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.

 

[Roby]

It’s just one of those “the worst of the left” type posts that I don’t recall you normally making.

In one part it’s taking the No argument to its most extreme, and then proceeding to mock that argument. Part of the No argument is that affording certain privileges to one race in the constitution means the constitution will now be imbalanced in how it sees the country’s citizens. You characterise this as No voters thinking it’s “a stab at ethno-separatism” to conjure up imagery of separate drinking fountains, and make their side seem ridiculous. They would just prefer the constitution to treat everybody the same. That’s it. End of.

The other part is outright bullsh*tting, imo. Having a declaration about your people and the fact that they were here first (the subtext being their unique right to be here) is a privilege. Being the only people with a “voice to parliament” is a privilege regardless of its limitations. These are plainly true statements, and you call them lies.

I'll ask you again, are you sure you voted Yes? Because your arguments seem more Cooker everyday

 

[phantom13]

That's probably the resounding reason why. Many can't picture it in practice and where it sits in our system.

We're just told it's the solution to the problem and to trust the system that hasn't even existed yet.

I'd get behind it if it actually existed and showed proven results compared to the old way.

I cant stress enough that this was different because it was specifically and deliberately requested by the most comprehensive consultation process of Indigenous Australia ever undertaken.

You cant get behind it with evidence of proven results because it has never been done in this way before, all the other legislated versions of this have been enacted by white Australia.

Its probably fair to note we dont "know" this would elicit better results, but it couldnt really elicit worse results, and if it proves to be innefective then you wind up with a few people on the payroll providing advice that is ultimately not acted upon.

To put it more simply Indigenous Australia wanted this and the absolute worst case scenario had it got up was there was no improvement for Indigenous Australia and were paying a couple of people a wage who would almost certainly be employed for whatever advisory group gets publically funded anyway AND we would be able to look our Indigenous brothers and sisters in the eyes and say "we tried". Minimal (likely zero) additional costs to try something suggested by Indigenous Australia.

 

[Roby]

Your mistake is believing I have to validate my view to you. Why? It’s your view asking for change; it’s your view positing an accusation; the logical onus is on you to sway my mind, not the other way round. Your view is the overwhelming minority. Mine is the majority. Self-righteous indignation only sets you back and makes me doubt your intentions.

Is it the majority? Not the view I'm getting from overseas, which is a good thing, but it's certainly embarrassing for Australia.

 

[ElectricG]

I'll ask you again, are you sure you voted Yes? Because your arguments seem more Cooker everyday

I voted no. You might have me confused with another user. I’m definitely a massive cooker, though.

 

[Tyrohad]

I cant stress enough that this was different because it was specifically and deliberately requested by the most comprehensive consultation process of Indigenous Australia ever undertaken.

You cant get behind it with evidence of proven results because it has never been done in this way before, all the other legislated versions of this have been enacted by white Australia.

Its probably fair to note we dont "know" this would elicit better results, but it couldnt really elicit worse results, and if it proves to be innefective then you wind up with a few people on the payroll providing advice that is ultimately not acted upon.

To put it more simply Indigenous Australia wanted this and the absolute worst case scenario had it got up was there was no improvement for Indigenous Australia and were paying a couple of people a wage who would almost certainly be employed for whatever advisory group gets publically funded anyway AND we would be able to look our Indigenous brothers and sisters in the eyes and say "we tried". Minimal (likely zero) additional costs to try something suggested by Indigenous Australia.

Fmd. Went from members, to a few, to a couple.

Read my replies to Chief. Aboriginals are untied when it comes to standing against white man but within their groups there can be thousands of years of rivalry etc.

How do we know that one group won't end up becoming disadvantaged in said system? Or that group won't become just as bitter as they are to the current system?

I agree with you that we have to try but it can't be half arsed.

 

[1990crow]

More like a stain on Albanese.

Nope

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

That's probably the resounding reason why. Many can't picture it in practice and where it sits in our system.

Did you get the Official Referendum Booklet in the mail up your way?

https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/referendum-booklet.pdf

I thought it laid out both arguments well enough. I can't say I was 'swayed' by the YES side because ever since I first heard of the concept I thought it was a good idea. NO had to convince me and it just didn't.

 

[Carringbush2010]

What you are referring to is an evaluation of the programs effectiveness which can be outside scope of an ANAO audit. This is often where things fall down or miss the mark

So given your previous experience, in your opinion.

How can this be avoided in future?

Are govts. aware of this? Or more broadly is the ANAO independent of government and can they be held accountable to ensure correct auditing on their part?

Is it a possibility to have ATSI auditors for solely focused ATSI issues / ideas?

 

[MPMonkeys]

I cant stress enough that this was different because it was specifically and deliberately requested by the most comprehensive consultation process of Indigenous Australia ever undertaken.

You cant get behind it with evidence of proven results because it has never been done in this way before, all the other legislated versions of this have been enacted by white Australia.

