Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament

[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.

 

[Gough]

?
It involves changing the constitution.
That requires a referendum

There's going to be a whole lot of racists in this country who are about to become experts on constitutional law all of a sudden.

 

[Rob R]

A referendum really?

It has to be a referendum to change the constitution. The problem will be how to describe the powers, funding arrangements, structure properly so people can make an informed decision which will be challenging given the pressure that will come from both sides of the debate.

If it's not in the constitution pollies can just expand/reduce it's role making it a political wedge option at elections. I think they need to change the third part of proposal to say that changes to roles require a 2/3 majority to ensure it is bipartisan.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[andrewmillman]

Proposal - why not establish the body, let it run for a few years to prove its viability / that it isnt going to send up like ATSIC - then put to a vote?

 

[Gough]

Proposal - why not establish the body, let it run for a few years to prove its viability / that it isnt going to send up like ATSIC - then put to a vote?

Why don't we just vote yes to the principle of constitutional recognition and work from there?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

There's going to be a whole lot of racists in this country who are about to become experts on constitutional law all of a sudden.

Proposal - why not establish the body, let it run for a few years to prove its viability / that it isnt going to send up like ATSIC - then put to a vote?

 

[Rob R]

Why don't we just vote yes to the principle of constitutional recognition and work from there?

Would make sense to get the first step (which would be overwhelmingly supported) done first rather than putting it at risk and delaying it by linking it to the more complex problem.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Schneebly11]

Would make sense to get the first step (which would be overwhelmingly supported) done first rather than putting it at risk and delaying it by linking it to the more complex problem.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

This could be a potential disaster for Albo. Even though Indigenous recognition is a worthy goal I’ll draw comparisons with the 1967 referendum.

It was supported by both parties and got 90%+ support. Not a single parliamentarian voted no on the proposal, and a NO case was not even sent out to the voters.

In this case I can’t see the Liberals supporting it, not under Dutton. Plus they have Jacinta Price who they’re already claiming is the “Indigenous Voice to Parliament” (ie a plant for the Libs) who is opposing it.

Even if Albo put it to a vote without LNP support and managed to get a win the YEs percentage would top out at about 55% ish I reckon, and I think that’s still too close to 50/50 for him to proceed. To not risk accusations of “dividing” the country he’d want to get a much higher YES vote to show the overwhelming majority are behind the proposal.

As history shows Australians generally do not like voting YES in referendums, and only support YES if both sides of politicians are generally in favour:

And the rest say “no” • Inside Story

There’s a pattern to the success of attempts to change the Australian constitution, writes Peter Brent, with lessons for advocates of Indigenous recognition

insidestory.org.au

So unless Albo can get the Libs onboard (as sickening as it may sound) it may be better to water down or drop the proposal.

Having his legacy be a failed referendum that would embolden racists and the far right would be a disaster.

 

[Rob R]

This could be a potential disaster for Albo. Even though Indigenous recognition is a worthy goal I’ll draw comparisons with the 1967 referendum.

It was supported by both parties and got 90%+ support. Not a single parliamentarian voted no on the proposal, and a NO case was not even sent out to the voters.

In this case I can’t see the Liberals supporting it, not under Dutton. Plus they have Jacinta Price who they’re already claiming is the “Indigenous Voice to Parliament” (ie a plant for the Libs) who is opposing it.

Even if Albo put it to a vote without LNP support and managed to get a win the YEs percentage would top out at about 55% ish I reckon, and I think that’s still too close to 50/50 for him to proceed. To not risk accusations of “dividing” the country he’d want to get a much higher YES vote to show the overwhelming majority are behind the proposal.

As history shows Australians generally do not like voting YES in referendums, and only support YES if both sides of politicians are generally in favour:

And the rest say “no” • Inside Story

There’s a pattern to the success of attempts to change the Australian constitution, writes Peter Brent, with lessons for advocates of Indigenous recognition

insidestory.org.au

So unless Albo can get the Libs onboard (as sickening as it may sound) it may be better to water down or drop the proposal.

Having his legacy be a failed referendum that would embolden racists and the far right would be a disaster.

I think that is why Goughs suggestion is critical. The libs (and am overwhelming majority of Australians) will support recognition but the voice will struggle. Run them together and recognition may fail and be a massive backwards step. The only reason to run them together is if Albo is trying to wedge the libs and I hoped he would be better than that with such an important issue.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gough]

I think that is why Goughs suggestion is critical. The libs (and am overwhelming majority of Australians) will support recognition but the voice will struggle. Run them together and recognition may fail and be a massive backwards step. The only reason to run them together is if Albo is trying to wedge the libs and I hoped he would be better than that with such an important issue.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think it's important that we learn from the republic referendum and keep the concept as simple as possible and not allow those opposing it to throw all sorts of scenarios and consequences so as to obfuscate.

