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.

 

[Festerz]

(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:




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:

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Doomed to fail.

 

[Rob R]

No, the details are available here Final Report | Indigenous Voice

Thanks for posting that link, it is a good start on informing people and allaying their fears (justified and racially driven ones). I can understand why Albo is trying to avoid providing details as a lesson from the rejected republican effort but no details on costings, if it can delay bills to enable review, what existing (and largely ineffective white Canberran lobbyist focused engagement forums) it will replace etc will give rise to attacks of how can you vote yes for something they won't explain - similar to the attacks on ALP policies in 2019.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[campbell]

Doomed to fail.

Why do you say that?

 

[JackOutback]

I would expect that the media (who are looking for no to get up) would actively seek out indigenous people who are against the proposal to best knock it over.

I don’t think most of the media will campaign against it. Yes, the media in this country is a shitshow, it’s economically conservative and certainly props up some racist institutions, but they are not as overtly racist as they used to be. The West Australian is a conservative shill for the LNP and it’s come out in support of changing the date of Australia Day.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I don’t think most of the media will campaign against it. Yes, the media in this country is a shitshow, it’s economically conservative and certainly props up some racist institutions, but they are not as overtly racist as they used to be. The West Australian is a conservative shill for the LNP and it’s come out in support of changing the date of Australia Day.

The Australian is an interesting case; Planet Janet Albrechtsen is agin it, on the usual subliminal racist grounds; Dog Botherer Kenny is "for" it, but only because he thinks it won't actually improve things.
They are already headlining the ratbag fringers like Jacinta Price.

 

[Not Important]

 

[Gough]

The Australian is an interesting case; Planet Janet Albrechtsen is agin it, on the usual subliminal racist grounds; Dog Botherer Kenny is "for" it, but only because he thinks it won't actually improve things.
They are already headlining the ratbag fringers like Jacinta Price.

Someone should just offer her more money to switch sides, she'd be off quicker than GAJ to the Gold Coast.

 

[Not Important]

Someone should just offer her more money to switch sides, she'd be off quicker than GAJ to the Gold Coast.

not sure about that, goughie. think she’s firmly embedded in the rightist dogma. speaking of bed wasn’t she was/is also sharing one with kroger? tarred with the same brush.

 

[Gough]

not sure about that, goughie. think she’s firmly embedded in the rightist dogma. speaking of bed wasn’t she was/is also sharing one with kroger? tarred with the same brush.

Most on that side of politics would sell their first born to Fritzl if they thought it would get them a leg up.

 

[FredLeDeux]

not sure about that, goughie. think she’s firmly embedded in the rightist dogma. speaking of bed wasn’t she was/is also sharing one with kroger? tarred with the same brush.

Think he's talking about Price, not Albrechtsen

 

[Not Important]

Think he's talking about Price, not Albrechtsen

aha. still reckon she's been indoctrinated.

 

[Kwality]

The Australian is an interesting case; Planet Janet Albrechtsen is agin it, on the usual subliminal racist grounds; Dog Botherer Kenny is "for" it, but only because he thinks it won't actually improve things.
They are already headlining the ratbag fringers like Jacinta Price.

Interesting unsubstantiated comment YOU make there Fred.

To call Senator Price a fringer demonstrates your objectivity. Silly woman wants to address family issues (violence, grog & housing), rat bag fringer indeed.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Interesting unsubstantiated comment YOU make there Fred.

To call Senator Price a fringer demonstrates your objectivity. Silly woman wants to address family issues (violence, grog & housing), rat bag fringer indeed.

Sorry, should have said grifter playing you ratbag fingers.

 

[Kwality]

aha. still reckon she's been indoctrinated.

'The system is broken': Indigenous policy failures highlighted in powerful maiden speeches

Northern Territory senator Jacinta Price and Member for Lingiari Marion Scrymgour both address Aboriginal disadvantage, domestic violence and alcohol laws in their maiden speeches in federal politics.

www.abc.net.au

"Such neglect in great numbers would not be accepted in the prosperous suburbs of our capital cities."

