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.

 

[ElectricG]

why not?

Have a think...

if they don't know they won't think

I get the overall thrust of the meme. It’s just a bit broken. FN people will fit into either category of voter - you can’t separate them out into the kid on the right. Yes voters are… a bit disadvantaged compared with No voters? Wut? Also in the 2nd panel something has been taken away from the No voter. Part of arguing for Yes is insisting that there is nothing to lose.

 

[Carringbush2010]

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?

You're talking about posters who do that in bad faith, that's not everyone, which I will fairly assume you seem to think it is. < not a jab.

Throughout this thread there have been these sort of questions you're talking about, I'm not referring to them. I'm actually referring to people / posters who are asking in good faith - there has been a few in here.

Off the top of my head, an example of a reasonable question that has surfaced in here has been 'Who will select the members of this board?'

For memory these sorts of questions have been met with veiled snarky replies < this is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

I'm surprised you've even put this forward to me knowing my view on people that may a reasonable question in good faith that may be viewed as bad faith by others.

In any case, labeling of posters who ask questions is just counterproductive in any case. I just don't want that sort of behaviour to turn undecided voters to no voters.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I get the overall thrust of the meme. It’s just a bit broken. FN people will fit into either category of voter - you can’t separate them out into the kid on the right. Yes voters are… a bit disadvantaged compared with No voters? Wut? Also in the 2nd panel something has been taken away from the No voter. Part of arguing for Yes is insisting that there is nothing to lose.

Think outside the box.

 

[MP_]

I get the overall thrust of the meme. It’s just a bit broken. FN people will fit into either category of voter - you can’t separate them out into the kid on the right. Yes voters are… a bit disadvantaged compared with No voters? Wut? Also in the 2nd panel something has been taken away from the No voter. Part of arguing for Yes is insisting that there is nothing to lose.

you can fit first nations into the right because of the bloody gap we are fighting over, yes the other two could be yes or no it doesn't matter you are correct there. But if you can't see there is a gap between first nations people and the 97% of yes/no voters then there is a problem.

 

[Engimal v3]

???

 

[tandino]

This doesn’t really make sense.

The three of them have a sense of entitlement over something they did not pay for.

 

[rdhopkins2]

Such an important moment in Australian history and it looks like the referendum has been a monumental mistake.

Speaking to the punters, not many seem to know exactly what they are voting for either way.

It’s been really badly handled and I can see the no vote unfortunately coming trumps as the strategy and execution has been so poor.

Such a shame as we have the chance to host a real culturally identifying moment here.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Why? He doesn't need one at this stage, he's not in government.

Would have thought if you are actively campaigning against something that is ostensibly about improving life for the indigenous, that you are duty bound to have clear alternative way of achieving that outcome

 

[MP_]

Such an important moment in Australian history and it looks like the referendum has been a monumental mistake.

Speaking to the punters, not many seem to know exactly what they are voting for either way.

It’s been really badly handled and I can see the no vote unfortunately coming trumps as the strategy and execution has been so poor.

Such a shame as we have the chance to host a real culturally identifying moment here.

sometimes i think the no voters or the undecided saying they don't know what they are voting for are just playing dumb. the information is out there ffs.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Theres a massive gap between the popularity of Dutton and Albanese.

It’s the only gap Dutton is concerned with, and he is still losing ground.

He will be gone soon.

Then he'll be gone. It still doesn't change the sentiment of my post. He doesn't have to say or do anything, he's not in government.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Would have thought if you are actively campaigning against something that is ostensibly about improving life for the indigenous, that you are duty bound to have clear alternative way of achieving that outcome

It's not his duty to have anything, he doesn't have to have it right now, he can wait until the next election if he likes.

He and his party are in opposition.

Labor politicians would or should have learnt that after the disastrous Shorten experiment.

 

[burge13]

sometimes i think the no voters or the undecided saying they don't know what they are voting for are just playing dumb. the information is out there ffs.

People keep saying that. The information is vague at best

"seat at the table", "voice to be heard".

If we're voting on something, give us something tangible. What do you want in plain terms because both sides know 'seat at the table' isn't the end game

The ad running says this will help health outcomes and what not. Talk about misinformation, how?!

"right thing to do". More laughable nothingness. Literally no better than 'don't know, vote no'

- Donkey voter (or whatever the term is for no vote)

 

[Chief]

I get the overall thrust of the meme. It’s just a bit broken. FN people will fit into either category of voter - you can’t separate them out into the kid on the right. Yes voters are… a bit disadvantaged compared with No voters? Wut? Also in the 2nd panel something has been taken away from the No voter. Part of arguing for Yes is insisting that there is nothing to lose.

No that's not what I got from it at all. I suppose you can concentrate on it being an insult to No voters and a loss to Yes voters if that is how you feel about the situation already.

 

[Rotayjay]

This referendum will all be over in 72 hours. This country is already poorer and will be poorer still when the result comes through.

 

[phantom13]

Such an important moment in Australian history and it looks like the referendum has been a monumental mistake.

Speaking to the punters, not many seem to know exactly what they are voting for either way.

It’s been really badly handled and I can see the no vote unfortunately coming trumps as the strategy and execution has been so poor.

Such a shame as we have the chance to host a real culturally identifying moment here.

I call bullshit.

If you dont know what the referendum is about at this point then youve actively avoided engaging with it.

You either want to vote no but dont want to admit why or youve done everything possible to avoid having the questions you might have answered.

That is of course your right, but hiding behind the excuse is piss weak.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Then he'll be gone. It still doesn't change the sentiment of my post. He doesn't have to say or do anything, he's not in government.

Problem is, he wont shut up.

