations and it has only made things worse. Seems logical to change something ... like asking the people it impacts on for their input.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Its estimated that 20% of Australians are descendants of colonists.

Kind of a minority, not sure why anyone who is NOT should be getting the guilts over that.

All this talk about Captain Cook shooting at Aboriginals ( who should be honored for their bravery, how would a gun have seemed to those guys ?).
Are the grandchildren of a Greek guy who came out to be a builders laborer in the 50s going to vote yes?
Are the children of Vietnamese refugee's going to vote Yes?
If not , why not?

The "you owe us because of Colonial stuff" argument probably wont wash with them.

 

[Gough]

Its estimated that 20% of Australians are descendants of colonists.

Kind of a minority, not sure why anyone who is NOT should be getting the guilts over that.

All this talk about Captain Cook shooting at Aboriginals ( who should be honored for their bravery, how would a gun have seemed to those guys ?).
Are the grandchildren of a Greek guy who came out to be a builders laborer in the 50s going to vote yes?
Are the children of Vietnamese refugee's going to vote Yes?
If not , why not?

The "you owe us because of Colonial stuff" argument probably wont wash with them.

Refugees might also have a better understanding of dispossession than a lot of us.

 

[CM86]

Its estimated that 20% of Australians are descendants of colonists.

Kind of a minority, not sure why anyone who is NOT should be getting the guilts over that.

All this talk about Captain Cook shooting at Aboriginals ( who should be honored for their bravery, how would a gun have seemed to those guys ?).
Are the grandchildren of a Greek guy who came out to be a builders laborer in the 50s going to vote yes?
Are the children of Vietnamese refugee's going to vote Yes?
If not , why not?

The "you owe us because of Colonial stuff" argument probably wont wash with them.

Can you point to where those arguments that you're countering, have come from?

A link or screenshot, please.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Why do you think ATSI Fed members represent ATSI people?!?

Do white Fed members only represent white people?
Do male Fed members only represent male people?

Why do you view ATSI people as separate to non-ATSI people?
And if you do view them as separate, why would you vote against them having a Voice?...

Well lnp politicians only represent themselves, so that could be basis for beliefs…

 

[Crankyhawk]

Its estimated that 20% of Australians are descendants of colonists.

Kind of a minority, not sure why anyone who is NOT should be getting the guilts over that.

All this talk about Captain Cook shooting at Aboriginals ( who should be honored for their bravery, how would a gun have seemed to those guys ?).
Are the grandchildren of a Greek guy who came out to be a builders laborer in the 50s going to vote yes?
Are the children of Vietnamese refugee's going to vote Yes?
If not , why not?

The "you owe us because of Colonial stuff" argument probably wont wash with them.

The “reducing waste” argument could work
Or the cynical yes argument “give them a voice and then give the voice the blame if/ when outcomes don’t improve”

 

[CM86]

Welcome to Country is just saying, hey, this land that owns all of us is important and we respect it. And we welcome all those that are on this land to respect it as we do.

You're welcome to respect this land as we do, or you're free to not. But we welcome you to.



That's the hate, and the desire for booing...

 

[campbell]

Welcome to Country is just saying, hey, this land that owns all of us is important and we respect it. And we welcome all those that are on this land to respect it as we do.

You're welcome to respect this land as we do, or you're free to not. But we welcome you to.



That's the hate, and the desire for booing...

Sam, is a sad little man, with entitlement issues.
I hope they dont boo or sing we are one.

He is as bad as Trump, inciting people.
FFS, this is a Prelim, respect the occasion and those players.

You are a disgrace Sam.

It would be funny if he was banned from attending games.

 

[winty]

Well this sucks...

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Sam, is a sad little man, with entitlement issues.
I hope they dont boo or sing we are one.

He is as bad as Trump, inciting people.
FFS, this is a Prelim, respect the occasion and those players.

You are a disgrace Sam.

It would be funny if he was banned from attending games.

No boos. They cheered afterwards.

Sam Newman and his three BigFooty parrots are irrelevant.

 

[Roby]

Well this sucks...

These white supremacists should really "go back to their own country".

 

[Golden_6]

Well this sucks...

Didn’t he end up hospitalised as a result of an unnecessary brutal police arrest a couple of years ago that was caught on film?

