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.

 

[burge13]

This reveals the core of conservatism. Conservatives don't stand for anything other than making sure their own fragile egos aren't being hurt by the mean ol' lefties. Absolute bullshit ideology.

Not sure how or why my pointing out that pretentious wishy washy crap doesn't actually help resonate with people garners this response but okie dokie

 

[phantom13]

Neither. I’m just wondering about its relevance. Yes they were here before us, yes the evidence points to 65k years or thereabouts. Would this still be part of the conversation if they weren’t disadvantaged?

I realise I might seem to be borderline sealioning, but that’s honestly not my attention. I just feel like the fact that they were here first is just put forward as a reason why you/they should get what they want.

**** me youre taking a winding track here.

They were here first, if they would like that recognised in the constitution I dont see any issue with doing so, whether they were here a day before us or 65,000 years. Its relevant to them, if you want to argue about its relevance or validity id do it with them.

As for that being relevant, to me its two seperate parts with overarching ideals.

They are the traditional custodians of the land, we should celebrate and be proud of that and if we dont work to close the gap we will lose that aspect of this countries history.

This is the kind of logic that reeks of paternalism and superiority. ATSI people aren't inherently disadvantaged like disabled people are. Some suffer disadvantage, others do not. That is the issue with treating people differently by race, race is a poor differentiator in needs. We don't need racial law. We need laws and policies that help Indigenous children in remote communities from suffering sexual and psycholgical abuse, we need support programs for homeless and disadvantaged in our inner cities (be they indigenous or not) etc etc and we need programmes that help support the fringe homeless and disadvantaged groups to keep their children educated and their parents in employment (be they indigenous or not).

Arent they? Is systemic racism not inherent? Or go another way, is every disabled person equally disadvantaged? Level of disability is a poor differentiator of need should we just scrap the DDA cause someone with a limp gets a blue sticker?

 

[Carringbush2010]

This is the kind of logic that reeks of paternalism and superiority. ATSI people aren't inherently disadvantaged like disabled people are. Some suffer disadvantage, others do not. That is the issue with treating people differently by race, race is a poor differentiator in needs. We don't need racial law. We need laws and policies that help Indigenous children in remote communities from suffering sexual and psycholgical abuse, we need support programs for homeless and disadvantaged in our inner cities (be they indigenous or not) etc etc and we need programmes that help support the fringe homeless and disadvantaged groups to keep their children educated and their parents in employment (be they indigenous or not).

Apologies,

I didn't mean to broad brush to have it interpreted as all. Or suggest that people should preferentially treated by race.

I meant people should be preferentially treated by need.

Agreed not all ATSI people are disadvantaged and need preferential treatment, certainly though some do.

(Not intended to be superiority)

As for the rest of your sentiment I agree, that's where and why preferential treatment is needed, for all Australians of disadvantage.

EDIT. To note, there'll be an argument that 'but but ATSI already get preferential treatment in certain issues, look at all the money thrown at the problem'

That may be true, but it has forever been poorly implemented, if these programs were properly implemented (as probably intended).

We wouldn't be having this conversation and we probably wouldn't have had a referendum.

 

[sherb]

So selfishness, is what you're arguing.

I'd argue that 'left' issues are often around concerns impacting others, not voting only for those issues which impact me directly.

I find it funny that you're disparaging the 'left' for being less selfish. What a strong argument that is.

burge: 'LOL IMAGINE CARING ABOUT THINGS THAT IMPACT OTHERS INSTEAD OF BEING SELFISH'

I think this cartoon sums it up nicely.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

* me youre taking a winding track here.

They were here first, if they would like that recognised in the constitution I dont see any issue with doing so, whether they were here a day before us or 65,000 years. Its relevant to them, if you want to argue about its relevance or validity id do it with them.

As for that being relevant, to me its two seperate parts with overarching ideals.

They are the traditional custodians of the land, we should celebrate and be proud of that and if we dont work to close the gap we will lose that aspect of this countries history.

Arent they? Is systemic racism not inherent? Or go another way, is every disabled person equally disadvantaged? Level of disability is a poor differentiator of need should we just scrap the DDA cause someone with a limp gets a blue sticker?

