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.

 

[adogsfan5]

 

[Roby]

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

Like they celebrated Terra Nihlus

 

[Roby]

The denial of this fact is hilarious to watch in real time

The majority of Aboriginals voted No and none of you can admit it

You've gone and checked every Indegenous vote have you?

Correlation is not causation, dumby

 

[Chief]

Firstly, most taxpayer funded programs are audited and if they are not, they should be.

The coalition government audited indigenous programs relentlessly. Not so for sports rorts.

Secondly there is a difference between an inquiry which by definition has a start and end date and a Voice which would be permanently etched into the constitution.

It's a Royal Commission, sorry.

You think it is OK to "divide the nation on racial lines" if it's to scrutinise indigenous people on the basis they are doing something wrong, but not to listen to them on how to fix or alleviate the causes of problems in their communities?

 

[Tyrohad]

So you don't have anything.

If these industries were so fragile then they would crumble at every change in government, wouldn't they?

Yeah because the Voice and its workings were never done up lmao. How unreasonable expecting me to oppose something non-existent, and then reject speculation?

Why the **** did we have the referendum in the first place if everything wasn't done up front before hand?

Don't expect the average voter to vote to your preferred result if they haven't been given the full details to see what impacts it will make to their lives. Selfish yes. But then again, people just want to live their lives without being imposed on by more laws (imaginary future laws speaking in context).

*Change in policy. Our industries rely on stable laws not the revolving door at parliament. As long as industry policies remain unchanged, people don't give a **** up here. Add uncertainty due to a potential Voice that could possibly influence (because lets face it, everyone does not know what exactly the **** the Voice entails) laws related to the industry and you get the answer you got yesterday.

 

[sherb]

Why do you care what that spore-infested spud has to say? Don't you hate him so much that you have his toxic head on a dart board?

Blame Albo for his hubris and inability to adapt.

Because his side of politics turned into the s**t show it became. For political reasons only.

If The Voice was bi-partisan the true racists and rednecks would have been isolated and the referendum would almost certainly have passed.

 

[Chief]

Yeah because the Voice and its workings were never done up lmao. How unreasonable expecting me to oppose something non-existent, and then reject speculation?

Why the * did we have the referendum in the first place if everything wasn't done up front before hand?

Do you understand how law making works?

Not to mention if Labor had created the body first, Dutton would have attacked them for their presumption.

There were proposals on the operation of the body - did you look at any of them? Be honest.

Don't expect the average voter to vote to your preferred result if they haven't been given the full details to see what impacts it will make to their lives. Selfish yes. But then again, people just want to live their lives without being imposed on by more laws (imaginary future laws speaking in context).

4 people in ten still voted for the change, despite Dutton's relentlessly negative campaign and the Murdoch, Reinhardt, Channel 9 campaign against it.

*Change in policy. Our industries rely on stable laws not the revolving door at parliament. As long as industry policies remain unchanged, people don't give a * up here. Add uncertainty due to a potential Voice that could possibly influence (because lets face it, everyone does not know what exactly the * the Voice entails) laws related to the industry and you get the answer you got yesterday.

How is the Voice a change in primary industry policy any more than a change in government is a change in policy?

 

[Kanga Commando]

You know what Dutton is calling for now?

• Audit money spent on indigenous programs.
• Royal Commission into child abuse in indigenous communities.

Why is it that NOW he's all about treating indigenous people differently? Dividing the country by race?

Shouldn't he be calling for these things for ALL Australians?

Anybody?

My brother spent last year ( and several beforehand ) as a teacher in an outback ( 99.9% Indigenous ) community school. On his worst day, he filed 4 mandatory notices of suspected child abuse. He has lots of other stories, but that's arguably the worst.

There were no arrests from my brothers understanding.

Dutton doesn't need to do this for "ALL Australians" because it isn't happening to this extent, unchecked, everywhere.

 

[South of the Yarra]

People love to show off how progressive they are. How many “yes” signs did we see compared to “No” the majority of social media friends were pushing the yes. It makes them feel good while doing basically nothing. Same as the KONY2012 movement, they’ll find another cause to pretend to care about soon.

I would suggest many who voted yes do plenty and wanted to take the first steps of doing more

 

[Roby]

LOL yes it does.

In Leichardt polling place, Cooktown is poling place with 87 percent Aboriginal in it and they voted 70 percent No

Exhibit A

Presenting more misinformation.

