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.

 

[the_interloper]

I largely agree but it seems people need a serious reality check of what the general community care about. They dont sit there and unpack it with nuances like you are. A huge portion of Australia are actually quite stupid.

I dont agree with it but the reality is that most people vote selfishly and when they dont gain from it they vote with spite.

There will be an utterly huge amount of people, like you said who dont care about this vote, who are suffering a cost-of-living crisis, rates keep going up and they are hurting in their own pockets, all they see is their Prime Minister pushing a "yes" vote, instead of addressing cost of living.

Which way do you think they are going to vote?

I really think the timing of this referendum is terrible for the yes campaign.

I think you're right, it's also laziness. And you make some fair points here, people do vote selfishly and out of the hip pocket.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I think you're right, it's also laziness. And you make some fair points here, people do vote selfishly and out of the hip pocket.

Timing is key with referendums. You need clear air.

This one has been timed....poorly....

 

[Gough]

Timing is key with referendums. You need clear air.

This one has been timed....poorly....

When do you think would have been a better time given how long we've already been kicking this can down the road?

 

[TheEscapeClub]

I don't know why people like him who are obsessed with US politics and Trump in particular just don't pull
the pin on Australia and move there.

Yet some of your mates from this thread are the biggest posters in the Trump thread.

I just picked half a dozen posters and they are in the top 32 posters in the Trump thread. Those same 6 posters are in the top 22 posters in this thread.

Should they all nick off and leave the country too?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yet some of your mates from this thread are the biggest posters in the Trump thread.

I just picked half a dozen posters and they are in the top 32 posters in the Trump thread. Those same 6 posters are in the top 22 posters in this thread.

Should they all nick off and leave the country too?

Those who seem to venerate trump or the USA system are the ones who are the issue. I suspect that the huh posters in the trump thread are hanging shit on trump/ USA so that would not be indicative of someone who is wanting to live there.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

When do you think would have been a better time given how long we've already been kicking this can down the road?

Note sure, but not at the same time interest rates have gone up every month for almost a year.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Those who seem to venerate trump or the USA system are the ones who are the issue. I suspect that the huh posters in the trump thread are hanging s**t on trump/ USA so that would not be indicative of someone who is wanting to live there.

True, but I'm assuming they're in there stoking the fire. They seem to putting some energy.into it, they're obviously noted.

It amazes me.that both on here and real life so much air time, column inches and energy in general is spent on such a ****wit and another countries' political affairs.

 

[Crankyhawk]

True, but I'm assuming they're in there stoking the fire. They seem to putting some energy.into it, they're obviously noted.

It amazes me.that both on here and real life so much air time, column inches and energy in general is spent on such a ******* and another countries' political affairs.

My reading of it is they fear what will happen to the USA as it is a country we rely on for protection and also a degree of economic leadership/ stability.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

I had some concerns from the "progressive no" perspective - the answer is that voting against Indigenous rights in the hope of better is a really stupid example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Especially in Australia when the debate is likely to take 20 years + to come back around again.

Progressive 'no' has form Voting against climate action because it wasn't 'enough' and then getting no climate action at all.

 

[btdg]

I largely agree but it seems people need a serious reality check of what the general community care about. They dont sit there and unpack it with nuances like you are. A huge portion of Australia are actually quite stupid.

I dont agree with it but the reality is that most people vote selfishly and when they dont gain from it they vote with spite.

There will be an utterly huge amount of people, like you said who dont care about this vote, who are suffering a cost-of-living crisis, rates keep going up and they are hurting in their own pockets, all they see is their Prime Minister pushing a "yes" vote, instead of addressing cost of living.

Which way do you think they are going to vote?

I really think the timing of this referendum is terrible for the yes campaign.

I agree on the timing, but I think part of the problem is that the 'Yes' leaders have screwed up the campaign and are now putting it down to selfishness/racism/stupidity rather than seeing their own failures.

Like it or not, any referendum is a change process, and change management (to borrow from Kotter) involves some clear steps:

1. You have to build a case that change is necessary. It's not enough for the change itself to be the right decision, or good morally - you have to convince people that change is urgent and needed right now. Otherwise the safety, stability and ease of the status quo will win out. The 'Yes' case simply has not made this clear enough (and obviously the timing factor plays in here).

