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.

 

[Festerz]

 

[Not Important]

yep! spread fear and distrust. shockers.

 

[Romeoh1]

LNP: Businesses should be free to carry out their operations as they see fit.

Also LNP: No, not like that

View attachment 1668698

Seriously, he has ideas like someone from the 50’s. Clueless as they come.

 

[Sydney Kicker]

Dan Tehan was busy citing Aristotle and MLK to support his opposition to the Voice on the ABC this morning. The No case has become a conga line of stupidity.

Someone should contact MLK's son in the States and see what he thinks about some random Australian right winger using his dads name in the no case.

 

[schneebly111]

LNP: Businesses should be free to carry out their operations as they see fit.

Also LNP: No, not like that

View attachment 1668698

I wait to see this c*nt’s reaction if a private company decides not to participate in an Anzac promotion…..

 

[Chief]

Dan Tehan was busy citing Aristotle and MLK to support his opposition to the Voice on the ABC this morning. The No case has become a conga line of stupidity.

Where was that video about righties using a truncated MLK quote to support their views against stuff like affirmative action...

It had some dorky Steven Crowder wannabe on... Prager U? Can't recall.

 

[ElectricG]

Let's get a robot to summarise the points:

1. Do we need an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice when there are already elected Indigenous parliamentarians?

A record 4.8% of the current Australian Parliament is Indigenous, exceeding their population proportion. However, an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is still needed due to the electoral system's structure, lower voter turnout among Indigenous people, high party discipline, and the connection of Indigenous peoples' authority to their Country. Indigenous MPs represent their party and electorate, not solely Indigenous interests.

2. Why do we need a Voice if prominent Indigenous Australians and Indigenous organisations can already speak to government?

The prominence of Indigenous Australians in various sectors and the presence of community-controlled organizations like the Coalition of Peaks are important achievements. However, an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is still needed as a permanent institutional presence in the Constitution, ensuring recognition, protection of rights, and enabling Indigenous communities to select representatives to address the Parliament and government on matters affecting them.

3. Would a separate body for Indigenous Australians divide Australia based on race or give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people special rights?

An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is a proposed constitutional body that would allow Indigenous Australians to make representations to the Parliament and government about laws and policies affecting them. Contrary to concerns that the Voice would create division or grant special rights, a group of constitutional lawyers concluded that the Voice would only provide an opportunity for Indigenous peoples to make representations, without altering the rights of non-Indigenous Australians.

The Voice recognizes the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians, reflecting their 60,000-year connection to the continent. This status is not based on race but on their position as Indigenous peoples. The Australian Parliament can pass special laws affecting only Indigenous Australians; thus, it is reasonable that they have a means to address the Parliament and government regarding these laws.

The concept of race is scientifically unsupported, as there is no basis in the human genome for it. Therefore, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is not based on race but on recognizing the inherent rights of Indigenous Australians as the original inhabitants of the continent.

4. Is the Voice a Third Chamber? Will the Voice delay Parliament or make governing more difficult?

The proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice aims to make representations to Parliament and the government on matters affecting Indigenous Australians. It will not introduce bills, vote on legislation, or impede government functioning. Parliament retains control over procedures and can adjust the Voice's relationship with government institutions as needed.

5. Should the Voice be allowed to speak on things that affect all Australians?

The proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice should be able to address matters that directly or indirectly affect Indigenous Australians for four reasons: 1) Limiting the Voice to Indigenous-specific legislation isn't feasible; 2) Laws of general application can disproportionately impact Indigenous Australians; 3) The Voice should have the autonomy to choose its focus, aligning with the right to self-determination; 4) The Voice is advisory only, without the power to force changes in government or Parliament. Therefore, limiting its scope is unnecessary.

6. Won't the Voice just be another ATSIC?

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will not be another ATSIC. It will have a more limited role, focusing on making representations to Parliament and the government on laws and policies affecting Indigenous Australians. This structure avoids the structural complications that plagued ATSIC, which combined representative and administrative roles.

7. Is the Voice a radical change that goes against the nature of our Constitution?

Adding an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to the Constitution is not a radical change. It's a modest addition that has been tested and supported by senior constitutional lawyers and former High Court judges. The Voice simply allows Indigenous Australians to speak to Parliament and government on matters affecting them. It aligns with the Constitution's nature and offers high returns with low risk, providing valuable advice on law and policy-making for Indigenous Australians.

8. Will activist Judges turn the Voice into something radical?

The Voice is not a radical change and won't be turned into one by Judges. It's a political institution subject to Parliament, which retains the responsibility to design and operate the Voice. Courts may need to scrutinise decisions based on the law, but Parliament can always change the law. The Voice won't affect the powers or functions of Parliament or the Executive Government, as explained by former High Court judge Kenneth Hayne.

9. Will the Voice improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice aims to involve Indigenous peoples in law and policy development. Contrary to concerns about benefiting only the elite, all major Voice design proposals emphasize the critical relationship with local and regional communities. By acting as an interface between communities and governments, the Voice will ensure that the priorities and concerns of local communities are heard and acted upon. This mechanism will allow Indigenous communities across Australia to influence decision-making, leading to more informed, responsive public policy and improved lives for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

10. Why do we need to put the Voice in the Constitution?

There are three key reasons to enshrine the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Constitution. First, the Constitution will provide security and stability, preventing the Voice from being easily abolished like previous Indigenous representative bodies. Second, constitutional inclusion increases the likelihood of the Voice's success, as Parliament and government will be more inclined to take it seriously if endorsed by a referendum. Finally, it is an act of recognition and respect, acknowledging the 60,000-year connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to the continent and aligning with their request in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

11. How can I vote for the Voice if I do not know what it will look like?

While Australians want to know the details of the Voice before voting in a referendum, much of that information is already available. Key design principles have been agreed upon, such as its advisory role, its selection process, its representativeness, and its focus on accountability and transparency. The referendum is about the principle of the Voice, with finer details to be worked out after the referendum through consultation and parliamentary debate. The Constitution sets out principles, not machinery, which can be adjusted as needed. Asking for all details is a distraction; the referendum is an opportunity for Australians to support the idea of a Voice.

