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.

 

[western royboy]

Correct - gut the APS and start from scratch

 

[Chief]

multitude of public servants

 

[JackOutback]

I love it when we spend half a billion dollars like it's nothing. How about legislate it and put the money to better use

I mean, this has been explained ad nauseum. Legislating it just leaves it to the whims of future Liberal governments to tear down and recognising Indigenous people in our Constitution (something that should be a dead-set no-brainer) required a referendum anyway.

 

[Number37]

HoR seat numbers could be increased without a constitutional amendment.

Yes you can add seats without amending the Constitution but you can't pick and choose where extra HoR seats are added.
Each seat has to be roughly equal in size.

• if you increase the HoR then you need to increase the Senate because the number of HoR reps seats has to be twice the number of Senators in each state.
• if you change the number of Senators, then you have to make sure that each state has the same number of Senators.

ie any indigenous specific seats that you add would be offset by the other changes that would need to be made to comply with the Constitution.
The only way to add unequal representation is by constitutional change.

 

[Chief]

tastiger how is your activism going on the problem of unequal representation in parliament?

Getting your "One Vote One Value" rally organised?

Gotta stop these people in Tassie who are treated as if they are more Australian than the rest of us!

 

[mcgarnacle]

They don't even have to physically do that, they only have to try to imagine it. It's called empathy. And it's not that hard to do if you try. And empathy was clearly lacking in those who voted no (or at least a significant proportion of them).

I'm with your feeling, I'm just sure how at this stage - I don't know how I feel about my country (and the 60%) at the moment - whether it's shame, embarrassment or some other like feeling.

Whatever good work you are doing mate, keep it up. Plenty are with you.

After voting in the Abbott and Morrison governments, I had made my peace that Australia is a nation of campaigners. After Saturday, I can now put a figure on it - roughly 60%!

 

[Chief]

After voting in the Abbott and Morrison governments, I had made my peace that Australia is a nation of campaigners. After Saturday, I can now put a figure on it - roughly 60%!

Now look for indigenous leadership organisations to donate to or support in other ways.

 

[phantom13]

I mean, this has been explained ad nauseum. Legislating it just leaves it to the whims of future Liberal governments to tear down and recognising Indigenous people in our Constitution (something that should be a dead-set no-brainer) required a referendum anyway.

Add to that it was a specific request of the Uluru statement.

 

[Tyrohad]

I mean, this has been explained ad nauseum. Legislating it just leaves it to the whims of future Liberal governments to tear down and recognising Indigenous people in our Constitution (something that should be a dead-set no-brainer) required a referendum anyway.

Then write in legislation that repealing it needs bipartisan support. Or is that too much common sense?

Well lumping both under one question was a mistake then wasn't it. But no, blame the majority of the public for being racists and ignore the ineptitude of the referendum proponents.

 

[Tyrohad]

View attachment 1833081

Alright smartarse

 

[Chief]

Alright smartarse

Well you are unhappy with a lack of detail - which has been there all along - then making it up to suit your story rather than going and looking. So what is anyone to think?

 

[Millky95]

Then write in legislation that repealing it needs bipartisan support. Or is that too much common sense?

Well lumping both under one question was a mistake then wasn't it. But no, blame the majority of the public for being racists and ignore the ineptitude of the referendum proponents.

It seems like you don't know how Parliament works, new account. You can't legislate something to require bipartisan support

 

[Romeoh1]

I don’t think it would have at all, which is why I voted Yes. But I’m very sceptical much would have changed, as is quite frankly every yes voter I know.

But many who didn’t think it would change things weren’t prepared to vote it in. I can respect that

Ah well- we will have to disagree on that- it was asking for so little and to take the pessimistic view that ‘it won’t help’- so I’ll vote no, seems to lack generosity to me- best case. Worst case it was just one of the numerous baloney reasons far too many people gave to try and justify their poor judgment call.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

I mean, this has been explained ad nauseum. Legislating it just leaves it to the whims of future Liberal governments to tear down and recognising Indigenous people in our Constitution (something that should be a dead-set no-brainer) required a referendum anyway.

To be fair, enshrining the voice in the constitution would not protect it from being gutted by a future government.

 

[Tyrohad]

Well you are unhappy with a lack of detail - which has been there all along - then making it up to suit your story rather than going and looking. So what is anyone to think?

"Members" and "The Voice" is NOT detailed.

Are you that naive to think the different groups will happily go along with electing someone outside of their mob to represent their mob? Or that they'll be singing kumbaya to eternity once the Voice actually happens? Lmao it's obvious you've never been in a mob quarrel before.

 

[Carringbush2010]

1.but the actual impact of the program/spending was not achieving overall objectives.

While an important part of any robust spending evaluation, 2 .generally audit parameters are usually narrow and look at compliance with the rules.3. They arent necessarily going to identify alternative options for how the money could be targeted to achieve better outcomes. That in part, was what the Voice was hoping to assist with.

