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.

 

[Episode IV]

So you agree it probably happens, but you would prefer to ignore that for this conversation?

What the hell am I "ignoring"? I've directly addressed it. You didn't.

Discrimination happens to everyone, including white people, but not to the level you think it does.

When it comes to public housing for the economically disadvantaged, who do you think has a better chance of getting a rental property - and indigenous person or a white person?
See how stupid that is?

I'm not going to give you a free pass in dumbing it down to that level with commenting on it, particularly when the solution you seem to be espousing is just more discrimination.

 

[Episode IV]

The most generous description of this post is... naive.

Yeah. Try actually addressing it by pointing out what you believe is naïve.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Do you think it would be easier for a white person or an indigenous person to get approved for a rental property in the current market?

The answer you expect is that it would be easier for the white person. If only life was so simple and if private landlords were as ...ah, it doesn't matter.. My response is restricted to considerations within Victoria where fewer than 1 % of the population claim to be indigenous.

For the purposes of residential property rental, the definition of indigenous is different from that accepted in the audience of ABC's Q&A, a Monash University Feminists Club consciousness raising meeting or a Greens' Party Action Group Xmas breakup party, anywhere. It would depend upon where and the circumstances. In the outer suburbs and Docklands, whichever of the 2 had the better prospects of being able to pay the rent. In Lake Tyres, the indigenous. In Toorak, neither.

 

[Gough]

What the hell am I "ignoring"? I've directly addressed it. You didn't.

Discrimination happens to everyone, including white people, but not to the level you think it does.

When it comes to public housing for the economically disadvantaged, who do you think has a better chance of getting a rental property - and indigenous person or a white person?
See how stupid that is?

I'm not going to give you a free pass in dumbing it down to that level with commenting on it, particularly when the solution you seem to be espousing is just more discrimination.

In terms of private rentals a surname is often enough to identify you as indigenous and we know for certain that that will be enough for some people to turn it down.

 

[Episode IV]

In terms of private rentals a surname is often enough to identify you as indigenous and we know for certain that that will be enough for some people to turn it down.

Is it really?

What sort of surnames have you come across that positively identify someone as indigenous, in your experience? And what was it that, after you ascertained someone was indigenous based solely upon a surname, made you come to the conclusion that it was that factor alone that made a potential landlord reject that application?

 

[JackOutback]

Yeah. Try actually addressing it by pointing out what you believe is naïve.

I know an Aboriginal couple having a helluva time finding a rental right now. Their Aboriginality is only part of it, the market is tough, but if you don't think real estate agents are making judgement calls on the way people look, number of children, stereotyped views of behaviour etc, well then, all I can say is you are being extremely naive.

 

[O Grobbecker]

That's a ridiculous question.
Do they have an income sufficient to be able to afford the rent? Do they have a clean rental history? Along with fifty other questions you're supposed to be able to answer before getting an approval, and even then the landlord or real estate agency has to determine which of a field of candidates will be the best fit for that property. Being able to afford it isn't enough, particularly in an economy where there are thirty others all competing for the same property.

I think it's a rare circumstance that a rental applicant is deemed "high risk" simply because they're Aboriginal. It's actually illegal, for a start, and real estate agents are well aware of that and aren't often willing to run the risk of litigation. Does it happen? Probably. But not as often as you think, in today's world. Have a look through rental ads for shared accommodation and see if you can find any which specifically state they only want Indian tenants, for example. Or females. Yes, it happens. There's absolutely no need to point the finger at white people as the sole source and example of discrimination.

In the real world, a landlord is going to be very reluctant to hand over their source of income to someone who can't afford to pay for it, or has a poor history of making those payments and helping maintain it. Do you know if Aboriginal people with jobs and a clean rental history are currently and disproportionally homeless compared with non-Aboriginals?

I dips me lid, Episode IV. Great post.

 

[Episode IV]

I know an Aboriginal couple having a helluva time finding a rental right now. Their Aboriginality is only part of it, the market is tough, but if you don't think real estate agents are making judgement calls on the way people look, number of children, stereotyped views of behaviour etc, well then, all I can say is you are being extremely naive.

Everyone is having a helluva time finding a rental right now. People with money and better reputations are getting the properties. It's that simple.