12. Will an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice cede Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' sovereignty?

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will be an Indigenous representative body in the Australian Constitution, but it will not require Indigenous peoples to cede sovereignty. Indigenous sovereignty cannot be ceded without agreement, and the proposal does not mention it. Sovereignty is inherent to Indigenous peoples and cannot be extinguished by the Australian Constitution or any other settler document. Participating in Australian governance, like the Voice, does not equate to ceding sovereignty. The Voice will provide Indigenous peoples an opportunity to inform the development of laws and policies affecting them, without affecting their sovereignty.

Section 3 reads as really evasive and is ultimately an unsatisfying response. They would be better off saying “yes but it’s necessary because XYZ.”

 

[Chief]

Section 3 reads as really evasive and is ultimately an unsatisfying response. They would be better off saying “yes but it’s necessary because XYZ.”

It's a ChatGPT summary. Read the whole thing if it falls short.

 

[QuietB]

Seriously, he has ideas like someone from the 50’s. Clueless as they come.

He is an outer suburban Queensland coper who only made it to detective senior constable. Can we really expect any more?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Positive signs

Yes vote for the Voice is leading in every state and territory: Poll

The first dedicated state-by-state poll on the Indigenous Voice to parliament shows the Yes vote has enough support to clear both hurdles at the referendum.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Gough]

I suspect the No campaign will become vanity project for Mundine and Price if that hasn't already happened.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I wait to see this c*nt’s reaction if a private company decides not to participate in an Anzac promotion…..

Just have to look at the way the party of free enterprise squeal like stuck pigs when an investment fund announces it is divesting from fossil fuels.

 

[Festerz]

They only released it because support is plummeting.

Meanwhile in the real world...

 

[Rob R]

Seriously, he has ideas like someone from the 50’s. Clueless as they come.

The whole LNP approach makes no sense, miles behind in the polls and putting all their effort into the losing side of an issue that probably 80% of Australians don't really give a damn about instead of talking about issues that matter like cost of living, health, education, jobs immigration etc.

Sent from my SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gough]

The whole LNP approach makes no sense, miles behind in the polls and putting all their effort into the losing side of an issue that probably 80% of Australians don't really give a damn about instead of talking about issues that matter like cost of living, health, education, jobs immigration etc.

Sent from my SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I agree with you on their approach to the Voice, it seems a really odd thing to put this much energy into but if they talk about other issues, they also have to explain their inactivity on these things over the past decade and the complete lack of current policy on almost anythng beyond rejecting any government proposal.

 

[Rob R]

I agree with you on their approach to the Voice, it seems a really odd thing to put this much energy into but if they talk about other issues, they also have to explain their inactivity on these things over the past decade and the complete lack of current policy on almost anythng beyond rejecting any government proposal.

That is true, they had years to do something and did nothing and don't seem to have any ideas now other than to say no.

Being negative only worked for Abbott because the ALP was at least perceived to have lied on the carbon tax and had failed on boats - not to mention Rudd happily backstabbing Julia.

Sent from my SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kram]

You boys are too stuck in the past they are gone, all been replaced by the Lite version in government continuing the tradition of doing stuff like letting people on welfare to starve.

 

[Romeoh1]

The whole LNP approach makes no sense, miles behind in the polls and putting all their effort into the losing side of an issue that probably 80% of Australians don't really give a damn about instead of talking about issues that matter like cost of living, health, education, jobs immigration etc.

Sent from my SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yes- it’s quite nonsensical, and hard to understand why they think this is their path out of irrelevance. Mystifying.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I can believe that things at Lib HQ are far worse than anyone has imagined. State of total panic, donors deserting them in their droves, no forward planning, no candidates, no policy development…. Good times.

 

[Not Important]

Liberals Claim Voice Could Allow Indigenous People To Secretly Appoint Themselves To 5 Different Ministries

WENDELL HUSSEY | Cadet | CONTACT In the wake of another resignation from a position in the Federal Liberal Party, Peter Dutton has once again come out to confirm what is at stake during the Voice debate. With Karen Andrews stepping down from a senior position, Dutton has tried to get a hold of...

www.betootaadvocate.com

 

[Gough]

If by relevant expertise Abbott means closing down remote communities and decimating funding to Indigenous bodies then he's the first person we should be turning for advice but on this he's irrelevant and I'm not sure why a British trade envoy thinks he has the right to be heard on this anyway.

 

[The Punter]

If by relevant expertise Abbott means closing down remote communities and decimating funding to Indigenous bodies then he's the first person we should be turning for advice but on this he's irrelevant and I'm not sure why a British trade envoy thinks he has the right to be heard on this anyway.

But heard he shall be.

 

[FredLeDeux]

But heard he shall be.

This could be the crucial moment

 

[Gough]

This could be the crucial moment

Old racist hides behind the constitution, all those lessons from the Heritage Foundation are finally coming in useful for him.

 

[Festerz]