ATSI population of Leichhardt electorate:

28,703 16.3%

2021 Leichhardt, Census All persons QuickStats | Australian Bureau of Statistics

abs.gov.au

 

[sherb]

How the * can we give you details when we never got details about what the voice is all about? * me dead. I said these industries are built on CERTAINTY. There was nothing CERTAIN about the details of the voice

If that's the case, then using the same argument you can't be sure that The Voice would be responsible for the death of big primary industry as you claimed. It's a guess on your part.

As an aside, if you have concerns about an advisory body doing just that (advising) government on behalf of a particular sector of the population (ie First Nation people), then what's your stance on the National Farmer's Federation (for instance) doing pretty much the same thing? Or any other lobby group for that matter.

 

[Chief]

My brother spent last year ( and several beforehand ) as a teacher in an outback ( 99.9% Indigenous ) community school. On his worst day, he filed 4 mandatory notices of suspected child abuse. He has lots of other stories, but that's arguably the worst.

There were no arrests from my brothers understanding.

Dutton doesn't need to do this for "ALL Australians" because it isn't happening to this extent, unchecked, everywhere.

That's not what I'm saying. However don't you think a voice from local people might shed more light on how to alleviate the problems your brother saw?

On Dutton:

His stated case against the voice was because it divides the nation on racial lines.

He is now contradicting himself with calls for indigenous-only Royal Commission and indigenous-only audits.

His goal is to demonise indigenous people as a distraction to get poor people to look at other poor people as the cause of their daily problems. Simple as that.

 

[Roby]

But we voted with the indigenous people and what they voted and wanted

So yes I’m happy that I’m closer to then solutions then I realised

You didn't

I actually have been and that’s how I understand that polling station had 80 odd percent Aboriginals in it

This is misinformation and Leichhardt electorate is 16% Indegenous not 80%

 

[sherb]

This is misinformation and Leichhardt electorate is 16% Indegenous not 80%

The problem with misinformation (and outright lies) is that if it plays to peoples biases they are more than happy to both believe it and also not question it.

It's becoming an increasing problem.

 

[Not Important]

 

[schneebly111]

they (low socio demographic seats) might if they fall for Coalition lies and promises of money and jobs, abbetted by a complicit media

I think people are getting a bit ahead of themselves.

No one is going to consider this referendum an election issue in two years.

Elections are fought on jobs, healthcare, taxes, wages, interest rates, housing etc. The usual stuff. Albo knows this, that’s why I think he got the referendum over and done with in the first half of his term.

Between now and next election we’re going to see:

Two budgets
Flatlining and probably slightly dropping interest rates
Inflation moderating
Stage 3 tax cuts
Unemployment not rising too much
Passage of ‘same job same pay’ laws (hopefully)
Expose of some bad Coalition doings in the NACC
Moderating of China relationship and lifting of sanctions and trade deals
The naming of a certain ‘high profile person’ on trial in Toowoomba who may have some links to a certain party

We’re also going to see
Rising house prices
Rising rents
Fuel remaining high
Expansion of the war in the ME
A probably bad bushfire season (ALP actually drew ahead of LNP slightly in early 2020 because of poor bushfire response then Covid but the Coalition back again)
Donnie T on trial in the first half of next year
US Presidential election dominates News second half next year

And that’s the things we know will happen. Many other factors will come into play between now and then that are unseen now.

It could go either way, but I’m fairly sure the referendum won’t be a political issue soon.

 

[tandino]

Do you understand how law making works?

Not to mention if Labor had created the body first, Dutton would have attacked them for their presumption.

I do wonder if Albo regrets the position he took on this point. Maybe it worth chasing all those arguments down the cul-de-sacs by having a draft model to show it's restraints in practice. Have something to point people to.

 

[Roby]

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

She knows it's a shit result for Indegenous Australians

 

[Kanga Commando]

That's not what I'm saying. However don't you think a voice from local people might shed more light on how to alleviate the problems your brother saw?

On Dutton:

His stated case against the voice was because it divides the nation on racial lines.

He is now contradicting himself with calls for indigenous-only Royal Commission and indigenous-only audits.

His goal is to demonise indigenous people as a distraction to get poor people to look at other poor people as the cause of their daily problems. Simple as that.

About the only thing I take from my brothers experience is in his own words "if it wasn't for the Nans and Aunts, the Indigenous kids of the outback would be decimated". Superficially that's because of alcohol and now drugs, but the issues all run deeper.