Landlords make judgment calls based upon a person's appearance and how many kids (or pets) they own all the time.
If you turn up for a rental viewing dressed poorly and speaking in a manner which identifies you as a certain type of economic group, what the bloody hell do you think is going to happen? But your only excuse for people's appearances and reputations is "because they're black"?

Furthermore, getting back to the point of your original post that I addressed, exactly what do you think an advisory body or legislation and law can do more than they have already done to improve that situation? And that's setting aside any considerations of Constitutionally enshrining it.

You know, you can throw the word "naïve" out there all you like, but you're going to have to explain why you think your view of the world is any different to mine in order to justify it.
And knowing one Aboriginal couple having a hard time finding a rental isn't exactly going to cut the mustard. You've failed to describe their economic situation, how they present themselves, their history, who it is that's getting the rental properties over them.
And odds are you probably wouldn't or couldn't anyway.

 

[JackOutback]

Everyone is having a helluva time finding a rental right now. People with money and better reputations are getting the properties. It's that simple.

Landlords make judgment calls based upon a person's appearance and how many kids (or pets) they own all the time.
If you turn up for a rental viewing dressed poorly and speaking in a manner which identifies you as a certain type of economic group, what the bloody hell do you think is going to happen? But your only excuse for people's appearances and reputations is "because they're black"?

Furthermore, getting back to the point of your original post that I addressed, exactly what do you think an advisory body or legislation and law can do more than they have already done to improve that situation? And that's setting aside any considerations of Constitutionally enshrining it.

You know, you can throw the word "naïve" out there all you like, but you're going to have to explain why you think your view of the world is any different to mine in order to justify it.
And knowing one Aboriginal couple having a hard time finding a rental isn't exactly going to cut the mustard. You've failed to describe their economic situation, how they present themselves, their history, who it is that's getting the rental properties over them.
And odds are you probably wouldn't or couldn't anyway.

So you acknowledge people get judged on 'reputations'. What reputation do you think Aboriginal have as a group? Here's a hint, look at how they are portrayed in the media. It's almost like you know the problem exists but just can't bring yourself to verbalise it.

 

[Episode IV]

So you acknowledge people get judged on 'reputations'. What reputation do you think Aboriginal have as a group? Here's a hint, look at how they are portrayed in the media. It's almost like you know the problem exists but just can't bring yourself to verbalise it.

More deflection? Not going to answer any questions regarding your own position? Here's a little "hint" for you - I'm beginning to form an impression of your acumen, intellectual courage, and agenda right now. So are you regarding me. So is everyone else reading this.

Stereotypes are often based in reality to the point where they can exacerbate negative perceptions in those who are directly involved with that reality in some way. Or, to put it in a more common way - Stereotypes exist for a reason.
That's called "humanity". Humanity makes quick judgement calls based upon initial perceptions in order to be able to process information more quickly.
Which is to say, if you're a real estate agent and you've been in the game for 30 years, and you've had a disproportionate experience with one group over another, then yes. You're going to develop a bias. It's present in real estate agents, in police, in government groups, in local communities. It's present when you're choosing a sexual partner, or a relationship. In every walk of life you care to name.

The real answer to stereotyping is in the identification of how those stereotypes came about, how they are perpetuated and how they are to be addressed in the future - both on the part of those adhering to them, and those who are directly affected by them.
In other words, a little soul-searching is often in order - but rarely acted upon.

Yes, the media have a definite and some might say overwhelming influence over those stereotypes. But again, that occurs everywhere, to all groups.
Here's an example. This forum is a social media platform. It has a reputation for being extremely left oriented. The moderators, generally speaking, are left-wing in outlook and have a distinct bias when it comes to moderation in general. The casual racism in here is endemic, but rarely commented upon unless it concerns certain focus groups. If you're "hinting" that I'm careful with my words on some occasions, here's my answer - you're damned right I am. Facts and logic argument don't get much play around here unless they're presented on the right side of the social-political spectrum - and that is an engineered outcome.
This site has how many readers, and of this sub-forum in particular? What are they learning?
That's a media influence. All a part of the puzzle.

Actually, and as an aside, I have a notion the mainstream media (at least) is currently attempting to be overly positive toward Aboriginal people (or anyone not white, really), but that's just a hazy opinion based upon little more than casual observation.