2. You have to build a guiding group - people who will lead the change, and in particular, lead it across the political spectrum. Want to change the constitution: I don't think you can do that for ANY change without bipartisan support. The 'Yes' vote was dead in the water the second Dutton opposed it, simply because 1/3 of the population will look to Liberal leaders because, well, they are political leaders.

3. You have to present a clear vision of how the change itself will address the problems in step 1. Again I don't think the 'Yes' case has done this. A voice to parliament might be a good idea, but in itself will it fix indigenous disadvantage? That link is tenuous at best.

4. You have to communicate the vision. Debateable

5. You have to remove the obstacles and make it easy for people. Probably ok here

6. You have to build some short term wins. In this case: if you have bipartisan support and polls are showing the right direction you can celebrate that and create a sense of inevitability and a really positive vibe around the change. I'd have looked to work through a whole bunch of other things in the Uluru statement first to really build some positive vibes. Obviously that can't happen now

It's only then that you get to the referendum IMO.

I say this as a supporter of the voice (broadly) and constitutional change, but this is failing for some pretty obvious reasons that go beyond stupidity/racism - and in fact, using those as defences is making the chance of this actually working even worse.

 

[MP_]

It's becoming increasingly wild to me how many people either don't know any Indigenous people, or don't respect them enough to listen to them/ask their opinion.

For me? The Voice doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect any non-Indigenous people. Reducing inequality/Closing the Gap is about elevating Indigenous people, not sabotaging the rest of us.

I really feel that if people asked the Indigenous people in their lives why this is important, it wouldn't be in doubt. That's all I want potential no-voters to do, is speak to some Indigenous people.

But as I say, I'm starting to realise how many people don't know or don't respect Indigenous people.

I had some concerns from the "progressive no" perspective - the answer is that voting against Indigenous rights in the hope of better is a really stupid example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Especially in Australia when the debate is likely to take 20 years + to come back around again.

I’m a yes voter, I live in a town with a strong indigenous community and they are mostly voting no and a lot of non indigenous in our town are now voting no because they’ve spoken to them. I’m not sure on the reasons these First Nations are voting no and that’s their choice but we need to understand that a lot of No voters are speaking to First Nations and their decisions are being persuaded by that .

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I agree on the timing, but I think part of the problem is that the 'Yes' leaders have screwed up the campaign and are now putting it down to selfishness/racism/stupidity rather than seeing their own failures.

Like it or not, any referendum is a change process, and change management (to borrow from Kotter) involves some clear steps:

1. You have to build a case that change is necessary. It's not enough for the change itself to be the right decision, or good morally - you have to convince people that change is urgent and needed right now. Otherwise the safety, stability and ease of the status quo will win out. The 'Yes' case simply has not made this clear enough (and obviously the timing factor plays in here).

2. You have to build a guiding group - people who will lead the change, and in particular, lead it across the political spectrum. Want to change the constitution: I don't think you can do that for ANY change without bipartisan support. The 'Yes' vote was dead in the water the second Dutton opposed it, simply because 1/3 of the population will look to Liberal leaders because, well, they are political leaders.

3. You have to present a clear vision of how the change itself will address the problems in step 1. Again I don't think the 'Yes' case has done this. A voice to parliament might be a good idea, but in itself will it fix indigenous disadvantage? That link is tenuous at best.

4. You have to communicate the vision. Debateable

5. You have to remove the obstacles and make it easy for people. Probably ok here

6. You have to build some short term wins. In this case: if you have bipartisan support and polls are showing the right direction you can celebrate that and create a sense of inevitability and a really positive vibe around the change. I'd have looked to work through a whole bunch of other things in the Uluru statement first to really build some positive vibes. Obviously that can't happen now

It's only then that you get to the referendum IMO.

I say this as a supporter of the voice (broadly) and constitutional change, but this is failing for some pretty obvious reasons that go beyond stupidity/racism - and in fact, using those as defences is making the chance of this actually working even worse.

yep - alot of this is relevant.

branding people as racist who dont agree with you is the height of stupidity and the first step to failure. The people pushing this view have done nothing but disservice to their own cause.

