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.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

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?

Are the non indigenous people united?

Why is it only a factor worth mentioning for indigenous?

 

[Gralin]

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.

So it can be ignored for decades like the RC into Aboriginal deaths in custody?

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?

Ah yes activists, the people agitating for change, aka the worst people on the planet...

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.

What's your point other than getting a dig in?

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?

Ah here we go

 

[nut]

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?

Yes, but this time, if the Voice gets up, it has been mandated by the Australian population… so it’ll be harder for any Government to simply ignore.

 

[freddy mercury]

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

Am I racist and/or stupid?

 

[Osho]

Am I racist and/or stupid?

Geewizz, she was incredibly tone deaf, provided fuel for the no campaign. Really foolish. Hopefully internally someone tells her and, hopefully, she listens.

 

[CM86]

Am I racist and/or stupid?

Anyone who can't see the racism in voting 'No' because Thorpe is Indigenous,has to be a bit racist themselves.

So based on that, I'd say you're a bit racist.

Doesn't mean you hate Indigenous people, or want a genocide. Bit does mean you view 'them' as different to you. Not as equals.

Doesn't make you a bad person, just a bit unaware or ignorant.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Seems like the No campaign is sure coming from a sane and rational place.

Presbyterian church of Australia bans acknowledgement of country at services

Indigenous Christians criticise the decision made at denomination’s general assembly last week

www.theguardian.com

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

This prick

One of the most punchable faces in Australian media and that is saying something.

Of course he'd indulge in a bout of victim blaming, the putrid weasel.

 

[Saint]

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?

This is very problematic

"ATSI people put family ahead of themselves" is not the bullseye you think it is.

I reckon I'd prefer voters who vote based on what's best for their family than the current alternative which appears to be "let's vote what's best for me, and who cares who's dying early in the outback"

Your first line is very telling. First, you think there's a lot of money going missing, you're probably hinting at corruption by ATSI people, but what it really is, is people like Warren Mundine attending talk-fests undemocratically on behalf of indigenous people. Bureaucratic-based waste spent almost entirely on non-indigenous-run programs.

We don't need another royal commission to tell us the system isn't working. That's where this whole process began, and it is culminating in the referendum. If it fails, we're back to where we were 20 years ago when this whole process started.

If you don't care to, or want to, help close the Gap, just say so. Government tried everything (some more vigorously than others) for decades and have achieved very little. So we asked ATSI people to tell us what would work. They worked for 20 years on the Voice and now people are saying what? We don't believe them?

 

[Romeoh1]

Geewizz, she was incredibly tone deaf, provided fuel for the no campaign. Really foolish. Hopefully internally someone tells her and, hopefully, she listens.

Although she’s on the money and it must be driving her completely nuts after spending her whole life working hard to get changes and to see it reduced to this rubbish from the No campaigners. The people who are taking offence at being called racist - well they were always voting no anyway surely? Eg Susan ley- give me a spell.

 

[South of the Yarra]

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?

Inter clan hostility? Toxic Family Rivalries? Please explain this. If you are referring to the minimal conflict between a few people in a few mobs than I suggest you widen your research. The large numbers of Aboriginal people living in major cities, are they involved in Toxic Family Rivalries and Inter clan hostility? Gee, could you portray a more stereotypical attitude.

 

[Chief]

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.

In the end he's putting his own personal view of someone, as seen through the lens of hateful Murdoch agents, ahead of the right thing to do based on the facts.

So whatever else it is, it's selfish. Probably lazy.

 

[freddy mercury]

Anyone who can't see the racism in voting 'No' because Thorpe is Indigenous,has to be a bit racist themselves.

So based on that, I'd say you're a bit racist.

Doesn't mean you hate Indigenous people, or want a genocide. Bit does mean you view 'them' as different to you. Not as equals.

Doesn't make you a bad person, just a bit unaware or ignorant.

Did I say that I don't like old mate? Not sure I did.

 

[Osho]

Although she’s on the money and it must be driving her completely nuts after spending her whole life working hard to get changes and to see it reduced to this rubbish from the No campaigners. The people who are taking offence at being called racist - well they were always voting no anyway surely? Eg Susan ley- give me a spell.

Being morally right is not enough. Where has it got us in 200 plus years.

A bit of political nous is required to get it over the line.

 

[Saint]

Regardless of what happens with the vote, 18-24yo's have been unwavering in their support at 75-80%.

The stronger the Coalition fights this, the less likely they are to have any long term electoral success.

People forgave them for bringing down the republican referendum, but the young won't forgive them for playing along with the racists for political gain.

It gives me great heart for future parliaments. It'll be a very pyrrhic victory for Dutton, I can't wait for the weeks and months after the referendum when Dutton's doing a lap of honour and his polls start steadily through the floor.

Elderly voters who vote No will move on from the referendum. The young will take a long time to forgive the LNP, if ever.

 

[Osho]

Regardless of what happens with the vote, 18-24yo's have been unwavering in their support at 75-80%.