Back to your question, the one I'm answering for you as well as I'm able to even though that consideration only appears to apply one way.
Where we're talking reputation in a legal sense, there is definitely a skewed representation among some groups regarding what I suppose we'd term reliability when it comes down to simple things like paying the rent and maintaining a property. The real question, and the one you should be asking, is why.
As I've already said, real estate agencies and landlords are not actively discriminating against Aboriginal people, in my experience and observation. They can and do actively "discriminate" against poor people in general, whether that's poorly presented or poor economically - and there's a very good reason for that. I'm not even sure you could call it discrimination, but it is in a strict sense. Private rental ads are often overtly discriminatory.

Rent needs to be paid, properties maintained, community attitudes considered. No one with an income based upon rental property is going to hand over a property to someone less fiscally or socially able on the basis of altruism. No real estate agent is going to ignore economic circumstances or historical rental occupancies on the part of any particular applicant "because they're black and that's just racism". That's reality.

You can go around saying "it's because they're black" all you like, but you'd be (mostly) wrong. In some cases, yes. I've said as much, not sure why you're trying to claim points based upon that. What I've also said, is that in a huge percentage of cases, not why the applications are being rejected. And it has, as I've also mentioned, been legislated to.

Here's a little homework project for you - go do some research on landlords. How many of them are white, how many Aboriginal, how many neither.
Find out who they are renting their properties to (or, as is far more common, who the rental agencies are renting those properties out to). Find cases where Aboriginal people (if you are so determined to focus only on them) have been actively and demonstrably discriminated against when they have a better claim to a rental property than all other applicants, and see if you can include information on who actually got the property, and their circumstances.
Present your findings for everyone here.

Or, of course, you can just say "nah, f that, I know what's going on and you're just naïve" and scuttle off somewhere else looking for someone else to insult without foundation. You know. Continue to be beholden to your own stereotypes.

 

[faible]

More deflection? Not going to answer any questions regarding your own position? Here's a little "hint" for you - I'm beginning to form an impression of your acumen, intellectual courage, and agenda right now. So are you regarding me. So is everyone else reading this.

Stereotypes are often based in reality to the point where they can exacerbate negative perceptions in those who are directly involved with that reality in some way. Or, to put it in a more common way - Stereotypes exist for a reason.
That's called "humanity". Humanity makes quick judgement calls based upon initial perceptions in order to be able to process information more quickly.
Which is to say, if you're a real estate agent and you've been in the game for 30 years, and you've had a disproportionate experience with one group over another, then yes. You're going to develop a bias. It's present in real estate agents, in police, in government groups, in local communities. It's present when you're choosing a sexual partner, or a relationship. In every walk of life you care to name.

The real answer to stereotyping is in the identification of how those stereotypes came about, how they are perpetuated and how they are to be addressed in the future - both on the part of those adhering to them, and those who are directly affected by them.
In other words, a little soul-searching is often in order - but rarely acted upon.

Yes, the media have a definite and some might say overwhelming influence over those stereotypes. But again, that occurs everywhere, to all groups.
Here's an example. This forum is a social media platform. It has a reputation for being extremely left oriented. The moderators, generally speaking, are left-wing in outlook and have a distinct bias when it comes to moderation in general. The casual racism in here is endemic, but rarely commented upon unless it concerns certain focus groups. If you're "hinting" that I'm careful with my words on some occasions, here's my answer - you're damned right I am. Facts and logic argument don't get much play around here unless they're presented on the right side of the social-political spectrum - and that is an engineered outcome.
This site has how many readers, and of this sub-forum in particular? What are they learning?
That's a media influence. All a part of the puzzle.

Actually, and as an aside, I have a notion the mainstream media (at least) is currently attempting to be overly positive toward Aboriginal people (or anyone not white, really), but that's just a hazy opinion based upon little more than casual observation.

Back to your question, the one I'm answering for you as well as I'm able to even though that consideration only appears to apply one way.
Where we're talking reputation in a legal sense, there is definitely a skewed representation among some groups regarding what I suppose we'd term reliability when it comes down to simple things like paying the rent and maintaining a property. The real question, and the one you should be asking, is why.
As I've already said, real estate agencies and landlords are not actively discriminating against Aboriginal people, in my experience and observation. They can and do actively "discriminate" against poor people in general, whether that's poorly presented or poor economically - and there's a very good reason for that. I'm not even sure you could call it discrimination, but it is in a strict sense. Private rental ads are often overtly discriminatory.

