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]

Its true though, certain ethnic groups cook the kind of food i actually like and enjoy often ( Strong curries ) , a lot and the smell permeates.
It then creates a racist attitude amongst landlords that all Indians and Sri Lankans will stink out their houses.

True.

I heard this curry muncher had a lot of trouble finding private rental in Canberra once he was kicked out of his public housing accommodation...

 

[Carringbush2010]

Its true though, certain ethnic groups cook the kind of food i actually like and enjoy often ( Strong curries ) , a lot and the smell permeates.
It then creates a racist attitude amongst landlords that all Indians and Sri Lankans will stink out their houses.

I'd argue that's not intentionally racist, of course some property managers / landlords may use the 'you can't leave permeating smells' as a thinly veiled disguise to be discriminatory.

As a landlord, I'd also argue that the overwhelming majority of landlords just don't want lingering odours permeating their property, and has zero to do with intentional racism.

I don't think it's legal for me to go to my property manager 'I don't want Indians or Sri Lankans coz of the stink' and they actively deny Indians and Sri Lankans. We can't just deny people on race and say 'coz they'll leave lingering smells'.

Of course I may have recourse if there is 'damage' i:e 'can't get the smell out' >after the place is rented<, but I can't deny >before< because someone may leave a smell.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'd argue that's not intentionally racist, of course some property managers / landlords may use the 'you can't leave permeating smells' as a thinly veiled disguise to be discriminatory.

As a landlord, I'd also argue that the overwhelming majority of landlords just don't want lingering odours permeating their property, and has zero to do with intentional racism.

I don't think it's legal for me to go to my property manager 'I don't want Indians or Sri Lankans coz of the stink' and they actively deny Indians and Sri Lankans. We can't just deny people on race and say 'coz they'll leave lingering smells'.

Of course I may have recourse if there is 'damage' i:e 'can't get the smell out' >after the place is rented<, but I can't deny >before< because someone may leave a smell.

You have it in a nutshell.

That's the insidious thing about racism , its often not intentional.
I wouldn't think that all Indians permeate their house with curry smells, in fact an indian friend ,( years ago ) had her 30th birthday at her mum's place, and despite her mum cooking curries to die for , the house didn't reek of it.
Yet a Landlord may see Indians and assume that to be the case.

Crime by blacks is high in the USA. leading to people tend to not trust or assume that blacks are criminals.
They are walking on the street at night, see the black guy and purposely avoid him.

Its kind of like this.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You have it in a nutshell.

That's the insidious thing about racism , its often not intentional.
I wouldn't think that all Indians permeate their house with curry smells, in fact an indian friend ,( years ago ) had her 30th birthday at her mum's place, and despite her mum cooking curries to die for , the house didn't reek of it.
Yet a Landlord may see Indians and assume that to be the case.

Crime by blacks is high in the USA. leading to people tend to not trust or assume that blacks are criminals.
They are walking on the street at night, see the black guy and purposely avoid him.

Its kind of like this.

Intentional is the pertinent bit here, and more broadly. Insidious implies, that 'accidental' is not accidental at all.

No one should be labelled pejoratively if their racism, unconscious bias, discrimination, whatever is not intended.

This is a bug bear of mine, that 'unintended' can allow anyone to label someone pejoratively. Certainly should not be applied to a landlord / property manager who for the overwhelming majority of them will have a legitimate concern re lingering odours on their property. Not an intention to be racist.

It's not on.

 

[campbell]

True.

I heard this curry muncher had a lot of trouble finding private rental in Canberra once he was kicked out of his public housing accommodation...

Stop it, I nearly lost my dinner looking at this pig.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Stop it, I nearly lost my dinner looking at this pig.

Approaching Xmas, can we all lay down our guns and have a ceasefire accompanied by and in the spirit of



the classic Xmas "Love actually" having been aired a couple of weeks too early by Channel 7. Merry Xmas to all you normals and Virtue Signallers.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Good that she left me then. But she really didn't like the smell. A house that had been tenanted by a heavy smoker may have caused a similar reaction.

Seriously , it is not racist to be intolerant to strong smells.
Are the Asian hotels racist for not allowing Durian in the rooms?

I'm sorry for you about your wife. Smells and racism be buggered, I hope you are young enough and that there are no children involved. I wouldn't wish marriage break up upon my worst enemy.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Albanese announced that the referendum would take place before December 2023 but no detail offered, just the principle and leave the rest to Parliament. A surprise, I’d have thought it would be run with the next election to reduce the cost.

 

[Rob R]

Albanese announced that the referendum would take place before December 2023 but no detail offered, just the principle and leave the rest to Parliament. A surprise, I’d have thought it would be run with the next election to reduce the cost.

Better for Albo to run it earlier so he can claim success or blame the libs during the election campaign and use it to drive a deeper wedge between the libs and teals.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Northalives]

Please watch.

Self serving agent provocateurs like Thorpe and Price have their own agendas.

