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.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

While it can't hurt, I question how much change will be enacted because of the voice. The voice can be ignored by pollies just as much as Aboriginal groups have been ignored previously, right?

As far as I understand it, yes. It will be an advisory body. Although it seems useless to have something that is all bark and no bite I am hopeful that they will feel at last an actual part of this nation. That an organistaion with an intrinsic knowledge of their different cultural traditions can speak for them with knowledge.

In fairness, we won't know how it actually goes until its up and running though.

 

[campbell]

People in my household understand what true racism actually is...... E.g. constitutional change which separates the population based on their skin colour. Horrific stuff!

goodness.

 

[Episode IV]

And what is that pragmatic approach?

I'd argue that an advisory body that knows full the best ways to positive outcome is the pragmatic approach we're all looking for.

Do you agree?

Not entirely, no.

All the arguments for and against having an advisory body in general are just chaff, as far as I'm concerned.
We're talking about a constitutional change, which is why a referendum is required to begin with.

As far as I'm concerned, if the government wants to make a big deal out of creating an Aboriginal advisory board to suggest changes in policy for Aboriginal people in order to better their lives, then fine. Knock yourselves out. Create (another) one.

I am not, however, in favour of enshrining a racially or ethnically-themed aspect of government in the Constitution.

 

[freddy mercury]

Writing off an entire people because of ONE individual seems a bit small-minded to me.

Can't say I don't disagree.

 

[freddy mercury]

As far as I'm aware, Thorpe is supporting the 'No' vote.

So the 'guy you know', who is voting against The Indigenous Voice to Parliament... Is doing so purely because Thorpe is Indigenous.

So, opposing a positive change for Indigenous people of Australia, because there's an Indigenous woman in Parliament, who's supporting the 'no' vote... Strikes me as racist.


Also, Thorpe is under a magnifying glass. Anything she does is mass reported by the media. Even going so far as getting her estranged father to attack her and spread that on all media.
If the same thing were done to other members of Parliament, you'd see much worse.
Anyone who believes Thorpe is 'worse' than Joyce, has no idea.

She's voting no because it isn't enough for her

 

[freddy mercury]

As far as I understand it, yes. It will be an advisory body. Although it seems useless to have something that is all bark and no bite I am hopeful that they will feel at last an actual part of this nation. That an organistaion with an intrinsic knowledge of their different cultural traditions can speak for them with knowledge.

In fairness, we won't know how it actually goes until its up and running though.

There's one of the main reasons why many are voting no.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Not entirely, no.

All the arguments for and against having an advisory body in general are just chaff, as far as I'm concerned.
We're talking about a constitutional change, which is why a referendum is required to begin with.

As far as I'm concerned, if the government wants to make a big deal out of creating an Aboriginal advisory board to suggest changes in policy for Aboriginal people in order to better their lives, then fine. Knock yourselves out. Create (another) one.

I am not, however, in favour of enshrining a racially or ethnically-themed aspect of government in the Constitution.

It's only recognising that they were here first. It doesn't convey extra human rights.

 

[evolved2]

As far as I understand it, yes. It will be an advisory body. Although it seems useless to have something that is all bark and no bite I am hopeful that they will feel at last an actual part of this nation. That an organistaion with an intrinsic knowledge of their different cultural traditions can speak for them with knowledge.

In fairness, we won't know how it actually goes until its up and running though.

We've been down this path before, haven't we? ATSIC, etc.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

There's one of the main reasons why many are voting no.

Because of uncertainty? I'm uncertain of what the future holds for the Voice myself, but all I've read of it seems like a net positive going forward.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

We've been down this path before, haven't we? ATSIC, etc.

Some food for thought here on that;

Before the Voice: Political posturing and failed ambition

The Voice to Parliament is not a new idea. It’s been tried three times in the past 50 years, but without constitutional status, it could always be “wiped away at the stroke of the pen” by the government of the day.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Carringbush2010]

Do you think the voice would produce much measurable positive change for First Nations people?

I can answer that, in my opinion of course.

• The advice will come from those on at the fore front of the issues < this has never been to this point. Sure you could argue that we have indigenous members of parliament, however they ultimately represent the party and not the indigenous people. In short a better advice from those that know instead of what we currently have which is advice from members of parliament that don't know. Better use of tax payers dollars, that may have tangible positive impact. This is the most important bit
• Secondly and obviously, official recognition of indigenous people, everyone else does, the indigenous don't currently.
• Thirdly, and probably just as important, that this body will be advisory only i:e there is nothing that can be advised that will impede on the other 97% of the population.

