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.

 

[Jello_B]

Surely company ownership is public knowledgeNot for private enterprise.

State governments don’t employ enough diligence across their tenders for the clauses they write in their for local and indigenous content.

 

[mcnulty]

Should Dutton resign? He destroyed a referendum and his approval rating is still falling.

If his approval rating is so low, how is his influence so big?

Duttons a reptile, but giving him “credit” for this is exactly what he wants. Don’t do it, it’s not on him anyway.

 

[Sphynx]

State governments don’t employ enough diligence across their tenders for the clauses they write in their for local and indigenous content.

Haha, couldn’t be more wrong.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Go look at the major feedback from people who voted no. nearly everyone the ABC interviewed at polling booths said it was a main reason they voted no.

It was that it was not explained well and lacked clear detail.

it was called out from the get go. The yes side never provided clear detail what it all meant to the average joe.

You can argue people should do their own research, but that is not reality.

What exactly did they not understand?

 

[Jimi]

A lot of people trying to pass blame. Reality is this "voice" was proposed and backed by a bunch of rich, inner city lefties who have no idea what it is like to struggle in a remote indigenous community. That was the first thing that killed it.

Then when people dared to question how it would improve the issues indigenous people believe are unique to them, instead of actually answering the question, all anyone in favour of the voice could say was "you are racist"

This is such BS.

It's not difficult to get educated.

You're buying Dutton's lies by pushing this "inner city lefty" moronic crap. The Uluru statement and its requests is the best representation we've ever had from Indigenous people.

 

[Jello_B]

Were you calling for Howard to resign when the republic referendum went down?

I am not as invested in a republic compared to this so no. But if you are asking would I be asking for Howard to resign if he had just done what Albo has done then yes why would I care.

 

[blueboy25]

What exactly did they not understand?

Apparently you were going to lose your home and your local beach etc etc

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Regional city booths like Mount Gambier polled very poorly for the Yes vote I think it was lower than 25%. Most country and regional voting was 30-35%.

Grayndler was 70% that was really good

Indigenous areas polled very well despite the lies from the Coalition

One that I can't work out

The southern region was overwhelmingly in support of NO, but Denmark was in favor of YES. Not sure what happened there.





Jacinta Price Lies. Here's representation from regional WA with indigenous representation

 

[Roby]

Its apparent from reading this thread that a lot of No voters made up their minds first and then sought out arguments that would agree with them.

Do you realise the constitution doesn’t even mention a position called Prime Minister? Do you understand the difference between enshrining something in the constitution and legislation?

Most people don't

 

[Jello_B]

Haha, couldn’t be more wrong.

In what way? I am directly involved here so I’m all ears.
Also my first sentence fell out of my post - ownership isn’t published on private companies and black cladding is rife in construction. They use parent company contribution expenses to strip profit from First Nation subsidiary businesses.

 

[killtaker1993]

Watching Bridget "Sports Rorts" Mckenzie go on TV during the week saying with a heavy heart she will be voting no but then posts on twitter a photo of herself smiling at the ballot box saying she voted no to the "Labor's divisive Voice".

That was sickening, the big photo-op dumb smile and her use of the term 'a respectful No' - a complete phoney trying to have an each way bet.

 

[killtaker1993]

Listening to talkback radio this morning and it's fascinating to hear so many people call up and say they would have no problem with the Voice if it was legislated, but its racist and divisive if its in the constitution. So the Voice isn't racist and divisive if it's legislated?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

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

Who gives a fk. The rest of the world is currently destroying their economies with energy dependence, fighting wars on racial and ethnic lines or falling apart socially. I think we're okay in comparison

 

[Roby]

um, no, Gough arrogantly proclaimed that no voters would be on the wrong side of history.
as of last night, history shows that the referendum was soundly defeated.

Just because 60% voted no doesn't mean you're on the right side of history.

40% are correct.

If we had a vote about vaccines mandates you've got the same outcome, maybe even higher than 60% voting No.

I'm sorry, but your just wrong, plain and simple.

Now respond by keep doubling down and showing your true colours.

 

[Maddo11]

"But they have MPs to represent them"

What they want (remote teams for majority indigenous voters, purple is yes);

What they get (biggest indigenous population but they're still a minority);

Nah let's just keep the status quo hey

 

[Freshwater]

You must realise how incredibly privileged you sound. You are telling Indiginous people that "My way (the coloniser way) is the only way". Equality before the law means nothing when Indigenous kids are 26 times more likely to end up in prison than their white classmates. Like it or not, Indigenous Australians have different lived experiences, a different relationship with our systems, a different relationship to this land, a different view of English colonisation and different outcomes across the spectrum.

You decry paternalism when that is exactly what Australia has done by voting no and what you are espousing in your post. The Voice wasn't a politicians idea, it came directly from Indigenous people.

