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.

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

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?

This is 100% the problem, so the gov of the day needs to steer the current funding towards these issues which I completely agree with. All governments have failed in this so far. All achievable without the Voice (which we need to move on from as its failed).

 

[phantom13]

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

Yepp...genuinely insane.

Did you quote the wrong thing here? Not sure what relevance my post about the DDA and its comparison to the Voice has to your shit about Sharia law?

Also i never, ever said it should be treated more like disabled parking.

This is 100% the problem, so the gov of the day needs to steer the current funding towards these issues which I completely agree with. All governments have failed in this so far. All achievable without the Voice (which we need to move on from as its failed).

On the bolded, is there any chance that perhaps the current government could use some advice from Indigenous Australians to address this? Now how could we have achieved that? If only there was a way...

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

Did you quote the wrong thing here? Not sure what relevance my post about the DDA and its comparison to the Voice has to your s**t about Sharia law?

Also i never, ever said it should be treated more like disabled parking.

On the bolded, is there any chance that perhaps the current government could use some advice from Indigenous Australians to address this? Now how could we have achieved that? If only there was a way...

That advise can be sought with it being in the constitution. I believe the remote communities has extended invites to visit their most dire locations multiple times, Alice Springs comes to mind. I love your tone btw.

 

[adogsfan5]

Everyone I know is a university graduate, they are also all Yes voters - thats the point I was making

Gotta try and remember previous lies before you post…now you just look ridiculous.

To give them credit, all the No-voters I talked to over drinks definitely knew a lot more about the constitution than me (I know nothing about it, nor do I care)

I found out during the week that my ex is voting No, so I feel even more successful now.

Was at the pub tonight and met a couple of guys through a mutual friend. Got talking about the Voice and they were saying how they voting No because the Voice is racist and divisive.

Yep, both family members. We were having what I considered to be a civil discussion about the referendum next week (they both know I am Yes and I knew they are both No)'.

 

[phantom13]

That advise can be sought with it being in the constitution. I believe the remote communities has extended invites to visit their most dire locations multiple times, Alice Springs comes to mind. I love your tone btw.

It can, and it has and yet we still sit here with it as a glaring issue.

So keep the status quo, been working a treat hasnt it.

 

[ElectricG]

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 s**t (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.

I think the constitution should seek to be timeless as opposed to timely, since altering it is such an undertaking. It should go to the high-level principles that we can all agree on, rather than reflective of the government or sentiment of the day.
There will always be disabled people, and they will always have their unique needs. The whole point of all of this is to reduce and ultimately eliminate indigenous disadvantage. Permanent solution to temporary problem.

I really have to ask, why do you guys keep calling up 65,000 years? This is something I will freely admit I’m struggling with. Would whatever point you’re making still stack up if it were, say, 200 years?

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

It can, and it has and yet we still sit here with it as a glaring issue.

So keep the status quo, been working a treat hasnt it.

I think we established that the constitutionally enshrined Voice's advice was for "consideration" and could have been ignored by the government at will anyway.

 

[Jello_B]

As I said before, I believe that most people who were obsessed with the detail of the voice were always going to vote no. I also believe the same about people who voted no because they copped negative labels, particularly online.

In both cases, it's simply a justification for how they were always going to vote. If you believed in the concept of the voice, if the voice corresponded with your core values, you would not let such things sway your vote.

I would have liked some more detail, was always going to vote yes, and voted yes.
When I came on here and asked for detail about how lore and law would work I received some responses with a sentiment of exactly what electricg is talking about (I think).
It’s a shame that the extremes of each side do create anger, and swing those in the middle in the opposite direction.

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

I think the constitution should seek to be timeless as opposed to timely, since altering it is such an undertaking. It should go to the high-level principles that we can all agree on, rather than reflective of the government or sentiment of the day.
There will always be disabled people, and they will always have their unique needs. The whole point of all of this is to reduce and ultimately eliminate indigenous disadvantage. Permanent solution to temporary problem.

I really have to ask, why do you guys keep calling up 65,000 years? This is something I will freely admit I’m struggling with. Would whatever point you’re making still stack up if it were, say, 200 years?

Nailed it imo, this really also explains why any referendum without bi-partisan support is doomed.

 

[phantom13]

I think the constitution should seek to be timeless as opposed to timely, since altering it is such an undertaking. It should go to the high-level principles that we can all agree on, rather than reflective of the government or sentiment of the day.
There will always be disabled people, and they will always have their unique needs. The whole point of all of this is to reduce and ultimately eliminate indigenous disadvantage. Permanent solution to temporary problem.