The stronger the Coalition fights this, the less likely they are to have any long term electoral success.

People forgave them for bringing down the republican referendum, but the young won't forgive them for playing along with the racists for political gain.

It gives me great heart for future parliaments. It'll be a very pyrrhic victory for Dutton, I can't wait for the weeks and months after the referendum when Dutton's doing a lap of honour and his polls start steadily through the floor.

Elderly voters who vote No will move on from the referendum. The young will take a long time to forgive the LNP, if ever.

That is the crucial demographic. The key, as in BREXIT, is turning intention to vote into actually voting.

So the course is 2 fold, optimise the yes intention. And convince undecideds. Time is short. No more fumbles.

 

[Saint]

One of the most punchable faces in Australian media and that is saying something.

Of course he'd indulge in a bout of victim blaming, the putrid weasel.

To be fair, the articles are written by the LNP's PR team and handed to him, so it's not really his fault.

His is just the name his employer puts over the LNP's PR releases.

I wonder if they write the "sources say" bit themselves, or let him have those editing rights?

 

[Gralin]

To be fair, the articles are written by the LNP's PR team and handed to him, so it's not really his fault.

His is just the name his employer puts over the LNP's PR releases.

I wonder if they write the "sources say" bit themselves, or let him have those editing rights?

He gets paid to pretend to write LNPs propaganda and you don't think he should take some blame in that?

when people dont want to put their name to something it generally gets released under staff writers

 

[Gethelred]

Being morally right is not enough. Where has it got us in 200 plus years.

A bit of political nous is required to get it over the line.

... it's gotten us this far. Outspoken activism has gotten us this far.

It got us the 9-5 work week. It got us the vote. It got us weekends. It got rid of conscription. It got rid of slavery. It got women and minorities more rights than they had before.

Marcia Langton might've made a blue here, but the problem here isn't her. Policing the tone of activists or activism is a fairly well established method of de-escalation wielded by the powerful against those who would seek to change society for the better.

More to the point, whitewashing all political activism to purely the watercolour version - sanitized and PG13 rated - fails to adequately capture the real work that got us as a civilisation this ****ing far.

Let's leave the history editing out of this from here, hmm?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

At least in a few weeks it will be all over one way or another, happy enough to do a postal vote and forget about it while travelling. Least in a month we will get some peace. Least the newest booklet was a BIT and I stress the word "bit" better

 

[Festerz]

This woman is an outright disgrace. Deliberate deception comes so easily to her and without any sense of irony she moans about the Referendum being divisive.

 

[Gethelred]

This woman is an outright disgrace. Deliberate deception comes so easily to her and without any sense of irony she moans about the Referendum being divisive.

See, ****ing tone policing. Front and centre.

"It is indeed a shame that we cannot have a civil conversation..." at the start of the ****ing thing. No matter that it's not irrelevant. No matter that she's being asked to address her campaign is openly ****ing lying to people: no, it's that the debate cannot be civil.

As though civility is the issue.

We're now not talking about the reasons for the Voice, the disenfranchisement of First Nations or constitutional recognition. We're talking about manners, about politeness. We're not talking about substance, we're talking about speech.



The worst ****ing thing about it is that despite them pressing her, she got what she wanted from that interaction. The waters are muddied. They didn't call her out for trying to manipulate the conversation. They didn't even push her on where she finally went.

****'s sake, we're getting failed by the journalists of this country.

 

[FIGJAM]

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.

So he's punishing Thorpe by letting giving her her preferred 'No' vote?

That's a bit like my missus punishing me for coming home too drunk one night, by giving me an all expenses paid trip to Vegas!

 

[Gralin]

See, ******* tone policing. Front and centre.

"It is indeed a shame that we cannot have a civil conversation..." at the start of the ******* thing. No matter that it's not irrelevant. No matter that she's being asked to address her campaign is openly ******* lying to people: no, it's that the debate cannot be civil.

As though civility is the issue.

We're now not talking about the reasons for the Voice, the disenfranchisement of First Nations or constitutional recognition. We're talking about manners, about politeness. We're not talking about substance, we're talking about speech.



The worst ******* thing about it is that despite them pressing her, she got what she wanted from that interaction. The waters are muddied. They didn't call her out for trying to manipulate the conversation. They didn't even push her on where she finally went.

*'s sake, we're getting failed by the journalists of this country.

yes the majority of our media seem either unwilling or incapable of actually pushing politicians for straight answers

it's all passive voice let them get their soundbite out

same with print reporting, the headlines and dot points are usually straight quotes with no context or fact checking

 

[Romeoh1]

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.

How does that make any sense? If he doesn’t like her and she is voting no- why wouldn’t he then just vote yes?
And if his dislike of a certain pretty unimportant pollie is enough to determine his vote on an important issue, well, he needs to lift his game doesn’t he? It would be better if his vote was determined by the actual issue wouldn’t it?