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.

 

[mcnulty]

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.

I think the Voice could have got up if people were convinced that it would improve things. But even advocates seemed uncertain of this, and the messaging seemed to be more along the lines of “well it’s worth a shot”.

I think this over time pushed people from “soft yes” to “soft no”, to where we finally ended up. People simply weren’t sold on it.

 

[Yellow Feathers]

A resounding "NO"

 

[QuietB]

There are legislative mechanisms and funding arrangements that can be put in place that makes it very hard to abolish or “nickel and dime” an agency.

The PBO is a great example - I’d prefer it has more financial independence than it does but abolishing it would be very difficult. The idea the constitution was the only solution to this threat is quite false.

Regards

S. Pete

But constitutional change is what the aboriginal and Torres Straight islanders asked for and Australians told them to GAGF. Again.

 

[Vindicater]

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.

Race is already in the constitution.

 

[Kyptastic]

Price will be the conduit, who will continue to consult with aboriginal people in remote communities who are the most marginalised - as she has done in recent years. Kerryn Liddle will also play a significant role.

She obviously didn’t do that for the referendum, given those remote communities voted overwhelmingly in favour of the voice

 

[Gralin]

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.

So I imagine you'll be campaigning to remove race from the constitution and existing laws now?

To be a mature country we need to be colourblind and treat everyone as the individual that they are.

Being color blind is a fantastic way to avoid the issue of racial discrimination or disadvantage
It's not how you don't be racist either but it's great for erasing stuff you don't want to deal with

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.

Again apart from the fact that this isn't how our society actually works you're erasing the history of colonisation on this land

This is why many aboriginal people voted NO, they didn’t want to be thought of differently, to the rest of Australia.

You sure about that? Excluding Price and Mundine most of the reasons I've heard for voting no were a combination of
Not trusting governments
Not wanting constitutional recognition
Thinking the voice will give less rights to directly lobby the government
Wanting treaty

To me the YES vote was driven from middle class paternalism.

There was definitely a lot of this

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.

Now you're heading back into the territory of avoiding the structural issues and culture wars territory.

 

[Freshwater]

Race is already in the constitution.

That’s right, but I shouldn’t be there, and definitely not reinforced or added to.

 

[Gralin]

That’s right, but I shouldn’t be there, and definitely not reinforced or added to.

So you'll be campaigning for constitutional change to remove the existing racist passages now correct?

 

[Chief]

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.

But it's in there already.

Have a read:

Constitution race claim is wrong and nonsensical

Anti-Voice campaigners are wrongly claiming that the 1967 referendum removed race from the Australian Constitution and that the Voice will “erase” that result, fuelling division.

www.rmit.edu.au

What's your plan for taking it out?

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.

So why do politicians meet privately with, say, Gina Reinhardt and other business interests?

I mean, it looks like you are an advocate for absolute equality. Sounds like the popular idea of how communism operates.

This is why many aboriginal people voted NO,

Not that many. If 70% or so voted AGAINST the voice instead of for it, you'd call it a resounding defeat. Instead you use weasel words.

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.

I am sure some people felt that way.

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.

There are a couple of types of "equality before the law".

Procedural, and substantive.

Let's say we make it a law that all tractors had to be road-registered at 20 times the price of registering a car.

Nobody in the city would be affected day to day. But many people in the country would be.

Procedurally, that's equality. We're all subject to the same law. Substantively, it's inequality. The law affects different people to different degrees.

Which equality is better in this case? Serious question.

What about diesel excise rebates for farm machinery.

Procedurally, the same law applies to all people. Substantively it can only apply to people with land and farm assets.

Is that equality or not?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

But surely you must feel immense pride and joy in the No vote getting up? This victory for you will do so much to enhance and progress solutions for indigenous Australians won't it - after all, that's why you all voted No, right

We clearly don't think or behave the way you do. Sorry to disappoint.

Have you asked all of your imaginary no voting friends what they are doing today?

 

[burge13]

We clearly don't think or behave the way you do. Sorry to disappoint.

Have you asked all of your imaginary no voting friends what they are doing today?

That poster is off their bonce. Pay no mind

 

[Tyrohad]

Price - who believes the strong YES result from remote Indigenous communities across Australia, including in the NT is due to manipulation from the AEC?