I really have to ask, why do you guys keep calling up 65,000 years? This is something I will freely admit I’m struggling with. Would whatever point you’re making still stack up if it were, say, 200 years?

How high level is an advisory voice? As for temporary problem... cmon. If we manage to close the gap (big ****ing if) then repeal the voice with a referendum, the likelihood of that happening, ever, let alone in our lifetime is slim to none.

Personally recognition of Indigenous Australias 65,000 years of custodianship of the country is of alot less importance than their current welfare but if it was 200 years then it wouldnt pre date colonization so yeh, it wouldn't stack up. Do you really have an issue with acknowledging they were here first, thats all that part does.

I think we established that the constitutionally enshrined Voice's advice was for "consideration" and could have been ignored by the government at will anyway.

So youd have voted for it if it had absolute power?

It clearly needs some balance (someone made the point that you couldn't have the voice demanding a billion dollars for every Indigenous person) but parliament today and historically is completely removed from Indigenous welfare and they represent such a small percentage of each electorate that their issues are never addressed. The voice would allow for Indigenous consultation and advice to be more direct and actionable. That advice may have been ignored, sure, thats a fair concern, but as its stands right now, that advice never even makes it to parliament without being filtered and flushed. Thats the point of difference.

 

[phantom13]

I would have liked some more detail, was always going to vote yes, and voted yes.
When I came on here and asked for detail about how lore and law would work I received some responses with a sentiment of exactly what electricg is talking about (I think).
It’s a shame that the extremes of each side do create anger, and swing those in the middle in the opposite direction.

I can say, hand on heart, i answered plenty of questions here and at home and social circles.

Plenty of people did it in good faith, none of us here are law experts (im certainly not) i educated myself through reading it and looking for the information, you could have done the same, the answers were all available.

 

[Jello_B]

No, I will go with 'many people who voted no are racist and the remainder have no care, concern or empathy for and towards Aboriginal people'.

I really think people are underplaying the influence of poor government / governance here.

 

[phantom13]

Nailed it imo, this really also explains why any referendum without bi-partisan support is doomed.

Been done and im punching out cause were getting into anciently old ground here.

Had bi-partisan support until Dutton and co used it for political gain (pretty smartly i would add).

 

[Jello_B]

I cried reading this.

Thank you for sharing your story.

I don't know what else to say.

Sitting on a bus doing the same.
Speechless.
I can’t imagine anyone meeting an indigenous person, hearing a story like this, and not running to the ballot voting yes.
How did this happen

 

[Toump Ass]

All the people who voted no but thinking the government will do SOMETHING anyway we're fooling themselves.

I expect our elected figures to consult with our indigenous brothers and sisters regardless of the referendum result.

Please fix the swear filter fix on my name thank you.

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

How high level is an advisory voice? As for temporary problem... cmon. If we manage to close the gap (big ******* if) then repeal the voice with a referendum, the likelihood of that happening, ever, let alone in our lifetime is slim to none.

Personally recognition of Indigenous Australias 65,000 years of custodianship of the country is of alot less importance than their current welfare but if it was 200 years then it wouldnt pre date colonization so yeh, it wouldn't stack up. Do you really have an issue with acknowledging they were here first, thats all that part does.



So youd have voted for it if it had absolute power?

It clearly needs some balance (someone made the point that you couldn't have the voice demanding a billion dollars for every Indigenous person) but parliament today and historically is completely removed from Indigenous welfare and they represent such a small percentage of each electorate that their issues are never addressed. The voice would allow for Indigenous consultation and advice to be more direct and actionable. That advice may have been ignored, sure, thats a fair concern, but as its stands right now, that advice never even makes it to parliament without being filtered and flushed. Thats the point of difference.

I would always lean towards legislation.

Agree on your point around balance. I also doubt either of the current major parties have the required leadership to follow through on what is needed to fix the plight of the indigenous, voice or not.

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

I expect our elected figures to consult with our indigenous brothers and sisters regardless of the referendum result.

Please fix the swear filter fix on my name thank you.

Yep and we should hold them accountable, what happens in this space between now and the federal election might go a long way into deciding how people vote (regardless of their stance on the ref).

 

[phantom13]

Yep and we should hold them accountable, what happens in this space between now and the federal election might go a long way into deciding how people vote (regardless of their stance on the ref).

Personally if i knew 60% of the population just voted against providing what Indigenous Australia wanted to help themselves and re election was important to me I know what id do.

Its idealistic but people dont care, Dutton being a ****ing clown and inflation will determine peoples vote, not Indigenous Welfare.

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

Personally if i knew 60% of the population just voted against providing what Indigenous Australia wanted to help themselves and re election was important to me I know what id do.

