Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Link to the proposed Referendum, from the Referendum Working Group:
Festerz said:
(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 www.anu.edu.au

Summary details of the key points from this paper may be found in Chief post here:
Click to expand...
The Uluru Statement from the Heart:
Festerz said:
Not specifically No. In any case it does not form part of the Referendum proposal.

View attachment 1769742
Click to expand...
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.
 
South of the Yarra said:
No, they didn't.
Click to expand...
Yes they did otherwise no indigenous individual would have voted no
HirdsTheWord said:
you keep bookmarking all no voters as racist.

that is a s**t lowbrow position.

You're essentially saying all the aboriginals who voted no, hate themselves?

Stop reducing the discussion to an illogical base level, you are doing no one any good with that shitful mindset.
Click to expand...
It's the typical trash they come up with. Abuse anyone at all who disagrees with their position and make them look like they are bad people when they are not.
 
Dirty_banchez said:
Aggro at polling places must be a Vicco thing. Everyone was very nice and pleasant in WA. Victoria could learn a thing or two about decorum.
Click to expand...
The little story old mate Robot told us is BS.

These volunteers are there for hours handing out cards for the love of it. Why the feck would any of them, yes or no, be bothered instigating a shouting match. It makes zero sense.

More probable is that Boomer Robot wanted to share his perspective on the Voice with someone and the poor volunteer handing out how-to-vote YES cards was an easy target who was stuck there listening to his rant.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

HairyO said:
Youre in Queensland right? The most racist part of Australia. Shouldnt you move somewhere else to save your family?

So a 1st generation Australian, takes their Citizenship test, gets told they are now Australian, then is told "but youre not as Australian as some others, and nor will you ever be."

To be opposed to that makes them the racist ones not the ones who want to have different groups of Australians?

"To defeat racism we must first split people into different groups based on their race". I mean, this used to be a joke, but its now how many of you think.

But not deep down though right? You have to act a certain way online or else the rage will be aimed at you. So you dont really think that ?
Click to expand...
Righties keep repeating this ABSOLUTE LIE that the voice was a stab at ethno-seperatism and would award extra rights and make Indigenous Peoples better than everyone else.

All the voice was proposed to be was a translatory body between all the different indigenous groups and the central governing body in Australia. Constitutional Recognition was there simply to acknowledge that they were here first.

No extra rights. No extra privileges. No ethnic group better than any other.

It's not playful misinterpretation. It's not mistaken. YOU ARE REPEATING A LIE.
 
Ghost Patrol said:
Yes we know, your story is the only accurate depiction.
Click to expand...

You can tell which ones are fake. They are on here constantly angry, AND THEN seem to manage to bump into an “aggressive” volunteer or voter. Then with the blood boiling, hop onto bigfooty to tell everyone about it.

Always the same ones kicking and screaming who seem to have the same story.

Not predictable at all.
 
Last edited:
Geelong_Sicko said:
Righties keep repeating this ABSOLUTE LIE that the voice was a stab at ethno-seperatism and would award extra rights and make Indigenous Peoples better than everyone else.

All the voice was proposed to be was a translatory body between all the different indigenous groups and the central governing body in Australia. Constitutional Recognition was there simply to acknowledge that they were here first.

No extra rights. No extra privileges. No ethnic group better than any other.

It's not playful misinterpretation. It's not mistaken. YOU ARE REPEATING A LIE.
Click to expand...
There's the little lie coming from the lefties again about the voice not giving extra rights or benefits to one group over another. Why did the voice give rights to indigenous persons solely but did not extend the same rights to other ethnic and/or racial groups? Answer because it did give indigenous persons extra rights and extra privileges under the constitution.

Festerz said:
The little story old mate Robot told us is BS.

These volunteers are there for hours handing out cards for the love of it. Why the feck would any of them, yes or no, be bothered instigating a shouting match. It makes zero sense.

More probable is that Boomer Robot wanted to share his perspective on the Voice with someone and the poor volunteer handing out how-to-vote NO cards was an easy target who was stuck there listening to his rant.
Click to expand...
Did you not see the dill who went up to Abbott as he left the polling station and tried to get into a shouting match/abuse him when he left the polling station. It shows while not all people handing out voting cards or campaigning etc are looking for a shouting match it is true that some are and will do.
 
baris said:
There's the little lie coming from the lefties again about the voice not giving extra rights or benefits to one group over another. Why did the voice give rights to indigenous persons solely but did not extend the same rights to other ethnic and/or racial groups? Answer because it did give indigenous persons extra rights and extra privileges under the constitution.
Click to expand...
It gave NO extra rights. NO extra privilege. It was a proposed to be a translatory body only between differing First Nations peoples and the central government in Canberra. They were here before any of us and yet so many still don't feel like an included part of this nation. The Voice was to be a further solidification of that inclusion.

