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.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Ads these days run on a massive exchange that puts each impression up for auction. Buyers give their wants and prices, the system matches them with a supplier page in milliseconds.

Each ad should have a little X on the top right or left which people can click if they find them inappropriate.

I am guessing that online ads don't count for an election blackout. I can't recall what has happened in the past.

They get to have fraudulent adds , so i guess they don't adhere to other rules either.
Its about time that huge companies like Google are made accountable.

 

[MrKK]

I had little to no interest in politics but I started working for a global company a while back. Seemed that every conference would have people from OS asking about our politics, was a conservative or liberal government in etc. Plus since we sold a lot to government we had to be aware of this stuff as well.

Sometimes I think it would be better if I'd never taken an interest.

The company I work for has very close ties with government, which is good because they have to keep neutral as they never know who they'll end up working with.

I'm still yet to hear a conversation re this referendum at work.

 

[Rotayjay]

The Voice issue came up at work. There were maybe 2 Indian guys, a Pakistani, and an Australian born Chinese person discussing - all live in Melbourne.

I kept tight lipped (weird thing to discuss at work), but discussion was overwhelming siding with "No". There were a few Liberal talking points in there ("first this group, who's next?") but ultimately what I noticed is that they had very little clarity on what the Voice is. While the Coalition has done a good job in confusing people, it's hard not to feel like the ALP have absolutely bungled the marketing of this.

I was in a similar situation. In the room were three hard yeses including myself, one undecided leaning yes, and two hard nos.

The hard yeses are so because we think it's the right and just thing to do. The undecided thinks she may as well vote yes because she doesn't think the Voice will do much. One of the nos is convinced the Voice would have more power than the PM, and the other thinks it would open the door to being evicted from your home due to traditional ownership.

 

[kalex6251]

Reality is most of us white folks havent had the constant disappointment of having our needs and wants overlooked and dismissed.

I was pretty optimistic too at the start. Its bitterly disappointing to me, i couldnt imagine what its like for you.

not looking forward to sat night at all ..... expect it will be a challenging and sombre night of channel surfing - anaesthetised by alcohol

waking up sunday morning will be worse

 

[MP_]

Reality is most of us white folks havent had the constant disappointment of having our needs and wants overlooked and dismissed.

I was pretty optimistic too at the start. Its bitterly disappointing to me, i couldnt imagine what its like for you.

This is how i feel too, it seemed like such a simple decision to vote yes, i was never concerned about the detail, i never felt it was divisive, i always felt it would have the potential to help at worst it wasn't going to make things worse. My son who works with first nation students from a remote community is absolutely devastated, he is seeing first hand how much help they need and the gap that is there. This referendum was his first vote and he was hoping it would be to make a difference to a culture he wants to dedicate his career too. If anything this has given me a resolve to do more for our first nations people where i can as will the rest of my family. i'm just astounded by the lack of care and compassion Australians have.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

As the cash cow?

Cash Cow’s sidekick. The Price Pigeon.

 

[tandino]

Before people gather up their pitchforks, the advertising blackout only applies to TV and Radio broadcasters.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

2 of Australia's most evil companies just trying to make themselves look good.

It's just PR brownie points for them.
"See we care about insert issue buy our shit"
People see through it these days

 

[Angry Red Bull]

?

Pretty hostile response to a documentary.
And such a weird story to share in this thread.

Why did you share it?
It comes across as you opposing 'Truth Telling', in that you think it's dishonest and you've had enough of it?

My point was that I'm sick of both sides of the debates 'truth' which is anything but the objective truth, with those examples of Thorpe and Mundine remarks which are BOTH distant from the truth.

I definitely don't oppose objective truth. Ive already read a lot regarding the frontier wars because I want to know the objective truth.....but I want it to be the objective truth as can possibly be 230 years on not any persons selective narrative of it. Understand?

The 'documentary' was to my thinking a theatrical narrative for the masses....story telling. Perhaps loosely rooted in truth but not more.....i don't want someone's version of the truth. I want the objective truth as can possibly be told now, mindful that much can't be known.

Was the truth as ugly as it was portrayed? You know that prior to approx 1980 little was known about death tolls during the frontier wars. That is damning such little focus.

I know that Lord Sydney gave an order that the initial Governors would make peace with indigenous peoples. Phillip failing to allow troops to retaliate despite being speared is testament to that. That was 1790. Each Governor though brought his own beliefs to the task and many weren't as committed to peace as Phillip.

I'm sceptical of documentaries which are instead theatrical narratives. Nothing more in it.

 

[CM86]

This is how i feel too, it seemed like such a simple decision to vote yes, i was never concerned about the detail, i never felt it was divisive, i always felt it would have the potential to help at worst it wasn't going to make things worse. My son who works with first nation students from a remote community is absolutely devastated, he is seeing first hand how much help they need and the gap that is there. This referendum was his first vote and he was hoping it would be to make a difference to a culture he wants to dedicate his career too. If anything this has given me a resolve to do more for our first nations people where i can as will the rest of my family. i'm just astounded by the lack of care and compassion Australians have.

Thanks for sharing.

