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.

 

[phantom13]

No. I mean technically those things do “divide” us into those that are allowed to use them and those that aren’t. But for a good reason, in those cases.

“Good reason”.

Ffs, the veil on this sort of shit is so thin it may as well not exist.

 

[ElectricG]

No one is stopping your family from lobbying for an advisory body.

I’m sure the voting public would

“Good reason”.

Ffs, the veil on this sort of s**t is so thin it may as well not exist.

sigh and how do you deliberately misinterpret this?

 

[cartwright]

No. I mean technically those things do “divide” us into those that are allowed to use them and those that aren’t. But for a good reason, in those cases.

What were you not going to be allowed if the Voice was successful?

 

[Gough]

The ANZAC example is a tired one but there's some truth to it. Just over a hundred years ago Australian kids under British command were killed by the Turks on their soil so the Russians can access all weather ports and we get a public holiday to remember that sacrifice but still we can't recognise our own Indigenous population in any meaningful way.

 

[ElectricG]

What were you not going to be allowed if the Voice was successful?

My own equivalent voice to parliament.

 

[Maddo11]

No. I mean technically those things do “divide” us into those that are allowed to use them and those that aren’t. But for a good reason, in those cases.

Oops, you said the quiet part out loud.

 

[phantom13]

I’m sure the voting public would

sigh and how do you deliberately misinterpret this?

Disabled carparks exist for a good reason.

Indigenous people’s well being and giving an advisory body for them to improve isn’t a good reason.

Not really an interpretation, pretty literal

 

[peetoo]

No one is stopping your family from lobbying for an advisory body.

Marry a British royal and you are already in

 

[mcnulty]

I know plenty of university educated people who voted No. Also know plenty who voted Yes. I wonder if there’s any sort of breakdown in that demographic- those in the public versus private sector, teaching and caring professions versus those in business or finance.

Anecdotally a bit of a divide in some of those areas, but no idea if there’s any actual data.

 

[Kram]

The fact that we still haven’t had an SRP meetup is scandalous.

You think any of the resident creeps would front up with no keyboard to hide behind?

 

[mcnulty]

You think any of the resident creeps would front up with no keyboard to hide behind?

If they could arrange favourable moderation, perhaps.

 

[ElectricG]

Disabled carparks exist for a good reason.

Indigenous people’s well being and giving an advisory body for them to improve isn’t a good reason.

Not really an interpretation, pretty literal

No, there is obviously a “good reason” address aboriginal disadvantage whether this is through legislation or funding certain initiatives.

Disabled car parks and hospitals specialising in women’s health are practical solutions to the inherent needs of those people. It doesn’t mean there is “good reason” for any idea conjured up to address those needs.

I don’t think there was a good reason to make the specific constitutional amendments that were proposed.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

We need a royal commission into the Murdich media monopoly. Their right wing trash is ruining our country.

 

[Bollox]

Are you are against disabled parking spaces as well?

Womens hospitals?

How about our Muslim friends. I'd guess a similar population level in Australia (??)
We could give them a more important say in their own lives, or maybe enshrine Sharia Law into the constitution.
The way some talk, you'd swear it would only be stupids, haters and racists that may not want to.
The list can be endless in a multicultural society if you want it to be.

I think there was a good argument made and it was sold to the public with enough gusto and information. The population had a good hard look at it and rejected it rather emphatically. None of these things mean "forever".

Just take the result onboard...no need for any tantrums, "russian disinformation campaign" type manufactured excuses, or any blame game.

From the results, it actually looks to me like racism or hate might be one of the last things that can be "blamed" for the result.....unfortunately it is often the first thing that the stupids and insecure head for, or use to get traffic in media.
When you open your eyes the details of the result do show some major positives about Australian society that are rare in most parts of the world. We've got a pretty good multicultural society....isnt that what we wanted ?

If i had to guess (regardless of whether you believe it to be true or not), the broad population simply saw this as a potentially divisive initiative going forward. i.e. granting special status or privilege to one demographic over others.
The nation probably thinks similar to this...."it doesnt matter if you were here first or last, you are all Australians"

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I am old enough to remember when people were saying that calling people racist will make them vote No. AKA last week.

Now we are told the No vote came from due consideration of the matter.

The only constant in this whole thing is the No people using whatever justification they can to vote No, when the bleeding obvious is that they were always going to vote No.

exactly - the amount of hand washing, victim blaming and insipid bullshit justifications is extraordinary. Just accept who you are - always were, always will be. There's a generation or two that need to croak before we can move forward. Embarrassingly one of them is mine.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I know plenty of university educated people who voted No. Also know plenty who voted Yes. I wonder if there’s any sort of breakdown in that demographic- those in the public versus private sector, teaching and caring professions versus those in business or finance.

