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.

 

[Power Raid]

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

Why are you posting here then?

You don’t want to hear the no, you don’t want to hear the yes……….do you like Russian politics where people are arrested for expressing their views?

 

[Home Alone]

Why are you posting here then?

You don’t want to hear the no, you don’t want to hear the yes……….do you like Russian politics where people are arrested for expressing their views?

Because i am genuinely interested. And i do wanr to hear.

I do not need to hear repeatedly the undisputed views of the yes and no sides. Add something, like you did here

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.

Now, from where i sit, that at worst the status quo is maintained. So still a yes.

 

[Power Raid]

Because i am genuinely interested. And i do wanr to hear.

I do not need to hear repeatedly the undisputed views of the yes and no sides. Add something, like you did here

Now, from where i sit, that at worst the status quo is maintained. So still a yes.

what is your view on the performance of ATSIC and the various models that preceded it?

what is your view on land councils and how effective are they in representing the interests of those they represent?

 

[Home Alone]

what is your view on the performance of ATSIC and the various models that preceded it?

what is your view on land councils and how effective are they in representing the interests of those they represent?

Fail and fail.
I think i can guess what your next question is going to be.

 

[Number37]

what is your view on the performance of ATSIC and the various models that preceded it?

what is your view on land councils and how effective are they in representing the interests of those they represent?

Specious arguments.

1/
Constitutional bodies fail the people they're supposed to represent everyday of the week.

Exhibit A;
Australian Constitution Chapter III: The Judicature.
Are you suggesting we get rid of Chapter III because the Judicature has at times failed?


2/
We have representative govt. ie the govt is held to account by the people at the voting booth.

How is cabinet solidarity consistent with representative govt?
Hint: it isn't. MP's vote against the will of the people they represent all the time, primarily due to cabinet solidarity.

Exhibit B:
Same sex marriage.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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.

Those questions are answered in the 200 odd page document.

Given that this is what the Uluṟu statement group (which was large and representative) asked for I don’t see how it is disenfranchising individuals.

And pull your head in on this “squabble” point I think you have mischaracterised what other posters are saying in terms of what lnp and no side are doing.

 

[Gough]

what is your view on the performance of ATSIC and the various models that preceded it?

what is your view on land councils and how effective are they in representing the interests of those they represent?

Go on, tell us black guys can't self govern. Everyone can see you want to.

 

[campbell]

Go on, tell us black guys can't self govern. Everyone can see you want to.

Dont feed the troll.

This thread sadly, is everyday talk for us blackfellas.

A lot of fear and ignorance being fueled by politicians and media.

But, its just ramped up the behavours we are subjected to every darn day.

 

[Gough]

Dont feed the troll.

This thread sadly, is everyday talk for us blackfellas.

A lot of fear and ignorance being fueled by politicians and media.

But, its just ramped up the behavours we are subjected to every darn day.

It's like the same sex marriage debate all over again, a section of Australia is put on trial by those opposing the proposition and their lives are pored over for everyone to have an opinion on. This should be as simple as 1967 but there was no Peter Dutton back then staking his political future on hoping Australians are as racist as he is. Can you imagine seeing people celebrating if this is knocked back? It makes me feel sick.

 

[The Punter]

If it's a temporary problem, I'd hate to endure a permanent problem.

 

[Saint]

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.

1. "I'm too lazy to read any material"
2. I'm afraid because people have been making up all sorts of stories (is anyone marrying animals yet?)
3. This is precisely why its needed because there is evidence that one group has been disadvantaged becauae of their group for centuries
4. This is how the constitution works, the first constitution had hundreds of clauses and no detail.
5. Seems like a pretty permanent problem atm
6. Please, please, please name them. After 200 years, abject failure so far.

 

[Gethelred]

Why are you posting here then?

You don’t want to hear the no, you don’t want to hear the yes……….do you like Russian politics where people are arrested for expressing their views?

Do you want to stop attacking people for having the temerity to express an opinion on an opinion forum?

 

[Saint]

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.

When did they shoot them dead?! There were internments, but no executions.

The Germans who were locked up during WW2 were members of the Nazi party spreading Nazi propaganda.

It does seem like there's still a bit of education to be done, lucky there's still months with which to do it.

 

[Power Raid]

Go on, tell us black guys can't self govern. Everyone can see you want to.

Care to answer the question relevant to the post, if you respond to a post, rather than making shit up in your head?

 

[Saint]

 

[Power Raid]

Those questions are answered in the 200 odd page document.

Given that this is what the Uluṟu statement group (which was large and representative) asked for I don’t see how it is disenfranchising individuals.

And pull your head in on this “squabble” point I think you have mischaracterised what other posters are saying in terms of what lnp and no side are doing.

Cranky I can’t discuss the details based on bigfooty rules re racism but their is history behind this squabble remark and racism.

When discussing the racist experience here on bigfooty with noongars, two broke down in tears.

They claimed the term deemed “ok” and not racist denied them of their identity as aboriginal.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Cranky I can’t discuss the details based on bigfooty rules but their is history behind this squabble regarding racism.

When discussing the racist experience here on bigfooty with noongars, two broke down in tears.

