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.

 

[tandino]

Or it might polarise differences between the indigenous and the majority, exacerbating what it intended to redress. If the Voice is entrenched in the Constitution, then if it doesn’t work, we can’t get rid of it.

The body can be rendered impotent at the whim of Parliament.

 

[O Grobbecker]

The body can be rendered impotent at the whim of Parliament.

The indigenous activists would then be able to take the issue to the High Court on the ground of Parliament acting unconstitutionally. That could tie up or disrupt Parliament for months. That might even invalidate decisions of Oarliament in the meantime. As likely as not the High Court would find for the activists, enforcing the Constitution. Amending the Constitution isn’t to be taken lightly.

 

[tandino]

The indigenous activists would then be able to take the issue to the High Court on the ground of Parliament acting unconstitutionally. That could tie up or disrupt Parliament for months. That might even invalidate decisions of Oarliament in the meantime. As likely as not the High Court would find for the activists, enforcing the Constitution. Amending the Constitution isn’t to be taken lightly.

I don't think there is any prospect of that circumstance playing out. I think the Parliament's supremacy over the Voice is secure and supported by the proposed amendment.

There's certainly no reason to take any amendment lightly, and the impacts of the Voice need due consideration, but they are political machinations, not makings of a constitutional crisis.

 

[O Grobbecker]

I don't think there is any prospect of that circumstance playing out. I think the Parliament's supremacy over the Voice is secure and supported by the proposed amendment.

There's certainly no reason to take any amendment lightly, and the impacts of the Voice need due consideration, but they are political machinations, not makings of a constitutional crisis.

I wonder if Samual Doumany thought similarly about QLD Parliament in 1982. Parliament is a creature of the Constitution, it is obliged to carry out whatever functions the Constitution prescribes.

 

[JackOutback]

Spot on. The socioeconomic disparity is the issue. How is the voice going to help people break out of poverty?

Because the Voice allows Aboriginal people a say on legislation that affects them. Policy and legislation is what can help people break out of poverty.

 

[Episode IV]

Because the Voice allows Aboriginal people a say on legislation that affects them. Policy and legislation is what can help people break out of poverty.

What policy and legislation helping to people to break out of poverty doesn't already exist, or isn't subject to constant evolution?

 

[Carringbush2010]

I thought of that as I posted but the legislation, the Social Securities (Administration) Act, is race non-specific. Quite right, it's intended for the indigenous but it's not a regulation specific to the indigenouos, anyone in the communities selected is bound by the Act.

Well then it seems you agree.

 

[sdfc]

Because the Voice allows Aboriginal people a say on legislation that affects them. Policy and legislation is what can help people break out of poverty.

Sorry but that's not really saying anything. What are these huge legislative changes that are going to lift people out of poverty?

Education is probably the most reliable path for that to happen.

 

[campbell]

Why are people so angry and threatened by this?

 

[sdfc]

Why are people so angry and threatened by this?

By asking questions? ok.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Well then it seems you agree.

Your "cashless debit card" was introduced in response to a problem prevalent in specific areas in which the indigenous are the main sufferers. It applies to everyone in those areas. It was introduced following imput including from the community itself. The indigenous have the same opportunities and are entitled to the same treatment as anyone else by laws and regulations.

 

[campbell]

Spot on Tracy.

‘Toxic rhetoric’: marriage equality plebiscite offers ugly lessons for Indigenous voice to parliament referendum

Support and self-care will be vital during the campaign, which could stir up ‘perfect storm for fear and hate’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gough]

Spot on Tracy.

‘Toxic rhetoric’: marriage equality plebiscite offers ugly lessons for Indigenous voice to parliament referendum

Support and self-care will be vital during the campaign, which could stir up ‘perfect storm for fear and hate’

www.theguardian.com

Littleproud and Price are quite happy for these people to suffer in the name of mining leases. Gotta keep the miners happy.

 

[campbell]

Littleproud and Price are quite happy for these people to suffer in the name of mining leases. Gotta keep the miners happy.