TBH - i'm not a Dutton supporter, and I wouldn't vote for either of the major parties. But I don't think that's his goal. He has 1 goal - get elected. Albo now has 1 goal. Get re-elected.

 

[Roby]

I'm simply posting Census data on Aboriginal population in Leichhardt, QLD, as of 2021, that shows the Aboriginal population makes up around 10%. I'd love to see where you're getting the individual data from specific polling booths, from - data that shows an 80% Aboriginal population at said booth?

He told you, he's reliable calculator he bought from Woolworths

 

[Tyrohad]

Do you understand how law making works?

Not to mention if Labor had created the body first, Dutton would have attacked them for their presumption.

There were proposals on the operation of the body - did you look at any of them? Be honest.



4 people in ten still voted for the change, despite Dutton's relentlessly negative campaign and the Murdoch, Reinhardt, Channel 9 campaign against it.



How is the Voice a change in primary industry policy any more than a change in government is a change in policy?

Proposals....plural. Meaning 1. It wasn't set in stone what we were voting for and 2. We still didn't know what the **** we were saying yes. And no I didn't bother. If there was multiple outcomes put to the table of what it was going to entail I was always voting NO.

Because the Voice was proposed to be independent of the parries was it not? Meaning we might probably know **** all about what this Voice intends to propose to government. Whereas the parties need to be transparent to gain support from the population.

And just for the sake of it, if the voice ever got a go ahead, what happens during a seating? They tell the government we want such and such and the government has to agree regardless of consequences and carrying out the requests or risk being seen as racists?

 

[Chief]

I do wonder if Albo regrets the position he took on this point. Maybe it worth chasing all those arguments down the cul-de-sacs by having a draft model to show it's restraints in practice. Have something to point people to.

Culture and Empowering Communities | NIAA

Strengthening of Indigenous cultural expression and conservation and working with communities to set priorities and greater influence over decisions that affect them.

voice.gov.au

Who would be on the Voice?​

The First Nations Referendum Working Group's design principles for the Voice indicate members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three part test. Further information about this test is available on the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies website.
The design principles also say:

• Members would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and would serve for a fixed period of time.
• To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way members are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and be determined through the post-referendum process.
• Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands.
• There would be specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population.
• There would be balanced gender representation.

What accountability mechanisms would the Voice have?​

The First Nations Referendum Working Group's design principles for the Voice indicate the Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability.
The design principles include that members of the Voice would fall within the scope of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. In addition, members would be sanctioned or removed from the Voice in cases of serious misconduct.

 

[sherb]

TBH - i'm not a Dutton supporter, and I wouldn't vote for either of the major parties. But I don't think that's his goal. He has 1 goal - get elected. Albo now has 1 goal. Get re-elected.

There was NOTHING in Dutton's position on this that involved either principle or care for the First Nations people.

It was 100% about politics. That's it.

 

[Roby]

You're not going to be able to get that from the polling data we have, because you can't connect a person with how they've voted. We can make educated guesses based on what the census data for particular polling booths would correlate to, but it's not an exact science.

The fact as expressed in that link though that indigenous people in remote communities (what No campaigners have consistently pushed as the 'Real indigenous people' as opposed to the 'inner city elites') almost all voted in favour of the voice. That is pretty clear from the data.

This is highly innacurate assumption. I hope you're not a teacher or lecturer

 

[Jimi]

Yeah because the Voice and its workings were never done up lmao. How unreasonable expecting me to oppose something non-existent, and then reject speculation?

Why the * did we have the referendum in the first place if everything wasn't done up front before hand?

Don't expect the average voter to vote to your preferred result if they haven't been given the full details to see what impacts it will make to their lives. Selfish yes. But then again, people just want to live their lives without being imposed on by more laws (imaginary future laws speaking in context).

*Change in policy. Our industries rely on stable laws not the revolving door at parliament. As long as industry policies remain unchanged, people don't give a * up here. Add uncertainty due to a potential Voice that could possibly influence (because lets face it, everyone does not know what exactly the * the Voice entails) laws related to the industry and you get the answer you got yesterday.

The Voice was literally a fancy lobby group for Indigenous people. No more, no less. Everything else is just scaremongering. The breadth and width to be determined by parliament, and improved over the years. Yes it’s vague (by design), but very deliberately only had the power to make representations to government (ie no power OVER government). Sadly not to be because a majority of Australians didn’t see it giving them any benefit.