Its probably fair to note we dont "know" this would elicit better results, but it couldnt really elicit worse results, and if it proves to be innefective then you wind up with a few people on the payroll providing advice that is ultimately not acted upon.

To put it more simply Indigenous Australia wanted this and the absolute worst case scenario had it got up was there was no improvement for Indigenous Australia and were paying a couple of people a wage who would almost certainly be employed for whatever advisory group gets publically funded anyway AND we would be able to look our Indigenous brothers and sisters in the eyes and say "we tried". Minimal (likely zero) additional costs to try something suggested by Indigenous Australia.

Specifically who was consulted?
Because to me it seemed like the usual suspects in the Indigenous industry such as Langton, Davis, Mayo, Pearson, Hosch and co who were the main consultants. Was Jacinta Price consulted or her mother?
And if they weren't (which I suspect is the answer) then it can hardly be called comprehensive. More like cherry-picked consultants.

It is simply incorrect to state that you know definitively what the worst case scenario was. The fact is, nobody knows how it would have played out in the future. There were legitimate concerns that it could act as a third wheel of government and could block the government of the day with High Court challenges and the like. Now that may not have happened but to say definitively that it would not is very naive given that the Voice members would be activists by nature.

'Indigenous Australia' is a very broad brush. An indigenous doctor in Brunswick with 10% ancestral Indigenous blood is in a very different situation to an Indigenous Australian living in a remote community in the NT.
This tendency to lump all Indigenous people into one bucket is extremely simplistic. If the Voice was about mainly helping the remote communities then it would have had more chance of success. Instead it was taken over by activists and Canberra and from then on it never stood a chance.

 

[Roby]

He's not lying, he just has no idea

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Specifically who was consulted?
Because to me it seemed like the usual suspects in the Indigenous industry such as Langton, Davis, Mayo, Pearson, Hosch and co who were the main consultants. Was Jacinta Price consulted or her mother?
And if they weren't (which I suspect is the answer) then it can hardly be called comprehensive. More like cherry-picked consultants.

It is simply incorrect to state that you know definitively what the worst case scenario was. The fact is, nobody knows how it would have played out in the future. There were legitimate concerns that it could act as a third wheel of government and could block the government of the day with High Court challenges and the like. Now that may not have happened but to say definitively that it would not is very naive given that the Voice members would be activists by nature.

'Indigenous Australia' is a very broad brush. An indigenous doctor in Brunswick with 10% ancestral Indigenous blood is in a very different situation to an Indigenous Australian living in a remote community in the NT.
This tendency to lump all Indigenous people into one bucket is extremely simplistic. If the Voice was about mainly helping the remote communities then it would have had more chance of success. Instead it was taken over by activists and Canberra and from then on it never stood a chance.

Mate, you voted No, you got what you wanted, just give it a rest. No one really wants to hear you grant yourself absolution.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Mate, you voted No, you got what you wanted, just give it a rest. No one really wants to hear you grant yourself absolution.

My apologies. I thought this was an open forum.

 

[Chief]

No comment because you don't know or that's what was intended of the Voice?

I was not commenting on your confusion, lest you go off about it. You went off about it anyway.

No comment because you don't know or that's what was intended of the Voice? Come on educate the unwashed here. I'm genuinely curious where this body sits in the system.

You didn't look for information before but now after the fact you want to be lead by the hand so you can disagree and convince yourself you did the right thing for the right reasons.

Pretty much. If you want to be fair, fork out the money for every mob in the country or not at all.

What are you talking about?

Why is it a bad thing to be skeptical and have differing views? You're touting this system like it's faultless and the saviour of closing the gap. Im pointing out issues that I can see coming.

And when I point out safeguards you reject them out of hand with sarcasm.

It human nature to be tribal and looking inward toward the tribe. When one gets more benefits from the same system, the other shows disdain. Then we're back to where we are.

It's also not too hard to empathise and trust.

 

[Chief]

Specifically who was consulted?
Because to me it seemed like the usual suspects in the Indigenous industry such as Langton, Davis, Mayo, Pearson, Hosch and co who were the main consultants. Was Jacinta Price consulted or her mother?
And if they weren't (which I suspect is the answer) then it can hardly be called comprehensive. More like cherry-picked consultants.

You didn't even Google it once before you voted?

 

[Gavin Excell]

So given your previous experience, in your opinion.

How can this be avoided in future?

Are govts. aware of this? Or more broadly is the ANAO independent of government and can they be held accountable to ensure correct auditing on their part?

Is it a possibility to have ATSI auditors for solely focused ATSI issues / ideas?

Best thing would be to have some sort of sounding board from those on the ground to advise them on what works, what doesn't......

A recurring issue seems to be that governments and by extensions, ministers, and departments want to control the purse strings and the level of engagement consultation to date seemingly hasn't been effective. Im not across it enough to say the consultation is token, but for whatever reason it's not working. And this is both sides of government too last 20 years.

