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]

I guess my point is, wouldn’t it be better if there was more scepticism towards the 2nd amendment, and it never been made?

From memory the US constitution was written in 1787 and the second amendment introduced in 1790?

I’m not sure that’s a particularly worthwhile comparison.

Additionally I’m not sure the amendment and the (frankly) absurd interpretation it’s taken on is in anyway shape or form comparable to what the voice or the recognition of ancestral custodianship.

So in short, I respect your belief in the sancrosanctity of the constitution whilst I fundementally disagree with it. I also think your view of that comparison is pretty warped.

 

[phantom13]

1. That's a lie, you know it, everyone with a brain knows it.
2. By not enforcing laws you entice more people to break laws. It's only been since that policy was passed that every store in California began being ransacked weekly. Laws are a deterrent who would have thought.
3. No they're not it passes the cost onto the middle class for essential services. Also climate change isn't real.
4. Yes, because of the hyper welfare state.
5. Laughable.

Eeeesh. I might not agree with the most left of leftists but if I was a righty this would embarass me beyond belief.

 

[ElectricG]

From memory the US constitution was written in 1787 and the second amendment introduced in 1790?

I’m not sure that’s a particularly worthwhile comparison.

Additionally I’m not sure the amendment and the (frankly) absurd interpretation it’s taken on is in anyway shape or form comparable to what the voice or the recognition of ancestral custodianship.

So in short, I respect your belief in the sancrosanctity of the constitution whilst I fundementally disagree with it. I also think your view of that comparison is pretty warped.

It’s your comparison

 

[GreyWind]

Let's not go down this path in this thread.

I don't know. If anybody in Australia is familiar with forced medical procedures it's Indigenous Australians. I'm sure they will really feel sorry for those "forced" to get the covid vaccine.

 

[phantom13]

It’s your comparison

No I actually asked you about if you’d change the constitution in the states because your so opposed to doing it here. You turned it into some twisted version of “if they’d never made the second amendment the US wouldn’t have this problem, so we shouldn’t do the voice”.

Don’t be blaming me for that shitshow.

 

[phantom13]

Where do the non-ATSI homeless hang out in Cairns?

It was the activity that made people stand out, then other common aspects become noticeable.

Melbourne, at least the city, we find to be a really grubby place. Plenty of ethnically diverse people among those living on the pavements. A pity because the coffee is good as is the food with the place now being so Asian dominated.

I’m tipping with this sort of shitposting you’ll last about 3/4 days

 

[ElectricG]

No I actually asked you about if you’d change the constitution in the states because your so opposed to doing it here. You turned it into some twisted version of “if they’d never made the second amendment the US wouldn’t have this problem, so we shouldn’t do the voice”.

Don’t be blaming me for that shitshow.

… why is that a shitshow? You brought it up to make the point “sometimes it’s good to change the constitution” and I countered with “maybe this is an instance of amendments being bad and hard to get rid of” and now you are recoiling with horror for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Four Rounds]

Only developed country in the world that doesn't mention Indigenous people in the constitution or have a treaty.

You mean that none of the others consider all people to be equal?

That would mean that in a million years someone who is one-trillionth 'Indigenous' would be entitled to some special treatment in such countries. Not really a good basis for an homogenous society.

 

[phantom13]

… why is that a shitshow? You brought it up to make the point “sometimes it’s good to change the constitution” and I countered with “maybe this is an instance of amendments being bad and hard to get rid of” and now you are recoiling with horror for no reason whatsoever.

No, I brought it up to make the point that if the cause is good enough you would change the constitution and I was happy to leave it there.

You’ve tried to make some parallel that an amendment brought in post a horrific civil war, 200+ years ago is great evidence that bringing in an advisory voice now after 200+ years of ruining Indigenous Australia is a bad idea.

What your post told me was that if YOU thought the issue was bad enough you’d be happy to support an amendment. The natural extrapolation from that is the current situation for Indigenous Australia isn’t that bad… to you.

Ultimately we’re completely opposed, I can’t understand the logic your applying here at all and frankly I think the comparison is pretty gross so I’m not sure either of us will gain much from continuing.

 

[South of the Yarra]

You mean that none of the others consider all people to be equal?

That would mean that in a million years someone who is one-trillionth 'Indigenous' would be entitled to some special treatment in such countries. Not really a good basis for an homogenous society.

5 posts into your illustrious Big Footy Life and nearly everyone borderline racist.

 

[ElectricG]

No, I brought it up to make the point that if the cause is good enough you would change the constitution and I was happy to leave it there.

You’ve tried to make some parallel that an amendment brought in post a horrific civil war, 200+ years ago is great evidence that bringing in an advisory voice now after 200+ years of ruining Indigenous Australia is a bad idea.