Rent needs to be paid, properties maintained, community attitudes considered. No one with an income based upon rental property is going to hand over a property to someone less fiscally or socially able on the basis of altruism. No real estate agent is going to ignore economic circumstances or historical rental occupancies on the part of any particular applicant "because they're black and that's just racism". That's reality.

You can go around saying "it's because they're black" all you like, but you'd be (mostly) wrong. In some cases, yes. I've said as much, not sure why you're trying to claim points based upon that. What I've also said, is that in a huge percentage of cases, not why the applications are being rejected. And it has, as I've also mentioned, been legislated to.

Here's a little homework project for you - go do some research on landlords. How many of them are white, how many Aboriginal, how many neither.
Find out who they are renting their properties to (or, as is far more common, who the rental agencies are renting those properties out to). Find cases where Aboriginal people (if you are so determined to focus only on them) have been actively and demonstrably discriminated against when they have a better claim to a rental property than all other applicants, and see if you can include information on who actually got the property, and their circumstances.
Present your findings for everyone here.

Or, of course, you can just say "nah, f that, I know what's going on and you're just naïve" and scuttle off somewhere else looking for someone else to insult without foundation. You know. Continue to be beholden to your own stereotypes.

TL;DR

How to Write Concisely

It’s not the end of the world if you use an unnecessary word now and then, write the occasional overlapping sentence, or tell us what you’re doing in a sentence before you do it. But the extra words add up. In this article, the author offers advice for how to make your writing shorter and sharper.

hbr.org

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Everyone is having a helluva time finding a rental right now. People with money and better reputations are getting the properties. It's that simple.

Landlords make judgment calls based upon a person's appearance and how many kids (or pets) they own all the time.
If you turn up for a rental viewing dressed poorly and speaking in a manner which identifies you as a certain type of economic group, what the bloody hell do you think is going to happen? But your only excuse for people's appearances and reputations is "because they're black"?

Furthermore, getting back to the point of your original post that I addressed, exactly what do you think an advisory body or legislation and law can do more than they have already done to improve that situation? And that's setting aside any considerations of Constitutionally enshrining it.

You know, you can throw the word "naïve" out there all you like, but you're going to have to explain why you think your view of the world is any different to mine in order to justify it.
And knowing one Aboriginal couple having a hard time finding a rental isn't exactly going to cut the mustard. You've failed to describe their economic situation, how they present themselves, their history, who it is that's getting the rental properties over them.
And odds are you probably wouldn't or couldn't anyway.

Most times a landlord wouldn't sight you.

 

[andrewmillman]

Imagine how badly homeless First Nations people are treated, compared even to homeless white people.

Why do you capitalise first nations but not white?
Plus the so called nations dont meet the worldwide definition of a nation.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Most times a landlord wouldn't sight you.

I'm old enough to remember when the landlords thought Mabo was gonna take all the land back.

Turns out the conservatives had it wrong back then as well.

 

[JackOutback]

More deflection? Not going to answer any questions regarding your own position? Here's a little "hint" for you - I'm beginning to form an impression of your acumen, intellectual courage, and agenda right now. So are you regarding me. So is everyone else reading this.

Stereotypes are often based in reality to the point where they can exacerbate negative perceptions in those who are directly involved with that reality in some way. Or, to put it in a more common way - Stereotypes exist for a reason.
That's called "humanity". Humanity makes quick judgement calls based upon initial perceptions in order to be able to process information more quickly.
Which is to say, if you're a real estate agent and you've been in the game for 30 years, and you've had a disproportionate experience with one group over another, then yes. You're going to develop a bias. It's present in real estate agents, in police, in government groups, in local communities. It's present when you're choosing a sexual partner, or a relationship. In every walk of life you care to name.

The real answer to stereotyping is in the identification of how those stereotypes came about, how they are perpetuated and how they are to be addressed in the future - both on the part of those adhering to them, and those who are directly affected by them.
In other words, a little soul-searching is often in order - but rarely acted upon.