Anecdotally a bit of a divide in some of those areas, but no idea if there’s any actual data.

You could really only get that by extrapolating electorate info but even then would be guesswork.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

How about our Muslim friends. I'd guess a similar population level in Australia (??)
We could give them a more important say in their own lives, or maybe enshrine Sharia Law into the constitution.
The way some talk, you'd swear it would only be stupids, haters and racists that may not want to.
The list can be endless in a multicultural society if you want it to be.

I think there was a good argument made and it was sold to the public with enough gusto and information. The population had a good hard look at it and rejected it rather emphatically. None of these things mean "forever".

Just take the result onboard...no need for any tantrums, "russian disinformation campaign" type manufactured excuses, or any blame game.

From the results, it actually looks to me like racism or hate might be one of the last things that can be "blamed" for the result.....unfortunately it is often the first thing that the stupids and insecure head for, or use to get traffic in media.
When you open your eyes the details of the result do show some major positives about Australian society that are rare in most parts of the world. We've got a pretty good multicultural society....isnt that what we wanted ?

If i had to guess (regardless of whether you believe it to be true or not), the broad population simply saw this as a potentially divisive initiative going forward. i.e. granting special status or privilege to one demographic over others.
The nation probably thinks similar to this...."it doesnt matter if you were here first or last, you are all Australians"

Is there a prize for the stupidest post in this thread? fair crack you've had at it there.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

So people who have been here longer deserve more rights? My family has been here since 1840. It’s hardly 65k years but that give me a right to call citizens born to migrant parents “blow ins” and therefore less deserving of things?

what nonsense. You're right about one thing though. 180 years is about 1% of 65K - if that. Pull your head in.

 

[Bollox]

Is there a prize for the stupidest post in this thread? fair crack you've had at it there.

Sure there is....usually allocated to one of the sheep trying to desperately earn favour or popularity with the crowd of nuffies.

 

[phantom13]

No, there is obviously a “good reason” address aboriginal disadvantage whether this is through legislation or funding certain initiatives.

Disabled car parks and hospitals specialising in women’s health are practical solutions to the inherent needs of those people. It doesn’t mean there is “good reason” for any idea conjured up to address those needs.

I don’t think there was a good reason to make the specific constitutional amendments that were proposed.

Don’t know why you’re using quotation marks around “good reason” they’re your words.

I think what you’re trying to fumble your way into is that Indigenous welfare isn’t a good enough reason to change the constitution given you acknowledge they have systemic disadvantage.

So disability and disabled people are recognised and provisioned for in the constitution. There is also the DDA which governs a stack of shit (including the NCA which means that any new buildings or buildings substantially renovated must have provisions for disabled people) now that is never going to be repealed and is pretty constantly updated to recognize new issues and disabilities that arise (sensory rooms, bariatric provisions). Im sure you already knew all this though given your passion for the constitution and legislature (and i would note, i dont think the DDA does enough and performance solutions around requirements for the DDA are too easy to obtain i would support more recognition and a disability advocate in the constitution also).

The constitution is 120+ years old, you dont think its worth being able to update based on what becomes important at the time? Or you dont think Indigenous Australians welfare and their ability to provide advice on it (or their 65,000 years of custodianship) is as good a reason as disabled carparks.

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

Giving something to the oldest civilisation on this planet as opposed to us blow ins. Indigenous Australians have been here for fifty thousand years, we've been here less than three hundred, I think they have a right to it.

Civilisation appeared around 8000 years ago, and it wasn't in Australia. Neolithic revolution spawned civilisation.

 

[phantom13]

Sure there is....usually allocated to one of the sheep trying to desperately earn favour or popularity with the crowd of nuffies.

Not for much cause your post was genuinely insane.

If we enact a voice and it suggests something akin to Sharia Law you can come back and say i told you so.

If the Parliament of that time chose to uplift that suggestions (cause remember the voice can only make recommendations) then ill personally come around to your place and apologise in person.

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

Are you are against disabled parking spaces as well?

Womens hospitals?

This is such an illogical comparison, biological requirements vs a race based constitutional amendment. Come on man, who is saying the indigenous Australian's cannot utilise these services if they wish?

 

[phantom13]

This is such an illogical comparison, biological requirements vs a race based constitutional amendment. Come on man, who is saying the indigenous Australian's cannot utilise these services if they wish?

many dont have access to them, many have generations of suspicion of health care services provided by government, do you need us to explain why that might be or can you fill in that gap yourself?

 

[Bollox]

Not for much cause your post was genuinely insane.

If we enact a voice and it suggests something akin to Sharia Law you can come back and say i told you so.

If the Parliament of that time chose to uplift that suggestions (cause remember the voice can only make recommendations) then ill personally come around to your place and apologise in person.

You mean like....we should treated it more like disabled parking ?

Yepp...genuinely insane.