 

[MP_]

People keep saying that. The information is vague at best

"seat at the table", "voice to be heard".

If we're voting on something, give us something tangible. What do you want in plain terms because both sides know 'seat at the table' isn't the end game

The ad running says this will help health outcomes and what not. Talk about misinformation, how?!

"right thing to do". More laughable nothingness. Literally no better than 'don't know, vote no'

- Donkey voter (or whatever the term is for no vote)

how many legislations that are passed have you personally looked into all the details on, or is it just the fact you have to vote that you're suddenly interested in details?
"Constitutions are not detailed documents that anticipate every possible circumstance. On the contrary, they are by nature short and incomplete documents. They inherently contain large gaps.”

Constitutionally enshrined institutions are primarily shaped by legislation passed by parliament and the proposal for the Voice is similar to other clauses.

For example, the Constitution has little detail about the High Court and how it should operate, not even detailing how many justices should sit on the court.

The relevant part of the Constitution reads: “The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other justices, not less than two, as the parliament prescribes.”

The Judiciary Act 1903 set the High Court’s powers and jurisdiction and there have been several amendments passed since that have seen it further evolve.

“For instance, the court has increased in size from three to seven justices in order to handle its increasing case load, which many in the early 20th century thought would be very light,” Associate Professor Partlett said."

You have to base your decision on the information that is there, that this is an advisory body providing feedback on legislation based on first nations issues. just like anything else in our constitution. The details all the no voters are looking for aren't going to be there but are no voters really concerned about the details or just using this an excuse to simply vote no.

 

[Not Important]

this >

 

[Rotayjay]

I heard some Trumpian absolute crap yesterday that you should bring a pen to vote because pens can't be erased. I pointed out that there is no way people will have the time to rub out and change numerous votes, while being watched, and a pencil makes an indent in paper anyway.

 

[Rotayjay]

******* Donald Trump and his shit has infected Australia. Thanks for nothing, One Nation and LNP.

 

[burge13]

how many legislations that are passed have you personally looked into all the details on, or is it just the fact you have to vote that you're suddenly interested in details?
"Constitutions are not detailed documents that anticipate every possible circumstance. On the contrary, they are by nature short and incomplete documents. They inherently contain large gaps.”

Constitutionally enshrined institutions are primarily shaped by legislation passed by parliament and the proposal for the Voice is similar to other clauses.

For example, the Constitution has little detail about the High Court and how it should operate, not even detailing how many justices should sit on the court.

The relevant part of the Constitution reads: “The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other justices, not less than two, as the parliament prescribes.”

The Judiciary Act 1903 set the High Court’s powers and jurisdiction and there have been several amendments passed since that have seen it further evolve.

“For instance, the court has increased in size from three to seven justices in order to handle its increasing case load, which many in the early 20th century thought would be very light,” Associate Professor Partlett said."

You have to base your decision on the information that is there, that this is an advisory body providing feedback on legislation based on first nations issues. just like anything else in our constitution. The details all the no voters are looking for aren't going to be there but are no voters really concerned about the details or just using this an excuse to simply vote no.

So it's deliberately vague by design, OK

a) tokenism. So what are we going to actually do as this clearly isn't the end
b) just legislate something. No need to put this to a vote, was nothing but political games. They will do something anyway
c) When something is legislated, what is it/cost/actions etc.

The last thing this country is more bureaucracy and red tape.

'feedback on issues affecting first nations people'.

What doesn't affect them?
Does everything need to be run by them?
How long do departments need to wait to hear back?
Who's in it, how is it voted, will it broadbrush city/rural which solves little?

What this should be doing is tackling disadvantage across the board, not just one race. Would have won with a double majority and helped FNP at the same time...

 

[Gavin Excell]

It's not his duty to have anything, he doesn't have to have it right now, he can wait until the next election if he likes.

He and his party are in opposition.

Labor politicians would or should have learnt that after the disastrous Shorten experiment.

I hear what you are saying but on this particular issue, I totally disagree

 

[burge13]

******* Donald Trump and his s**t has infected Australia. Thanks for nothing, One Nation and LNP.

Take a deep breath. Trump isn't Australian and isn't even in power half way across the globe lol

 

[Gethelred]

You're talking about posters who do that in bad faith, that's not everyone, which I will fairly assume you seem to think it is. < not a jab.

Throughout this thread there have been these sort of questions you're talking about, I'm not referring to them. I'm actually referring to people / posters who are asking in good faith - there has been a few in here.

Off the top of my head, an example of a reasonable question that has surfaced in here has been 'Who will select the members of this board?'

For memory these sorts of questions have been met with veiled snarky replies < this is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

I'm surprised you've even put this forward to me knowing my view on people that may a reasonable question in good faith that may be viewed as bad faith by others.

In any case, labeling of posters who ask questions is just counterproductive in any case. I just don't want that sort of behaviour to turn undecided voters to no voters.

The problem I have with this view is that it justifies each and every question one can ask, regardless of merit, motive or - realistically - harm.

Within the last week, someone in the Hamas thread asked the question 'Why can't palestinians just leave?'

Do you think that's a reasonable question, even knowing that Palestinians have cultural, ethnic and familial history linking them to their country, their town, their people? Do you think that telling Palestinians that these things don't matter - inbuilt into the question as assumption - is an unharmful act?

To what extent does the right to ask questions trump someone else's right not to have their trauma poked at due to ignorance if not outright malice?

 

[Not Important]

I’ve seen the value of The Voice in action

Working in the Tiwi Islands, where Tiwi decisions are in Tiwi hands, shows me the value of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament says University of Melbourne expert

pursuit.unimelb.edu.au