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.

 

[tandino]

People don't admit to voting 'no', because then they are asked 'why?'.

And it's almost always a case of them being ignorant, tricked by misinformation, or just plain hatred of Indigenous people.

A lot of posters in this thread are cowards.
They're voting 'no', but claim they're voting 'yes'.

And it's not because they're 'scared' of 'yes' voters.

It's because they're pathetic and know they can't actually justify their reasons.
The truth is they've adopted culture war bullshit into part of their personality.

God I wonder why somebody wouldn't tell you that they are voting No.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

You kind of keep bringing it up.

Well It's pretty hard not to when every 2nd post gives their thoughts on why people are voting No and I don't really fit into their reasoning and I dare say a lot don't.

I'm positive that all of you complaining are actually the only ones who watch Sky News and listen to or read Bolt, Murray, Credlin, Dutton, Hanson and the like.

 

[CM86]

God I wonder why somebody wouldn't tell you that they are voting No.

I just explained it...
Try reading the post you quoted...


Why would you vote no?

 

[Roby]

We have Yes supporters in here who can't even order a coffee without starting an argument. It's hardly surprising No voters don't want to engage with them.

MrKK is it the MO of conservatives like yourself to misrepresent what people say to suit your agenda?

Is this why you're voting No?

Did I argue with the No, voters? No, I didn't. In fact I told them thank you for the coffee.

I was arguing with the waitress at the cafe.

But you decide to post in a manner that might make someone think I was arguing with No voters. Says a lot about you, and how genuine you are.

 

[burge13]

A lot of posters in this thread are cowards.
They're voting 'no', but claim they're voting 'yes'.

And it's not because they're 'scared' of 'yes' voters.

It's because they're pathetic and know they can't actually justify their reasons.
The truth is they've adopted culture war bullshit into part of their personality.

Jesus christ this part got me, peak comedy

Have you looked in the mirror and seen the regulars in here? Holy hell, this is something. Well done

 

[tandino]

I just explained it...
Try reading the post you quoted...


Why would you vote no?

Maybe their motivations are different to those that you prescribe to them? Have you considered that?

 

[Milanista28]

A lot of the boomers I work with are voting No, they genuinely believe they'll be paying a lot more tax if the yes vote wins.

 

[CM86]

Maybe their motivations are different to those that you prescribe to them? Have you considered that?

Of course.

Read my actual post...

You jumped at it, for whatever reason, without actually reading what I wrote.



Why?
With all the disinformation posted in this thread, why my post?

 

[CM86]

Jesus christ this part got me, peak comedy

Have you looked in the mirror and seen the regulars in here? Holy hell, this is something. Well done

Why did you vote no?

You've had the misinformation explained to you several times, by several posters (including myself).

So with that in mind, why did you vote no?

(I expect you to claim you've already explained it many times, and won't again. Or some similar excuse.)

 

[burge13]

Why did you vote no?

You've had the misinformation explained to you several times, by several posters (including myself).

So with that in mind, why did you vote no?

I posted another time what I voted and it wasnt No

So with that in mind, why do you refuse to read? Could it be the culture wars personality you claimed others of? Yes, its definitely that

 

[CM86]

I posted another time what I voted and it wasnt No

So with that in mind, why do you refuse to read? Could it be the culture wars personality you claimed others of? Yes, its definitely that

People don't admit to voting 'no', because then they are asked 'why?'.

And it's almost always a case of them being ignorant, tricked by misinformation, or just plain hatred of Indigenous people.

Of course, of course.

 

[Chief]

Of course, of course.

He said informal I believe. Or maybe that was someone else.

 

[burge13]

He said informal I believe. Or maybe that was someone else.

Someone reads, thank you.

 

[Chief]

A lot of the boomers I work with are voting No, they genuinely believe they'll be paying a lot more tax if the yes vote wins.

Yeah the LNP attack angle of "you will lose out if it passes!" is effective.

 

[Festerz]

 

[ElectricG]

What is the Yes counter argument to the voice being a permanent solution to what we all hope are temporary problems?

 

[Kyptastic]

What is the Yes counter argument to the voice being a permanent solution to what we all hope are temporary problems?

If you fix the problem to the point the Voice is no longer needed you hold a referendum to remove it from the Constitution.

 

[tandino]

Of course.

Read my actual post...

You jumped at it, for whatever reason, without actually reading what I wrote.



Why?
With all the disinformation posted in this thread, why my post?

It wasn't just your post.

Why won't people admit voting No? Maybe their reasons don't align with not just your beliefs of the issue (which might be enough to keep quiet), but your beliefs of them and their motivations.

Maybe they are not up for the argument, and are just quietly going to take themselves off to the polls and vote No.

 

[tandino]

What is the Yes counter argument to the voice being a permanent solution to what we all hope are temporary problems?

Take it back out of the constitution. Or "interstate commission" it.

 

[ElectricG]

If you fix the problem to the point the Voice is no longer needed you hold a referendum to remove it from the Constitution.

Take it back out of the constitution. Or "interstate commission" it.

Are undecided voters to take it on faith that this “referendum to remove the privileges of FN people” would happen?

 

[JackOutback]

It is easy to see why though.
Many feel they're not getting help(particularly those less well off) themselves.

Then their reasons are selfishness and ignorance. Life isn't a zero sum game. Aboriginal people getting a voice to address generational issues doesn't mean your or I miss out on anything.

 

[tandino]

Are undecided voters to take it on faith that this “referendum to remove the privileges of FN people” would happen?

Well that's what they are being asked to do, for sure.

But that's an issue that is decades away.

 

[JackOutback]

Are undecided voters to take it on faith that this “referendum to remove the privileges of FN people” would happen?

Are you genuinely worried about something that is several generations away?

 

[Chief]

What is the Yes counter argument to the voice being a permanent solution to what we all hope are temporary problems?

It kind of sounds like you think the "temporary problem" is indigenous people existing.

But I will be charitable today. That is the kind of nice guy I am.

The makeup of the voice can be changed over time.

There will always be Indigenous people. Communities. Indigenous art and sacred sites. The need to preserve language and culture. Issues with isolated population centres. And whatever else my little suburban white guy brain doesn't know about or can't think of off the top of my head.

History (see books and stuff) suggests some of these sorts of issues can take 400+ years to resolve from crisis, to mere conflict, into maintenance where we all wonder why those idiots in the past wasted their time blocking this sort of advancement. We're a hundred or so years in.

But that's just me. I don't know nuthin'.

 

[ElectricG]

Well that's what they are being asked to do, for sure.

But that's an issue that is decades away.

Are you genuinely worried about something that is several generations away?

Are these compelling counter arguments, you think? I think if you vote for constitutional change, you want that change to be permanent rather than a temporary adjustment of the dials.

It kind of sounds like you think the "temporary problem" is indigenous people existing.

F**k off.