 

[Evolved1]

The Albo government have been impressive in all facets of governance thus far. They've worked towards building bridges with international partners, staved off pressure from left and right with the environment, and sought to give further recognition to first nation people.

I can't fault them yet.

 

[Kwality]

Sorry, should have said grifter playing you ratbag fingers.

No need to be sorry when name calling & virtue signalling is your signature

 

[Power Raid]

Go on then, let's hear them.

Please find the following link re a third parties view on racism and our constitution
Nicholson, Graham --- "A racist constitution for a nation: a nation of racists?" [2000] AltLawJl 82; (2000) 25(5) Alternative Law Journal 211 being

A racist constitution for a nation: a nation of racists?​

............. the Constitution promotes a race-based legal and social system in Australia.






The Constitution
for me the constitution is the most important document in the land, as it is not only the document that sets out the rules by which Australia is governed, it "limits" the power of federal government.

As we have seen globally, over the centuries, our biggest threat is not external but our own governments.........our indigenous friends can attest to this, as well as the Australians of german decent we locked up and then shot because they were german and our treatment of women denying them the right for property ownership and voting.

A key consideration to my position is to preserve the constitutions purpose and not not dilute or confuse its purpose. More importantly, I would like to see our Constitution and Government promote the concept of being for all people equally (in representation and in action).



What has enabled discrimination, institutionalised corruption and bullying and prevented the representation of a people in our government (including race) and good governance for all people is enshrined racism:

Racism and Our Constitution
Our constitution enshrines racism in many clauses, including

s25 Provisions as to race and disqualified from voting

For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.

44 Disqualification

Any person who— a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power

51 Legislative power of parliament

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;






The Goals from a 2022 perspective, looking 100 years forward
In 2022 I feel we should have two goals:

1) remove racism from our constitution not add to it.

Some of the sections such as s25 are probably no longer valid but whether it is or not, the collective racist sections are a reminder of a once insecure nation that used fear and hatred to mobilise and unite colonies to a federation.

Adding any racist concepts, no matter in what "good faith" reason today is no different to the "good faith" purposes of yesterday. Most importantly racism and inequality rarely deliver long term positive results

2) address the various issues that confront indigenous people, which includes past actions that have contributed to the current outcomes

What are examples of issues unaddressed or only partially addressed
1) we know terra nullius was not the correct determination, thus we have a "big picture" property rights issue. This has been addressed in part by recognition of heritage agreements and more importantly native title.......but it is poorly designed, inadequate and has resulted in "property loss for indigenous people impacted by farming and cities".

This should be a focus as part of a treaty with the indigenous people as a whole. The SW of WA may be a leader in addressing this issue and could perhaps be a case study on long term success or failure.

2) the denial of indigenous people the right to property ownership and bank loans has resulted in a massive society inequity, as other people have been able to build capital over generations.

Over and above the "big picture" we have a property rights issue at the individual level. A solution here is much simpler but nevertheless one that is overlooked completely by native title.

Examples like the above are best addressed through a treaty and a property right settlement........not the constitution





My Preferred Changes to the Constitution

What I would like to see (and what would have avoided the discrimination that caused the negative events against indigenous people, islanders, italians and chinese) is the removal of the s25, 44 and part of s51

I would like to see a section added to the constitution similar to s99 but replace State with the wording to protect all groups of people

s99 Commonwealth not to give preference

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof.




The Voice
A Voice of any one race does not need to be enshrined. All good government should consult with all stakeholders be it industry or in this case race. If they don't, this highlights poor government and bureaucratic process and we have elections to address this.

Setting up indigenous steering committees, hiring indigenous and promoting indigenous people in our departments etc would be more appropriate as it achieves a better outcome and remains more contemporary rather than a section in a constitution (as highlighted above)

The Problem of Poor Stakeholder Engagement of the past

Poor stakeholder engagement with indigenous people was not an accident. Rather it was by design and made lawful through our constitution.

resolving the root cause and addressing the consequences of our racist constitution and governments. What we should avoid is replicating failures of the past by further enshrining racism.