Sad, but true.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Littleproud and Price are quite happy for these people to suffer in the name of mining leases. Gotta keep the miners happy.

Not sure how running-dogs-of-the-mining-industry gets a guernsey arising from Collard's Article in the Guardian. An opinion piece published in The Guardian, written by an Indigenous Affairs reporter, predicting adverse consequences for the Indigenous arising out of the debate is hardly likely to be objective. Gotta keep the lefties happy.

 

[Gough]

Not sure how running-dogs-of-the-mining-industry gets a guernsey arising from Collard's Article in the Guardian. An opinion piece published in The Guardian, written by an Indigenous Affairs reporter, predicting adverse consequences for the Indigenous arising out of the debate is hardly likely to be objective. Gotta keep the lefties happy.

The mining industry are shitting themselves at the implications of this. Why else do you think the Nationals are doubling down?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Not sure how running-dogs-of-the-mining-industry gets a guernsey arising from Collard's Article in the Guardian. An opinion piece published in The Guardian, written by an Indigenous Affairs reporter, predicting adverse consequences for the Indigenous arising out of the debate is hardly likely to be objective. Gotta keep the lefties happy.

It's only idiots like yourself that think this is a left vs right issue.

 

[campbell]

Not sure how running-dogs-of-the-mining-industry gets a guernsey arising from Collard's Article in the Guardian. An opinion piece published in The Guardian, written by an Indigenous Affairs reporter, predicting adverse consequences for the Indigenous arising out of the debate is hardly likely to be objective. Gotta keep the lefties happy.

try looking here.

Intergenerational trauma

The Healing Foundation’s inter-generational trauma initiative helps restore & reaffirm the pride & cultural identity of Indigenous Australian children

healingfoundation.org.au

 

[O Grobbecker]

The mining industry are shitting themselves at the implications of this. Why else do you think the Nationals are doubling down?

I have no particular knowledge of the to-ings and fro-ings of the mining industry, do you ?. Having said that I disagree that the mining industry "are shitting themselves at the implications" of the Voice to Parliament, as represented by Albanese, it represents no greater danger to the mining industry than exists today, it's Parliament that governs the Land Rights And Native Title Acts. At least Rio Tinto and Gold Mines both support the Voice to Parliament. I'm prepared to take the National Party at its word, its opposition is to the Constitution being amended to include different provisions based upon race/ethnicity and it sees no utility in terms of "closing the gap" for the indigenous, why won't you ?

 

[O Grobbecker]

It's only idiots like yourself that think this is a left vs right issue.

It shouldn't be but if you read this thread, you'll see that the majority of posters express the issue as left-right. If it makes you feel better, you can substitute "virtue signalers" for "lefties". No need for personal abuse.

 

[O Grobbecker]

try looking here.

Intergenerational trauma

The Healing Foundation’s inter-generational trauma initiative helps restore & reaffirm the pride & cultural identity of Indigenous Australian children

healingfoundation.org.au

Towards Healing is an advocacy entity for the Indigenous, there's nothing wrong with that, other than dubious objectivity, but how does that explain Gough's attack on the mining industry ?

 

[Gough]

Towards Healing is an advocacy entity for the Indigenous, there's nothing wrong with that, other than dubious objectivity, but how does that explain Gough's attack on the mining industry ?

Lived in experience. If you got ten of the worst people you can possibly imagine and put them in a room you'd find at least eight of them were in mining.

 

[sherb]

Towards Healing is an advocacy entity for the Indigenous, there's nothing wrong with that, other than dubious objectivity, but how does that explain Gough's attack on the mining industry ?

Attack? Hardly.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

It shouldn't be but if you read this thread, you'll see that the majority of posters express the issue as left-right. If it makes you feel better, you can substitute "virtue signalers" for "lefties". No need for personal abuse.

With this you are simply virtue signalling to the IPA/Rinehart types.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Attack? Hardly.

Have you read Gough's supplementary post 1,026 ? I stand by "attack" but If it makes it easier for you, read "attack" as "exposure"