 

[Sun Ra]

I’m a yes voter, I live in a town with a strong indigenous community and they are mostly voting no and a lot of non indigenous in our town are now voting no because they’ve spoken to them. I’m not sure on the reasons these First Nations are voting no and that’s their choice but we need to understand that a lot of No voters are speaking to First Nations and their decisions are being persuaded by that .

There has been bit of infiltration of First Nations peeps and groups by cooker sovereign citizen ideology during and post covid.
A generalisation, I know - but they seem more concerned about a treaty rather than the Voice.

 

[Gralin]

This happened in my suburb, looking forward the comment shitfight on our community page!

I'm glad this is all just entertainment for you

 

[SaintsSeptember]

There has been bit of infiltration of First Nations peeps and groups by cooker sovereign citizen ideology during and post covid.
A generalisation, I know - but they seem more concerned about a treaty rather than the Voice.

Not quite sure why "Treaty" is such a big thing.
Much is made by the fact that most countries have treaties and we don't.
The Apache Americans had treaties, it didn't stop them being treated abysmally.

Treaty is just another word.
--------------------------------------------------

The United States made the last treaty with native American tribes in 1871. After that, new laws were passed via Executive Orders passed by the US Congress.

In 1875, United States military forced the removal of an estimated 1500 Yavapai and Dilzhe’e Apache (better known as Tonto Apache) from the Rio Verde Indian Reserve and its several thousand acres of treaty lands promised to them by the United States government.

At the orders of the Indian Commissioner, L.E. Dudley, U.S. Army troops made the people, young and old, walk through winter-flooded rivers, mountain passes and narrow canyon trails to get to the Indian Agency at San Carlos, 180 miles (290 km) away.

The trek resulted in the loss of several hundred lives. The people were held there in internment for 25 years while white settlers took over their land. Only a few hundred ever returned to their lands.

Yay they had a treaty.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Not quite sure why "Treaty" is such a big thing.
Much is made by the fact that most countries have treaties and we don't.
The Apache Americans had treaties, it didn't stop them being treated abysmally.

Treaty is just another word.
--------------------------------------------------

The United States made the last treaty with native American tribes in 1871. After that, new laws were passed via Executive Orders passed by the US Congress.

In 1875, United States military forced the removal of an estimated 1500 Yavapai and Dilzhe’e Apache (better known as Tonto Apache) from the Rio Verde Indian Reserve and its several thousand acres of treaty lands promised to them by the United States government.

At the orders of the Indian Commissioner, L.E. Dudley, U.S. Army troops made the people, young and old, walk through winter-flooded rivers, mountain passes and narrow canyon trails to get to the Indian Agency at San Carlos, 180 miles (290 km) away.

The trek resulted in the loss of several hundred lives. The people were held there in internment for 25 years while white settlers took over their land. Only a few hundred ever returned to their lands.

Yay they had a treaty.

and their “gap” is bad 150 years later.

 

[Vindicater]

Official polling is slipping, and anecdotally a majority of people I know have told me they're voting no. I don't see this getting up, and I hope it's not Labor's undoing.

The way current voting trends are going it will be the undoing of both Labor and the coalition.

 

[Guju]

In ancient Rome, the emporer built the colloseum with shows, festivals, foods & events, sometimes for weeks on end, to appease the restless people. The masses were happy & distracted, rather than talking about life & politics. Today, we have sports stadiums throughout the world, where people are more passionate for own team than society & politics. I am awake. A lot of distractions out there at the moment. They have an end goal.

 

[Dan26]

It's becoming increasingly wild to me how many people either don't know any Indigenous people, or don't respect them enough to listen to them/ask their opinion.

For me? The Voice doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect any non-Indigenous people. Reducing inequality/Closing the Gap is about elevating Indigenous people, not sabotaging the rest of us.

I really feel that if people asked the Indigenous people in their lives why this is important, it wouldn't be in doubt. That's all I want potential no-voters to do, is speak to some Indigenous people.

But as I say, I'm starting to realise how many people don't know or don't respect Indigenous people.

I had some concerns from the "progressive no" perspective - the answer is that voting against Indigenous rights in the hope of better is a really stupid example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Especially in Australia when the debate is likely to take 20 years + to come back around again.

I think it's more of an ideological thing. 87% of Coalition voters will vote no, about 46% of Labor voters and only 23% of Greens.

