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.

 

[Rob R]

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

I understand that the voice will have Federal, State and Local levels. What I am suggesting is that whilst the total Voice may cost billions, some it will already be funded through things like the VIC Peoples Assembly, ACT voice etc that should be subsumed into or replaced by the larger organisation - surely we won't have two State level Voices as an example.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kwality]

I understand that the voice will have Federal, State and Local levels. What I am suggesting is that whilst the total Voice may cost billions, some it will already be funded through things like the VIC Peoples Assembly, ACT voice etc that should be subsumed into or replaced by the larger organisation - surely we won't have two State level Voices as an example.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

That we dont know is the point. Why are we being kept in the dark?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

That we dont know is the point. Why are we being kept in the dark?

It’s probably an issue with your comprehension.

Assuming you have read the Uluru statement from the heart, and other related info on the voice which is easily found on google?

Or are you just parroting Peter Dutton again?

 

[Kwality]

It’s probably an issue with your comprehension.

Assuming you have read the Uluru statement from the heart, and other related info on the voice which is easily found on google?

Or are you just parroting Peter Dutton again?

I understand that the voice will have Federal, State and Local levels. What I am suggesting is that whilst the total Voice may cost billions, some it will already be funded through things like the VIC Peoples Assembly, ACT voice etc that should be subsumed into or replaced by the larger organisation - surely we won't have two State level Voices as an example.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

You questioning comprehension ... give context a run.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

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

Is there anything in the proposed constitutional change that would ensure that it is not disconnected, and that it is more effective?
To me it will only ensure that its not dismissed completely.

 

[Kwality]

Is there anything in the proposed constitutional change that would ensure that it is not disconnected, and that it is more effective?
To me it will only ensure that its not dismissed completely.

More generally the Courts deciding our laws NOT our elected reps does nothing for me.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

 

[Kwality]

View attachment 1584139

Albo is selling us 'the vibe'.

 

[O Grobbecker]

View attachment 1584139

What is Albanese's cheap culture wars stunt ? Was it Dutton talking to him ? Dutton going to the McGrath Foundation bash ? Dutton's letter ? or Albanese's twit ?

 

[Festerz]

Albo is selling us 'the vibe'.

There is a published 269 page report on it you fool, published by the Morrison Government government in 2021:

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F8338430%22

Dutton is playing cheap culture war politics on this and the dembfeck conservative sheep (what's left of them following the utter destruction of the LNP across Australia over the past 2 years) are following the idiocy by repeating the same tired old dog whistling chorus line.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Albo is selling us 'the vibe'.

It’s been explained to you many times where the info can be found.

It seems you prefer larping as a Sky News propagandist.

 

[Festerz]

More generally the Courts deciding our laws NOT our elected reps does nothing for me.

LOL. Air headed rubbish cut and pasted from the comments section of any Murdoch tabloid.

How to demonstrate you know nothing of the Constitutional role of the High Court in interpreting and applying the laws of Australia in a single sentence.

You would be better off spending some time reading a few books on Australian history and culture than displaying your ignorance on BF you twat.

 

[Saint]

I love when people ask for every little detail about cost and procedure. That's not at all what the constitution is for. For example, there's almost nothing in the constitution about how Parliament runs, compared to the actual practice.

Likewise for things like budgets and Departments.

People who complain that there isn't enough detail are mixing up the Constitution with Legislation and Governance.

Considering how bad the Morrison Govt was at Governance and barely bothered with legislation, I'm not surprised they don't know the difference.

 

[Kwality]

There is a published 269 page report on it you fool, published by the Morrison Government government in 2021:

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F8338430%22

Dutton is playing cheap culture war politics on this and the dembfeck conservative sheep (what's left of them following the utter destruction of the LNP across Australia over the past 2 years) are following the idiocy by repeating the same tired old dog whistling chorus line.

Is this what we are being asked to vote on ?

Again, what is it we are being asked to vote on ?

 

[Kwality]

I love when people ask for every little detail about cost and procedure. That's not at all what the constitution is for. For example, there's almost nothing in the constitution about how Parliament runs, compared to the actual practice.

Likewise for things like budgets and Departments.

People who complain that there isn't enough detail are mixing up the Constitution with Legislation and Governance.

Considering how bad the Morrison Govt was at Governance and barely bothered with legislation, I'm not surprised they don't know the difference.

Are you unaware of QCs & others disagreeing over the Constitution & the Voice legislation ?

 

[Saint]

Are you unaware of QCs & others disagreeing over the Constitution & the Voice legislation ?

KCs are not infallible. There are plenty of KCs in support of the Voice too.

Were you unaware of those, or just chose to hear the ones you happen to agree with?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

What is Albanese's cheap culture wars stunt ? Was it Dutton talking to him ? Dutton going to the McGrath Foundation bash ? Dutton's letter ? or Albanese's twit ?

Oh hello

Do you think Indigenous People having a voice is a stunt?
You do, don't you?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Is this what we are being asked to vote on ?