 

[CM86]

Not entirely, no.

All the arguments for and against having an advisory body in general are just chaff, as far as I'm concerned.
We're talking about a constitutional change, which is why a referendum is required to begin with.

As far as I'm concerned, if the government wants to make a big deal out of creating an Aboriginal advisory board to suggest changes in policy for Aboriginal people in order to better their lives, then fine. Knock yourselves out. Create (another) one.

I am not, however, in favour of enshrining a racially or ethnically-themed aspect of government in the Constitution.

What do YOU believe is actually being enshrined in the constitution?

 

[CM86]

She's voting no because it isn't enough for her

Right...

So the 'guy you know' isn't voting 'no' to spite Thorpe's position (It supports her desired outcome)... He's voting 'no' to spite her being Indigenous.

What do you view that as, if not racism?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not entirely, no.

All the arguments for and against having an advisory body in general are just chaff, as far as I'm concerned.
We're talking about a constitutional change, which is why a referendum is required to begin with.

As far as I'm concerned, if the government wants to make a big deal out of creating an Aboriginal advisory board to suggest changes in policy for Aboriginal people in order to better their lives, then fine. Knock yourselves out. Create (another) one.

I am not, however, in favour of enshrining a racially or ethnically-themed aspect of government in the Constitution.

But it's not just 'chaff', other western liberal nations have implemented similar into their constitution with minimal if any harm to the other population.

Without changing the constitution to recognise indigenous people then we aren't recognising indigenous people officially.

You need to look past 'enshrining a racially or ethnically-themed aspect'

You could argue every minority gets their unfair lick of the ice cream by that logic.

That is not the intent, the intent is to recognise AND provide solid advice, from those that know, instead of those in Canberra, which will hopefully (and likely IMO) be a better use of taxpayer funds for the indigenous and lead to positive tangible outcomes for indigenous people.

 

[ep2018]

https://www.bluebet.com.au/sports/Politics/142/Australian-Referendums/The-Voice-Referendum/The-Voice-Referendum/1192045/All-Markets

Seems crazy good odds for a very close vote imo if you think the yes vote will win

 

[Episode IV]

But it's not just 'chaff', other western liberal nations have implemented similar into their constitution with minimal if any harm to the other population.

Any in particular you'd like to use as examples? What constitutes "minimal harm" to the "other population", exactly?

Without changing the constitution to recognise indigenous people then we aren't recognising indigenous people officially.

Wouldn't have a problem with that, in itself. But that isn't all its doing, is it?

You need to look past 'enshrining a racially or ethnically-themed aspect'

No, I don't think so. I've mentioned before, we don't even know who the Aboriginal population of Australia are going to be in a hundred years time.
The proposed change is:

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.

I don't know how you can read that and garner any impression it isn't about race. Or, more accurately these days, ethnicity.
How would you describe it, if not that?

You could argue every minority gets their unfair lick of the ice cream by that logic.

I'd rather none did. Minority or otherwise.

That is not the intent, the intent is to recognise AND provide solid advice, from those that know, instead of those in Canberra, which will hopefully (and likely IMO) be a better use of taxpayer funds for the indigenous and lead to positive tangible outcomes for indigenous people.

Those in Canberra are sometimes Aboriginal people. In fact, they have a higher representation in Parliament than in general society.
As of 2022, there was about a 1% variance in favour. Representation in our government systems, including in the public service in general, is not an issue.

With regard to the bolded bit, I haven't seen any evidence or suggestion put forward by Aboriginal people to indicate they know any more than anyone else. Cultural preservation is one thing, and to my mind quite admirable, but if that isn't included within or as part of the totality of state operations, it by necessity suggests some form of ongoing separation.
Those taxpayer funds would be put to far better use put toward those things which alleviate poverty in general, not in the service of one focus group or another.

*edit - Racism is actually a subset of discrimination in general. A quick read through these boards will make it quite clear that there is a significant proportion of discussion participants who not only do not understand that, but have absolutely no idea what discrimination is.

Personally, I think the answers are already out there. Generational change, however, is not something anyone has any patience for.

