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]

Yeah I didn't mean necessarily just here, but everywhere in general

I mean they are attacking the news for using the work 'divisive'

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/quite-shaken-single-word-in-nine-news-bulletin-infuriates-viewers/news-story/60523aae3a996ed65104961d15f4fb40

Oh no, not nine news. Sending my thoughts and prayers to Peter Costello!

 

[Donakebab]

Representation and the Voice should lead to lead to better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. When we actually manage to close the gap, in turn this would lead to a drastic reduction on tax payer dollars spent on Indigenous specific programs focused on closing the gap.



Ergo, if you want to put an end to Indigenous hand outs, vote yes.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Speaking from ignorance in regards to the specifics of the referendum, but why is it necessary?

I do not consider myself ignorant when it comes to racism. I went to public school with a large percentage of first nations kids. Have played sport with plenty. Some have even been my footy heroes.

The reason I ask the question, however, is why is a referendum necessary to make this decision? Gay marriage was a hot button topic that could be argued infringed on human rights, but a voluntary plebiscite was deemed acceptable to make that decision. And technically it didn't have to be binding.

On the surface, an indigenous voice to parliament feels, as a concept, similar to the gender quota in Australian board rooms. Again, however, not something we've even been asked to decide on as a nation.

So what exactly am I missing? It's probably a dumb question to many of you, so I don't care how simplistic or blunt your answers are. I just want a better understanding of the reasons and the significance of the outcome.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Speaking from ignorance in regards to the specifics of the referendum, but why is it necessary?

I do not consider myself ignorant when it comes to racism. I went to public school with a large percentage of first nations kids. Have played sport with plenty. Some have even been my footy heroes.

The reason I ask the question, however, is why is a referendum necessary to make this decision? Gay marriage was a hot button topic that could be argued infringed on human rights, but a voluntary plebiscite was deemed acceptable to make that decision. And technically it didn't have to be binding.

On the surface, an indigenous voice to parliament feels, as a concept, similar to the gender quota in Australian board rooms. Again, however, not something we've even been asked to decide on as a nation.

So what exactly am I missing? It's probably a dumb question to many of you, so I don't care how simplistic or blunt your answers are. I just want a better understanding of the reasons and the significance of the outcome.

i think the decision for referendum rather than legislation is purely so that it is not easy to junk.

I posted earlier, not sure if you read it, my reasons for why yes vote makes sense - with a less than pure motive - essentially boils down to

• theres a lot of Indigenous disadvantage
• lots of money, time and other resources have failed to change this
• one thing we have not consistently had is Indigenous representation in those decision
• so if we let the Indigenous have representation, they will also need to take responsibility for the outcomes. And perhaps improves engagement and will close the gap and reduce future welfare payments/ improve health/ educational outcomes etc.

 

[Blackhawk42]

i think the decision for referendum rather than legislation is purely so that it is not easy to junk.

I posted earlier, not sure if you read it, my reasons for why yes vote makes sense - with a less than pure motive - essentially boils down to

• theres a lot of Indigenous disadvantage
• lots of money, time and other resources have failed to change this
• one thing we have not consistently had is Indigenous representation in those decision
• so if we let the Indigenous have representation, they will also need to take responsibility for the outcomes. And perhaps improves engagement and will close the gap and reduce future welfare payments/ improve health/ educational outcomes etc.

Thank you. This is helpful.

 

[Home Alone]

Jeeeeezus he just pulled her up saying not all aboriginal people have been marginalised because he's doing well himself.

No wonder he wants to maintain the status quo, typical Liberal. Got mine * the rest.

3AW talkbalk today thought he tore Sarah and the ABC a new one.

Seems to me when you are expecting a 100+ point lose and only loose by 10 goals, it seems like a win.

 

[jim boy]

The reason I ask the question, however, is why is a referendum necessary to make this decision? Gay marriage was a hot button topic that could be argued infringed on human rights, but a voluntary plebiscite was deemed acceptable to make that decision. And technically it didn't have to be binding.

Gay marriage is not a constitutional matter, the jurisdiction for the legislation for or against is a state matter - and there is no concept of 'constitution' at state level. The Voice is specifically around indigenous opinion being heard at federal level. Could it have been legislated instead? Yeah probably, but then it could easily be dropped for political reasons, this makes that almost impossible. There are other reasons for it to be a constitutional matter.

On the surface, an indigenous voice to parliament feels, as a concept, similar to the gender quota in Australian board rooms

Say what? There is no gender quota in Australian boardrooms, at least not legislated. Even if there was, it is not a comparison. Being on a board has real power, unlike the Voice.

 

[JackOutback]

3AW talkbalk today thought he tore Sarah and the ABC a new one.

Seems to me when you are expecting a 100+ point lose and only loose by 10 goals, it seems like a win.

As an Eagles fan…

 

[Gough]

Gay marriage is not a constitutional matter, the jurisdiction for the legislation for or against is a state matter - and there is no concept of 'constitution' at state level. The Voice is specifically around indigenous opinion being heard at federal level. Could it have been legislated instead? Yeah probably, but then it could easily be dropped for political reasons, this makes that almost impossible. There are other reasons for it to be a constitutional matter.

