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]

It's no wonder that so many of the good SRP posters of the last ten years have either left or just can't be assed wading into this forum anymore when the discussion around the biggest political vote of the last thirty years in this country is actually about -----> are countries racist.

Here’s a question - what do you think was the point of having this thread?

Wouldn’t it be better off just having a thread for yes voters only?

 

[evolved2]

Here’s a question - what do you think was the point of having this thread?

Wouldn’t you be better off just having a thread for yes voters only?

I presume Nuggs Bunny was upset about the lack of opposition to far left wing views given how few opposing voices we see on the SRP these days.

Good on him for being so vocal about it.

 

[Home Alone]

I'm not sure what you mean or why you're asking that question. Would you like to elaborate?

My interpretation is the box represent access to 'Parliament and Executive Government'. At the moment, in the Equality side we all have the same access. In the Equity side, the box is transferred from a non-need basis to a need basis.

My position on The Voice, when needed, an additional box is available. If you don't need a box, you aren't required to give it up for someone who does. It is still your box, and you can use it however you want.

So, I fit neither position as I don't believe access to government is a finite resource.

 

[Home Alone]

Proposal - why not establish the body, let it run for a few years to prove its viability / that it isnt going to send up like ATSIC - then put to a vote?

Because if it does work, why the need for a constitutional change would be their argument?
It is just a further delaying tactic

 

[evolved2]

My interpretation is the box represent access to 'Parliament and Executive Government'. At the moment, in the Equality side we all have the same access.

We don't though. If we did, why would the voice be required?

In the Equity side, the box is transferred from a non-need basis to a need basis.

Yes.

My position on The Voice, when needed, an additional box is available. If you don't need a box, you aren't required to give it up for someone who does. It is still your box, and you can use it however you want.

So, I fit neither position as I don't believe access to government is a finite resource.

Am I right in understanding you view 'the voice' as a reasonable temporary measure that doesn't warrant constitutional change?

 

[Kanga man]

There's going to be a whole lot of racists in this country who are about to become experts on constitutional law all of a sudden.

 

[Gethelred]

I'm 42 but we learned a lot about Indigenous history at school, did the Dreamtime stories at school and colonisation at high school etc. I feel we did more than other areas of Australian history, I don't really recall doing Gallipoli at school for example.

Do you remember - granted, it's been a while - if they taught you much about the Tasmanian genocide, or anything frontier war related?

 

[Kanga man]

Not everyone is racist but enough are to maintain the status quo.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

But that's voting no on protest, not for rational opposition.

It's not a protest at all, I don't trust the politicians to do the right thing. A protest would be me voting no because I hate Albo or because I hate Mr Potato Head. It's repeated numerous times in the video that was posted, refer to point 3 below.

The proposed alteration to the constitution:

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1: There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

 

[Gethelred]

Can someone please tell me the counter argument to the conservative view that a successful yes vote will simply be creating more division in Australian society and also enshrining in our constitution the status of indigenous Australians as eternal victims who are incapable of helping themselves?

You're asking people to prove a negative, something that is (logically speaking) nigh impossible.

There are some indigenous people who feel this way too. Not just rednecks, racists, and "charitable Christians" like Andrew Bolt

Don't get pissed off at me. I'm just repeating verbatim the arguments I've heard put forth which I don't have an easy answer for.

This resembles JAQing off to me, regardless of whather you're on the level.

I fall back on the position of: "Europeans came here... took their land... gave them nothing... It's time we righted the wrongs."
I'm not even sure The Voice will help in this respect. Like many others, I'm just going along with the "general vibe of it".
Is it just a meaningless exercise? A useless gesture that won't achieve much?

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is where the government has sourced the Voice. While there are parts of First Nations who would rather we achieve Treaty prior to constitutional recognition, Treaty is harder to achieve as it would take either collective agreement from all First Nations in a single go - which would require concessions, one would think, that governments of either stripe would be unwilling to provide - or individual case by case agreement from each nation, which would take decidely longer than a 4 year term.

When you ask me if you think the Voice is a meaningless exercise, I kind of wonder whether or not you give overmuch of a shit what indigenous people want, because most of them are saying this is what they want. It's not all they want, it's barely much beyond a preliminary step, but it's that step further than we've gone to this point. If it's a boilerplate thing - something that won't evince much effect - then giving it to them doesn't hurt you. If it's not that and you still cannot see the harm, how does the Voice endanger you? It's still bound by the parliament; the only thing the consitiutional amendment seeks to do is ensure that a body called the Voice exists, nothing more.

Let's rewind things a bit, back to Howard's 'Send in the Troops!' moment in 2007. Howard points to a wide variety of law and order stuff in the NT in an election year (restricted to the NT largely because a territory is subject to federal government rule where a state is not; if you think the stuff that they were going up there to intervene into ended at the WA and QLD borders, I've a bridge to sell you). How do you think that particular thing plays out if there's a Voice in parliament, speaking on behalf of the First Nations whose rights are getting trampled over?

 

[Home Alone]

We don't though. If we did, why would the voice be required?

Because it comes back to my original comment. That our rules and laws have disadvantaged and marginalised a particular race.

Am I right in understanding you view 'the voice' as a reasonable temporary measure that doesn't warrant constitutional change?