Again, what is it we are being asked to vote on ?

Google it mate

 

[andrewmillman]

'Unfortunately, we've missed the boat': Aboriginal group claims ownership of yacht salvage after boat towed away

The Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania claims a Sydney to Hobart yacht that washed up on a remote beach is the property of Indigenous Australians and they are entitled to a third of its worth, despite the vessel already being salvaged.

www.abc.net.au

Scary prospect this.
Would the voice make this sort of thing more likely?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

'Unfortunately, we've missed the boat': Aboriginal group claims ownership of yacht salvage after boat towed away

The Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania claims a Sydney to Hobart yacht that washed up on a remote beach is the property of Indigenous Australians and they are entitled to a third of its worth, despite the vessel already being salvaged.

www.abc.net.au

Scary prospect this.
Would the voice make this sort of thing more likely?

A treaty would probably cover salvage laws. Should have been done 150 years ago.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

'Unfortunately, we've missed the boat': Aboriginal group claims ownership of yacht salvage after boat towed away

The Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania claims a Sydney to Hobart yacht that washed up on a remote beach is the property of Indigenous Australians and they are entitled to a third of its worth, despite the vessel already being salvaged.

www.abc.net.au

Scary prospect this.
Would the voice make this sort of thing more likely?

No because "white man's salvage laws" do apply.
Like most races, its possible for aboriginals to have dickheads and shit stirrers amongst them.

Then again, if the Hindmarsh bridge debacle is anything to go by lawyers are totally confused by the issues.

Either way , we call taking peoples boats off them "stealing", ( or taking things off the insurance company ) and most beaches in Australia don't have an owner.

ps : if someone steals your car and parks it in an aboriginal's driveway, the owner of the house doesn't own that either. Is it unfortunate that they are subject to our "fair" white man's laws?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

A treaty would probably cover salvage laws. Should have been done 150 years ago.

Garbage, they aren't allowed to murder, they aren't allowed to rape, they aren't allowed to steal, they aren't allowed to speed on the highway.
We don't need a treaty to state the obvious.

 

[Festerz]

As journalist and academic Mark Kenny stated so clearly in his article in the Canberra Times on the weekend: In politics, it pays to look at not just what is said, but why, and most importantly when.

Why did the National Party choose to call a very public press conference out of the blue back in November to announce it was opposing the Indigenous Voice?

Coming months before the 'for' and 'against' arguments had even been drafted as per referendum protocols, months before the referendum date had been set and months before the wording of the question that will be put to the people had been finalised, the National Party's announcement was the very definition of prejudice.

The purpose of course, was to kill off any chance of Peter Dutton advocating Liberal Party or Coalition support for the referendum.

Dutton is a conservative Queensland MP. He's cut from the same cloth as many of the right wing National MPs who fronted the November press conference and who bear a close spiritual alliance to Pauline Hanson and Clive Palmer MPs whose racist dog whistling has become an essential policy platform for re-election in their state.

And now we have Dutton dog whistling again on the question of 'details' of the referendum - knowing full well that his so called 'questions' on the details have already been answered. Take a listen to this:



So forgive me if I find the brain dead parroting of Dutton's lying shitfeckery that we have seen in this thread time and time again by the usual suspects, more than a bit feckin annoying.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Oh hello

Do you think Indigenous People having a voice is a stunt?
You do, don't you?

Eh? It's Albanese on about stunts, not me. Non sequitur.

 

[Gough]

As journalist and academic Mark Kenny stated so clearly in his article in the Canberra Times on the weekend: In politics, it pays to look at not just what is said, but why, and most importantly when.

Why did the National Party choose to call a very public press conference out of the blue back in November to announce it was opposing the Indigenous Voice?

Coming months before the 'for' and 'against' arguments had even been drafted as per referendum protocols, months before the referendum date had been set and months before the wording of the question that will be put to the people had been finalised, the National Party's announcement was the very definition of prejudice.

The purpose of course, was to kill off any chance of Peter Dutton advocating Liberal Party or Coalition support for the referendum.

Dutton is a conservative Queensland MP. He's cut from the same cloth as many of the right wing National MPs who fronted the November press conference and who bear a close spiritual alliance to Pauline Hanson and Clive Palmer MPs whose racist dog whistling has become an essential policy platform for re-election in their state.

And now we have Dutton dog whistling again on the question of 'details' of the referendum - knowing full well that his so called 'questions' on the details have already been answered. Take a listen to this:



So forgive me if I find the brain dead parroting of Dutton's lying shitfeckery that we have seen in this thread time and time again by the usual suspects, more than a bit feckin annoying.

These people don't support a voice because of inbuilt belief in Western cultural superiority that's so ingrained in the modern Liberal Party's DNA that they don't even need to say it anymore. There's no amount of detail that will satisfy them and all we'll see is the Indigenous community get the same sort of kicking from the same sort of people that LGBTQI community did in the lead up to the marriage vote which should be telling you something in itself.