Say what? There is no gender quota in Australian boardrooms, at least not legislated. Even if there was, it is not a comparison. Being on a board has real power, unlike the Voice.

Seems to me The Voice is being empowered this way so you can't have some future conservative PM can't pull it apart. A future Liberal government won't be forced to act on it's advice but it will be forced to listen to it and those submissions will carry a public heft that Indigenous bodies as it stands don't have right now, look how easily the Turnbull government completely rejected the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Voice I hope will prevent this from happening again and force governments into more careful consideration of First Nation issue.

 

[10571z]

Why are people who are hardcore 'yes' voters openly attacking anyone who dares to say that they may note vote 'yes' when there are aboriginal people openly saying that they will vote no?

Because that’s how the left works. If you dare question anything they are supporting you will be torn to shreds.

 

[Festerz]

 

[Crankyhawk]

Did we get a division or a list of those who voted against having a referendum? Time to dox them

 

[Rob R]

Did we get a division or a list of those who voted against having a referendum? Time to dox them

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102414444https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102414444

121 to 25.

Liberals who joined their junior Coalition partners in opposing it were former immigration minister Alex Hawke, former speaker Andrew Wallace, Scott Buchholz, Ian Goodenough, Luke Howarth, Tony Pasin, Garth Hamilton, Henry Pike, Rick Wilson and Terry Young.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Festerz]

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102414444https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102414444

121 to 25.

Liberals who joined their junior Coalition partners in opposing it were former immigration minister Alex Hawke, former speaker Andrew Wallace, Scott Buchholz, Ian Goodenough, Luke Howarth, Tony Pasin, Garth Hamilton, Henry Pike, Rick Wilson and Terry Young.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

And the reasons those Libs voted NO is strategic - so that they can be on the Committee that will shape the 'NO' case document that will be sen out to all voters prior to the Referendum.

 

[Crankyhawk]

And the reasons those Libs voted NO is strategic - so that they can be on the Committee that will shape the 'NO' case document that will be sen out to all voters prior to the Referendum.

Yes but now is the time to attack them as undermining duttons leadership

 

[Gralin]

Seems to me The Voice is being empowered this way so you can't have some future conservative PM can't pull it apart. A future Liberal government won't be forced to act on it's advice but it will be forced to listen to it and those submissions will carry a public heft that Indigenous bodies as it stands don't have right now, look how easily the Turnbull government completely rejected the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Voice I hope will prevent this from happening again and force governments into more careful consideration of First Nation issue.

Bold of you to assume they will listen

 

[Crankyhawk]

Bold of you to assume they will listen
View attachment 1701580

have to give the impression of listening as far as media/ press release goes maybe?

 

[campbell]

Bold of you to assume they will listen
View attachment 1701580

arsewipes, disrespectful entitled pratts.

 

[Chief]

Half of the replies to any Sky News Twitter post on the topic is a bunch of racist stuff, some from real neo-Nazis, and a few people saying they are sick and tired of being told that Australians are racist.

The rest are people pointing and laughing at the Nazi tanty being thrown.

 

[Gough]

I remember when racists were proud, stupid and unapologetic in this country, now they're all constitutional experts.

 

[Grin]

Why are people who are hardcore 'yes' voters openly attacking anyone who dares to say that they may note vote 'yes' when there are aboriginal people openly saying that they will vote no?

the hardcore supporters attack anyone who lacks their ideological purity. Part and parcel of interacting here and you learn who is worthwhile and who lives in an ivory tower of impossible expectation.

You'll find the abuse and violent threats are largely coming from the right.
But I conceded that's not what the Murdoch media has instructed you to think.

 

[Grin]

Because that’s how the left works. If you dare question anything they are supporting you will be torn to shreds.

That's actually how the right works.
I acknowledge that you don't seem like the type to ever let reality colour your political ideology.

 

[Chief]

Why are people who are hardcore 'yes' voters openly attacking anyone who dares to say that they may note vote 'yes' when there are aboriginal people openly saying that they will vote no?

The real question is WHY are these people voting no?

Are they doing it because they want the country to work towards a treaty first? Or because they don't trust indigenous people?

The Twitter zombies with neo-Nazi and "Aryan" symbols on their profile love the way Sky and Co are making their case for them, and they are vocal about it.

 

[Chief]

Because that’s how the left works. If you dare question anything they are supporting you will be torn to shreds.

Maybe you need to come up with better arguments if you're being torn to shreds in debates?

 

[10571z]

Maybe you need to come up with better arguments if you're being torn to shreds in debates?

“I’m hesitant on a vaccine that was rushed” - OMG you are anti Vax! You want old people to die!!!

“I don’t think it’s fair for trans women to compete against women” - OMG you are Transphobic. Why are you so intolerant!!!

When you have indigenous spokespeople like Lidia Thorp running around slurring hate speech and claiming every white person is evil meanwhile still not having a set process on how to avoid people like her sitting in “the voice” then I wouldn’t be surprised a huge amount of people are hesitant.