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.

 

[QuietB]

No-one here has been alive 200 years. I know its stating the obvious.
Are you holding a grudge against dead people?

Yes

 

[Gough]

No-one here has been alive 200 years. I know its stating the obvious.
Are you holding a grudge against dead people?

It's got nothing to do with the dearly departed, if you're alive now you've materially benefited from the dispossession of Indigenous Australia

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It's got nothing to do with the dearly departed, if you're alive now you've materially benefited from the dispossession of Indigenous Australia

Gross generalisation.
Do you include Caucasian homeless people?

Perhaps you should demand compensation from those guys.

 

[QuietB]

Gross generalisation.
Do you include Caucasian homeless people?

Perhaps you should demand compensation from those guys.

The issue is not money. It is pretty much universally accepted that the current plight of First Nations people has very little to do with money. There is enormous amounts of money being spent and enormous amounts have been spent.

The "voice" has nothing to do with "compensation" so I am not sure why you are conflating that here.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The issue is not money. It is pretty much universally accepted that the current plight of First Nations people has very little to do with money. There is enormous amounts of money being spent and enormous amounts have been spent.

The "voice" has nothing to do with "compensation" so I am not sure why you are conflating that here.

It's got nothing to do with the dearly departed, if you're alive now you've materially benefited from the dispossession of Indigenous Australia

So you are talking about displacement, which i get.
Others are talking about how everyone else alive has benefitted by that displacement.
I don't disagree that some probably have , but as an "everyone " i call bullshit.

 

[O Grobbecker]

It's got nothing to do with the dearly departed, if you're alive now you've materially benefited from the dispossession of Indigenous Australia

What material benefit do you say that a person alive today, so born after, say, 1930, has from "the dispossession of Indigenous Australia", 1788 or around 1850, depending upon what you mean by "dispossession" ?

 

[Power Raid]

You say that as a person who has considerable advantage, so that's not a surprise

I agree but will debate whether the constitution is the place to remedy this and enshrine racism

or whether the root cause was we enshrined racism in our constitution that enabled the policies that delivered disadvantage

 

[O Grobbecker]

I agree but will debate whether the constitution is the place to remedy this and enshrine racism

or whether the root cause was we enshrined racism in our constitution that enabled the policies that delivered disadvantage

The Constitution has served us well, considering that it's now 122 years old. Perspective. The world was a very different place in 1900. Consider the European and British colonised parts of the World in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the Americas, Sub Saharan Africa, the Sub Continent and Australasia. Macquarie declared that there would be no slaves in Australia, the Brits treatment of the indigenous of both Australasia and the Americas was appalling by modern standards but no Apartheid in Australia or New Zealand. The Constitution still empowers Parliament to make laws with respected to race, where needed, surviving the 1967 amendments. Despite its flaws, by 21st Century, liberal democracy standards, it's an exceptional document, no wonder it's so hard to change. Post 1900, we can no longer blame the Brits for the way we govern. If you want real racism, forget about the Anglophone and Western Europe, go to Asia and Africa. Name a country which is multi racial and which is less racist than Australia. Here endeth the Grobbecker rant.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I honestly don’t see it as a race issue. First Nations people in Australia hold a truely unique position. We should be doing everything we can to allow their culture to remain, thrive and be celebrated. Until now we have done the exact opposite. We have actively tried to destroy it.

The rest of us are part of some big Australian multicultural experiment and frankly we are for the most part doing fine.

First Nations people are separate to that. If that means they get special treatment so be it.

And immediately that'll give the ignorant and intentionally racist ammunition, this sort of attitude of 'different' or 'separate' is part of the problem in the first place.

Aboriginals should be treated as equal (they're not at the moment and never have been), just like every other human being should be, and to ensure they are, we as a society should not give preferential treatment just because they're in a 'unique' position.

And no that should not equate to stifling / suppressing aboriginal culture.

 

[kickazz]

I think this referendum will be an interesting one, and one aspect makes me second guess how widespread the support for it will be.