"Lack of care and compassion".
What's behind it? What's caused it?


How can one side of Australia be like you and your son...
And the other side of Australia just want to complain about 'Welcome to Country' or 'Indigenous round'? Acting like it's such a hardship for them to deal with...



They're 'sick of hearing about Indigenous issues'... But we need an endless platform for sulking against Indigenous recognition...

 

[South of the Yarra]

My point was that I'm sick of both sides of the debates 'truth' which is anything but the objective truth, with those examples of Thorpe and Mundine remarks which are BOTH distant from the truth.

I definitely don't oppose objective truth. Ive already read a lot regarding the frontier wars because I want to know the objective truth.....but I want it to be the objective truth as can possibly be 230 years on not any persons selective narrative of it. Understand?

The 'documentary' was to my thinking a theatrical narrative for the masses....story telling. Perhaps loosely rooted in truth but not more.....i don't want someone's version of the truth. I want the objective truth as can possibly be told now, mindful that much can't be known.

Was the truth as ugly as it was portrayed? You know that prior to approx 1980 little was known about death tolls during the frontier wars. That is damning such little focus.

I know that Lord Sydney gave an order that the initial Governors would make peace with indigenous peoples. Phillip failing to allow troops to retaliate despite being speared is testament to that. That was 1790. Each Governor though brought his own beliefs to the task and many weren't as committed to peace as Phillip.

I'm sceptical of documentaries which are instead theatrical narratives. Nothing more in it.

I can tell you about the ‘truth’ and reality before 1980 if you wish

 

[CM86]

My point was that I'm sick of both sides of the debates 'truth' which is anything but the objective truth, with those examples of Thorpe and Mundine remarks which are BOTH distant from the truth.

Spoiler: Snip

I definitely don't oppose objective truth. Ive already read a lot regarding the frontier wars because I want to know the objective truth.....but I want it to be the objective truth as can possibly be 230 years on not any persons selective narrative of it. Understand?

The 'documentary' was to my thinking a theatrical narrative for the masses....story telling. Perhaps loosely rooted in truth but not more.....i don't want someone's version of the truth. I want the objective truth as can possibly be told now, mindful that much can't be known.

Was the truth as ugly as it was portrayed? You know that prior to approx 1980 little was known about death tolls during the frontier wars. That is damning such little focus.

I know that Lord Sydney gave an order that the initial Governors would make peace with indigenous peoples. Phillip failing to allow troops to retaliate despite being speared is testament to that. That was 1790. Each Governor though brought his own beliefs to the task and many weren't as committed to peace as Phillip.

I'm sceptical of documentaries which are instead theatrical narratives. Nothing more in it.

Again, you keep painting this 'both sides' thing.
The two examples you raised, are from people who oppose The Indigenous Voice to Parliament...


So in the thread about the Voice to Parliament, you've made a post saying "Ive had enough of the voice debate and the utter BS on both sides. Not sure I can handle more truth telling TBH".
You gave examples of 'bs' from the 'no' side...
And then gave a very hostile retelling of a segment of a documentary you watched.


It's just a very strange anecdote to share in this thread.
So it's not about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, it's just a general comment on your scepticism of "documentaries which are instead theatrical narratives. Nothing more in it"?


You can post however you want. But even you'd have to agree that there's obviously more to it.

 

[Werewolf]

I was in a similar situation. In the room were three hard yeses including myself, one undecided leaning yes, and two hard nos.

The hard yeses are so because we think it's the right and just thing to do. The undecided thinks she may as well vote yes because she doesn't think the Voice will do much. One of the nos is convinced the Voice would have more power than the PM, and the other thinks it would open the door to being evicted from your home due to traditional ownership.

I'm leaning towards yes. If anything bad happens (evictions - very unlikely), the buck stops with the Prime Minister.

 

[Romeoh1]

Thanks for sharing.

"Lack of care and compassion".
What's behind it? What's caused it?


How can one side of Australia be like you and your son...
And the other side of Australia just want to complain about 'Welcome to Country' or 'Indigenous round'? Acting like it's such a hardship for them to deal with...



They're 'sick of hearing about Indigenous issues'... But we need an endless platform for sulking against Indigenous recognition...

It’s self- interest. In the end most people, of course, vote on that- and it’s usually related to the hip-pocket. If people are worried that they will lose out somehow by giving the indigenous a seat at the table- they vote no. And even on this really important issue, that won’t impact negatively on people, and has a chance of a positive outcome, lots of us can’t rise above - ‘what about me.‘
Voting yes means you have to genuinely consider someone else‘s needs and plenty of people can’t manage that.

 

[Kyptastic]

 

[phantom13]

I'm leaning towards yes. If anything bad happens (evictions - very unlikely), the buck stops with the Prime Minister.

"very unlikely" is massively, massively under selling it.

"Nigh on impossible and not supported by the government in any way" is more accurate.

 

[MP_]

Thanks for sharing.

"Lack of care and compassion".
What's behind it? What's caused it?


How can one side of Australia be like you and your son...
And the other side of Australia just want to complain about 'Welcome to Country' or 'Indigenous round'? Acting like it's such a hardship for them to deal with...