I've never applied for a disabled parking permit, but assume there is some sort of line of eligibility where it is required and everything below that line, whether or not equally, clearly not equal, is still entitled to utilise the support of that program. Drawing the line at race rather than actual eligibility is not the same. Under your theory every white person should get a disabled parking ticket because some white people are disabled.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I think this cartoon sums it up nicely.

View attachment 1835433

HAHA yes, the people pushing for medical apartheid, racial segregation, theft through excessive taxation, reduced penalties for criminals, state approved murder etc etc are really in it for everyone's best interests.

 

[phantom13]

I've never applied for a disabled parking permit, but assume there is some sort of line of eligibility where it is required and everything below that line, whether or not equally, clearly not equal, is still entitled to utilise the support of that program. Drawing the line at race rather than actual eligibility is not the same. Under your theory every white person should get a disabled parking ticket because some white people are disabled.

What? ... no, not at all, how you got that ill never know.

Id suggest if you know nothing about the DDA and its process it might be wise not to comment on it or compare it.

Not all Indigenous Australians are disadvantaged, not all disabled people are disadvantaged. Your logic is that neither of them should get anything.

Im saying applying assistance to both should be dependent on the need individually, but both groups absolutely have a hugely disproportionate number of people who are disadvantaged.

This convo is getting away from the voice TBH but this is a bizarre take.

 

[faible]

HAHA yes, the people pushing for medical apartheid, racial segregation, theft through excessive taxation, reduced penalties for criminals, state approved murder etc etc are really in it for everyone's best interests.

I'd love to hear more detail about each of these.

 

[ElectricG]

They were here first, if they would like that recognised in the constitution I dont see any issue with doing so, whether they were here a day before us or 65,000 years. Its relevant to them, if you want to argue about its relevance or validity id do it with them.

As for that being relevant, to me its two seperate parts with overarching ideals.

They are the traditional custodians of the land, we should celebrate and be proud of that and if we dont work to close the gap we will lose that aspect of this countries history.

I have a bit I could say, but really I think this might simply be where we’ve found our way down to the “values” bedrock that a few others have mentioned.

 

[Toump Ass]

Constitution is a load of crap anyway.
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion

Try telling the judge you're a Rastafari when you've failed a drug test after a cheeky hoot on some spliff.

 

[phantom13]

I have a bit I could say, but really I think this might simply be where we’ve found our way down to the “values” bedrock that a few others have mentioned.

I realise how this might come across but i assure you its not a stitch up, just a genuine query regarding constitutions and your feelings on them (i think weve established i dont think the constitution is that sacred).

Do you think the second amendment in the US constitution should be changed?

 

[phantom13]

And for clarity im not comparing those two things, or conflating etc etc. Just purely curious about constitution.

 

[Four Rounds]

I was up visiting a friend in far north Queensland- mid 80’s - there were signs on some of the pubs- no aborigines allowed. That’s not actually long ago.

We flew in to Cairns just a couple of years ago and had to go in to a bank branch. While we were waiting for a teller a zombified fella shuffled in who looked to be either Aboriginal or TSI. The woman who was in charge of the floor and a security guard talked to him as if he was a lost child, gently shepherded him to the door and - that was that. No interest other than that he be gone.

We subsequently saw that there were a few people like that around town, plus some louder ones in the evening.

So a few question arise such as; why are some people like that, why do the general public not seem to care, how can it be fixed?

 

[Present Not Past]

Dutton's call for an investigation into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities would have been a good place to start for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
Pity Dutton just trashed that.

 

[Jello_B]

We flew in to Cairns just a couple of years ago and had to go in to a bank branch. While we were waiting for a teller a zombified fella shuffled in who looked to be either Aboriginal or TSI. The woman who was in charge of the floor and a security guard talked to him as if he was a lost child, gently shepherded him to the door and - that was that. No interest other than that he be gone.

We subsequently saw that there were a few people like that around town, plus some louder ones in the evening.

So a few question arise such as; why are some people like that, why do the general public not seem to care, how can it be fixed

We could euthanise those ones. Do we do the white ones as well, or just start with the aboriginals for now?
My avatars song “kill the poor” may be worth a listen.