 

[Schneebly11]

I think it's important that we learn from the republic referendum and keep the concept as simple as possible and not allow those opposing it to throw all sorts of scenarios and consequences so as to obfuscate.

I can see an opinion already forming on social media that this referendum will give indigenous people “extra rights that non-Indigenous people won’t have”.

If that takes hold in wider consciousness then it’ll hard to achieve a Yes majority I’m afraid.

 

[Pessimistic]

I can see an opinion already forming on social media that this referendum will give indigenous people “extra rights that non-Indigenous people won’t have”.

If that takes hold in wider consciousness then it’ll hard to achieve a Yes majority I’m afraid.

When the entire population can be limited to 5km and a curfew what rights do we really have?

Think of it. Getting permission to go overseas, locked down. That’s how we used to treat the indigenous?

 

[JackOutback]

My point still stands. Millions (and not just a couple of million) of dollars for something that won't get up

Sent from my CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Proposal - why not establish the body, let it run for a few years to prove its viability / that it isnt going to send up like ATSIC - then put to a vote?

Didn’t take long for the excuses/sabotage to begin.

 

[Power Raid]

Albo is calling for the undermining of democracy and enshrining racism in our constitution

Is racism a good thing?
Is undermining democracy a good thing?

Perhaps we should divide buses and other parts of society by race?

 

[Gough]

Albo is calling for the undermining of democracy and enshrining racism in our constitution

Is racism a good thing?
Is undermining democracy a good thing?

Perhaps we should divide buses and other parts of society by race?

There's going to be a whole lot of racists in this country who are about to become experts on constitutional law all of a sudden.

 

[Pessimistic]

Albo is calling for the undermining of democracy and enshrining racism in our constitution

Is racism a good thing?
Is undermining democracy a good thing?

Perhaps we should divide buses and other parts of society by race?

That’s if we had enough buses when we need them

Anyway where did native Americans figure in the racist America re. Buses? Genuinely asking

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Albo is calling for the undermining of democracy and enshrining racism in our constitution

Is racism a good thing?
Is undermining democracy a good thing?

Perhaps we should divide buses and other parts of society by race?

A referendum is democratic.

You really didn't pay much attention at school, did you?

 

[11kgm]

It has to be a referendum to change the constitution. The problem will be how to describe the powers, funding arrangements, structure properly so people can make an informed decision which will be challenging given the pressure that will come from both sides of the debate.

If it's not in the constitution pollies can just expand/reduce it's role making it a political wedge option at elections. I think they need to change the third part of proposal to say that changes to roles require a 2/3 majority to ensure it is bipartisan.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I know what a referendum is but this is the most unnecessary one in history

 

[Power Raid]

A referendum is democratic.

You really didn't pay much attention at school, did you?

the change to the constitution is democratic which is to enshrine power to a particular race and removes the democratic process going forward

The most famous dictators were elected in a democratic process and then changed the constitution to remove democratic processes. I'm not sure that turned out well

 

[Power Raid]

There's going to be a whole lot of racists in this country who are about to become experts on constitutional law all of a sudden.

so you don't believe enshrining a position based on race is racist?

you don't think enshrining the removal of a democratic process is a negative?


there are far better ways of dealing with this such as steering committees or better still encouraging indigenous people to run for parliament



and when has calling out racism, become racism?

 

[tandino]

the change to the constitution is democratic which is to enshrine power to a particular race and removes the democratic process going forward

The most famous dictators were elected in a democratic process and then changed the constitution to remove democratic processes. I'm not sure that turned out well

The voice is subject to the whim of Parliament. It can be one man sitting in a tent on McDonald Island if Parliament so provides.

 

[NSWCROW]

" Pro voice " side best heed the lesson learned from the franking credits debacle and simplify the message

 

[tandino]

" Pro voice " side best heed the lesson learned from the franking credits debacle and simplify the message

That's only going to get you so far. The "no-model" approach might be a smart move but sooner or later people are going to wonder what they are voting for. And they won't have to look hard to find people that will be eager to tell them.

 

[Power Raid]

The voice is subject to the whim of Parliament. It can be one man sitting in a tent on McDonald Island if Parliament so provides.

Our current constitution has so many racist elements........and not surprisingly given the reasons for federation. I just would have hoped 120 years on, we were removing these legacies rather than adding to the racism.

I do believe in consultation with communities, steering committees and working with the machinery of the departments (including the dept of indigenous affairs). I would baulk at enshrining a white voice, a yellow voice or a specific religious voice. In 2022 and beyond, we shouldn't lower ourselves to enshrining racism.

 

[JackOutback]

Albo is calling for the undermining of democracy and enshrining racism in our constitution

Is racism a good thing?
Is undermining democracy a good thing?

Perhaps we should divide buses and other parts of society by race?

You’re not this stupid…..

 

[Cooldude]

The "debate" for this referendum will make the same sex marriage plebiscite look intelligent and honest