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.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I have no idea why you cannot open the link. Perhaps ask someone who might know your problem.

'Those who see the coming referendum as a question of morality are right. The legal detail is important. But even more important is the fact that this debate is about a single principle.

We must all answer this question: do we still believe in equality of citizenship? Or should we say yes to a new system of government that puts racial preference in the heart of our Constitution?

This Indigenous voice to parliament referendum has inflicted enormous damage and threatens to cause more. It is killing the idea of reconciliation and has replaced it with distrust, bitterness and personal abuse.
But if that is the price of defending equality of citizenship, it is a price worth paying. There is no room for compromise on this principle. It is fundamental to what it means to live in a democratic society.

Those, like me, who believe the Constitution should recognise this continent’s first inhabitants need to accept that the proponents of this referendum are treating us like fools.

We are being asked to constitutionalise an institution that would destroy equality of citizenship. The con is we are being told that this amounts to constitutional recognition.
This is nothing but a cynical ploy aimed at persuading us to surrender one of the most important elements of a form of government that people on the other side of this planet are defending with their lives.

It comes down to this: if you believe everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of those who make and administer the law, this referendum must be rejected.

Consider what this country would look like if this referendum succeeds.

Those with the right genetic inheritance – and their descendants for all time – would gain an additional method of influencing politicians and officials that would surpass the normal rights of citizenship.

Unless the wording of the proposed constitutional provision is changed, a new institution to be known as the Indigenous voice would be empowered to make race-based representations about all areas of public administration and all new laws.

Public servants would be in a truly dreadful position.

Instead of making decisions according to law and the instructions of their superiors, they would need to consider representations from an institution of state whose only purpose would be to inject racial preference into public administration.

Many public officials would consider decision-making on such a basis to be reprehensible, if not immoral.

Racial preference never ends well. It was a hallmark of South Africa’s apartheid era and it still blights Malaysia, where citizens of Indian and Chinese descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities that are available to Malays.

In this country, equality of citizenship is reinforced by the fact that the source of Australian sovereignty is the people of this nation – all of them, regardless of race or national origin, and regardless of whether they arrived yesterday or have antecedents who arrived 60,000 years ago.
This is a direct consequence of one of the most important initiatives of former prime minister Bob Hawke: the passage of the Australia Acts by the British and Australian parliaments. This put an end to the argument that Australian sovereignty derives from an act of the parliament at Westminster. This was made clear by Sir Anthony Mason, a former chief justice of the High Court.

In a 1992 decision known as Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth, Mason wrote: “The Australia Act 1986 (UK) marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the Imperial parliament and recognised that ultimate sovereignty resided in the Australian people.”

Hawke repatriated the source of Australian sovereignty and vested it in the Australian people – all of them, including those who pointlessly recite that their sovereignty was never ceded.

Entrenching racial preference, as proposed by the Albanese government, would make a mockery one of Hawke’s greatest achievements by inserting a racial divide.

The real tragedy is that we could have been on track for overwhelming approval of constitutional recognition.

There is a legitimate argument that Indigenous people should be heard before parliament makes special laws about them under the Constitution’s race power in section 51 (26). In practice, that power has only been used to make laws on Indigenous affairs.

So because Indigenous people are the only Australians singled out by race for special laws, there is a logical argument for matching that power with a requirement that they should be heard before that power is exercised. It would therefore make sense to establish a voice if it were limited to providing advice to parliament, not the executive, and only on laws enacted under section 51 (26) that relate only to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

Such an entity would not threaten equality of citizenship.

It might even be feasible to give it a flexible boundary so it could provide advice on matters that have a specific impact on Indigenous people that goes beyond the impact on the general community.

But even then, it should not be part of the Constitution.

If such a redesigned voice were statutory, it would not be permanent so it would not infringe the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. A permanent system of racial preference such as a constitutionalised voice, as proposed by the government, would appear to be a breach of the convention.'

You may not like that opinion- it does not make that opinion right or wrong AS YOU APPEAR TO INSIST.

Funny that the author of that post has no problem with how those with money seem to get access to politicians whenever they want. A voice is a counter to the existing “rich campaigner voice”

 

[Crankyhawk]

So the bullshit selling points against SSM were just as bad, but you dont think it was as divisive?

Id suggest if you ask the LGBTIQ+ community they would vehemently disagree with you, just as the Indigenous population would note how ****ed this one has been.

It seems pretty easy if youre not actually in the community directly affected by the opposition to these changes none of it seems that bad.

Ironically the final numbers for SSM were 62% to 38%, good chance this winds up with very similar numbers just in opposition.

I think it is difficult to measure/ identify to compare levels of division (in part because that perception is person specific and variable)

Though I believe the poster you quote has identified as bi in the past as well.

 

[burge13]

You don't trust politicians, but you don't want them to actually do their job either. Couldn't possibly force them to listen, that would be cruel.

It's a vicious circle, I'm trying to break you out of it.

I know you're just a troll but christ, how have you come to this

 

[Carringbush2010]

Legislate a 'SRP voice' and I'll be happy to share my views.

The SRP will respectfully deny your request. lol.

 

[Gralin]

The SRP will respectfully deny you're request. lol.

Respectfully?
That's optimistic

 

[burge13]

I think it is difficult to measure/ identify to compare levels of division (in part because that perception is person specific and variable)

Though I believe the poster you quote has identified as bi in the past as well.

Mathematically you know which is more divisive. Overwhelming majority supported SSM. This has been split and has lots of arguments. Its clear which is more divisive

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I know you're just a troll but christ, how have you come to this

Voting NO means politicians won't have to listen.

It seems quite bizarre, that anyone would want that.