 

[CM86]

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.

What do YOU believe is actually being enshrined in the constitution?

You seem to support The Indigenous Voice to Parliament, but oppose it based on what you believe is being enshrined.

So what's is it that YOU believe is being enshrined in the constitution?

 

[beside the seaside]

The No campaign is mainly being led by cookers like Pauline Hanson. In the city before the footy on Saturday there were a bunch of them having a rally, honestly I've never seen such a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists in all my life.

The Yes campaign should tap into it as I think most people don't want to be associated with these types. Something like "don't be a no person".

 

[Osho]

Any in particular you'd like to use as examples? What constitutes "minimal harm" to the "other population", exactly?

Wouldn't have a problem with that, in itself. But that isn't all its doing, is it?

No, I don't think so. I've mentioned before, we don't even know who the Aboriginal population of Australia are going to be in a hundred years time.
The proposed change is:

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.

I don't know how you can read that and garner any impression it isn't about race. Or, more accurately these days, ethnicity.
How would you describe it, if not that?


I'd rather none did. Minority or otherwise.

Those in Canberra are sometimes Aboriginal people. In fact, they have a higher representation in Parliament than in general society.
As of 2022, there was about a 1% variance in favour. Representation in our government systems, including in the public service in general, is not an issue.

With regard to the bolded bit, I haven't seen any evidence or suggestion put forward by Aboriginal people to indicate they know any more than anyone else. Cultural preservation is one thing, and to my mind quite admirable, but if that isn't included within or as part of the totality of state operations, it by necessity suggests some form of ongoing separation.
Those taxpayer funds would be put to far better use put toward those things which alleviate poverty in general, not in the service of one focus group or another.

*edit - Racism is actually a subset of discrimination in general. A quick read through these boards will make it quite clear that there is a significant proportion of discussion participants who not only do not understand that, but have absolutely no idea what discrimination is.

Personally, I think the answers are already out there. Generational change, however, is not something anyone has any patience for.

Is this the ColourBlindness principle proposed by MLKJ and some other US civil rights leaders in the 50s and 60s, and even further back in history?

It seems also to refute reparations.

Relevance to Australia is a question.

On the other side, can anyone point me toward a precedent of voice or similar in another country which could be a model for us?

 

[augie]

I know a guy who is voting no purely because he thinks Lydia Thorpe is a tool. He said he'd immediately vote yes if she would remove herself from parliament.

That can be twisted by you lot as racist, when it isn't, he doesn't like her because of her personality, but that is deemed racist. A perfect example of how easily and quickly people are accused of being a racist because they don't like somebody's personality because they are black or white.

Which puts him on the stupid pile. Thanks for making my point.

 

[Gough]

And she wants to pick a fight with trans crowd next, she'll need to show a bit more backbone than all this woe is me crap.

 

[The Passenger]

I know a guy who is voting no purely because he thinks Lydia Thorpe is a tool. He said he'd immediately vote yes if she would remove herself from parliament.

This reminds me of those who said they voted no for the same sex marriage because "the yes side is so overt and in your face".

Not being able to own your own decisions is pissweak

 

[Chief]

Those in Canberra are sometimes Aboriginal people. In fact, they have a higher representation in Parliament than in general society.
As of 2022, there was about a 1% variance in favour. Representation in our government systems, including in the public service in general, is not an issue.

Not sure what number this one is, but it's in the standard list of Dutton Reasons.

The answer is, of course, that it's obviously not the case that each indigenous member of parliament represents all indigenous people.

Edit:

 

[Gralin]

This prick

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I’d rather see a Royal Commission into Aboriginal welfare, the hundreds of councils and corporations charged with looking after the people of their regions, and where all the money is going.

I’m afraid that a Voice bureaucracy would only feather the beds of activist types. The clans aren’t democratic structures as we know; everyone getting to vote on who would be their representative would be subject to pressures of family and kin loyalty. That’s if everyone votes - would there have to be a special electoral roll to ensure that everyone goes to a ballot as well as fair outcomes?

Not to mention that Aboriginals are by no means united in any way, never have been. Inter-clan hostility continues today. To say nothing of toxic family rivalries.

Some may say that these are problems only the Aboriginals need to be concerned about. How they run things is up to them. But is that really desirable, or just another way of washing our hands of them?