Yes to reasonable. No to temporary. This will take many generations for equality of outcomes to finally correct. Longer than the constitution has been in existence and shouldn't be subject to the Government of the day.

 

[the_interloper]

Do you remember - granted, it's been a while - if they taught you much about the Tasmanian genocide, or anything frontier war related?

Maybe, I remember we learnt about Truganini, I can’t quite remember much other than he was the last Tassie indigenous (I think)

 

[Kanga man]

This will take many generations for EQUALITY OF OUTCOMES to finally correct. Longer than the constitution has been in existence

 

[Gethelred]

Technically correct.

 

[Home Alone]

View attachment 1801397

Care to expand on 'What freedoms are being sacrificed'?

 

[Gralin]

I'm not disputing that.

You are though, you said so yourself that Australia is a racist country, that implies every citizen and or resident in the country is racist.

There is a distinct difference between 'Australia is racist' and 'there are some racists in Australia'

No it implies that the laws and culture are racist.

Which I know you loathe the idea of because you can't handle the idea of structural or systemic racism, it's all just a few bad apples.

Australia is a colony, the establishment of the colony was racist, the theft of land and creation of the constitution was racist.

Actions of successive state and federal governments have been racist.

At the last election both major parties had racism baked into their campaigns.

We have a racist media and political class along with racist laws and law enforcement.

Our culture is based on the British Empire which was and still is also a racist empire.

Australia isn't the people living here it's the state and the state is racist and as long as the people living here continue to vote for and support the continuation of the state then it will continue to be a racist country regardless of percentage of people living here that are or are not racist themselves

 

[Gethelred]

I get what you are trying to say but disagree with the concept. It is a flawed and over invested needless argument imo.

If I say that America is a racist country - no sane person would take that I meant every single person
in that country is racist but more than enough are to comfortably say that country could be considered by a
reasonable person to be largely and correctly classified as a racist country. You are splitting semantics and
hairs as well. What's the point ? I can't see one.

Carringbush2010 doesn't like the implication that he's racist, by virtue of so strict a definition of what racism is that it requires possession of a Klan hood, a burning cross, a noose and a written set of directions with motive on who someone'd lynch next coupled with a stapled copy of ID whilst being caught at the scene of the crime in mid act before one could successfully label someone racist.

But only if they're wearing the Klan hood, mind. Everything else could be right, but if they're not wearing the hood they're not racist.

 

[Gethelred]

View attachment 1801397

Yay for the godfather of trickle down!

I approve, just like Milton did a UBI.

 

[Chief]

View attachment 1801397

Could you just copy and paste the memes?
Or at least crop the screenshots? Thank you.

 

[Kanga man]

No it implies that the laws and culture are racist.

Which I know you loathe the idea of because you can't handle the idea of structural or systemic racism, it's all just a few bad apples.

Australia is a colony, the establishment of the colony was racist, the theft of land and creation of the constitution was racist.

Actions of successive state and federal governments have been racist.

At the last election both major parties had racism baked into their campaigns.

We have a racist media and political class along with racist laws and law enforcement.

Our culture is based on the British Empire which was and still is also a racist empire.

Australia isn't the people living here it's the state and the state is racist and as long as the people living here continue to vote for and support the continuation of the state then it will continue to be a racist country regardless of percentage of people living here that are or are not racist themselves

Wow, just wow. Why are left wingers so obsessed with race?

“The word 'racism' is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything - and demanding evidence makes you a 'racist.'

Thomas Sowell



“Although much of the media have their antennae out to pick up anything that might be construed as racism against blacks, they resolutely ignore even the most blatant racism by blacks against others.”

Thomas Sowell



“The sad and tragic fact is that the civil rights movement, despite its honorable and courageous past, has over the years degenerated into a demagogic hustle, promoting the mindless racism they once fought against”

Thomas Sowell

 

[Chief]

Wow, just wow. Why are left wingers so obsessed with race?

You posted three quotes about race, by a conservative.

 

[Kanga man]

You posted three quotes about race, by a conservative.

A conservative who was being critical of the lefts usage of this now meaningless term.

 

[Gralin]

You posted three quotes about race, by a conservative.

And from an alt as well

 

[Gralin]

Oh look the same tactics being used by opponents of treaty in Victoria.

Victorian farmer 'disturbed' after receiving letter making false claims about treaty process

Aboriginal leaders and politicians from across the spectrum condemn the distribution of a "fearmongering" and fraudulent letter in Victoria's north-west, which contained misinformation about the state's treaty process.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Saint]

Why do you think it's our biggest political vote of the last thirty years?

Yeah, I'm not sure why there's so much fear or that the No voters think they're going to lose anything at all. I get why Warren Mundine is against it, he's going to lose his valuable Govt appointed jobs being the Govt-appointed un-democratic Voice. And I get why racists are against it. But I can't, for the life of me, understand why anyone else is worried at all, just pop down and write Yes.

As a non-indigenous person, I think the Voice will have zero discernible impact on me, but will be very positive for indigenous people (that's what they've said and why they developed it), which will have an overall benefit to Australia.

It's probably the least consequential vote for me, in my lifetime, but far more important for a group of people who have lower life expectancy and lower quality of life because of a constitution thrust upon them against their will on their own land which has never even tried to fit their culture.