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.

 

[Chief]

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.

What more is there to say?

 

[Tyrohad]

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.

Um....Because you can have an aboriginal farmer included in said body.

What happens if the Voice did get the go ahead and their 'advise' was ignored by the government? Should we expected a mature reaction to the response or will the rascit card be pulled out to push it through?

 

[Roby]

So the

'Leichardt aboriginals voted no'

claim, ís bullshit, then?

Given how small a percentage of population in total they are, then?

If we can't connect a vote to a race (thanks )

So, I'll just give my "anecdotal" experience of how Northhen White Queenslanders view Aboriginals.

Animals.

I'm not surprised those electorate have such a high No vote. This is not a surprise at all.

Also, I don't think a lot Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders would've had the stomach or want to go to a polling booth up in the North.

 

[Chief]

Um....Because you can have an aboriginal farmer included in said body.

What happens if the Voice did get the go ahead and their 'advise' was ignored by the government? Should we expected a mature reaction to the response or will the rascit card be pulled out to push it through?

So you were worried about the ability of indigenous people to apply pressure to parliament to fix local issues?

 

[Tyrohad]

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.

A fancy lobby group written into the constitution? Yeah okay....

 

[mcnulty]

The Voice was literally a fancy lobby group for Indigenous people.

I think that’s how most people saw it. Whether or not we should be having a fancy lobby group written into the Constitution is where people differed.

 

[1990crow]

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

For those disliking this post, clearly the rest of the world thinks we are a pack of racists:

‘Lies fuel racism’: how the global media covered Australia’s Voice to Parliament referendum

Could the vote affect the way the world views Australia and potentially have an impact on Australia’s international relations?

theconversation.com

 

[mcnulty]

A fancy lobby group written into the constitution? Yeah okay....

Snap

 

[Jimi]

A fancy lobby group written into the constitution? Yeah okay....

If you don’t think Indigenous Australians deserve that after all colonisation has put them through, then the people calling you racist are probably right.

 

[Chief]

Um....Because you can have an aboriginal farmer included in said body.

What happens if the Voice did get the go ahead and their 'advise' was ignored by the government? Should we expected a mature reaction to the response or will the rascit card be pulled out to push it through?

You didn't even look at the proposal.

Why pretend your issue was with the proposal?

 

[sherb]

Um....Because you can have an aboriginal farmer included in said body.

What happens if the Voice did get the go ahead and their 'advise' was ignored by the government? Should we expected a mature reaction to the response or will the rascit card be pulled out to push it through?

Nothing to stop an aboriginal farmer being on the Voice group either.

And you can use "what ifs" to justify any reasoning. Eg - what if the Voice did go ahead and some of its recommendations were listened to and actually improved the lot for First Nations people? What then?

 

[Kyptastic]

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

The Age agrees with me

Booth by booth, Indigenous Australians backed the Voice

A central argument of the Voice referendum was the attitude of Indigenous Australians to the question. Voting booth data shows they backed Yes in large numbers.

www.theage.com.au

 

[mcnulty]

For those disliking this post, clearly the rest of the world thinks we are a pack of racists:

‘Lies fuel racism’: how the global media covered Australia’s Voice to Parliament referendum

Could the vote affect the way the world views Australia and potentially have an impact on Australia’s international relations?

theconversation.com

These are op-ed pieces. If you get one from the National Review or the WSJ it’ll be entirely different. No one overseas will give a shit

 

[tandino]

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.

Not really a draft model though is it?

With respect to all the distinguished people that make up the working group, they don't hold seats in Parliament as far as I could see.

In any event, maybe it wouldn't have made much of a difference anyway.

 

[burge13]

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?

Bloody oath there should be! These programs are clearly failing or there'd be no need for a "voice" yet billions are poured in a year. Where is it going? If you are in favour of closing the gap as you clearly are, why would you not want this thoroughly investigated?

Oh yeah, its not your political team calling for it

 

[Tyrohad]

If you don’t think Indigenous Australians deserve that then the people calling you racist are probably right

I thought all people were equal. Why are we writing groups of people into the constitution and separating them from the rest?

 

[MarcMaverick]

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.

No. People here hate Dutton, don't blame them I do too. Albo needed to adapt and pivot on the fly when things were going south. His arrogance prevented him from doing so.

Plus if LNP called for the Voice you'd vote no out of spite. It would have been doomed to fail either way,

 

[Chief]

Not really a draft model though is it?

"No detail!"

"Not enough detail!"

"Not the right detail!"

It starts to not be about the detail at all.

LibGuides: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament Referendum: Voice to Parliament

LibGuides: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament Referendum: Voice to Parliament

deakin.libguides.com

Voice to Parliament​

The proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament will be ‘an independent, representative advisory body for First Nations people’ to advise Government and the broader Parliament on issues that matter to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It will not have a veto function, nor will it be responsible for delivering Government policy.

The final report on the Voice co-design process outlines the proposed model: a network of Local and Regional Voices in two-way communication with a National Voice. Communities would be represented by, and able to join, a Local and Regional Voice, which in turn would nominate members for the National Voice.

The Australian Government has released a politically impartial community toolkit with the core objectives of the Voice to Parliament and how it would be set up. Information is available in multiple languages.

Learn about the Human Rights perspective of the Voice through the Australian Human Rights Commission Voice Referendum Resource kit.

 

[Tyrohad]

What more is there to say?

That who in their own right mind would vote for a blank canvas

 

[Messenger]

I thought all people were equal. Why are we writing groups of people into the constitution and separating them from the rest?

We've done it for First Nations people in the past, to their detriment. Did you complain then too?

 

[Roby]

The seat of Durack in Northern WA where Aboriginal youth suicide has been so prevalent and such a talking point. A key symbol of Aboriginal disparity.

Result: 73% no.

How does that happen?

They're happy with the suicide numbers, they don't care. That's why people voted No, they don't care that ATSI are 2.7 times more likely to commit suicide than the rest of the population

 

[Chief]

It is DELIBERATELY flexible to allow for consultation and change if it should be needed.

If they had gone to the trouble of spending millions to develop the legislation that would have also been attacked as a waste of money.

 

[sherb]

I thought all people were equal. Why are we writing groups of people into the constitution and separating them from the rest?

Because the metrics applying to their lives show that they are anything but equal.

 

[Chief]

I thought all people were equal. Why are we writing groups of people into the constitution and separating them from the rest?

You mean how there are already two sections in the constitution that are based on race?

Power to make laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples | Referendum Council

www.referendumcouncil.org.au

There's even a video:

 

[Jimi]

I thought all people were equal. Why are we writing groups of people into the constitution and separating them from the rest?

Because they asked for it.

Please try to understand the difference between Race and Indigenousness - it’s very important to understand in the context of this debate

Link