 

[Gralin]

Voting NO means politicians won't have to listen.

It seems quite bizarre, that anyone would want that.

I mean anyone that doesn't want the politicians to have to listen

 

[burge13]

Voting NO means politicians won't have to listen.

It seems quite bizarre, that anyone would want that.

Sure, they also have to listen to everyone...

 

[Gralin]

Sure, they also have to listen to everyone...

Do you feel like they listen to the general public?

 

[phantom13]

Christ mate

Every group would support their own groups wants.

I dont just blindly listen, no. But they are consulted on about everything already

Is this concept that hard to follow or are you being obtuse?

The more i talk to you guys, who still offer no tangible output from this, the more i go from informal vote to no.

So don’t listen to them because they are advocating for themselves… some of our most marginalized and disadvantaged Australians shoukd be ignored because they want better for themselves.

It’s a paradox you’ve created yourself here, don’t get mad at me for pointing it out.

 

[burge13]

Do you feel like they listen to the general public?

Not particularly, do you?

Politics is in the gutter. Never been worse, unless you're a politician then its easy street

 

[burge13]

So don’t listen to them because they are advocating for themselves… some of our most marginalized and disadvantaged Australians shoukd be ignored because they want better for themselves.

It’s a paradox you’ve created yourself here, don’t get mad at me for pointing it out.

K

 

[MC Bad Genius]

They are the selling points because there's nothing tangible on offer

"Seat at the table"
"Voice to be heard"

As if indigenous people aren't consulted already. This is where we're reduced to "this might be different"

Might be?

"Couldn't hurt"

The above argument is that the Voice is pointless because we're already consulting with Indigenous people and the below argument is that the Voice will be red tape that holds up every Government decision.

It's not by coincidence that the No campaign has sought to attack the Voice from both sides. They've achieved exactly what they wanted by having the Yes campaign have to water down their responses so that their answer to one argument doesn't make the other argument more hostile. It's the same damn tactic with the "There's not enough detail" / "There's hundreds of pages of hidden agendas" double-pronged attacks.

What is so disappointing is that this could have and should have been anticipated by the Yes campaign. Instead, we're left with the No campaign driving the discussion and the horrible reality that the referendum will fail, which in my belief, means that Australia will be failing our Indigenous brothers and sisters.

Thanks for not naming one…

Absolutely… “Hey guys how do we get more indigenous people to get cancer screen tests in remot areas? What’s the barriers? How can we help improve numbers?”

Fantastic seek advice from people in those situations.

My fear is simple. The wrong people get in the voice and have a say on EVERYTHING. How much does this hold up parliment? How much red tape does this create and how much frictions does it cause? These details haven’t been ironed out.. a simple “yOU caN iGNore THem” doesn’t sit well.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Not particularly, do you?

Politics is in the gutter. Never been worse, unless you're a politician then its easy street

It's even easier when they don't have to listen.

 

[evolved2]

The SRP will respectfully deny your request. lol.

I don't get the respectful treatment. They must like you.

 

[burge13]

It's even easier when they don't have to listen.

They do have to and dont. We all get reamed by our shitty government daily. There's just **** all you can do about it

Laughably, you cheer your team blindly while they bone you

 

[Gralin]

Sure, they also have to listen to everyone...

Oh they listen

Not particularly, do you?

Wait they don't listen?

Politics is in the gutter. Never been worse, unless you're a politician then its easy street

This is all very confusing.
You think they have to listen so no need for a voice but then you don't think they listen but still think there is no need for a voice

 

[Ghost Patrol]

They do have to and dont. We all get reamed by our shitty government daily. There's just * all you can do about it

Laughably, you cheer your team blindly while they bone you

What if I told you that someone invented a way to make them listen.

But a heap of people are about to vote against it. Would that make you happy?

 

[burge13]

Oh they listen

Wait they don't listen?

This is all very confusing.
You think they have to listen so no need for a voice but then you don't think they listen but still think there is no need for a voice

They have to listen, doesnt mean they do

Much like you have to do 50 in a 50 and not everyone does

Perhaps if you guys ever discussed things in good faith rather than just aim for gotcha moments on an anonymous forum you'd have more fun in life?

 

[burge13]

What if I told you that someone invented a way to make them listen.

But a heap of people are about to vote against it. Would that make you happy?

Oh man, the voice definitely would close all the gaps. Cant believe it wont get up, what with all the tangible actions involved.

 

[phantom13]

They have to listen, doesnt mean they do

Much like you have to do 50 in a 50 and not everyone does

Perhaps if you guys ever discussed things in good faith rather than just aim for gotcha moments on an anonymous forum you'd have more fun in life?

Cause you’ve done so much discussion in good faith.

Perhaps if you stop saying such obviously contradictory shit people wouldn’t get you in so many gotcha moments? Food for thought

 

[Gralin]

They have to listen, doesnt mean they do

Much like you have to do 50 in a 50 and not everyone does

Perhaps if you guys ever discussed things in good faith rather than just aim for gotcha moments on an anonymous forum you'd have more fun in life?

They have to listen but they don't listen?
Doesn't sound like they have to listen then does it.

Are you sure they have to listen?

 

[Gibbke]

Those processes do listen directly to Aboriginal experience and expertise. As an example, the entire NSW Aboriginal mental heath strategy is an Aboriginal expert led initiative. Not the " white driven" claim that the poster you refer to claimed.

The Voice to Parliament in essence is far from groundbreaking despite what many claim.

Some do. Most don't. All should.

 

[killtaker1993]

Let's hope the 'quiet Australians' who are voting No have stocked up on (cheap) champagne as they set to pop those corks on Saturday night when their precious victory is formally announced.