I'm not going to question/ comment you. But I am going to question / comment.

1. Then if the program/spending was not achieving overall objectives it needs to be investigated as to why and then a solution is implemented. Those on the ground i;e those living those problems need to be involved in the scrutinizing and solution process.

2. Why are the parameters 'narrow'? By being narrow does that imply that the audit process is prone to incorrect outcomes?

3 Why not? Too hard basket? Is it possible that we could have an advisory body to look at alternative solutions i;e we don't need to alter the constitution to have one or many as many as we need? Do we already have advisory bodies that aren't being consulted to achieve better outcomes? I'm going to fairly speculate that the dismissing of alternative options is where a lot of money has been wasted.

I'm hopeful that now after the spotlight has put front and centre the plight of ATSI people, that govts. of all levels will obtain advisory bodies or employ bodies / consultants that already exist to achieve more positive outcomes. < The right people to consult.

In short the ideal can be achieved without the need to enshrine a Voice in the constitution (which we can't now).

As for recognition, you could argue that as a society we definitely recognize ATSI people, as we should, now we just need the Federal Govt. to make it official. How that looks I don't know.

 

[Chief]

"Members" and "The Voice" is NOT detailed.

Are you that naive to think the different groups will happily go along with electing someone outside of their mob to represent their mob? Or that they'll be singing kumbaya to eternity once the Voice actually happens? Lmao it's obvious you've never been in a mob quarrel before.

So indigenous people can't be trusted with appointing their own representatives to an advisory body?

Indigenous people are the only people who quarrel amongst themselves?

 

[South of the Yarra]

The discussions on treaty are interesting, there is generally a treaty following war. There was never a war except the one currently happening in Lydia Thorpes' imagination.

Regardless of ones political stance, any mature adult should see the benefits of the suggested royal commissions and audits into the use of funding.

Robodebt got torn to pieces for the disaster it was, it's time to do the same to any organisation that is potentially funnelling funds away from the people who need it most, regardless of their race. I believe the need for this is most urgent on remote aboriginal funding, so they should be first in line.

All of this is possible without a "Voice to Parliament"

Oh, there was a war and it has been going for hundreds of years. Easy to have this attitude when you are not on the end of it.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Keep the personal attacks to yourself, I won't be lowered to your level and I won't have history rewritten to suit your agenda.

You were not part of that history, that's why.

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

"Members" and "The Voice" is NOT detailed.

Are you that naive to think the different groups will happily go along with electing someone outside of their mob to represent their mob? Or that they'll be singing kumbaya to eternity once the Voice actually happens? Lmao it's obvious you've never been in a mob quarrel before.

Come one man, it's the Vibe, just sign that blank cheque....

 

[South of the Yarra]

The discussions on treaty are interesting, there is generally a treaty following war. There was never a war except the one currently happening in Lydia Thorpes' imagination.

Regardless of ones political stance, any mature adult should see the benefits of the suggested royal commissions and audits into the use of funding.

Robodebt got torn to pieces for the disaster it was, it's time to do the same to any organisation that is potentially funnelling funds away from the people who need it most, regardless of their race. I believe the need for this is most urgent on remote aboriginal funding, so they should be first in line.

All of this is possible without a "Voice to Parliament"

The sad part is you actually believe that.

 

[Tyrohad]

It seems like you don't know how Parliament works, new account. You can't legislate something to require bipartisan support

Yeah I don't.

Regardless, legislation of the Voice needs majority support. And nothing's stopping a majority government from repealing it but that should be seen as a good thing no? If it's doing what it proposed to do, it shouldn't have to worry about being gutted from legislation.

 

[Chief]

Come one man, it's the Vibe, just sign that blank cheque....

Have you read the design principles yet?

https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles

It gave me a lot more confidence that there were checks and balances to be put into place. I wish I had linked it earlier.

Advice - proactively or on request.
Locally selected representatives.
Cultural legitimacy to be a factor.
Age, region, gender balance to be accounted for.
Expectations on members to connect with and respect the wishes of local people.
Standard governance and reporting. NACC to have jurisdiction to investigate.
Existing structures to be respected.
No program delivery - the voice doesn't spend money or deliver programs.
No veto power.

The only answer we get is "yeah but who can trust them?"

You cannot trust any structure not to attract grifters and spivs (see Warren Mundine) so the design includes governance, reporting, and anti-corruption elements.

Oh well. It's done now. You got your way.

 

[Tyrohad]

So indigenous people can't be trusted with appointing their own representatives to an advisory body?

Indigenous people are the only people who quarrel amongst themselves?

No...how do i put this lightly. You end up with the same ****ing situation we have today...many disadvantaged and unheard groups. Only at the cost of more taxpayer money being spent to pay these public servants.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Eastmancolor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Linda McCartney's family i believe.