People on the left have a world view that emphasizes equality of outcome, and focuses on identity (race, gender, sexuality). This feeds into their more socialist worldview

People on the right have a worldview that emphasizes equality of opportunity and focuses on the individual. This feeds into a less socialist worldview.

In my view, a focus on equality of outcome is dangerous. Humans are too different, too diverse, both culturally and geographically to have equal outcomes. For exmaple a study was done a while back that shows first born children perform better in life and are more successful than 5th-born children. This makes sense because parents focus all their attention on one child instead of 5 at once.

If equal outcomes cannot be achieved inside families with the same parents, the same upbringing and the same values, how can it be achieved among different cultures and geographical locations?? It's impossible. It's a left-wing utopia. It's futile. It also assumes all Aboriginals are the same and need the same assistance. They don't. Some do very well.

Like anything in politics, instead of basing outcomes on racial groups, target individuals in need, regardless of race. Don't make race part of it. If you are going to base equality of outcome on racial lines, then why not focus effort to raise Caucasians to reach the same level as people from Asia who out-perform Caucasians on every measurable metric? Why stop at Aboriginals if identity is the way you see the world?

It's also demeaning. The soft bigotry of low expectations is very much how the left see the Indigenous.

I know from the comically cartoonish left-leaning forum that this is, that most people will disagree. Most of you lot just see the world differently to normal people. You see everything (including this topic) through the lens of identity politics, rather than through the lens of the biggest minority of all - the minority of the individual.

Focusing on the needs of the individual, ignoring race totally, and focusing on equality of opportunity (which we have according to the law) is far more desirable than giving special privileges to some people based on genetics, and focusing on equality of outcome, which can never be achieved.

Have a good day.

 

[Power Raid]

It's becoming increasingly wild to me how many people either don't know any Indigenous people, or don't respect them enough to listen to them/ask their opinion.

For me? The Voice doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect any non-Indigenous people. Reducing inequality/Closing the Gap is about elevating Indigenous people, not sabotaging the rest of us.

I really feel that if people asked the Indigenous people in their lives why this is important, it wouldn't be in doubt. That's all I want potential no-voters to do, is speak to some Indigenous people.

But as I say, I'm starting to realise how many people don't know or don't respect Indigenous people.

I had some concerns from the "progressive no" perspective - the answer is that voting against Indigenous rights in the hope of better is a really stupid example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Especially in Australia when the debate is likely to take 20 years + to come back around again.

The indigenous groups I’m speaking to are voting “no”

Do you feel they are not informed or don’t care?

 

[FredLeDeux]

The indigenous groups I’m speaking to are voting “no”

Do you feel they are not informed or don’t care?

I feel they're imaginary

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I largely agree but it seems people need a serious reality check of what the general community care about. They dont sit there and unpack it with nuances like you are. A huge portion of Australia are actually quite stupid.

I dont agree with it but the reality is that most people vote selfishly and when they dont gain from it they vote with spite.

There will be an utterly huge amount of people, like you said who dont care about this vote, who are suffering a cost-of-living crisis, rates keep going up and they are hurting in their own pockets, all they see is their Prime Minister pushing a "yes" vote, instead of addressing cost of living.

Which way do you think they are going to vote?

I really think the timing of this referendum is terrible for the yes campaign.

A poll in the last few days asked the question what are the 5 most important policy issues to people right now. Less than 15% placed the voice referendum in the top 5 issues. Total apathy and self interest. This is a train wreck about to happen I'm afraid

 

[Roby]

I feel they're imaginary

100%

 

[Roby]

Regardless what the polls say, there's no guarantee that No will get up.

Even if it gets up, it's not a win for conservatives, it's a massive loss.

This will hinder international relations and tourism in this country.

I don't see why people would want to visit Australia and support it's racism, it's white supremacists and punching down on its Indegenous Culture, when they're are plenty of countries that are closer and cheaper to travel to. This will hurt economically if the Voice doesn't get up.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Regardless what the polls say, there's no guarantee that No will get up.

Even if it gets up, it's not a win for conservatives, it's a massive loss.

This will hinder international relations and tourism in this country.

I don't see why people would want to visit Australia and support it's racism, it's white supremacists and punching down on its Indegenous Culture, when they're are plenty of countries that are closer and cheaper to travel to. This will hurt economically if the Voice doesn't get up.

Doubt it.