Easy in retrospect, but I wonder if this could have been how the Yes vote could have been pitched. Multiple governments approach to closing the gap hasn't been effective- the Voice provides an opportunity to ensure current spending is better targeted to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous people and better value for the Australian taxpayer

 

[Reg Grundy35]

You didn't even Google it once before you voted?

They are queuing up to wash their hands of blame now.

 

[Not Important]

 

[Not Important]

wow!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

'Indigenous Australia' is a very broad brush. An indigenous doctor in Brunswick with 10% ancestral Indigenous blood is in a very different situation to an Indigenous Australian living in a remote community in the NT.
This tendency to lump all Indigenous people into one bucket is extremely simplistic.

To my way of thinking this was one of the key reasonings FOR the Voice - that indigenous experiences aren't uniform and that a deeper translatory function was needed than the standard political elected representative.

The challenges a Noongar person faces in Western Australia might be far, far different than those a Koori person faces on the south eastern coast. There are groups even within those groups.

What would Canberra know at the grassroots level? The local electorate leader, who usually needs broad appeal from a wider base of voters in order to hold office, might not even know.

 

[HirdyLannister]

I've been slowly reading this thread since Saturday night, no one has mentioned the lack of trust towards politicians influencing no voting.

Australians in general has always had low trust and respect for politicians (for good reason). Trust in Australia's political system is at an all time low after COVID with many over reaching powers (boarder closure, lock downs, mandates). Also the botched implementation of The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act from WA politicians didn't help the Voice.

With the PM asking the general public to "trust" them with the implementation of the advisory body without any iron clad details was going to be a tall ask for the general public.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Best thing would be to have some sort of sounding board from those on the ground to advise them on what works, what doesn't......

A recurring issue seems to be that governments and by extensions, ministers, and departments want to control the purse strings and the level of engagement consultation to date seemingly hasn't been effective. Im not across it enough to say the consultation is token, but for whatever reason it's not working. And this is both sides of government too last 20 years.

Easy in retrospect, but I wonder if this could have been how the Yes vote could have been pitched. Multiple governments approach to closing the gap hasn't been effective- the Voice provides an opportunity to ensure current spending is better targeted to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous people and better value for the Australian taxpayer

My hope is that a suitable Voice/ advisory body, whatever term one wants to use, will be established or even multiple ones based in the areas that are effected, be it city / regional / remote.

And they are ATSI people, and whatever practical solutions are put forward are then enforced to be acted upon.

 

[MPMonkeys]

You didn't even Google it once before you voted?

Given that nobody can provide actual names

You didn't even Google it once before you voted?

So it seems like neither Jacinta Price or her mother were consulted.
That absolutely rings alarm bells that they couldn't be bothered even talking to probably the pre-eminent Indigenous politician today.

I bet they found plenty of room for Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra based people though.

 

[phantom13]

Fmd. Went from members, to a few, to a couple.

Read my replies to Chief. Aboriginals are untied when it comes to standing against white man but within their groups there can be thousands of years of rivalry etc.

How do we know that one group won't end up becoming disadvantaged in said system? Or that group won't become just as bitter as they are to the current system?

I agree with you that we have to try but it can't be half arsed.

Members could be a few or a couple, given the numbers and make up were not in the referendum you dont think if its a complete failure it would be reduced down, not to mention regardless of the numbers those people are likely gonna be on the payroll anyway.

I assume you mean "Aboriginals are UNITED when it comes to standing against white man" thats got nothing to do with the voice, they are not trying to overthrow government or become self governing what they are united in, when it comes to the voice, is trying to do better for ALL Indigenous Australians.

Of course they wont always see eye to eye and of course there would be competing priorities but this suggestion was intended to be able to review and prioritize the issues through a first nations lens, im not sure how anyone could argue thats a bad thing.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I've been slowly reading this thread since Saturday night, no one has mentioned the lack of trust towards politicians influencing no voting.

Australians in general has always had low trust and respect for politicians (for good reason). Trust in Australia's political system is at an all time low after COVID after many over reaching powers (boarder closure, lock downs, mandates). Also the botched implementation of The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act from WA politicians didn't help the Voice.

With the PM asking the general public to "trust" them with the implementation of the advisory body without any iron clad details was going to be a tall ask for the general public.

I do think we need more faith in our elected officials. Transparency is a key part of this.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I've been slowly reading this thread since Saturday night, no one has mentioned the lack of trust towards politicians influencing no voting.

Australians in general has always had low trust and respect for politicians (for good reason). Trust in Australia's political system is at an all time low after COVID after many over reaching powers (boarder closure, lock downs, mandates). Also the botched implementation of The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act from WA politicians didn't help the Voice.

With the PM asking the general public to "trust" them with the implementation of the advisory body without any iron clad details was going to be a tall ask for the general public.

That's why it was one sided from the get go.
You don't need to trust anyone to make no change. You know exactly what you'll get , NOTHING.

Change is scary , and the No campaign were able to leverage that.