What your post told me was that if YOU thought the issue was bad enough you’d be happy to support an amendment. The natural extrapolation from that is the current situation for Indigenous Australia isn’t that bad… to you.

Ultimately we’re completely opposed, I can’t understand the logic you’re applying here at all and frankly I think the comparison is pretty gross so I’m not sure either of us will gain much from continuing.

It’s not gross, I actually think it’s pretty apt. Our conversation previously was about when a feature of the constitution is no longer relevant or goes bad. You go and pick one that has done exactly that and causing a tonne of problems, but you are the one that had a “she’ll be right” attitude about the longevity of this voice.
I really think you’re doing this moralising “omg that comparison is so disrespectful” act because you have realised the error.

 

[Toump Ass]

general high tax rates to pay for hyper welfare systems like universal basic income

Wouldn't be a need for high tax rates if tax avoidance from big business wasn't an issue. Then the Universal Basic Income wouldn't be such a big deal either.

It would be absolutely wonderful to have a UBI. Hopefully once AI starts automating shitty jobs it will become a thing.

 

[Chief]

someone who is one-trillionth 'Indigenous' would be entitled to some special treatment

Just to cover this misapprehension, there exist a set of criteria for a person to be considered "indigenous" when considering the relevant laws.

"One-trillionth" doesn't appear in those criteria I don't think? I could be wrong.

 

[phantom13]

It’s not gross, I actually think it’s pretty apt. Our conversation previously was about when a feature of the constitution is no longer relevant or goes bad. You go and pick one that has done exactly that and causing a tonne of problems, but you are the one that had a “she’ll be right” attitude about the longevity of this voice.
I really think you’re doing this moralising “omg that comparison is so disrespectful” act because you have realised the error.

I was actually happy to drop it altogether, you kept going. I really thought you’d say you wouldn’t drop the second amendment because constitutions are so important.

I’ll say it again, we have a fundamental difference of opinion here, you seem to think that the document is really important, more important than some lives. You also seem to think there is a number of years that would be custodianship a number that wouldn’t.

You would think it’s apt just as I would think it’s pretty gross. The logic leap required to think that the second amendment and gun deaths is a cautionary to the voice is one I can’t bridge.

Probably best we leave it there I’d say.

 

[ElectricG]

I was actually happy to drop it altogether, you kept going. I really thought you’d say you wouldn’t drop the second amendment because constitutions are so important.

I’ll say it again, we have a fundamental difference of opinion here, you seem to think that the document is really important, more important than some lives. You also seem to think there is a number of years that would be custodianship a number that wouldn’t.

You would think it’s apt just as I would think it’s pretty gross. The logic leap required to think that the second amendment and gun deaths is a cautionary to the voice is one I can’t bridge.

Probably best we leave it there I’d say.

Alright.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Just to cover this misapprehension, there exist a set of criteria for a person to be considered "indigenous" when considering the relevant laws.

"One-trillionth" doesn't appear in those criteria I don't think? I could be wrong.

I think two trillionth meets the criteria

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

You mean that none of the others consider all people to be equal?

That would mean that in a million years someone who is one-trillionth 'Indigenous' would be entitled to some special treatment in such countries. Not really a good basis for an homogenous society.

Nice misinformation and rubbish

 

[Crankyhawk]

That was one of the her key promises that she would fix when was Deputy Mayor of Alice Springs in 2021. She was previously a Councillor in 2015. Now asking for a Royal Commission?

An opportunist talking head!

Because she has NFI how to fix it the answer is to bury it via a royal commission and gift money to lawyers and accountants.

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

Dutton's call for an investigation into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities would have been a good place to start for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
Pity Dutton just trashed that.

Isn't Albo "tools down" while the week of mourning is happening on these matters? They needed to wait until next week to suggest the investigation or some how make Albo think it was his idea.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Unless that inclusion involves giving something to one group that no other group has

Respect?

 

[ElectricG]

Respect?

Lol, I suppose you could put it that way.

 

[Osho]

It’s your comparison

ROAR!

 

[killtaker1993]

It hasn't even been a week since the referendum and it feels like a lifetime ago.

 

[Romeoh1]

Isn't Albo "tools down" while the week of mourning is happening on these matters? They needed to wait until next week to suggest the investigation or some how make Albo think it was his idea.

Albo wouldn’t be stupid enough to suggest such a rubbish idea actually.

 

[KeilorUnder9s]

Albo wouldn’t be stupid enough to suggest such a rubbish idea actually.

I reckon Albo and the Potato are pretty even on the "stupidity" stakes honestly.