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.

 

[Tyrohad]

Or New England where the sometime deputy pm runs a protest campaign each time he’s looking for re election?

People, he’s been the deputy PM? Why would next time be different?

My point is it doesn't matter who's got the seat. We get no real progress in rural communities. Katters seat is safe because he's very transparent about not undo what little progress we have managed to get over the years. Aka being conservative.

The real struggle we face is moving forward compared to a metropolitan seat. The difference between those two seats is astronomical. A metropolitan seat may see changes in a couple years. We'll be lucky to see those same changes in 20 years.

And your last question is pretty much what everyone's argument is. What difference will it make if we don't see any ****ing change with the current seats? Everyone living remotely will answer with certainty. We won't ****ing see the effects of the so called advisory body in our communities. It'll just be another benefit for urban areas. Or as we in NQ and even CQ like to say, the benefits stop just north of the Sunshine Coast.

 

[Jcpdragonx]

You know they can do multiple things at the same time, yeah?

Dutton's no campaign misinformation (and responses) sucked up all the media time, you get that right?

1) Its about the budget

2) There were Yes voters everywhere at polling booths and on main roads this week, far outweighing the no voters. Its not the media time, its the strategy which failed.

 

[sherb]

You're really out of touch with reality aren't you. A large proportion of the no voters don't have a problem with recognising indigenous people in the constitution on the proviso it is simply that. The thing they have a problem with is the voice element or any element that does or can give them rights over all other Australians. It is that simple.

It was an advisory body. That's it.

No more extra rights or influence involved than with what the multitude of lobby groups give certain sections of society. In fact, it would probably be far less.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

My point is it doesn't matter who's got the seat. We get no real progress in rural communities. Katters seat is safe because he's very transparent about not undo what little progress we have managed to get over the years. Aka being conservative.

The real struggle we face is moving forward compared to a metropolitan seat. The difference between those two seats is astronomical. A metropolitan seat may see changes in a couple years. We'll be lucky to see those same changes in 20 years.

And your last question is pretty much what everyone's argument is. What difference will it make if we don't see any ******* change with the current seats? Everyone living remotely will answer with certainty. We won't ******* see the effects of the so called advisory body in our communities. It'll just be another benefit for urban areas. Or as we in NQ and even CQ like to say, the benefits stop just north of the Sunshine Coast.

How would you know this. Your voting out of skepticism which is not the way it should have been approached.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Its not great reflecting on the fact that in my 60's my country - despite the promise we saw in the 70's - still treats indigenous Australians like shit and still kisses the arse on an inbred adulterous Pommy monarch. We are F#*king failures.

 

[baris]

The reality is Australians had the chance to enshrine Indigenous people in the Constitution and we turned it down as per the result yesterday. If that makes you uncomfortable it should.

Yeah we did but only with a racially divisive voice attached which was why it was rejected by the majority of the populace.

A platitude?

So - it's OK as long as there is no actual change?

There would be change though if that was written into the const.

See that's where the term misinformation comes from. When it's a marginalised race of people you have to be specific to their needs because making policies with everybody in mind isn't working. Its a unique situation not alike many races around the world and it needs to be treated as such. We are all equal doesn't apply. This seems to get lost on people such as yourself.

It is simple there is no misinformation in what I have stated. We don't need the voice to be put into the constitution for policies to be made specific to indigenous needs nor does Australia need to have the voice enshrined in the constitution in order for indigenous groups to be consulted or for them to lobby for specific matters or issues which specifically relate to them.

It is ironic that the yes campaign has been complaining about the apparent misinformation from the no group consistently after the referendum question got dumped and yet they conveniently chose to avoid mentioning either of these facts above and deflected from addressing whether the voice was truly needed for the reasons yes 23 claimed it to be needed. The disingenuous comments from individuals like Peason and Mayo/Mayor amongst others highlighted this.

Yes clearly demonstrated that they were delivering misinformation throughout.