The big ones that got support I can think of are the 1967 reforms for Indigenous Australians, and the Marriage Equality plebiscite. In both cases, Australians voted for everyone being treated the same, when beforehand they were not.

In the case of the Voice, we will be voting for people being treated differently, at least when you look at it superficially from a distance. Yes, when you look at it properly there are issues of equitable treatment and redress at hand that really matter, and give it merit. But fundamentally, we will be putting in the Constitution measures that discriminate based on race. Yes we have done this at a tactical level for a long time with various legislation and more particularly, executive functions of government. But changing, long term, the very essence of our country to having one group of people enshrined as different to another, is kind of a big deal.

I don't like the concept in theory, but I am inclined to support it because I think we need it - nothing else has really worked. Then again, part of me thinks it will be an impotent waste of resources.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But changing, long term, the very essence of our country to having one group of people enshrined as different to another, is kind of a big deal.

I don't like the concept in theory, but I am inclined to support it because I think we need it - nothing else has really worked. Then again, part of me thinks it will be an impotent waste of resources.

As I alluded earlier this could be counterproductive, it'll bring the aholes out of the woodwork claiming 'discrimination' (as you point out it is).

Like you I'm inclined to support >something, anything!< that changes from the poor treatment our indigenous people have received up to this point in time.

'Separating' Aboriginals from all others, including all other minorities is a recipe for disaster and will create further division - something those aholes are hoping for.

 

[Power Raid]

The Constitution has served us well, considering that it's now 122 years old. Perspective. The world was a very different place in 1900. Consider the European and British colonised parts of the World in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the Americas, Sub Saharan Africa, the Sub Continent and Australasia. Macquarie declared that there would be no slaves in Australia, the Brits treatment of the indigenous of both Australasia and the Americas was appalling by modern standards but no Apartheid in Australia or New Zealand.

of course there were slaves and apartheid but through different mechanisms

we labelled product made by coloured labour, this resulted in lower pay or no jobs
we denied them property ownership which rendered them serfs
we denied them banking so they could by property

Inside the Segregated Pubs of Outback Australia

The Constitution still empowers Parliament to make laws with respected to race, where needed, surviving the 1967 amendments. Despite its flaws, by 21st Century, liberal democracy standards, it's an exceptional document, no wonder it's so hard to change. Post 1900, we can no longer blame the Brits for the way we govern. If you want real racism, forget about the Anglophone and Western Europe, go to Asia and Africa. Name a country which is multi racial and which is less racist than Australia. Here endeth the Grobbecker rant.

The 1967 amendments were about granting the federal govt the power to make laws re indigenous people. prior to that the feds had no power but rather the states had jurisdiction over indigenous people


I don't really care about who is more racist or less racist (bu I hear where you are coming from). I would prefer we simply remove all racist sections from our constitution and live up to a standard where equality means equality. These laws should not only apply to all citizens but also government.

 

[Power Raid]

I think this referendum will be an interesting one, and one aspect makes me second guess how widespread the support for it will be.

The big ones that got support I can think of are the 1967 reforms for Indigenous Australians, and the Marriage Equality plebiscite. In both cases, Australians voted for everyone being treated the same, when beforehand they were not.

In the case of the Voice, we will be voting for people being treated differently, at least when you look at it superficially from a distance. Yes, when you look at it properly there are issues of equitable treatment and redress at hand that really matter, and give it merit. But fundamentally, we will be putting in the Constitution measures that discriminate based on race. Yes we have done this at a tactical level for a long time with various legislation and more particularly, executive functions of government. But changing, long term, the very essence of our country to having one group of people enshrined as different to another, is kind of a big deal.