Thorpe rocked up to the Referendum Council’s Uluru talks in 2017 not to discuss constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Islander People, but to promote her own agenda of a treaty and promptly walked out with some other numb-skulls who didn't even understand what the talks were about! She's been out of the headlines for a couple of weeks so she comes out with "Good on her" (SMH 5/1/23) about the National Party saboteur Price and then tells a whopping lie that Indigenous leaders were “handpicked” by the Albanese government to steer the process. It was Professors Langton and Calma that led a group appointed by the former Indigenous minister Ken Wyatt (Liberal, Hasluck WA) as part of a 2019 election promise to develop options for an Indigenous voice.

 

[Gethelred]

In short, please stop trying to misrepresent what I've said. It's very annoying and you're achieving absolutely achieving absolutely nothing other than garnering a few likes from people who've already faded away having nothing further to offer beyond self-righteous indignation and a bit of spluttering about how mean I am.

As opposed to whining about how no-one will debate you?

No-one's compelled to converse with you, and it's a bit of a pisser that you complain in one breath about how annoying it is that people misrepresent what you've said when in the next you're more than happy to misrepresent anyone who's expressed disagreement.

 

[carltonchelsea]

What, so a hazy observation of current mainstream media wasn't enough a descriptor for you? I happen to think Aboriginals (and all minorities, really) are being portrayed far more positively in the media at the moment, based upon what I've seen. There isn't too much of it, compared to immigrant groups and other minorities. But as a whole, I haven't seen Aboriginal people being portrayed in an overly negative light other than in those situations where it is a negative story - like the situations in Alice Springs or Carnarvon in WA, for example. Even then, it's not made abundantly clear which social groups are involved. Often actively avoided, some might say.

Is there something more you want? Do you have a countering opinion to offer based upon your observations of the media?


Of course it is. Duh. In all areas of the political and social spectrum, I might add.
I did mention when looking at shaded accommodation there were several ads by some social groups in particular which were overtly and uncaringly discriminatory, too, but that doesn't seem to have made a blip on your radar. I can only hazard a guess that equality, one of the words the social left like to bandy about, isn't really of too much concern for you.

But as for your solution, I'd be quite willing to do that as part of an investigation, but I am not going to take it as anything more than anecdotal evidence without proof that this is the majority of cases and is a widespread problem. If I were to track down the landlords and real estate agents involved in any given situation, I'd get another anecdotal story about how the rental agencies were well aware of the histories of the people involved and decided that renting out a property to them might be a high risk situation, probably with the kind of detail that doesn't make it into media investigations with an agenda.

Everyone's got a story to tell. Everyone's got reasons, usually hand-crafted for them by people using your agenda, for why they aren't doing too well in life, and one thing you can note about that is that is pretty much a universal, human thing to do - blame someone else for your problems. It's not your fault, nothing you've done (or haven't done), it's "them", that other mob. Holding you back.

Give someone a chance to whinge about how hard they have it in life and they'll take it - particularly if there's a payday involved. Some times it's true, sometimes its somewhat embellished - and if, as I said, there's a payday involved for focus groups, the embellishment increases. Along with anecdotal cases being taken as the situational norm.

I'd prefer to look at hard data. I find it to be, under normal circumstances, much more revealing (when one can find an honest study performed by people who know what they're doing and how to do it). Which is probably why your ilk like to avoid it.


Yes, that's why we have public housing. And all the issues that come along with it. Rather a two-edged sword, isn't it.
People have been looking into that, too, trying to address those problems. The only thing that seems to resonate through that particular discussion is that it is very rarely the occupants of those social housing projects fault when things start to go awry.

It might be, in some cases, under your definitions, with the caveat that "racism" as a term has come to mean pretty much discrimination in general these days and doesn't really apply to race much any more. But again, without data on who the real estate agents are, who the landlords are, and how often this actually occurs, and if there are other elements of the equation being ignored in order to push an agenda, you have no ground to stand on. You're just making a statement from a soapbox with hard evidence to back it up.

I have asked that I be provided with examples of where and how often this occurs, including a full situational summary including rental history, economic circumstances, and how often that example situation occurs as a proportion of the market.
Do that, show me that it's a widespread and endemic problem that only affects Aboriginals or affects them more than any other group, and how prevalent that problem is, and I'll listen. I'll pay full attention if you go into the why and wherefores honestly and clearly, and present both sides of the issue fairly and objectively.

Perhaps you'd like to point out where I said there isn't a problem. See if you can find where I noted, and this might be paraphrased because I'm just going by memory of what I wrote, that "but it isn't as widespread as you appear to think it is", and where and when it does occur, there are often reasons for it that go far beyond any simplistic, naïve explanations like "it's because they're black".
Or, in short, please stop trying to misrepresent what I've said. It's very annoying and you're achieving absolutely nothing other than garnering a few likes from people who've already faded away having nothing further to offer beyond self-righteous indignation and a bit of spluttering about how mean I am.