They're 'sick of hearing about Indigenous issues'... But we need an endless platform for sulking against Indigenous recognition...

I would imagine there are many different reasons. I have always been a very compassionate person, my wife and mother in law are the most selfless people you would meet. Being surrounded in this environment makes me and my kids want to help others and do the right thing if we can. I am also quite privileged, i've worked full time since i was 19, i've saved and built homes to set myself up, i'm not struggling at all which allows me to not feel entitled that others owe me anything. I feel that a lot of the lack of compassion is because so many Australians are suffering due to cost of living and they are struggling in so many ways that they are using the referendum as way of hitting back at the government that there are other issues which are more important than this. I get it, i understand it but i don't like it. Would be interesting to know if there wasn't a housing crisis and 18 months of interest rate rises whether there would be more support. Alot of No voters are saying now isn't the time for this referendum, when is there ever going to be the right time to try and fix these problems?

 

[10571z]

The no vote could have won many ways. The whole “trust us” by the government once it wins is the biggest red flag for many Australians.
Especially after Covid and the shit storm that created for many

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Nah, send her as a Health Worker, live in that community.
See how things are.

Why, how are things?

 

[phantom13]

I would imagine there are many different reasons. I have always been a very compassionate person, my wife and mother in law are the most selfless people you would meet. Being surrounded in this environment makes me and my kids want to help others and do the right thing if we can. I am also quite privileged, i've worked full time since i was 19, i've saved and built homes to set myself up, i'm not struggling at all which allows me to not feel entitled that others owe me anything. I feel that a lot of the lack of compassion is because so many Australians are suffering due to cost of living and they are struggling in so many ways that they are using the referendum as way of hitting back at the government that there are other issues which are more important than this. I get it, i understand it but i don't like it. Would be interesting to know if there wasn't a housing crisis and 18 months of interest rate rises whether there would be more support. Alot of No voters are saying now isn't the time for this referendum, when is there ever going to be the right time to try and fix these problems?

I sadly think you might be right. Reality is the government wont be affected if this doesnt get up, i was chatting with a mate this morning, he thinks it says more about a lack of trust in government. Might also be a factor but frankly if all i knew about this referendum was that Clive Palmer and Peter Dutton and Pauline Hanson want me to vote no, i would 100000% vote yes.

 

[Gethelred]

So now the thread has deviated to what is and isn't racism and how one views it. I'm not here to argue that.

For me it's pretty simple, don't label posters (who are voters) that are merely asking questions.

Apparently that's not ok, but it's ok to 'those who may vote now coz we called em racist are snowflakes'

Typical BF.

This isn't a jab, honest.

How does this interact with the reality that people frequently ask leading questions in order to direct/control discussion deliberately to what they want to talk about?

This is called JAQing (Just Asking Questions) off.

Just asking questions

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: "🤔🤔🤔"[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously...

rationalwiki.org

Say, I were to lead you through the garden path with a series of questions that forced you to follow me or abandon the conversation. Do you still think people just asking questions is fine?

 

[TheEscapeClub]

You think the Libs and more importantly Dutton will give one stuff about an indiginous woman once they have gotten what they want from her?

Burnie has been kept around for 4 decades.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Again, you keep painting this 'both sides' thing.
The two examples you raised, are from people who oppose The Indigenous Voice to Parliament...


So in the thread about the Voice to Parliament, you've made a post saying "Ive had enough of the voice debate and the utter BS on both sides. Not sure I can handle more truth telling TBH".
You gave examples of 'bs' from the 'no' side...
And then gave a very hostile retelling of a segment of a documentary you watched.


It's just a very strange anecdote to share in this thread.
So it's not about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, it's just a general comment on your scepticism of "documentaries which are instead theatrical narratives. Nothing more in it"?


You can post however you want. But even you'd have to agree that there's obviously more to it.

Thorpe hates non indigenous. Mundine is more aligned to non indigenous. Though both no.....their sentiment are opposites.

My retelling wasn't the least bit hostile. It was seeking to make a point. What purported to be a documentary was instead a story. I simply want the truth without it being embellished with someone's personal view. In truth telling are we going to get the truth or just like Thorpe and Mundine someone's personal subjective take of the truth. ML put the story that the indigenous person who speared Phillip was so accurate and also knowledgeable about anatomy he could hit exactly where he wanted and know it wouldn't kill him despite it being through flesh near the neck toward the vertebrae. In her words he could have killed him if he wanted but didn't. It was embellishment on her part. Just like Thorpe and Mundine BS. And yes I've reached saturation point with BS

I'm unsure to what you are alluding suggesting there must be more to it. I'm sick of BS. And then I sit down to a documentary purporting to be history and it contains more BS. Does that explain it better?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

"very unlikely" is massively, massively under selling it.

"Nigh on impossible and not supported by the government in any way" is more accurate.

The proposed change to the constitution would not make it more likely.

 

[phantom13]

The proposed change to the constitution would not make it more likely.

"Nigh on impossible and not supported by the government in any way nor connected to the referendum in any way".

Probably better.