Yes, the media have a definite and some might say overwhelming influence over those stereotypes. But again, that occurs everywhere, to all groups.
Here's an example. This forum is a social media platform. It has a reputation for being extremely left oriented. The moderators, generally speaking, are left-wing in outlook and have a distinct bias when it comes to moderation in general. The casual racism in here is endemic, but rarely commented upon unless it concerns certain focus groups. If you're "hinting" that I'm careful with my words on some occasions, here's my answer - you're damned right I am. Facts and logic argument don't get much play around here unless they're presented on the right side of the social-political spectrum - and that is an engineered outcome.
This site has how many readers, and of this sub-forum in particular? What are they learning?
That's a media influence. All a part of the puzzle.

Actually, and as an aside, I have a notion the mainstream media (at least) is currently attempting to be overly positive toward Aboriginal people (or anyone not white, really), but that's just a hazy opinion based upon little more than casual observation.

Back to your question, the one I'm answering for you as well as I'm able to even though that consideration only appears to apply one way.
Where we're talking reputation in a legal sense, there is definitely a skewed representation among some groups regarding what I suppose we'd term reliability when it comes down to simple things like paying the rent and maintaining a property. The real question, and the one you should be asking, is why.
As I've already said, real estate agencies and landlords are not actively discriminating against Aboriginal people, in my experience and observation. They can and do actively "discriminate" against poor people in general, whether that's poorly presented or poor economically - and there's a very good reason for that. I'm not even sure you could call it discrimination, but it is in a strict sense. Private rental ads are often overtly discriminatory.

Rent needs to be paid, properties maintained, community attitudes considered. No one with an income based upon rental property is going to hand over a property to someone less fiscally or socially able on the basis of altruism. No real estate agent is going to ignore economic circumstances or historical rental occupancies on the part of any particular applicant "because they're black and that's just racism". That's reality.

You can go around saying "it's because they're black" all you like, but you'd be (mostly) wrong. In some cases, yes. I've said as much, not sure why you're trying to claim points based upon that. What I've also said, is that in a huge percentage of cases, not why the applications are being rejected. And it has, as I've also mentioned, been legislated to.

Here's a little homework project for you - go do some research on landlords. How many of them are white, how many Aboriginal, how many neither.
Find out who they are renting their properties to (or, as is far more common, who the rental agencies are renting those properties out to). Find cases where Aboriginal people (if you are so determined to focus only on them) have been actively and demonstrably discriminated against when they have a better claim to a rental property than all other applicants, and see if you can include information on who actually got the property, and their circumstances.
Present your findings for everyone here.

Or, of course, you can just say "nah, f that, I know what's going on and you're just naïve" and scuttle off somewhere else looking for someone else to insult without foundation. You know. Continue to be beholden to your own stereotypes.

You're right in one sense, we are forming an impression about you. And you appear to have spent a lot of words to say if Aboriginal people are treated poorly, it's probably because they 'earnt their reputation', they don't maintain their properties, don't pay their rent etc. Those kinds of assumptions are bread and butter racism and the kind that Aboriginal people, if you've ever actually met someone who is Aboriginal, encounter every day. It's a helluva diatribe and not one I plan to engage with any further. You can put it down to whatever you want, I put it down to not having to deal with that ugliness if I don't want to.

 

[Episode IV]

I'm old enough to remember when the landlords thought Mabo was gonna take all the land back.

Turns out the conservatives had it wrong back then as well.

"The landlords thought Mabo was going to take all the land back".
Well. There's some rhetoric for you. Heh.
I was there too, sunshine. And I didn't take my assessment of what people were thinking from some bloke down the pub having a bit of a rant four pints in.


Currently, granted Indigenous land titles amount to approximately (very approximately, there are different reports) 30-50% or more of Australia's total landmass. What that really means in terms of exclusive ownership is a murky question, though. There are layers of complexity.

This is from the Guardian:

Who owns Australia?

Complex web of data reveals large swathes of country controlled by small number of billionaires and large companies

www.theguardian.com

And from the ATO:

Receiving native title benefits

Native title benefits are paid to recognise the rights and interests Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have with their land and waters.

www.ato.gov.au

So really, coming on here and having a go at "conservatives" (whoever they are) "getting it wrong" is a rather pointless endeavour, unless you were just interested in taking a back handed slap at people who are assessing the situation and where it's leading, as well as questioning where the money is going.
As we all should, no matter which side of the political spectrum we stand on.