But to answer that;
I'm not the one out there claiming there's a problem to the extent that more laws need to be changed to address it. The onus is on the ones who want more legislation, and the problem addressed, to do that. That's pretty much standard procedure.
As I said, there is already legislation in place to prevent this sort of thing occurring, and a cultural change is underway within Australian society which is bringing the issues Aboriginals have and the solutions which have both failed and succeeded so far to light. It's an ongoing process, and there aren't going to be any overnight solutions.

So perhaps you'll offer an answer to a question I've asked: How do you think a Constitutional change is going to address that issue, how do you think it can possibly represent the Aboriginal people as a whole, Who do you think the Aboriginal people are going to be in 50 or a hundreds years (which is important because a constitutional change is about as permanent as it can get), and finally why do you think its necessary, in light of the left wings claims to want equality, to continue to incite division in Australia by legislating differently to different social groups? Do you believe in an egalitarian society or not?

Supremacist twaddle.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Please watch.

Self serving agent provocateurs like Thorpe and Price have their own agendas.

Thorpe rocked up to the Referendum Council’s Uluru talks in 2017 not to discuss constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Islander People, but to promote her own agenda of a treaty and promptly walked out with some other numb-skulls who didn't even understand what the talks were about! She's been out of the headlines for a couple of weeks so she comes out with "Good on her" (SMH 5/1/23) about the National Party saboteur Price and then tells a whopping lie that Indigenous leaders were “handpicked” by the Albanese government to steer the process. It was Professors Langton and Calma that led a group appointed by the former Indigenous minister Ken Wyatt (Liberal, Hasluck WA) as part of a 2019 election promise to develop options for an Indigenous voice.

Its not "her" agenda it is The Greens agenda

 

[Gough]

Spud to Albanese on the Voice,

Your approach will ensure a dangerous and divisive debate grounded in hearsay and misinformation.

He knows this because he'll be leading the charge.

 

[Rob R]

It will be interesting to see if they apply the lessons from the long standing ACT version of the Voice which has achieved some things but has been far from an over whelming success with just a few hundred people of the thousands of eligible voters bothering to participate.

It shows the types of things that worked but also the challenges of giving it enough power and resources to be supportable by the indigenous community whilst not making it appear too expensive or powerful to cost votes. Probably part of the reason, Albo is trying to keep the discussion focussed on the principle.

The ACT has an Indigenous Voice. Has it worked?

Has the ACT's Indigenous Voice improved the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Canberrans?

www.canberratimes.com.au

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gough]

 

[Kwality]

Forgetting the people rejected Mr Wyatt at the last election ..... what ever version of 'the voice' is todays version is academic.
Table the document the country is required to vote on.

As Albo said yesterday:
“People are over cheap culture war stunts.”

 

[Gough]

Like the stupid marriage vote I think there's a chance that the sort of people who are going to come out against The Voice could be a good advertisement for the yes case.

 

[Rob R]

Like the stupid marriage vote I think there's a chance that the sort of people who are going to come out against The Voice could be a good advertisement for the yes case.

There will definitely be some idiots whose offensive comments will end up leading to a surge for the yes vote to help deal with the racism that will be on display. However unlike the Yes vote where most people either supported it or couldn't care less as it didn't effect them at all so they were happy to vote yes for the principle, this time the topic goes to power and money.

The cost will be a major factor given the ALP needs to repay debt and boost defence, health, education and infrastructure spending and that is how people who would normally be ignored (due to their skynews level arguments) will be heard when they start to argue that the money is better spent elsewhere. Especially since it will need billions a year if it is to be more than symbolic (although that cost should be reduced by scrapping the agencies it replaces)

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kwality]

Especially since it will need billions a year if it is to be more than symbolic (although that cost should be reduced by scrapping the agencies it replaces)

Got any detail on the cost of the agencies to be scrapped &/or the cost of 'the Voice' ?

Are you angling for the Feds to take over, the States to be relieved of their costs, aka responsibility for provision of services.

 

[Rob R]

Got any detail on the cost of the agencies to be scrapped &/or the cost of 'the Voice' ?

Are you angling for the Feds to take over, the States to be relieved of their costs, aka responsibility for provision of services.

There are indigenous advisory groups at every level of government and surely at least some of them will at least shrink or be merged into the broader Voice network.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SaintsSeptember]

There are indigenous advisory groups at every level of government and surely at least some of them will at least shrink or be merged into the broader Voice network.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

So there is already a voice?

 

[Kwality]

There are indigenous advisory groups at every level of government and surely at least some of them will at least shrink or be merged into the broader Voice network.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

How many tribal groupings are there ?
The Voice is going to rationalise you say: Map of Indigenous Australia

 

[Kwality]

Like the stupid marriage vote I think there's a chance that the sort of people who are going to come out against The Voice could be a good advertisement for the yes case.

Those who have made up their mind are easily convinced or are attracted by a them & us discussion.
Its not as if there are only them & us considerations here.

 

[Rob R]

So there is already a voice?

There are aspects of the Voice in existence at many levels however based on advice from indigenous communities they are disconnected and not fully effective.

The ACT has an Indigenous Voice. Has it worked?

Has the ACT's Indigenous Voice improved the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Canberrans?

www.canberratimes.com.au

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app