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.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

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?

End of the day everyone votes on their own needs, we think about one thing when we vote in general, ourselves (and family). That's it. I know that's pretty much what I care about, if a certain vote will cost me more, it would have to be worthwhile and explained.

 

[Geelong_Bisons_#36]

Sadly it does look like the cucks have it. Again sadly.

Very easily manipulated the typical Australian.

The average person, not just Australian is very easily manipulated.
Did you not pay attention to anything during Covid?

 

[Osho]

... 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 ******* far.

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

You are being overly sensitive to justifiable criticism. Not directed at you. From an anonymous person you assume is a certain heritage, correct? And from assumed heritage is not allowed to make such criticism, correct? In which case, who's policing who based on baseless assumptions?

It's pretty offensive if one was to dwell on it.

Back to the issue ...

I know from personal experience that Aboriginal rights, living standards across a long list of markers in this country is poor. It's no time to celebrate a gain here or there when the state of many mobs is still so appalling.

The point is simply, play the Yes compaign smart, and it can still get up.

 

[CM86]

End of the day everyone votes on their own needs, we think about one thing when we vote in general, ourselves (and family). That's it. I know that's pretty much what I care about, if a certain vote will cost me more, it would have to be worthwhile and explained.

What is it going to cost you?

What would you like explained?

 

[Roby]

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?

I don't think Freddy is telling truth. I think he made up a story and got confused on what he was saying.

 

[Roby]

The average person, not just Australian is very easily manipulated.
Did you not pay attention to anything during Covid?

You sure, were.

Very interesting stats coming out of the UK.
You are approx twice as likely to either catch covid or end up in hospital from covid if you are triple vaccinated as opposed to being single,double or unvaccinated.
And shockingly 3 times more likely to die if you're triple vaccinated.

 

[CM86]

You are being overly sensitive to justifiable criticism. Not directed at you. From an anonymous person you assume is a certain heritage, correct? And from assumed heritage is not allowed to make such criticism, correct? In which case, who's policing who based on baseless assumptions?

It's pretty offensive if one was to dwell on it.

Back to the issue ...

I know from personal experience that Aboriginal rights, living standards across a long list of markers in this country is poor. It's no time to celebrate a gain here or there when the state of many mobs is still so appalling.

The point is simply, play the Yes compaign smart, and it can still get up.

What would you suggest the 'Yes' campaign do? Considering they have to fight with their hands tied behind their back.

If activism what what we, as a society, deem morally right, isn't enough. What is? Promise of financial gain? Bag of chips for everyone who votes yes??

All they can do, is what they have done. Spend a decade working out the best options for closing the gap, then bring it to the Australian people with clear and easy to understand language.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The average person, not just Australian is very easily manipulated.
Did you not pay attention to anything during Covid?

LOL

Which ones were manipulated, the ones who took the vaccine that was developed for the disease, or the Palmer fan boys?

 

[Roby]

End of the day everyone votes on their own needs, we think about one thing when we vote in general, ourselves (and family). That's it. I know that's pretty much what I care about, if a certain vote will cost me more, it would have to be worthwhile and explained.

I'm Italian, own my own house, my wife is Thai, and my son is born in Australia, and is part Italian/Vietnamese/Chinese.

I'm voting Yes.

Why do I need Indegenous Australians to have a voice?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

What is it going to cost you?

What would you like explained?

Pretty much why I’m still on the fence. Don’t care what others think I care about one thing- it better not cost me more I already pay enough in tax. If it’s a small cost that’s fine, dot point and tell us why. I’d rather use that money on my family or a holiday whatever.

 

[Saint]

Yes: We should elect a Voice because that's what indigenous people have told us will help them most work with the system to get better outcomes for indigenous people.
No: You should vote no, here's [a bunch of outrageous lies] why.
Yes: You're lying, none of that makes any sense.
No: Can't we have a civil conversation?!?! I'm offended, they called me a liar and stupid! They hate all stupid liars!

 

[CM86]

Pretty much why I’m still on the fence. Don’t care what others think I care about one thing- it better not cost me more I already pay enough in tax. If it’s a small cost that’s fine, dot point and tell us why. I’d rather use that money on my family or a holiday whatever.

OK. No new tax has been even hinted at, in relation to this. And there will be no new tax introduced to cover any of this.

So where did you get this concern from? As it's based on absolutely nothing.

 

[Osho]

What would you suggest the 'Yes' campaign do? Considering they have to fight with their hands tied behind their back.

If activism what what we, as a society, deem morally right, isn't enough. What is? Promise of financial gain? Bag of chips for everyone who votes yes??

All they can do, is what they have done. Spend a decade working out the best options for closing the gap, then bring it to the Australian people with clear and easy to understand language.

I already mentioned it.

Again, they should not make internal blunders that affect the cause, providing grist for oppo, with 4 weeks left. Obviously. They need to be disciplined on the message. As many other leaders have been, notably Noel P.

 

[Saint]

Pretty much why I’m still on the fence. Don’t care what others think I care about one thing- it better not cost me more I already pay enough in tax. If it’s a small cost that’s fine, dot point and tell us why. I’d rather use that money on my family or a holiday whatever.

• 30% of indigenous people live with type 2 diabetes (3x higher than non-indigenous)
• 64 times more likely to have rheumatic heart disease
• 60% more likely to die from cancer

After decades of failure to address these gaps (not to mention many others like education and employment), a 20-year path was set which arrived (under LNP guidance) at the Voice as a recommendation as the best way to Close the Gap.