 

[10571z]

Wonder what English think of all this?

Do they see this result from afar and think to themselves "eh, we started all this mess didn't we"?

Any self-reflection from them?

You know most people don’t feel guilty or responsible for what happened hundreds of years ago by people they don’t know?

 

[Cmarsh]

The money behind the no campaign came from US Christian lobby groups and people like Clive and Gina and Twiggy

They also targeted migrant communities, Mundine himself said this, that they knew they could target these communities to sway them.

The No Campaign was planned, run and funded by white conservatives with the help of people like Price and Mundine who were happy to be the faces of it for their personal benefit.

It's a white conservative thing to point to the fact they get migrants to agree with them as either proof that they're not racist or that the migrants are the real issue

Oh I see.

The white no voter is the dumb, uneducated, ignorant redneck, which has been a prevalent view of yes voters in this thread.

While the ethnicaly and religiously diverse person is the victim who would have voted yes to the Voice and same sex marriage had it not been for the whites.

 

[Tyrohad]

A couple of us in this thread live in Kennedy and still voted yes as despite the clear local issues around services and disadvantages it remains a straightforward issue for a responsible voter and requires you to meet the issue at hand on good faith and think for the greater good at the federal level beyond your own local circumstances or most pressing issues. Own your no rather than this empty city slicker rhetoric projection which lacks nuance

Own my no? How so? Have I not done that?

We have 3 levels of government, what makes you think an advisory body's going to solve the issues we face? We have a hard time as it is trying to sustain the major industries in this region, how do you know this will not affect our productivity up here?

How long have you lived in Kennedy for? I've been here for 28 years. Maybe talk to the people in the agricultural and mining industry up here. See what their stance is. (These are some of the main industries that have been here and have pretty much drive development in this area)

 

[FIGJAM]

If it was a Labor proposal, I bet his crew would figure out an angle which is "yes but not this" or "yes but not now".

Dutton is a snivelly weasel, but I doubt even he could spin the out constitutional recognition side of things.

As a 'soft Yes' voter, I can see the problem with the bundling of CR and the Voice, but the 'hard Yes' literally can't see an issue whatsoever despite being absolutely smashed in the booths. It's a strange phenomena IMV.

 

[sherb]

Yeah we did but only with a racially divisive voice attached which was why it was rejected by the majority of the populace.

It was only "racially divisive" if you wanted it to be. I certainly didn't view it that way for instance.

 

[Chief]

Dutton is a snivelly weasel, but I doubt even he could spin the out constitutional recognition side of things.

As a 'soft Yes' voter, I can see the problem with the bundling of CR and the Voice, but the 'hard Yes' literally can't see an issue whatsoever despite being absolutely smashed in the booths. It's a strange phenomena IMV.

We had a recognise campaign for years. Nothing. What was the LNP's response to that?

So many footy fans can't even accept an indigenous celebration round.

 

[Tyrohad]

How would you know this. Your voting out of skepticism which is not the way it should have been approached.

That's the voting of majority of Kennedy voters who have grown up around here. It's not skepticism when you see it happen year in year out

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

Yeah we did but only with a racially divisive voice attached which was why it was rejected by the majority of the populace.

There would be change though if that was written into the const.

It is simple there is no misinformation in what I have stated. We don't need the voice to be put into the constitution for policies to be made specific to indigenous needs nor does Australia need to have the voice enshrined in the constitution in order for indigenous groups to be consulted or for them to lobby for specific matters or issues which specifically relate to them.

It is ironic that the yes campaign has been complaining about the apparent misinformation from the no group consistently after the referendum question got dumped and yet they conveniently chose to avoid mentioning either of these facts above and deflected from addressing whether the voice was truly needed for the reasons yes 23 claimed it to be needed. The disingenuous comments from individuals like Peason and Mayo/Mayor amongst others highlighted this.

Yes clearly demonstrated that they were delivering misinformation throughout.