 

[western royboy]

Been done and im punching out cause were getting into anciently old ground here.

Had bi-partisan support until Dutton and co used it for political gain (pretty smartly i would add).

Remains to be seen if Dutton can benefit from it - he seems bereft of ideas other than stop the boats / lock ‘em up

 

[ElectricG]

I realise how this might come across but i assure you its not a stitch up, just a genuine query regarding constitutions and your feelings on them (i think weve established i dont think the constitution is that sacred).

Do you think the second amendment in the US constitution should be changed?

As someone who would be completely unprepared for any sort of in depth debate on the subject, I will say I think it should be changed.

 

[phantom13]

Remains to be seen if Dutton can benefit from it - he seems bereft of ideas other than stop the boats / lock ‘em up

Hes properly (and rightly) despised so i doubt it will benefit much but TBH it was a good way to pot Albo and Labor, if he wasnt such a complete POS it might have worked for him.

 

[Engimal v3]

Any news from the LNP on the proposed 2nd referendum?

 

[western royboy]

Hes properly (and rightly) despised so i doubt it will benefit much but TBH it was a good way to pot Albo and Labor, if he wasnt such a complete POS it might have worked for him.

Negativity may be an easier road to power but when you get there you have to actually do something or you become ScoMo

 

[FlowersByIrene]

What? ... no, not at all, how you got that ill never know.

Id suggest if you know nothing about the DDA and its process it might be wise not to comment on it or compare it.

Not all Indigenous Australians are disadvantaged, not all disabled people are disadvantaged. Your logic is that neither of them should get anything.

Im saying applying assistance to both should be dependent on the need individually, but both groups absolutely have a hugely disproportionate number of people who are disadvantaged.

This convo is getting away from the voice TBH but this is a bizarre take.

It's clear you don't understand the point. Perhaps i'm not clear enough, perhaps your comprehension is awful, either way happy to leave it at that because nothing is clearly getting through to you.

 

[phantom13]

It's clear you don't understand the point. Perhaps i'm not clear enough, perhaps your comprehension is awful, either way happy to leave it at that because nothing is clearly getting through to you.

Whatever you like.

 

[faible]

We flew in to Cairns just a couple of years ago and had to go in to a bank branch. While we were waiting for a teller a zombified fella shuffled in who looked to be either Aboriginal or TSI. The woman who was in charge of the floor and a security guard talked to him as if he was a lost child, gently shepherded him to the door and - that was that. No interest other than that he be gone.

We subsequently saw that there were a few people like that around town, plus some louder ones in the evening.

So a few question arise such as; why are some people like that, why do the general public not seem to care, how can it be fixed?

Pretty confident Aboriginal people don't have a monopoly on drug and alcohol issues.

 

[mcnulty]

I have a bit I could say, but really I think this might simply be where we’ve found our way down to the “values” bedrock that a few others have mentioned.

The the most strident opponent of the Voice I know (strident to the point people on both sides of the equation are telling him to STFU- he’s finally taken the hint) is a work colleague of my wife. He was born into a struggling migrant family, and with a significant hearing impairment which (possibly due to his parents situation) was undiagnosed until he was after two. Been wearing hearing aids ever since.

He was bullied on multiple fronts at school, kept his head down, made to Uni, joined the professional classes and managed to become quite successful. Consequently he’s a staunch individualist- he believes people need to take responsibility for their own actions and that in Australia hard work and application are the crucial ingredients to improving your lot. No one else is going to do it for you.

I‘m not interested in defending him- you can call him ignorant and selfish, you won’t be the first- but it’s someone whose life experience has shaped his values. I’ve no doubt there are lots of people with similar outlooks. Not stupid, certainly not uneducated- just different values.

 

[Four Rounds]

Pretty confident Aboriginal people don't have a monopoly on drug and alcohol issues.

It certainly seemed that way in our short time in Cairns. Those out on the streets, as opposed to ones buying rounds inside. Hence, I suppose, why that sign on pubs in earlier years?

I could understand it if trapped by circumstances way it in the middle of nowhere but it seemed sad for those affected and sad that a society seemed to be so used to it to either not care or not have an answer.