The Voice will save money through preventative measures which align with what indigenous people and leaders want. Indigenous people will live longer.

If you ask how it will directly lead to those outcomes, then I'll ask how having a Governor General directly leads to anything....It's about setting up structures to ensure the best chance for future legislation to help Close the Gap.

 

[nut]

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.

We have sh* politicians because we have a shit media …

 

[CM86]

I already mentioned it.

Again, they should not make internal blunders that affect the cause, providing grist for oppo, with 4 weeks left. Obviously. They need to be disciplined on the message. As many other leaders have been, notably Noel P.

Were your suggestions 'nuance' and avoid 'blunders'? If not, could you please explain again?


What have the blunders for the 'Yes' campaign actually been?? Are there any?
Let alone Anything even slightly comparable to the 'No campaign?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

OK. No new tax has been even hinted at, in relation to this. And there will be no new tax introduced to cover any of this.

So where did you get this concern from? As it's based on absolutely nothing.

That’s if you actually believe politicians, you can call me whatever but they are all as bad as each other with this would much rather the US system where we aren’t forced to vote. It has to be paid for somehow they aren’t going to work for free so how is it being paid for?

 

[CM86]

Pretty much why I’m still on the fence. Don’t care what others think I care about one thing- it better not cost me more I already pay enough in tax. If it’s a small cost that’s fine, dot point and tell us why. I’d rather use that money on my family or a holiday whatever.

Do you have any concern for Australians dying from preventable causes?
Or is it just because it's Indigenous Australians that this issue is so meaningless to you?

Would you support a tax that was used to reduce male suicides in Australia?

 

[Carringbush2010]

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

I have read or heard a news report of other western liberal societies that have a similar model, Canada comes to mind.

Haven't heard any sky fall reports about it, if it were you can bet your house we'd hear about it.

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

No it's not, it might actually have positive outcome instead of what's happening now, which is misuse of funds

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?

By the very definition yes it favours a racial group over others, but that's not the big picture is it? Something needs to be done, if by having an advisory body that will likely give better advice to make better use of taxpayer funds for indigenous people that need it then so be it.

Call it racist, couldn't give a sh*t if it's doing good. If it works that's the pertinent bit, label it whatever you want.

I'd rather none did. Minority or otherwise.

Do you mean fairly or unfairly?

Those in Canberra are sometimes Aboriginal people. In fact, they have a higher representation in Parliament than in general society.

Again, they represent the party, not the people that need representing. A Voice that selects people in the know (i:e people that probably live in those communities)

To your broader point, yeah this is only about people in need in one racial group, is that discriminatory to other people in need in need in other ethnic or minority groups? Yes it is, but the intent is genuine, or at least the principle of it is.

Again, I'm looking past that discrimination bit and seeing the good of better use of taxpayer dollars that will have positive tangible effect for some people that need it.

If that makes me racist against other racial groups or discriminatory against other minority groups for a good purpose, then my conscience is clear.

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.

Well, if this is to work it's likely people selected will have real time knowledge, i:e have lived or are living in communities that need the most help.

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.

Taxpayer funds have been wasted for decades this way, the status quo.

Would you rather not your tax dollars that go toward indigenous needs gets used better?

 

[QuietB]

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?

Another royal commission is the last thing we need.

At some point we have to actually do something instead of endlessly kicking the can down the road.

 

[freddy mercury]

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!

**** yeah, he's a bit of an idiot. Same bloke that was worried about his surfboard getting wet by the rain on school camp back in 09

 

[CM86]

That’s if you actually believe politicians, you can call me whatever but they are all as bad as each other with this would much rather the US system where we aren’t forced to vote. It has to be paid for somehow they aren’t going to work for free so how is it being paid for?

Government grants, gov funding, states, donations etc.

All things that will be decided and changed by successive Governments that you will be voting for.


I think the issue is, you have absolutely no idea what The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is. Or even how Parliament functions.
Which isn't a bad thing, and is not unusual for many Australians.

But if it concerns you this much, you should send time looking into it and understanding it.

Im happy to answer questions if you're not sure.

 

[freddy mercury]

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?

I voter liberal because Dan is an absolute campaigner. For no other reason than that

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Do you have any concern for Australians dying from preventable causes?
Or is it just because it's Indigenous Australians that this issue is so meaningless to you?

Would you support a tax that was used to reduce male suicides in Australia?

That depends and it’s not a black and white answer. In short yes but not just for one group. I give enough to charities for these causes especially cancer charities. My primary issue with this is there’s other ways to do it via remote communities not giving more power to people in Canberra. I don’t believe we won’t have to pay for it in the end and you can call me sceptical but I’d be shocked if a month after it’s not “well we have to pay for it somehow”.

 

[Gethelred]

You are being overly sensitive to justifiable criticism. Not directed at you. From an anonymous person you assume is a certain heritage, correct? And from assumed heritage is not allowed to make such criticism, correct? In which case, who's policing who based on baseless assumptions?

It's pretty offensive if one was to dwell on it.

Back to the issue ...

I know from personal experience that Aboriginal rights, living standards across a long list of markers in this country is poor. It's no time to celebrate a gain here or there when the state of many mobs is still so appalling.

The point is simply, play the Yes compaign smart, and it can still get up.

Missing the forest for the trees.