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.

 

[QuietB]

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

In what regard to you hold Morrison and Dutton?

 

[freddy mercury]

In what regard to you hold Morrison and Dutton?

Goats.

Nah, they're campaigners too. Hard to find a good politician in this country.

 

[CM86]

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”.

There will be no new tax to pay for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
Where did you get that idea from???

And the Voice is explicitly to get voices from community and groups TO Canberra... Instead of continuing the way it's been.

It's to help build legislation and policy for Indigenous WITH Indigenous people, rather than AT them.

So you've just made a point that shows you actually support The Voice.

You really should look into it a bit, and you might find you actually support it.

 

[Not Important]

scare campaigns have always been effective political instruments. moreso with compliant media who aren’t prepared to interrogate the disinformation and expose the tactics. then there’s the overt and covert racism



this

 

[Carringbush2010]

it better not cost me more I already pay enough in tax.

It won't.

Think about that for a second, if it's going to tangibly be an impediment to 97% of the population then parliament would never pass whatever that is, at worst pass then repeal.

We've already seen this in WA, an example of what won't be accepted by the electorate.

https://www.news.com.au/national/we...m_source=SEM&utm_medium=PPC_SEM&utm_campaign={campaign}&gclid=CjwKCAjwu4WoBhBkEiwAojNdXpbneZ7SHjMiQ7-1oSvYcBVJecr9-lVdhk2HETj4X5ECLKebsime0xoCTU4QAvD_BwE

 

[Carringbush2010]

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

That's what's called protest voting, if you donkey or protest vote based on emotion, then your vote is wasted.

 

[freddy mercury]

That's what's called protest voting, if you donkey or protest vote based on emotion, then your vote is wasted.

100% I think compulsory voting isn't the way to go. People just walk in tick the first box or go 1,2,3 etc in preference. The people who care and make educated decisions are the voters that should only matter.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Goats.

Nah, they're campaigners too. Hard to find a good politician. Period.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Chief]

100% I think compulsory voting isn't the way to go. People just walk in tick the first box or go 1,2,3 etc in preference. The people who care and make educated decisions are the voters that should only matter.

It's been shown elsewhere that this takes the vote away from workers and those less well off. Bosses start to refuse time off for voting. Casual workers are made to choose vote or wages. Polling booth numbers shrink because you know, people don't vote. All sorts of effects like that.

But posting on the SRP that you're disconnected from politics and donkey vote etc, you're going to be heckled

 

[wayniac]

Anybody left with the suspicion that it might not be her own words Price is speaking at the Press Club? It's suspiciously well worded.

Well worded by what? Educated people? You have a problem with what she is saying because it's coherent, well-argued and true?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

There will be no new tax to pay for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
Where did you get that idea from???

And the Voice is explicitly to get voices from community and groups TO Canberra... Instead of continuing the way it's been.

It's to help build legislation and policy for Indigenous WITH Indigenous people, rather than AT them.

So you've just made a point that shows you actually support The Voice.

You really should look into it a bit, and you might find you actually support it.

I'll pass, do you realise how busy this month is with meetings that are WAY more important to me. I don't believe politicians and it is both sides, it's literally which one do I hate the least, US have it right. Do tell if there's no tax how is it being paid for? That's just a huge red flag personally. Reality is we'll talk it over as a family in a week and a half spend all of 2 mins, and decide as a family how we vote, I wouldn't even have a clue what my other family members are thinking as 2 of them live 2 hours away. When I talk to them it's not about politics, usually about their home life etc.

 

[Carringbush2010]

100% I think compulsory voting isn't the way to go. People just walk in tick the first box or go 1,2,3 etc in preference. The people who care and make educated decisions are the voters that should only matter.

Then we end up with a *hole system like the US.

I used to be an advocate for voluntary voting instead of mandatory because it's not democratic.

But to look at the big picture, it's necessary to have the vote of the electorate to get the right candidates voted in. At least in principle, yeah I know the majority of politicians are sh*t blah blah blah.

But we've probably got it a lot better than the majority of other countries around the planet.

Let's not pretend that protest voters are the majority, they're not, the majority normally vote on what's best (least worst is probably a better term) for them.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It won't.

Think about that for a second, if it's going to tangibly be an impediment to 97% of the population then parliament would never pass whatever that is, at worst pass then repeal.