I don't like the concept in theory, but I am inclined to support it because I think we need it - nothing else has really worked. Then again, part of me thinks it will be an impotent waste of resources.

support likely to be around 75+% from things I read a while back

I don't see that changing too much

 

[O Grobbecker]

of course there were slaves and apartheid but through different mechanisms

we labelled product made by coloured labour, this resulted in lower pay or no jobs
we denied them property ownership which rendered them serfs
we denied them banking so they could by property

Inside the Segregated Pubs of Outback Australia




The 1967 amendments were about granting the federal govt the power to make laws re indigenous people. prior to that the feds had no power but rather the states had jurisdiction over indigenous people


I don't really care about who is more racist or less racist (bu I hear where you are coming from). I would prefer we simply remove all racist sections from our constitution and live up to a standard where equality means equality. These laws should not only apply to all citizens but also government.

There's not much in that with which I can't agree.

 

[O Grobbecker]

And immediately that'll give the ignorant and intentionally racist ammunition, this sort of attitude of 'different' or 'separate' is part of the problem in the first place.

Aboriginals should be treated as equal (they're not at the moment and never have been), just like every other human being should be, and to ensure they are, we as a society should not give preferential treatment just because they're in a 'unique' position.

And no that should not equate to stifling / suppressing aboriginal culture.

"Aboriginals should be treated as equal (they're not at the moment and never have been)," Why do you think that the indigenous are treated any different from the est of us ? Even if it is true, it isn't, what is there in the Constitution or the Voice that has anything to do with that ?

 

[O Grobbecker]

of course there were slaves and apartheid but through different mechanisms

we labelled product made by coloured labour, this resulted in lower pay or no jobs
we denied them property ownership which rendered them serfs
we denied them banking so they could by property

Inside the Segregated Pubs of Outback Australia




The 1967 amendments were about granting the federal govt the power to make laws re indigenous people. prior to that the feds had no power but rather the states had jurisdiction over indigenous people


I don't really care about who is more racist or less racist (bu I hear where you are coming from). I would prefer we simply remove all racist sections from our constitution and live up to a standard where equality means equality. These laws should not only apply to all citizens but also government.

No argument from me on that, PR

 

[Schneebly11]

support likely to be around 75+% from things I read a while back

I don't see that changing too much

For the Indigenous Voice, the few polls those since the election have shown support around high 50%

Indigenous Voice to Parliament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The problem is there are still a lot of undecideds. This is probably due to little public awareness of what the Voice would actually be.

In the case of the Voice, we will be voting for people being treated differently, at least when you look at it superficially from a distance. Yes, when you look at it properly there are issues of equitable treatment and redress at hand that really matter, and give it merit. But fundamentally, we will be putting in the Constitution measures that discriminate based on race. Yes we have done this at a tactical level for a long time with various legislation and more particularly, executive functions of government. But changing, long term, the very essence of our country to having one group of people enshrined as different to another, is kind of a big deal.

This can be a line of attack for conservatives. If they manage to convince a lot of people that Indigenous people will get special rights that non Indigenous Australians will not get then the referendum will fail.

I'll contrast to the Republic vote.

Republicanism in Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Public Opinion polls before and slightly after the Referendum showed a slight majority in favour of a Republic, with about 35% opposition. However when the only poll that counts was done it failed. I reckon because the "No" camp managed to convince the undecideds that the Republic would give extra power to politicians, that the ordinary person would miss out on.

If the conservatives can convince undecideds and the politically uninterested that indigenous Australians would have more rights and powers over non indigenous people then that can see a referendum fail. That would be disastrous to Indigenous people and reconciliation, it would severely weaken the ALP and Albo, it would embolden Dutton and the right wingers to step up the culture war and unleash some pretty disgusting racism.

For now it seems that Albo is assuming that the Liberals will support the voice, given he thinks the party is aware it needs to move back towards the centre. Or at least hold their opposition as to not appear fractured. But if Dutton sees this as an opportunity to run a wedge campaign and lead the "No" position then he'll gladly do it, because the welfare of Indigenous Australians will be the last factor on his mind in the decision making process for the Liberals in relation to this referendum.

 

[Carringbush2010]

"Aboriginals should be treated as equal (they're not at the moment and never have been)," Why do you think that the indigenous are treated any different from the est of us ? Even if it is true, it isn't, what is there in the Constitution or the Voice that has anything to do with that ?