You haven't explained anything. Just trotting out the No campaign mantra. We don't need an advisory body because I say so isn't an alternative solution. Your advocating for the status quo because you don't understand the challenges they face but seem to think you do. Im no expert but I do know you don't keep going to the well with broken processes in place and expect somewhere down the line we will get somewhere. Kick the can down the road attitude and you know it

 

[Chief]

As a 'soft Yes' voter, I can see the problem with the bundling of CR and the Voice, but the 'hard Yes' literally can't see an issue whatsoever despite being absolutely smashed in the booths. It's a strange phenomena IMV.

And adding:

How could you have a voice in the constitution without recognition?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

So No voters - how are you all celebrating this morning?

I woke up.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

That's the voting of majority of Kennedy voters who have grown up around here. It's not skepticism when you see it happen year in year out

If your not even willing to give something different a go are you really advocating for positive change. Doesn't sound like it.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Please stay, you make your points well, and I think that is valuable feedback for regular posters here that we can be intimidating.

You all were being told this all along but you rejected it as nonsense.

 

[Freshwater]

There are many of us that love our aboriginal brothers and sisters but do not think we should have race in our laws or especially our constitution…ever. To be a mature country we need to be colourblind and treat everyone as the individual that they are. And the laws and opportunities apply equally to everyone. If you are a citizen, born here or not, you are no special than any other person and won’t be treated so. This is why many aboriginal people voted NO, they didn’t want to be thought of differently, to the rest of Australia. To me the YES vote was driven from middle class paternalism. The racism of low expectations, let’s just have equality before the law and not let the perpetually aggrieved wear down those that want to make a go of their lives on their own behalf.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

As a 'soft Yes' voter, I can see the problem with the bundling of CR and the Voice, but the 'hard Yes' literally can't see an issue whatsoever despite being absolutely smashed in the booths. It's a strange phenomena IMV.

I'm not quite a 'hard Yes' voter. I saw arguments and counter-arguments. I thought the good, that this would be a further step towards healing and reconciliation, would overrule the doubts about it. I don't think this quite makes me a 'soft Yes' voter though. Voting NO was never going to be an option.

Is there a 'middle Yes' do you think?

 

[Carringbush2010]

they were gullible and uninformed enough to believe her,

Are you suggesting this makes them a bad person?

And sure, it influenced their vote.

Now you're getting it

That is still a different thing from deciding to vote no because some stranger on big footy annoyed you- that isn’t being easily influenced-that’s being a drongo.

This is not mutually exclusive like you're portraying it.

I think your tryna paint the easily influenced, gullible, drongo's as one group of people in a bad light. If it was someone's intention to vote no in bad faith , knock yourself out and criticize.

If you're gonna criticize people who voted no in their own genuine belief in good faith, then that's on you.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Oh I see.

The white no voter is the dumb, uneducated, ignorant redneck, which has been a prevalent view of yes voters in this thread.

While the ethnicaly and religiously diverse person is the victim who would have voted yes to the Voice and same sex marriage had it not been for the whites.

You'll have to excuse us. As all the REAL racists voted NO , its a bit tricky for us to distinguish them from you caring, non-racist benefactors of First nations people. Can you wear a different NO T-shirt maybe?

 

[sherb]

If your not even willing to give something different a go are you really advocating for positive change. Doesn't sound like it.

I would argue they aren't.

Let's be honest, The Voice was a fairly benign concept. Nothing concerning or worrying about it. And yet, people voted against it.

If they vote against that, how on earth are they going to support real change (eg treaty)?

 

[Father Jack]

We didn't care enough about the issue to bother finding out what the issue even was. Any scare campaign was going to thrive under those conditions.

 

[Tyrohad]

If your not even willing to give something different a go are you really advocating for positive change. Doesn't sound like it.

We're driven by primary industries up here. Something different most definitely means the eventual death of our big primary industries and a negative change overall... no thanks