Its idealistic but people dont care, Dutton being a ******* clown and inflation will determine peoples vote, not Indigenous Welfare.

Yes, I am probably being optimistic and naïve, it will have weight in my vote.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I think the constitution should seek to be timeless as opposed to timely, since altering it is such an undertaking. It should go to the high-level principles that we can all agree on, rather than reflective of the government or sentiment of the day.
There will always be disabled people, and they will always have their unique needs. The whole point of all of this is to reduce and ultimately eliminate indigenous disadvantage. Permanent solution to temporary problem.

I really have to ask, why do you guys keep calling up 65,000 years? This is something I will freely admit I’m struggling with. Would whatever point you’re making still stack up if it were, say, 200 years?

temporary problem? it started when the first trigger was pulled and the first water holed poisoned and Saturday's kick in the guts showed how far we've come. whats temporary about it?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I would always lean towards legislation.

Agree on your point around balance. I also doubt either of the current major parties have the required leadership to follow through on what is needed to fix the plight of the indigenous, voice or not.

certainly not now that the people have spoken eh?

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

certainly not now that the people have spoken eh?

Not a Voice, but outcomes of proper research and consultation with remote indigenous folks first and foremost with urgency. Then work back from their on priorities based on the facts.

 

[ElectricG]

How high level is an advisory voice? As for temporary problem... cmon. If we manage to close the gap (big ******* if) then repeal the voice with a referendum, the likelihood of that happening, ever, let alone in our lifetime is slim to none.

Personally recognition of Indigenous Australias 65,000 years of custodianship of the country is of alot less importance than their current welfare but if it was 200 years then it wouldnt pre date colonization so yeh, it wouldn't stack up. Do you really have an issue with acknowledging they were here first, thats all that part does.



So youd have voted for it if it had absolute power?

It clearly needs some balance (someone made the point that you couldn't have the voice demanding a billion dollars for every Indigenous person) but parliament today and historically is completely removed from Indigenous welfare and they represent such a small percentage of each electorate that their issues are never addressed. The voice would allow for Indigenous consultation and advice to be more direct and actionable. That advice may have been ignored, sure, thats a fair concern, but as its stands right now, that advice never even makes it to parliament without being filtered and flushed. Thats the point of difference.

If we’re voting with our heads, we are aware that the constitution transcends a single generation. You have to admit “put it in and then vote it out later” is pretty haphazard use of our constitution.

Okay, doing the maths on the 200y thing, fine. But what if they only marginally predated colonisation ?

 

[Jello_B]

I can say, hand on heart, i answered plenty of questions here and at home and social circles.

Plenty of people did it in good faith, none of us here are law experts (im certainly not) i educated myself through reading it and looking for the information, you could have done the same, the answers were all available.

Same here within the domain of my knowledge.
I’m currently involved in a RAP for work, and we are rolling it out across our business. I see much more education happening by private industry. We have an acknowledgment of country for all staff and board meetings now. We don’t take a position of stuffing things down people’s throats (as an example we did it take a position on the voice as a company) and focus on information filtering and sharing.
There is a lot of good happening and not every inquiry has a hidden intent. We should be promoting inquiry.
Anyways I’m pissed about the result, I have a tendency to blame, so I’m blaming the government.
And Dutton is a piece of shit. I normally vote liberal but I think I’ll be drawing an aboriginal flag on my next federal ballot. **** em both.

 

[phantom13]

If we’re voting with our heads, we are aware that the constitution transcends a single generation. You have to admit “put it in and then vote it out later” is pretty haphazard use of our constitution.

Okay, doing the maths on the 200y thing, fine. But what if they only marginally predated colonisation ?

Im not suggesting we should ever vote it out, i cant envisage a world where there are not issues that need to be adressed for Indigenous Australia and even if we somehow reached that cool, water the voice down and pay someone to continue to provide updates, you really going to lose sleep over $400-$500k worth of payroll to ensure that gap stays close?

Im simply pointing out that if we ever reached that point then that is an option. I also think we have a fundamental difference of opinion on the constitution. It needs to be malleable to a point, its 120 years old now, it was written an implemented before we had electricity and cars. It was written before Indigenous Australia could vote. Im way less concerned about it being amended and updated than you are.

Im really not sure what youre getting at here? Do individual people have an individual threshold for what constitutes custodianship? I dont know, probably. Most sources note evidence of Indigenous occupaton for between 60,000 and 65,000 thousand years so it seems pretty pointless debating "what if it was only 100 or 500 or 1000". If you wanna have that discussion about another country where that is applicable then go for it, its not relevant to Aus.