Not at all. I am allowing them to grow at their own pace, not mine or ours. Or not to grow at all if they don’t want to, and keep the lifestyle they lead now, their choice not mine. But they can’t have parallel laws. There is no way this can happen, and it will hold them back if it did. Unfortunately for some but fortunately for others this is 2023, the tribal era is over. Tribal law is finished. Most don’t want to go back to that anyway. You can’t have cars and iPhones and expect to live the old ways.
There is only one law for all, again is not perfect, but common law is still the fairest legal system in the world history. The ball is in their court.

 

[swingdog]

A few thoughts.

I have trouble with the "right side of history". I'm a progressive on the issues being fought over within this framework but I really don't like the "arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice" framing aligned with modern battles to end up on the "right side of history". It suggests a complacency that these things will work out in the end so even if we lose a few battles along the way, it'll be alright in the end, but the record shows that historical moral progression is a constant battle to achieve and maintain. There are no guarantees.

With that in mind, the failure of the referendum shouldn't be viewed solely as where we are as a nation but what are the next steps to achieve the outcomes the campaign wanted. It's a wake-up call. There's a lot of emotion flying about at the moment but that's not going to get you what you want. The YES campaign must learn from what it did wrong, what NO did well and consider how they approach the subject, or even if they want to continue, in the future.

I voted yes, but without much expectation of it getting up, for a host of reasons:

1. It was obvious early on that bipartisanship wasn't going to happen. The Nationals being their usual w***ery selves nudged Dutton in a direction he probably wanted to go anyway but it gave him cover. He lacks enough moral stature to take on his Coalition partner.

2. Both Coalition parties took their stance partly because putting the Voice in the constitution was political. The government could have legislated the Voice but putting it in the constitution basically told the Coalition "we don't trust you not to do what you did to ATSIC" and so we're putting it beyond your control. I'm not saying that's true but how it was probably perceived. A referendum was the wrong way to do this - have heard political scientists suggest it might be the last time a government takes a binary issue to a referendum.

3. The disconnect between the arguments that this is a major moral choice and the fairly minor administrative result. You can't sell "this is a chance for you to right wrongs" and "you won't notice it once it's done."

4. The vote was as much about the Voice as it was about other issues. For a lot of people, it was like a by-election, a chance to give the government a whack over cost of living etc. That's reflected in the alignment between No votes and socio-economic status. It's basic Maslow, really. It's probably seen by a lot of those people as an identity issue and that always ranks lower than immediate needs.

5. Racism - it exists in Australia. Whether it's better or worse than anywhere else is beside the point. It's an influence on how people here vote but difficult / near impossible to attribute exactly how much. The bigger issue is that indigenous issues aren't nearly as important to many people as they were, certainly when I was growing up in the 70, 80s and 90s. Australian society is more internationally-focused and less on national identity.

6. As has been pointed out, social media now outstrips mainstream media in terms of its effectiveness. The latter still has a strong voice but for a targeted, negative campaign, Twitter and Facebook are the way to go.

 

[killtaker1993]

What exactly did they not understand?

All these 'we want more detail' and 'tell us how its going to work' is just vintage sealioning. No voters wanting to give the impression that they would vote for Voice if they had all these details, when deep down they were never going to. If the smoking gun that's going to flip you to the Yes side is based on how much people are going to get paid on the advisory committee, then you really aren't that interested in voting for it

Like I said earlier, it may not be incumbent on voters to do their own research and make their own minds up and expect the government to treat them like children by telling them everything up-front, but I would like to think at least most of our citizens are proactive enough to want to do some research for themselves. If everyone had this pathetic lazy "don't know, vote No" attitude, then no one would finish school or a university degree

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Wheat belt in WA less than 18% representation for the Yes vote

Narrogin PPVC

3/39 Federal St, NARROGIN WA 6312

Sun, 15 Oct 2023 12:32:32 AM AEDT

404

1,929

11

2,344

It's pretty easy to see the spread of voting across the country

A lot of farming regional towns are massively supporting the NO vote

Here you go........Fitzroy Crossing

Campaign was lost due to politics, racism, and ignorance/laziness

The division Clive Palmer talks about. IT's already here you ****wit

 

[Kyptastic]

You missed the previous posts which says this is incorrect. Go back to school

Which posts are you talking about?

 

[Roby]

Um, OK. You've selectively pulled out some mid table countries but failed to pull out the 10 or 20 most multicultural ones. Have a look at them and tell me living in these multicultural countries is better than living in Australia?

Don't be dumb.

I was just disputing that Australia was NOT one of the most multicultural countries in the world, and in fact ranked in the bottom 20%.

I said nothing about which country is better to live in. This is a whole another argument I do not want to get into right now.

 

[Jello_B]

A few thoughts.