They claimed the term deemed “ok” and not racist denied them of their identity as aboriginal.

Whic racist experience specifically? Hawthorn? The voice? PM please. But from the discussion I saw I read it as posters here being critical of the lnp and the lnp seeking to put the voice as First Nations people “squabbling” and unable to lead themselves. That’s how I read the interactions

 

[Gough]

Care to answer the question relevant to the post, if you respond to a post, rather than making s**t up in your head?

Because ATSIC was a failure we shouldn't bother trying anything else is not a convincing argument.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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"

OK, re reading the quotes
The choice of word squabble probably undermined the initial point, which is that the LNP are objecting to a collective voice because the fear the potential power that comes from a collective bargaining position. And that the current position (sans voice) is that individual tribes/ groups/ individuals make individual representations which are ignored (like my representation to my local mp to junk stage 3 tax cuts, have gotten crickets in response). Which a Voice gets to make a representation and if ignored they have better media access etc to force politicians to at least acknowledge the voice's view.

Individuals who disagree with the voice representing them, well, the process would be they could nominate for themselves to be the voice, or seek a person(s) that represent their view - just like any other democratic process. A bit like how Australia had to cope with scomo representing us until we could eject him.

 

[Chief]

lowering their position to a "squabble"

You are latching on to one word and going ballistic. You are not being reasonable.

You think indigenous group don't have their own politics?

Interpret it as "sort out their differences" and you will be a lot less emotional about it.

 

[Power Raid]

Because ATSIC was a failure we shouldn't bother trying anything else is not a convincing argument.

ATSIC was a failure and so to the organisations before that



but take a step back and think about what is the cause of the "gap". Is it representation or a voice or is it much more?

I'd suggest there are many areas we can look at in the gap including but not limited health, wealth & education.

Education by itself is useless without opportunity and hope. This has its own challenges as the most important part of education is before one goes to school, meaning a social system response is needed which currently doesn't exist.

Health is tied to wealth, incomes, jobs, purpose and education. This will likely resolve itself as a result of fixing other issues. We only have to look at pre 1976 era to see this recent challenge, can be overcome.

Wealth, indigenous people denied property ownership and the ability to get bank loans has placed them at a massive disadvantage. The solution here requires:
1) state recompensate every indigenous person property right loss. This has started in WA and I'd hope interstate. This payment should not be to the mob or a land council but directly to the indigenous person regardless of their continuous connection to the land.
2) mabo - the continuous connection to the land should be removed as it creates a slave. Move on in life and lose one's rights and benefits, is hardly motivation to a better life.
3) land council corruption or mismanagement
4) BANKS - should waive the requirement for a deposit on a home. rather they should provide indigenous people non-recourse loans with no deposit.


I'd suggest if people can buy a home, where they like rather than trapped by mabo or being disenfranchised (denied their aboriginal heritage) is a positive. To start a family with a roof over their heads, that they own, in a place of employment, education and health services is a positive.

Indigenous people survived and thrived for thousands of years, but 200 years of property right denial, 100 years of denying them fair employment and bank loans has placed them in a tough spot. The 1976 decision was probably the most dangerous and damaging decision.




The background of the 1976 decision was fair pay for indigenous people. The idea was right but the execution so, so wrong. The result was indigenous people lost their jobs and healthy 3 cooked meals a day and the result is the health issue we see today.

What should have happened is the Oz govt subsidise the gap between the indigenous wage and the fair wage. Placed a hiring freeze, so all new workers had to be on a full unsubsidised wage.

For those under 40, commence retraining and provide new opportunities over time and allow the "old dogs" to finish out their careers without needing to learn new tricks.



Simple action is required, not doubling up on bureaucracy or creating a race fuelled political weapon

 

[Power Raid]

When did they shoot them dead?! There were internments, but no executions.

The Germans who were locked up during WW2 were members of the Nazi party spreading Nazi propaganda.

It does seem like there's still a bit of education to be done, lucky there's still months with which to do it.

not quite

In the case of Japanese, just about all were locked up including some Taiwanese and Koreans as they either looked Japanese or had Japanese last names.

The Italian and Germans locked up was more selective but to be locked up didn't require allegiance to their homelands or propaganda. They were shot trying to escape their camps and if I recall correctly 22 were shot dead in Hahndorf. No crime other than their race.


This is just one example of why race should not be in our constitution. Our governments have used this to punish the fad of the day, be that islanders, indigenous, italians, chinese, germans and people that may or may not be japanese but look japanese.

 

[Gough]

You're really trying to compare an Indigenous Voice to parliament with the circumstances in WW2?

 

[Power Raid]

You're really trying to compare an Indigenous Voice to parliament with the circumstances in WW2?

No I'm comparing constitutional power of government and the history of abuse. The abuse is not limited to WW2, attested to by the examples provided, but rather who ever the electorate feels deserves the wrath at the time.

Personally I feel we should remove the racist elements of our constitution rather than add to it.

Further the Voice could be set up under the current constitutional powers but the reason it is being done by referendum is to politicise the issue. In my opinion, that's not healthy either.

 

[JackOutback]

You're really trying to compare an Indigenous Voice to parliament with the circumstances in WW2?

The facade is slipping.