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.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Why won't Peter Costello leave his right-wing agenda out of Nine Newspapers?

Maybe you could ask your manager at the next party meeting?

 

[The Punter]

Maybe you could ask your manager at the next party meeting?

My manager isn't in the party to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Gough]

Why won't Peter Costello leave his right-wing agenda out of Nine Newspapers?

That Price is an airhead, nepo baby should be a matter of bipartisan agreement.

 

[The Punter]

That Price is an airhead, nepo baby should be a matter of bipartisan agreement.

So they can report and analyse accurately and fairly? I'm just trying to pin down a consistent argument here so I can know what I am dealing with.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

So they can report and analyse accurately and fairly? I'm just trying to pin down a consistent argument here so I can know what I am dealing with.

Liberals are split on the voice. Do you know which way Costello leans in that regard?

 

[The Punter]

Liberals are split on the voice. Do you know which way Costello leans in that regard?

According to many on here, I'll just need to read The Age to get an idea.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

I'll pass.

Well i'm not typing it all out for you.

 

[tandino]

Well i'm not typing it all out for you.

You didn't write it out the first time, did you?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

You didn't write it out the first time, did you?

Haha. Yeah right.

 

[geoffjennings79]

Price - out of her depth. And now she's got a portfolio in shadow cabinet. On merit, of course.

MSN

 

[Mick F]

Do you have a link? I'd be interested to see or read it as i haven't been able to find anything myself.

The decent folk are sick of …….

 

[ep2018]

Someone on Reddit made a really good point. There will be people on the fence who will vote yes just because Dutton and the LNP are advocating a no vote.

 

[tandino]

Someone on Reddit made a really good point.

I'd find that hard to believe.

 

[Chief]

vote yes just because Dutton and the LNP are advocating a no vote.

The LNP hate the very idea of indigenous people. If they're against it, it has to be a positive.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Someone on Reddit made a really good point. There will be people on the fence who will vote yes just because Dutton and the LNP are advocating a no vote.

To be fair it probably swings the other way with Lydia Thorpe

Both sides have unpalatable characters that'll swing votes.

Yes I know she is against the Voice. Your average punter is tbh kind of ignorant of the facts though and just assumes that Lydia = Indigenous = pro voice (this is just my personal hunch).

 

[Festerz]

Price - out of her depth. And now she's got a portfolio in shadow cabinet. On merit, of course.

MSN

She is an outright liar and hypocrite when it comes to her position on the Voice. So a good match for the Dutton shadow cabinet.



But again the issue is how Indigenous Australians are being used as a political wedge to prop up a right wing reactionary LNP coalition that opinion polls show is now completely out of touch with the vast majority of Australians.

 

[geoffjennings79]

She is an outright liar and hypocrite

You could have just stopped there. (Taking the lead from her LOTO.)

 

[sataris]

I like this view of the proposed function (from Final Report | Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice):

The only thing that really bothers me is that the Government then has no obligation (other than political reputation damage) to actually follow through with what's been proposed. This is one of those things I wish they'd just legislate instead of pushing it to a referendum. I felt the same on marriage equality.

I asked about this before, but I absolutely hate the 'ethics council' part of this process.

Why does it exist? I don't believe there's such a body for other 'elected' officials.

Seems like a convenient way to ensure that only the 'right' people can become part of the voice.

 

[Not Important]

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I asked about this before, but I absolutely hate the 'ethics council' part of this process.

Why does it exist? I don't believe there's such a body for other 'elected' officials.

Seems like a convenient way to ensure that only the 'right' people can become part of the voice.

Elected officials can't be undischarged bankrupts, have conviction records, be employed by foreign powers etc etc. All sensible. That's why the committee exists

 

[QuietB]

Someone on Reddit made a really good point. There will be people on the fence who will vote yes just because Dutton and the LNP are advocating a no vote.

The no vote is zero chance.

Yes is going to have every single corporate, every single celebrity, every single sports person, every single sports league and every single government in the country on their side.

No has Mr 26% approval rating and Sky After Dark.

This is not really fair

 

[ep2018]

The no vote is zero chance.

Yes is going to have every single corporate, every single celebrity, every single sports person, every single sports league and every single government in the country on their side.

No has Mr 26% approval rating and Sky After Dark.

This is not really fair

Yes will win every state except maybe Queensland imo.

 

[Danw0w]

Lidia Thorpe is doing more for the "no" campaign than the "yes" campaign. People will vote no to spite her.

Hopefully she can keep her cake hole closed between now and referendum.

You know she's against the voice right?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The Roy Morgan Snap poll number 9226 done between 14/04 to 18/04 indicates support for the voice has dropped to 46%

Personal view IF the government and the committee for the voice wanted a success they should have changed the chronology of the three prong approach. Rather than voice, treaty truth it should be truth voice treaty. Why? Because truth telling undermines ignorance and apathy around what happened historically. It would engender empathy support and aid voice and then the wider view of treaty negotiations that follows. The down trend is not good for a successful referendum. The yes push has dominated centre stage and the no response has hardly started and already we are seeing negative trends. Not optimistic that when no gets greater media attention, It will swing the vote down as most recent poll suggests.

Marcia Langton (the professor joint author of the voice) was recently asked what would happen if "no"was successful. Her answer was that First nations would punish white Australia by thereafter refusing to do ......"welcome to country" ceremonies. She was also earlier asked what was an appropriate day for an Australia Day replacement. Her answer was a day like Naidoc Day or in alternative the day first nations were entitled to vote. Seriously? She was so obsessively focused on that which is solely important to First nations people so as to exclude the 97% entirely from consideration


I'll be honest. This belief system doesn't do any favours for First nations peoples. It shows an inability to let go of entrenched resentment and mistrust toward the 'invaders' and that comes from co author of the voice. Not good.

 

[Saint]

Morrison gave $300k grant from an indigenous fund so Warren Mundine could make a TV show for Sky News. Now the LNP and Warren are complaining that not enough is being done for indigenous people, and that what is being proposed is a waste of money......