But two facts remain, at least - significant amounts of the Australian landmass are currently under Aboriginal control, more under claim, and there is a lot of tax-free money being made from it.

Nobody seems to know exactly where that money is ending up. Investigation is discouraged. Even the Guardian seemed to have some difficulties with it.

 

[Gough]

"The landlords thought Mabo was going to take all the land back".
Well. There's some rhetoric for you. Heh.
I was there too, sunshine. And I didn't take my assessment of what people were thinking from some bloke down the pub having a bit of a rant four pints in.

John Howard is Australias's most beloved former PM, how dare you.

 

[Episode IV]

You're right in one sense, we are forming an impression about you. And you appear to have spent a lot of words to say if Aboriginal people are treated poorly, it's probably because they 'earnt their reputation', they don't maintain their properties, don't pay their rent etc. Those kinds of assumptions are bread and butter racism and the kind that Aboriginal people, if you've ever actually met someone who is Aboriginal, encounter every day. It's a helluva diatribe and not one I plan to engage with any further. You can put it down to whatever you want, I put it down to not having to deal with that ugliness if I don't want to.

That isn't what I've said at all. I suppose there isn't much point in saying it all again though, is there.
I do wonder though, do you know what "diatribe" means?

You have rather deftly avoided answering any questions put to you the entire time. And now you're hiding behind the royal "we", no less, among other excuses for diverting dialogue or, in this latest case, taking your toys and running away.
I'm leaning toward the idea that you've actually taken more time to make up reasons not to actually think about what anything I've said, what your answers might be, and where they might lead, than actually consolidating your own thoughts.

Still, situation being what it is, you're quite right. It is pointless continuing this with you.
You'll note here I'm avoiding referring to it as a "discussion", as it becoming quite clear that is the last thing you want.

 

[Episode IV]

John Howard is Australias's most beloved former PM, how dare you.

Keating. Native title act, 1993.
Subsequently modified on several occasions, usually and notably in favour of Indigenous groups.

Sheez.

 

[Episode IV]

Most times a landlord wouldn't sight you.

Mostly true, they do generally hold viewings and ask that people put in applications afterward. Most of the time, it's a case of "have a look around, put your applications on the counter here or email me afterwards if you're interested". Some real estate agents can make you feel quite invisible, particularly when there are a large group of people looking around. Many of them seem far more interested in their mobile phones and where they have to be next than in assessing the people viewing the property.

Same sort of logical thinking that goes into accusations of police pulling people over in the USA "because they're black" where in most cases, the occupants of a vehicle being pulled over wouldn't be observably black until after they've been pulled over. Usually because they've violated traffic rules in some way.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Most times a landlord wouldn't sight you.

People of all colours, shapes, orientations and religiosity live in rented accommodation in Melbourne. Mostly landlords are colour blind, I'll wager that most are "of colour" anyway. Think about how realistic is/are your prejudices.

i

 

[ep2018]

If Albo had balls this would be done through parliament with support of the Greens, instead we'll be subjected to a very racist campaign by conservative groups similar to what happened in the lead up to the SSM plebiscite, with no guarantee its even voted in favour. I expect it to fail. I wonder if this is what Labor wants.

 

[Gavin Excell]

If my recent conversations with people not overly interested in politics is anything to go by, there is a worrying level of awareness on the upcoming referendum let alone an understanding of the issues in the wider community.

I just hope that the ALP and supporters aren't falling into the trap of the bubble.

Can we expect a much more targeted and broader education campaign in the lead up?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Why do you capitalise first nations but not white?

Because one is a proper noun and therefore needs capitalisation, whereas the other is an adjective describing skin colour, rather than a formal community grouping.

Plus the so called nations dont meet the worldwide definition of a nation.

I don't care. They are nations to me.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

People of all colours, shapes, orientations and religiosity live in rented accommodation in Melbourne. Mostly landlords are colour blind, I'll wager that most are "of colour" anyway.

How about instead of wagering, you research issues before making bold claims?

Think about how realistic is/are your prejudices.

Think about yours.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-17/racism-in-the-rental-sector-wa/10129418b