 

[Rob R]

Can't wait until the "why don't they just legislate it" no voters are backing the LNP when they object to a Legislated Voice too.

The LNP will oppose everything, there's no doubt about that. They oppose their own policies when they're in opposition

if the voice gets voted down then the government should respect that and not introduce a voice as it makes a mockery of democracy if they do (and was a risk that Albo knowingly took). However what they should do is start reforming the crap out of the Canberra bureaucracy to get more relevant indigenous input especially from regions not Canberrans who tick a box when applying for a job

(Same effect, different name and more local than Canberra)

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Chief]

Kind of a minority, not sure why anyone who is NOT should be getting the guilts over that.

This seems to be the word of the day for people who don't want to recognise the past.

"Guilt".

You don't need to feel guilt.

How about starting with recognition? Just that.

 

[Chief]

if the voice gets voted down then the government should respect that and not introduce a voice as it makes a mockery of democracy if they do (and was a risk that Albo knowingly took). However what they should do is start reforming the crap out of the Canberra bureaucracy to get more relevant indigenous input especially from regions not Canberrans who tick a box when applying for a job

(Same effect, different name and more local than Canberra)

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

You mean like some sort of council of indigenous people, it's members voted on by regional areas and given the task of presenting advice to parliament?

 

[Rob R]

You mean like some sort of council of indigenous people, it's members voted on by regional areas and given the task of presenting advice to parliament?

Maybe to the Exec departments rather than parliament since that was rejected but I would hope the reforms to the failed organisations to current organisations are informed/driven by regional areas rather than the same bureaucrats and consultants that benefit from the current waste

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[CM86]

They learnt from the best, from Dan Andrews.

You have an obsession.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

That famous ol' crooner Kamahl was firmly in the NO camp... until he actually engaged his brain.

‘Learn the facts’: Kamahl makes Voice U-turn to support Yes vote

The singer and TV personality has reversed his position on the referendum in the space of a week, saying his earlier position was “flippant” and “uninformed”.

www.smh.com.au

September 22, 2023

Legendary singer Kamahl has backflipped on his opposition to the Voice advisory body, encouraging Australians to learn more about the proposal and not fall for weak arguments.

Just last week, the 88-year-old re-worded the lyrics of John Farnham’s You’re the Voice to advocate a No vote, writing on social media: “What’s the Voice, I just don’t understand it. It’s just noise and it’s not clear. Vote no-o-oh-oh, o-o-o. We’re not going to vote Apartheid. We don’t want one race privilege. Vote no-o-oh-oh.”

But he spent the past week reading about Indigenous history and on Wednesday had his questions answered on a podcast with Indigenous Yes campaigner and lawyer Eddie Synot and comedian Dane Simpson.

“I spent nearly three hours with them and I got a better understanding of what’s going on in the referendum,” he said in an interview explaining his startling U-turn.

“My earlier position was flippant. It was uninformed and came after I saw an ad on the computer.”

“The whole idea of voting No is abhorrent to me. We believe 90 per cent of bullshit. Just learn the facts.”

“We are indoctrinated with so much bullshit...”

 

[FredLeDeux]

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

That would be true if I was posting nothing but irrelevant "celebrity" endorsements.
For what it's worth, mere endorsements of the Yes case here by sporting bodies or corporations or by Kamahl, or any other "personality", are equally as irrelevant as those of MCHammer; their publication does nothing but dumb down the debate, and anybody whose opinion is swayed by them is an ignoramus.

 

[Crankyhawk]

That would be true if I was posting nothing but irrelevant "celebrity" endorsements.
For what it's worth, mere endorsements of the Yes case here by sporting bodies or corporations or by Kamahl, or any other "personality", are equally as irrelevant as those of MCHammer; their mere existence dumbs down the debate, and anybody whose opinion is swayed by them is an ignoramus.

The same should also apply to those who are swayed by politicians with no relevant experience: expertise - Pauline Hanson and Dutton come to mind here.

 

[Gough]

In the cases of Kamahl and Hammer they're good examples of people who've taken time to read the details and look at what is trying to be achieved by the Voice before coming to their conclusion. More people should be like them even if they don't reach the same end.

 

[FredLeDeux]

The same should also apply to those who are swayed by politicians with no relevant experience: expertise - Pauline Hanson and Dutton come to mind here.

That's true in cases where the politician merely endorses some proposition without arguing their case.