You are wrong here.
 
I don’t understand why people are getting stuck into the debate about offering First Nations people privileges.
The constitution did offer them some minor privilege of having a say above others. But who the **** cares, they need some extra support.
 
Geelong_Sicko said:
It gave NO extra rights. NO extra privilege. It was a proposed to be a translatory body only between differing First Nations peoples and the central government in Canberra. They were here before any of us and yet so many still don't feel like an included part of this nation. The Voice was to be a further solidification of that inclusion.

You are wrong here.
Click to expand...
It did give them a privilege, no other people are specifically referenced in the constitution as far as I know.
You can debate about whether that is a privilege or not, but then we start missing the point, they deserve and need a privilege to help them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Geelong_Sicko said:
It gave NO extra rights. NO extra privilege. It was a proposed to be a translatory body only between differing First Nations peoples and the central government in Canberra. They were here before any of us and yet so many still don't feel like an included part of this nation. The Voice was to be a further solidification of that inclusion.

You are wrong here.
Click to expand...
So why don't Australian greeks or Aussie poms or Aussie Vietnamese or Aussie Malaysians or any other Aussie race group get given the same ability as Indigenous do in the voice to parliament proposal?

That is because it is a special right being solely given to Indigenous over others.
 
Geelong_Sicko said:
Righties keep repeating this ABSOLUTE LIE that the voice was a stab at ethno-seperatism and would award extra rights and make Indigenous Peoples better than everyone else.

All the voice was proposed to be was a translatory body between all the different indigenous groups and the central governing body in Australia. Constitutional Recognition was there simply to acknowledge that they were here first.

No extra rights. No extra privileges. No ethnic group better than any other.

It's not playful misinterpretation. It's not mistaken. YOU ARE REPEATING A LIE.
Click to expand...
Remote indigenous communities in QLD, NT, WA ect don't need another Canberra bureaucrat lining their fat wallets. That money would be better spent helping the younger working age groups with learning trades, getting tickets etc and setting them up for life of independence. Actually helping to break the unhealth social habits.

Seriously, $2k to get your mining tickets to drive machinery and they're screaming for machinery operators in the Cape. They don't need out of touch people half a world away discussing what and how to solve problems. We already know what the problems are. Another bum in the seat at parliament so to speak will do **** all.
 
Tyrohad said:
Remote indigenous communities in QLD, NT, WA ect don't need another Canberra bureaucrat lining their fat wallets. That money would be better spent helping the younger working age groups with learning trades, getting tickets etc and setting them up for life of independence. Actually helping to break the unhealth social habits.

Seriously, $2k to get your mining tickets to drive machinery and they're screaming for machinery operators in the Cape. They don't need touch of out people half a world away discussing what and how to solve problems. We already know what the problems are. Another bum in the seat at parliament so to speak will do * all.
Click to expand...
Weren't the Voice representatives going to be decided on at the grassroots level and not be gormless suits from Canberra? Wasn't that the whole point of it? A translatory body made up from people who know the different cultures best and who could make that known TO the pollies rather than having it be dictated to from outside the community?

Wasn't that the ENTIRE point? Healing the disconnect?
 
baris said:
So why don't Australian greeks or Aussie poms or Aussie Vietnamese or Aussie Malaysians or any other Aussie race group get given the same ability as Indigenous do in the voice to parliament proposal?

That is because it is a special right being solely given to Indigenous over others.
Click to expand...

This has been explained numerous times.

Are you pretending to be dumb, or are you trolling?
 
baris said:
So why don't Australian greeks or Aussie poms or Aussie Vietnamese or Aussie Malaysians or any other Aussie race group get given the same ability as Indigenous do in the voice to parliament proposal?

That is because it is a special right being solely given to Indigenous over others.
Click to expand...
It is a recognition given to First Peoples. You have every right to disagree with that recognition but to say it would give First Nations peoples power that others don't have simply is not true.

The Voice, as proposed, was a translatory body operating from the grassroots communal level to the central governing body in Canberra.

It could only ever advise, not set policy. Not make rules.
 
JackOutback said:
Mundine and Price asking to be involved in what happens next re: recognition and closing the gap. You were invited and chose to oppose it for personal gain. Now lay down with the dogs and enjoy your fleas.
Click to expand...

They have disrespected mob, they are pondscum and not wanted by us.
 
Last edited:
Jello_B said:
It did give them a privilege, no other people are specifically referenced in the constitution as far as I know.
You can debate about whether that is a privilege or not, but then we start missing the point, they deserve and need a privilege to help them.
Click to expand...
It wasn't to be a privilege that gave them power over others though. I see what you're saying though. It could be looked at as 'passive/inactive privilege' rather than an active one that gave them actual power over others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top