We've already seen this in WA, an example of what won't be accepted by the electorate.

https://www.news.com.au/national/we...m_source=SEM&utm_medium=PPC_SEM&utm_campaign={campaign}&gclid=CjwKCAjwu4WoBhBkEiwAojNdXpbneZ7SHjMiQ7-1oSvYcBVJecr9-lVdhk2HETj4X5ECLKebsime0xoCTU4QAvD_BwE

Not convinced it won't. These people working for free are they?

 

[freddy mercury]

Fixed that for ya.

Love Mr Trump though.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Let's not pretend that protest voters are the majority, they're not, the majority normally vote on what's best (least worst is probably a better term) for them.

Exactly, all about our personal bottom line, which is why the question I'm concerned about is valid. If it's not I'd have massive concerns voting that way, all on a gamble that it won't affect my bottom line. Plus we know how trustworthy politicians are who do everything and anything to win a vote.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not convinced it won't. These people working for free are they?

We've already thrown billions over decades to 'employ' those who have nfi about how to improve the lives of indigenous people that need it.

Haven't heard much complaining from the electorate over those decades.

Likely those $ will be used to employ people that actually know what's happening and what advice to give to fix the issues in the communities that need it.

In principle the $ will (should) be directed to be used better, not extra $ on top. which seems to be your beef?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Love Mr Trump though.

Nice sarcasm.

 

[CM86]

I'll pass, do you realise how busy this month is with meetings that are WAY more important to me. I don't believe politicians and it is both sides, it's literally which one do I hate the least, US have it right. Do tell if there's no tax how is it being paid for? That's just a huge red flag personally. Reality is we'll talk it over as a family in a week and a half spend all of 2 mins, and decide as a family how we vote, I wouldn't even have a clue what my other family members are thinking as 2 of them live 2 hours away. When I talk to them it's not about politics, usually about their home life etc.

You are a ridiculous person, and dishonest.

All the best.

 

[tandino]

That's what's called protest voting, if you donkey or protest vote based on emotion, then your vote is wasted.

I don't know about wasted, a protest vote is a reaction to a circumstance, compared to someone who votes the same way every time it's more impactful.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Exactly, all about our personal bottom line, which is why the question I'm concerned about is valid. If it's not I'd have massive concerns voting that way, all on a gamble that it won't affect my bottom line. Plus we know how trustworthy politicians are who do everything and anything to win a vote.

I get your fear about the politicians deceiving us or being railroaded by red tape, even if the intent is genuine.

However, let's pretend that it all goes awry and is a hiding to nothing, the electorate will go ape droppings and would spell the end of labor in the next election.

My money is on they've thought about that and have probably put in mechanisms to ensure it has best chance to succeed.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I don't know about wasted, a protest vote is a reaction to a circumstance, compared to someone who votes the same way every time it's more impactful.

Again most people vote for their own outcome, or least worst for them, not blindly vote coz that's how they've always voted.

Sure there are some but it's not the norm.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

In principle the $ will (should) be directed to be used better, not extra $ on top. which seems to be your beef?

Then release the financials of it, there's just too much of a gamble and there's one thing I won't punt with and that's when it MAY impact on my budget. Look you may be correct but at this stage I am not willing to take a punt on "it should", I'd want certainty, and let the leader live and get sacked by this action one way or the other. At the moment it seems he wants an out clause.

 

[tandino]

Again most people vote for their own outcome, or least worst for them, not blindly vote coz that's how they've always voted.

Sure there are some but it's not the norm.

How many votes do you think are up for grabs each election?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I get your fear about the politicians deceiving us or being railroaded by red tape, even if the intent is genuine.

However, let's pretend that it all goes awry and is a hiding to nothing, the electorate will go ape droppings and would spell the end of labor in the next election.

My money is on they've thought about that and have probably put in mechanisms to ensure it has best chance to succeed.

Each to their own but there's a lot of maybes but as I sai I'll talk it over with my family the week before I go away (thank goodness I'm at Octoberfest rather than being here for the vote)

 

[Ghost Patrol]

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”.

Lifting up one group can/will have benefits for all groups. For example, better health outcomes for indigenous will likely result in better health outcomes for many other groups. Also, better health outcomes for some means less money spent going forward.