AEC responds after Jacinta Nampijinpa Price questions ‘conduct’ in Indigenous communities that voted yes

Price claimed there was ‘manipulation’ in remote communities but electoral commission says ‘ability to campaign at any polling place … was the same for everyone’

www.theguardian.com

I have no idea but would think, this, her strong and vocal leadership of the NO campaign and her comments about colonialism being generally good for Indigenous peoples will generate a lot of anger and disappointment in those communities and make her totally unsuited for the healing role that is now required after this Referendum. But that is not really what Dutton is concerned about, is it?

It's true where I live. Indigenous voters were targeted by door knockers from the 'yes' campaign.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Where did they pull that number from?

Misinformation

 

[SSwans2011]

Haha read your headings.... something wrong with what you are researching

Pathetic. You've been proven to be objectively wrong and you still peddle this BS. How embarrassing for you.

 

[1990crow]

As expected the result is hurting Australia's image geopolitically.

 

[Jimi]

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.

The sheer arrogance to look down your nose at the people that signed their names to the Uluṟu Statement and dribble this nonsense.

This misconception that this was about race really helped the No campaign, but really it was about Indigenousness. Do the native Australians get a say separate to the Westminster system of government that was imposed on them with bloodshed.

You can blame the Yes campaigns failures, or the misinformation or the media’s absolute failure to hold the lies to account, but sadly it seems Australia is still majority a backwards, conservative and yes, racist, country.

 

[Chief]

Misinformation doesn't seem to be the issue. The lack of it was.

I don't agree.

 

[QuietB]

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

In this context racially divisive means why should someone else get something and I get nothing?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Just watched Jacinta Price's speech last night - why wasn't she beaming with smiles and joy like she was when she was out and about selling the No vote? She looked dead set depressed last night. Anyone know why? Chris Fagan looked happier after the GF

This isn't a win for the No vote. It's a loss for everyone. Albanese wasted another half a billion and months of our time and energy during a cost of living crisis on this fantasy goose chase designed to make inner city lefties feel warm and fuzzy about themselves.

That time was spent ignoring the issues facing indigenous people. The Labor government should govern. The issue is - the Labor government is full of individuals who were never talented enough go succeed outside of the Labor mafia system of university clubs, unions and other caucasuses where ability and talent don't succeed but who you backstab and grovel to. Not one single person on the Labor side has the intelligence over and above a switched on first year uni student. They are ill equipped to govern and respond to issues. It is quite literally outside their capabilities

 

[Chief]

It's true where I live. Indigenous voters were targeted by door knockers from the 'yes' campaign.

What is wrong with that? Door knocking is a part of every campaign.

Why do you think it was wrong for people to do it this time?

 

[QuietB]

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.

Footy fans completely lose their collective minds over welcome to countries. NZ people seem to be ok with the Haka - maybe they are just more civilised

 

[Chief]

This isn't a win for the No vote. It's a loss for everyone. Albanese wasted another half a billion and months of our time and energy during a cost of living crisis on this fantasy goose chase designed to make inner city lefties feel warm and fuzzy about themselves.

It was an election promise. If he hadn't initiated the referendum, you'd be complaining about broken promises.

 

[Festerz]

The Washington Post coverage of the Referendum result included this summary of the background to Indigenous conditions since colonisation:

"Indigenous people have lived in Australia for around 65,000 years but suffered greatly with the arrival of the British in 1788.The Indigenous population plummeted under colonial rule due to imported diseases and massacres committed by White settlers. From the mid-1800s to the 1970s, federal and state governments systematically removed Indigenous children from their families to assimilate them.

Australia to pay hundreds of millions in reparations to Indigenous ‘stolen generations’

Unlike other nations the British colonized, such as the United States, Canada and New Zealand, Australia has never recognized the sovereignty of its First Nations people with a treaty."

And this commentary on Dutton's use of the Referendum for political purposes:

"Initially, polls showed roughly two-thirds of Australians supported the idea of an Indigenous “Voice to Parliament.” But after a poor performance in the 2022 election, leaders of the conservative coalition saw an opportunity to dent Albanese’s popularity and regain momentum, according to analysts."

Pretty damning assessment from one the US and the world's most respected and influential media outlets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/14/australia-voice-parliament-indigenous-referendum/

 

[10571z]

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

Celebrating? Not at all. Happy that we live in a time all the major endorsements of companies, sports leagues, celebs and politicians mean jack shit anymore... good.

This was an absolute shit show due to Albo's arrogance. A referendum needs to be united not a party war. He absolutely botched this.

 

[Chief]

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

How? I mean, the Yes campaign was expected to explain everything in details, so let us know the details of this "death of big primary industries".