Ok it doesn't come down to the individual level for every single individual, I'm sure there are examples at the individual level as well

But there is no doubt that Aboriginal people as a collective have not been given equal opportunity or equal treatment.

For example, not allowed to vote until 1967.

 

[Power Raid]

Why doesn't the government simply set up the voice now? why enshrine the concept in the constitution with such permanency, if it could be simply done now?

Then people can make an informed decision on the concept and effectiveness.

Why? this is about politics rather than the stated goal

 

[Gough]

Why doesn't the government simply set up the voice now? why enshrine the concept in the constitution with such permanency, if it could be simply done now?

Then people can make an informed decision on the concept and effectiveness.

Why? this is about politics rather than the stated goal

If it's about politics what's the government trying to do?

 

[Power Raid]

And immediately that'll give the ignorant and intentionally racist ammunition, this sort of attitude of 'different' or 'separate' is part of the problem in the first place.

Aboriginals should be treated as equal (they're not at the moment and never have been), just like every other human being should be, and to ensure they are, we as a society should not give preferential treatment just because they're in a 'unique' position.

And no that should not equate to stifling / suppressing aboriginal culture.

this is a very real issue and it is a push and pull. race will be used by both sides of the debate.

we've seen the divisive politics in the US and this will be an ingredient to australian politics that delivers a trajectory in that direction

 

[Festerz]

For example, not allowed to vote until 1967.

Simply untrue.

That is NOT what the 1967 referendum was about.

 

[Power Raid]

If it's about politics what's the government trying to do?

if government felt it needed indigenous input on policy, it could simply set up a steering committee. so why go the next step? to create a political weapon based on race.

it is very clever politics but that serves politicians and not the people (indigenous or other)

 

[O Grobbecker]

For the Indigenous Voice, the few polls those since the election have shown support around high 50%

Indigenous Voice to Parliament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The problem is there are still a lot of undecideds. This is probably due to little public awareness of what the Voice would actually be.



This can be a line of attack for conservatives. If they manage to convince a lot of people that Indigenous people will get special rights that non Indigenous Australians will not get then the referendum will fail.

I'll contrast to the Republic vote.

Republicanism in Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Public Opinion polls before and slightly after the Referendum showed a slight majority in favour of a Republic, with about 35% opposition. However when the only poll that counts was done it failed. I reckon because the "No" camp managed to convince the undecideds that the Republic would give extra power to politicians, that the ordinary person would miss out on.

If the conservatives can convince undecideds and the politically uninterested that indigenous Australians would have more rights and powers over non indigenous people then that can see a referendum fail. That would be disastrous to Indigenous people and reconciliation, it would severely weaken the ALP and Albo, it would embolden Dutton and the right wingers to step up the culture war and unleash some pretty disgusting racism.

For now it seems that Albo is assuming that the Liberals will support the voice, given he thinks the party is aware it needs to move back towards the centre. Or at least hold their opposition as to not appear fractured. But if Dutton sees this as an opportunity to run a wedge campaign and lead the "No" position then he'll gladly do it, because the welfare of Indigenous Australians will be the last factor on his mind in the decision making process for the Liberals in relation to this referendum.

Don't trust politicians. wilst ...

Ok it doesn't come down to the individual level for every single individual, I'm sure there are examples at the individual level as well

But there is no doubt that Aboriginal people as a collective have not been given equal opportunity or equal treatment.

For example, not allowed to vote until 1967.

That’s 55 years ago. I can’t think of any law or regulation that applies to the indigenous tat doesn’t apply to everyone else.

 

[Gough]

if government felt it needed indigenous input on policy, it could simply set up a steering committee. so why go the next step? to create a political weapon based on race.

it is very clever politics but that serves politicians and not the people (indigenous or other)

This is from the Uluru Statement from the heart,
"It asks Australians to walk together to build a better future by establishing a First Nations Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution".
The Close the Gap measures are a demonstrable failure, the Indigenous community has requested this and you dismiss it as a racist weapon? I'm not sure how you arrive at that.