I have trouble with the "right side of history". I'm a progressive on the issues being fought over within this framework but I really don't like the "arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice" framing aligned with modern battles to end up on the "right side of history". It suggests a complacency that these things will work out in the end so even if we lose a few battles along the way, it'll be alright in the end, but the record shows that historical moral progression is a constant battle to achieve and maintain. There are no guarantees.

With that in mind, the failure of the referendum shouldn't be viewed solely as where we are as a nation but what are the next steps to achieve the outcomes the campaign wanted. It's a wake-up call. There's a lot of emotion flying about at the moment but that's not going to get you what you want. The YES campaign must learn from what it did wrong, what NO did well and consider how they approach the subject, or even if they want to continue, in the future.

I voted yes, but without much expectation of it getting up, for a host of reasons:

1. It was obvious early on that bipartisanship wasn't going to happen. The Nationals being their usual w***ery selves nudged Dutton in a direction he probably wanted to go anyway but it gave him cover. He lacks enough moral stature to take on his Coalition partner.

2. Both Coalition parties took their stance partly because putting the Voice in the constitution was political. The government could have legislated the Voice but putting it in the constitution basically told the Coalition "we don't trust you not to do what you did to ATSIC" and so we're putting it beyond your control. I'm not saying that's true but how it was probably perceived. A referendum was the wrong way to do this - have heard political scientists suggest it might be the last time a government takes a binary issue to a referendum.

3. The disconnect between the arguments that this is a major moral choice and the fairly minor administrative result. You can't sell "this is a chance for you to right wrongs" and "you won't notice it once it's done."

4. The vote was as much about the Voice as it was about other issues. For a lot of people, it was like a by-election, a chance to give the government a whack over cost of living etc. That's reflected in the alignment between No votes and socio-economic status. It's basic Maslow, really. It's probably seen by a lot of those people as an identity issue and that always ranks lower than immediate needs.

5. Racism - it exists in Australia. Whether it's better or worse than anywhere else is beside the point. It's an influence on how people here vote but difficult / near impossible to attribute exactly how much. The bigger issue is that indigenous issues aren't nearly as important to many people as they were, certainly when I was growing up in the 70, 80s and 90s. Australian society is more internationally-focused and less on national identity.

6. As has been pointed out, social media now outstrips mainstream media in terms of its effectiveness. The latter still has a strong voice but for a targeted, negative campaign, Twitter and Facebook are the way to go.

Great post and I agree with your points.
I was going to come on here and post point 4 as well.

 

[Jimi]

Not at all. I am allowing them to grow at their own pace, not mine or ours. Or not to grow at all if they don’t want to, and keep the lifestyle they lead now, their choice not mine. But they can’t have parallel laws. There is no way this can happen, and it will hold them back if it did. Unfortunately for some but fortunately for others this is 2023, the tribal era is over. Tribal law is finished. Most don’t want to go back to that anyway. You can’t have cars and iPhones and expect to live the old ways.
There is only one law for all, again is not perfect, but common law is still the fairest legal system in the world history. The ball is in their court.

"I am allowing" - there's your problem right there.

Parallel laws? Have you heard of Native Title?

Growth? The Voice was step one of a process towards that.

Tribal law? What are you even talking about.

I'm going to bet you're a libertarian.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

what NO did well

Lied, ran a fear mongering campaign...that's what they did very well. Their advertising campaigns were full scale political spin based on bullshit. Same words: Divisive, Risky, Faces legal challenges. None of those statements were backed up with any evidence. They just pandered to the ignorant. Many other right aligned people spread misinformation in the media/social media that were blatant lies.

This is how the Coalition is going to run going forward. Do anything and everything to win government.
Australians are scared, and the Coalition fed them that fear.


How can Labor possibly provide information to people who DO NOT want to listen, or to investigate. Listen to some of the people saying why they voted NO. It's because they couldn't be ****ed looking into the 5 minutes needed to gain an understanding of what the referendum was about.

 

[Roby]

That's a reach Roby. The WP's lead stories and headlines all relate to the Gaza conflict.

Also, the article is written by Michael E. Miller, Sydney, Foreign correspondent covering Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific.

Now show me an article written by a US correspondent on this issue.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/australia-indigenous-voice-referendum-fails-1.6996380#:~:text=,would%20have%20created%20an%20advocacy

Australia rejects Voice referendum to recognise indigenous people in constitution

Saturday’s voice to parliament vote failed, with the defeat clear shortly after polls closed

www.irishtimes.com

Australian referendum to create an Indigenous advocacy committee to Parliament has failed

Australians rejected a referendum proposal to create a committee to offer advice to Parliament on policies that affect Indigenous people.

torontosun.com

Australian referendum on constitutional recognition for Indigenous people fails

Australian voters on Saturday rejected the Voice to Parliament referendum, which would have paved the way for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and other Indigenous Australians.

uk.news.yahoo.com