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.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I wouldn’t think it’s that unreasonable to tell people how the panel would be selected if you want people to vote on having a panel.

yes it takes a lot of energy and negotiations but your also trying to chance the constitution… so it should take a lot of energy than just “vote yes we will work out the finer details later”

That's how it worked when we voted in the actual original Constitution.
Why do you think it should be different this time?

 

[Festerz]

Collecting boomer dickheads:

Imagine being old mate Francis. His life is intolerable.

 

[Chief]

#commonSense

 

[10571z]

That's how it worked when we voted in the actual original Constitution.
Why do you think it should be different this time?

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to have some idea how the panel is selected, it’s not that huge of an ask nor that hard to detail before putting this to a referendum.

That’s been the leading push back from people on the fence especially we with Lidia Thorpe running around.

 

[Number37]

It’s a genuine concern for many voters.

Would love an answer

Are these supposed 'concerned voters' jumping up and down about delegated legislation?

 

[Dirty_banchez]

Even if they don’t think they’ll get a majority yes in those states they still need to expend some effort.

There could potentially be a scenario where you get 35% yes in Queensland and WA and under 55% yes votes in the other states, leading to them passing the 4 states requirement, but not the 50% of all voters requirement

My feeling is it will break 48/51 (Yes/No) in both QLD and WA. I find NSW to be a curious case, the vote for SSM was lowest in that state. No doubt caused by the influence of religion in that state, has there been any indication from the Mega Churches about their thoughts on the vote?

The trend is not looking good for the yes camp, but we have yet to see any real advertising campaigns from both camps. The yes campaign really lacks punch at the minute.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

I don't know how you become one of those.
I'm kind of over it. Not really paying much attention to issues now, easier just to vote Y when the time comes, and i don't expect a lot of change from it, or they might use it as an excuse to do things they should already have been doing .

Most people I know do not have the time or inclination to follow the issues of the day. They are acutely aware of say the war in Ukraine or the upcoming referendum, but could they articulate specific details? Unlikely.

This is precisely the issue the Yes campaign face, they have yet to articulate a case for change. Most people simply do not have indigenous issues in their top 5 concerns of the day.

 

[FRUMPY]

That's how it worked when we voted in the actual original Constitution.
Why do you think it should be different this time?

If that's your argument, then why are we changing it at all now then?

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kyptastic]

My feeling is it will break 48/51 (Yes/No) in both QLD and WA. I find NSW to be a curious case, the vote for SSM was lowest in that state. No doubt caused by the influence of religion in that state, has there been any indication from the Mega Churches about their thoughts on the vote?

The trend is not looking good for the yes camp, but we have yet to see any real advertising campaigns from both camps. The yes campaign really lacks punch at the minute.

The thing that gives me hope for the Yes case is they've already got a large amount of volunteers ready to go to have one-on-one conversations with people, much like the Teal independents did. People don't necessarily trust advertising campaigns these days, but they are more likely to engage and listen to people who are willing to take the time to speak with them.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The yes vote is sliding. Too much media coverage. The Stan Grant situation and those like it doesn't help. Any abuse is totally unacceptable. But Stan should have had greater awareness that decrying the late Queen as the symbol of invasion, dispossession and genocide is misplaced and incited outrage. Disrespecting ANY recently passed 96 year old woman who hasn't hurt a fly her entire life is really poor form. She had no involvement in colonisation in 1788. He was just using her for political point scoring. Let's pause on that.....using a deceased 96 year old woman to score political points by directly blaming her for behaviours that occurred before her birth. And he is outraged people pushed back? I'm not and I'm not Monarchist. Make no mistake political point scoring in that way polarises opinion and that is having impact to the vote polls. If THIS is HIS version of truth telling then it will just divide the nation.

 

[Chief]

decrying the late Queen as the symbol of invasion, dispossession and genocide

Why do we get to tell indigenous people what the Queen means to them?

 

[Gough]

The yes vote is sliding. Too much media coverage. The Stan Grant situation and those like it doesn't help. Any abuse is totally unacceptable. But Stan should have had greater awareness that decrying the late Queen as the symbol of invasion, dispossession and genocide is misplaced and incited outrage. Disrespecting ANY recently passed 96 year old woman who hasn't hurt a fly her entire life is really poor form. She had no involvement in colonisation in 1788. He was just using her for political point scoring. Let's pause on that.....using a deceased 96 year old woman to score political points by directly blaming her for behaviours that occurred before her birth. And he is outraged people pushed back? I'm not and I'm not Monarchist. Make no mistake political point scoring in that way polarises opinion and that is having impact to the vote polls. If THIS is HIS version of truth telling then it will just divide the nation.

Honest history is a bitch.

