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.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

There will always be times that indigenous people disagree with what "The Voice" advises Parliament. People like Warren Mundine will always oppose it and be reliable for a quote in opposition.

I think the Voice will be progressive for Aboriginal rights, which is the point. And those concerned about closing the gap and indigenous rights will be able to point to their representations as being ignored. It'll give the do-gooders on the left something to get behind rather than assuming they speak for, or know best, for indigenous people. (even more so for conservatives who don't actually think they're doing what's best for indigenous people, but say they do when they do silly things like "the intervention" or trying to force them off country.

I think that they also have some degree of power when the balance is tight.
For example , independents in the senate could be swayed to vote with, or block legislation, if they knew the opinion of the "voice".
Even the publicity involved in going against the "voice" could be considered tangible.

( the more i use it , the more i dislike the term , "the voice " i keep hearing John Farnham ).

 

[Chief]

I have no doubt the LNP see this as collective bargaining. Right now indigenous groups have to get meetings with ministers, make submissions and so on, sometimes in competition with other groups.

The LNP like that. It gives them the power.

A (mostly) united group would probably be able to sort out many squabbles and differences before making submissions. No doubt there will be problems like with most groups though, but that would be more difficult for the LNP to reliably ignore or wedge.

 

[Saint]

I have no doubt the LNP see this as collective bargaining. Right now indigenous groups have to get meetings with ministers, make submissions and so on, sometimes in competition with other groups.

The LNP like that. It gives them the power.

A (mostly) united group would probably be able to sort out many squabbles and differences before making submissions. No doubt there will be problems like with most groups though, but that would be more difficult for the LNP to reliably ignore or wedge.

Makes it a lot harder for the LNP to wheel out two LNP members who happen to be indigenous to support their position on something as justification. A Unified Voice will be hard to fob off.

 

[Chief]

Yeah they are dead against an indigenous voice unless they control the political fate of the people speaking. Makes it easier to blow up historic sites for mining.

 

[Saint]

Yeah they are dead against an indigenous voice unless they control the political fate of the people speaking. Makes it easier to blow up historic sites for mining.

Instead of "nobody told us it was important", they'll have to front up and say "Yeah, the Voice people told us it was important, but the PM and Environment Minister said we could ignore them".

No party is going to want the second story to have to be told. So they'll stop approving that sort of thing.

 

[Chief]

Instead of "nobody told us it was important", they'll have to front up and say "Yeah, the Voice people told us it was important, but the PM and Environment Minister said we could ignore them".

No party is going to want the second story to have to be told. So they'll stop approving that sort of thing.

There is too much money involved so they will keep trying. Stack panels, lie, smear people.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Comment on Insiders this morning

"The role of the No Campaign protagonists is to create uncertainty, raise doubts and sow misinformation"

This is so true and cynically effective

 

[Rob R]

Instead of "nobody told us it was important", they'll have to front up and say "Yeah, the Voice people told us it was important, but the PM and Environment Minister said we could ignore them".

No party is going to want the second story to have to be told. So they'll stop approving that sort of thing.

They will still ignore it as it has no power and if (probably because it has no power like the ACT one) very few indigenous people vote for the representatives, it will have no credibility.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[QuietB]

Go Queensland - this country is faaaarked

Sacred Indigenous site on Sunshine Coast defaced with religious message

Queensland parks service investigates after the words ‘Jesus saves just ask him’ carved into rock at Mt Beerwah

www.theguardian.com

 

[QuietB]

They will still ignore it as it has no power and if (probably because it has no power like the ACT one) very few indigenous people vote for the representatives, it will have no credibility.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

So exactly the same as the Liberal Party then

 

[Gough]

Pretty simple really.

 

[Nice Swan Brother]

Pretty simple really.

Not really going to change anyone's minds though is it?

 

[Rob R]

So exactly the same as the Liberal Party then

Yep, exactly where the libs are headed - irrelevance.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Power Raid]

Makes it a lot harder for the LNP to wheel out two LNP members who happen to be indigenous to support their position on something as justification. A Unified Voice will be hard to fob off.

a unified voice? or a voice that doesn't unify or even listen?

one only needs experience with land councils to understand how marginalised the indigenous become, when "someone" else takes their voice.

 

[Power Raid]

I have no doubt the LNP see this as collective bargaining. Right now indigenous groups have to get meetings with ministers, make submissions and so on, sometimes in competition with other groups.

The LNP like that. It gives them the power.

A (mostly) united group would probably be able to sort out many squabbles and differences before making submissions. No doubt there will be problems like with most groups though, but that would be more difficult for the LNP to reliably ignore or wedge.

are you for real?

are you really denying people a voice and reducing them by their race as to what their position is or worse should be? and lowering their position to a "squabble"

what do you hear or say when you listen to a woman's voice? "you're getting a little emotional love"

 

[Chief]

are you really denying people a voice

 

[Power Raid]

You reduce their voice to no more than a squabble

People are people and deserve more than to be dismissed due to their race as a squabble

 

[Chief]

You reduce their voice to no more than a squabble

People are people and deserve more than to be dismissed due to their race as a squabble

Rubbish.

I pointed out the facts as they stand. The LNP plays people off against each other. Divide and conquer. They like it that way.

 

[Power Raid]

Rubbish.

I pointed out the facts as they stand. The LNP plays people off against each other. Divide and conquer. They like it that way.

So indigenous peoples individual views or even views of their mob are or are not squabble?

Dismissing an individual’s or mob’s views because of their race is not cool

 

[PJays]

Why I'm opposed to the constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament.

1. There aren't good reasons to vote yes.

2. There may be unintended consequences.

3. It's ethically questionable to give individuals privilege over others based on a group characteristic.

4. We don't know anything about the operations of The Voice.

5. It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

6. There are better ways to achieve the same goals.

 

[Home Alone]

I haven't read every post you made, but what I have; I have been in disagreement with. And it continues.

Reiterating the same No talking points adds nothing and wastes everyone's time.

And I am not trying to silence you, but do you think anyone is not aware of each and every one of your points

On SM-A515F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Power Raid]

I haven't read every post you made, but what I have; I have been in disagreement with. And it continues.

Reiterating the same No talking points adds nothing and wastes everyone's time.

And I am not trying to silence you, but do you think anyone is not aware of each and every one of your points

On SM-A515F using BigFooty.com mobile app

what are your thoughts on the points?

 

[Home Alone]

It doesn't add anything to the debate. Rehashing the yes sides response is just wasting your and my time.

On SM-A515F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Crankyhawk]

what are your thoughts on the points?

well, point 4 is insiting again on the stupid level of detail which no where else is specified in the constituition.

 

[Power Raid]

well, point 4 is insiting again on the stupid level of detail which no where else is specified in the constituition.

We’ve seen the Australian government lock up and shoot dead japanese and Germans in South Australia for no other crime than race.

We’ve seen Australia force the labelling of products that used indigenous and foreign born Australian labour.

I’d suggest it is important to understand the model proposed as history suggests we need to.




Further the noongars who I work with don’t like the idea of the voice as they feel it won’t represent them and disenfranchise them further.

They’re questioning why some Canberra mob knows more about them than they know themselves.

But hey, the indigenous people don’t need to know who will control their voice. After all their personal views are just squabble.