 

[Power Raid]

It's amazing the number of people comfortable with circumstances that create generational disadvantage to others, and generational advantages to themselves, who suddenly become vocal anti racist campaigner at the first sign of anything being done to address this.

This issue is going to become a straw man factory.

On SM-X200 using BigFooty.com mobile app

I can't change the past but I am vocal on a property right settlement with the indigenous community as a whole for terra nullius (native title doesn't go far enough) and a property right settlement for individuals for the denial of property ownership and the inability to get bank loans

What I'm against is "not addressing" the outcomes of our racist constitution, facilitating racist governments and policies OR introducing more racism into our constitution

 

[Jammer]

My major concern having visited a few of them are the horrific conditions in the remote communities.
ATSIC in the 90s and early 2000s, an organization very similar to what is being proposed, what a debacle it was.
It at least could be disbanded ( agreed by both major parties ) as it was not enshrined in the constitution when the stench of corruption became too much.
How the "Voice" would function needs to be very simply and clearly explained.

I would be more open to being onboard if it has actual elders from remote indigenous communities
My fear is that it will consist of the usual activists and government bureaucrats that make up these bodies.

 

[Crankyhawk]

We have already seen this week how the resident One Nation racists in Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts have used the referendum as an opportunity to promote themselves.

For years Hanson has sat in the Senate and not uttered one word of protest against the recognition to country. But this week - she walks out. We all know why.

This is how the next few weeks and months will play out. Dutton has already signalled he will make it the main platform for his attacks on the government. The tabloid media will be the willing partner because promoting division and conflict is the key to generating the clicks that drive their business model.

And when it comes to dog whistling, facts just don't matter.

For the record, here are the three suggested sentences to change the Constitution. Rest assured that the vocal opponents to the changes will not be making any reference to them because they don't in any way support the conflict and chaos that they suggest will result from them being included.

No veto power mentioned there. I like it.

 

[Power Raid]

Who else was here when Europeans arrived?

for me good government and a good constitution should deliver:
1) representation of the people in government
2) policies that benefit all without generating fear or favour

As highlighted our Constitution was designed to specifically deliver outcomes that discriminated and kept people down. We need to
1) address the outcomes of wrongs such as property rights at a collective and individual level
2) avoid replicating mistakes of the past and adding racism to our constitution
3) remove the racist and discriminatory sections from our constitution

 

[Power Raid]

My major concern having visited a few of them are the horrific conditions in the remote communities.
ATSIC in the 90s and early 2000s, an organization very similar to what is being proposed, what a debacle it was.
It at least could be disbanded ( agreed by both major parties ) as it was not enshrined in the constitution when the stench of corruption became too much.
How the "Voice" would function needs to be very simply and clearly explained.

I would be more open to being onboard if it has actual elders from remote indigenous communities
My fear is that it will consist of the usual activists and government bureaucrats that make up these bodies.

your reference to ATSIC is an important one, in terms of learning from mistakes of the past

As you highlight, it could be wound up when things went wrong and grossly corrupt. If enshrined in the constitution, what happens when the organisation is no longer relevant or the wheels start to wobble?

This just highlights the constitution is the wrong place for the organisation to be enshrined

 

[Chief]

your reference to ATSIC is an important one, in terms of learning from mistakes of the past

As you highlight, it could be wound up when things went wrong and grossly corrupt. If enshrined in the constitution, what happens when the organisation is no longer relevant or the wheels start to wobble?

This just highlights the constitution is the wrong place for the organisation to be enshrined

How it works is the constitution describes a power and then parliament legislates.

So they can replace their own legislated government body.

Pork barrelling and corruption gets no mention from one side of politics until there is a danger that a brown person might be advantaged. Then it's pearl-clutching wall to wall.

 

[tandino]

It can be reformed or parked like the inter-state commission if it were all to go to shit. It's enshrined, not entrenched.