 

[Rob R]

The yes vote is sliding. Too much media coverage. The Stan Grant situation and those like it doesn't help. Any abuse is totally unacceptable. But Stan should have had greater awareness that decrying the late Queen as the symbol of invasion, dispossession and genocide is misplaced and incited outrage. Disrespecting ANY recently passed 96 year old woman who hasn't hurt a fly her entire life is really poor form. She had no involvement in colonisation in 1788. He was just using her for political point scoring. Let's pause on that.....using a deceased 96 year old woman to score political points by directly blaming her for behaviours that occurred before her birth. And he is outraged people pushed back? I'm not and I'm not Monarchist. Make no mistake political point scoring in that way polarises opinion and that is having impact to the vote polls. If THIS is HIS version of truth telling then it will just divide the nation.

It's not sliding, it will pass easily but the media and lobbyists will want money to keep pouring in and stories written.

it is like SSM - not many people really give a rats but will vote yes anyway as the underlying principle is fine and the no proponents will say some pretty stupid things.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gough]

It's not sliding, it will pass easily but the media and lobbyists will want money to keep pouring in and stories written.

it is like SSM - not many people really give a rats but will vote yes anyway as the underlying principle is fine and the no proponents will say some pretty stupid things.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

The No campaign is backed by vested interests playing on the vanity of Price and Mundine. Without the referendum Price is a first term Senate back bencher and Mundine a sort of Indigenous Mark Latham who could only dream of this sort of public profile in other circumstances.

 

[Chief]

The valid reasons for a No vote are being ignored as too radical. That being treaty before anything else.

Recognition is a way to dodge a treaty.

The invalid reasons for a No vote are basically racist garbage.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The valid reasons for a No vote are being ignored as too radical. That being treaty before anything else.

Recognition is a way to dodge a treaty.

The invalid reasons for a No vote are basically racist garbage.

how does one treaty with hundreds of different nations though?
I think the voice could then be used as a single place of negotiation for treaty without doing that level of work (hundreds of individual treaties)

 

[Chief]

how does one treaty with hundreds of different nations though?

I am sure it could be worked out.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I am sure it could be worked out.

i think you overestimate the ability of politicians.
there would be so much comparing (X nation got that, we should get that too) and point scoring and division...

 

[Gralin]

how does one treaty with hundreds of different nations though?
I think the voice could then be used as a single place of negotiation for treaty without doing that level of work (hundreds of individual treaties)

which yeah is basically part of the problem


not wanting to do the work to do it properly

 

[Gralin]

Interesting that nobody has brought up that while the Feds are pushing the voice and putting funding into it at the federal budget they were busy cutting funding to other programs that already exist and help the communities they say they want to help with the voice

Aboriginal legal services frozen or at risk of shutting in 17 communities across NSW and Queensland

Advocates call for federal government to provide urgent funding for culturally safe legal services to prevent worsening Indigenous incarceration crisis

www.theguardian.com

or the fact that all the state and territory leaders have signed on for the voice but have done the same things themselves, or passed legislation recently to increase police powers

and continued targeting Indigenous communities as the source of problems

 

[Gralin]

and all they are doing with that is giving Dutton and co something to point to

well that and showing that politicians like to say the right thing while doing something else

 

[Dirty_banchez]

I am sure it could be worked out.

Would it happen at the State or Federal level?

 

[Dirty_banchez]

Interesting that nobody has brought up that while the Feds are pushing the voice and putting funding into it at the federal budget they were busy cutting funding to other programs that already exist and help the communities they say they want to help with the voice

Aboriginal legal services frozen or at risk of shutting in 17 communities across NSW and Queensland

Advocates call for federal government to provide urgent funding for culturally safe legal services to prevent worsening Indigenous incarceration crisis

www.theguardian.com

or the fact that all the state and territory leaders have signed on for the voice but have done the same things themselves, or passed legislation recently to increase police powers

and continued targeting Indigenous communities as the source of problems

McGowan's support is tokenistic at best. He is a political animal, so I suspect he knows which way the wind is blowing here in WA regarding the vote.

 

[Chief]

Would it happen at the State or Federal level?

No idea. Not my area of expertise. Ask the people who know about these things.

 

[Gralin]

McGowan's support is tokenistic at best. He is a political animal, so I suspect he knows which way the wind is blowing here in WA regarding the vote.

thats my point though
there are a lot of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders saying they don't trust governments to actually do the right thing and why should they trust them this time when history says they shouldn't

and people who don't have to deal with the systemic racism tell them to stop being so negative or whatever else pops into their head because they like the idea of the voice, regardless of what the outcome will be

they want to bet on hope which is fine but they aren't the ones that will be impacted if it goes badly

WA has been against treaty from the start so McGowan would love the idea of doing something like this instead

there is a real risk that the momentum for the voice will finish with the vote and people will think everything is better like they have with countless other social issues

SSM being a really good recent example