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.

 

[O Grobbecker]

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.

That’s psycho babble, merely stream of conscience wild allegations against the psychology of strawmen. Bearing in mind that the proposal is to change the constitution, what the less hysteric undecideds and cautious opponents ask is
(a). What powers the Voice will hold ;
(b) how this new body will “aid” , the word used persistently in the 2021 Report, bridging the gap between the lives of many indigenous and the majority.

This sort of post merely personalises and polarises the debate and resolves nothing.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

That’s psycho babble, merely stream of conscience wild allegations against the psychology of strawmen. Bearing in mind that the proposal is to change the constitution, what the less hysteric undecideds and cautious opponents ask is
(a). What powers the Voice will hold ;
(b) how this new body will “aid” , the word used persistently in the 2021 Report, bridging the gap between the lives of many indigenous and the majority.

This sort of post merely personalises and polarises the debate and resolves nothing.

Rubbish. All the info is available. Stop pretending otherwise.

It’s the Sky/LNP nonsense commentators parroted by people like you that are polarising the debate.

 

[Gough]

"Less hysteric undecideds and cautious opponents". Nice one mate.

 

[Vindicater]

That’s psycho babble, merely stream of conscience wild allegations against the psychology of strawmen. Bearing in mind that the proposal is to change the constitution, what the less hysteric undecideds and cautious opponents ask is
(a). What powers the Voice will hold ;
(b) how this new body will “aid” , the word used persistently in the 2021 Report, bridging the gap between the lives of many indigenous and the majority.

This sort of post merely personalises and polarises the debate and resolves nothing.

You can find all the information you need to answer those two questions in about five minutes and it will likely take you about another 30 minutes to read it and then make a decision.

But you have already made your decision so...

 

[O Grobbecker]

"Less hysteric undecideds and cautious opponents". Nice one mate.

Thanks. You'll agree that it's more balanced and less emotive than the contents of the post to which it is a response.

You can find all the information you need to answer those two questions in about five minutes and it will likely take you about another 30 minutes to read it and then make a decision.

But you have already made your decision so...

So far, I've only seen Albo's 3 propositions which have been posted a number of times in this thread, upon which I've commented in the past and the December 2021 Response and Recommendations published by the former Government. Those aside, all else is the opinions of commentators and a handful of individual politicians. The Current Government has the conduct of the proposed referendum. It proposes not to fund or conduct either a yes or a no campaign. It is the only body whose responses to questions are meaningful, it's not bound by what the former government or commentators/individual pollies say/write. In the meantime, can you direct me to "all the information you need to answer those two questions"? If it will only take 5 minutes, to inform me, perhaps you'll be generous enough to post links ?

 

[O Grobbecker]

.....

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,...

As at now, the government has said it will not draft and publish "'for' and 'against' arguments ....as per referendum protocols,". How does that fare agaisnt your "In politics, it pays to look at not just what is said, but why, and most importantly when" test?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Europeans "were" more prolific at keeping records though. Art and artefacts can be clues, but its not like a body of recorded history.
We ALL descended from somewhere.

We all have our decedents? What is your point here?

( There is some dispute about the 80 000 years at Madjebebe , but it makes no real difference anyway ).

Everyone knows they have been here a long time.
Their history is largely passed on by mouth, which makes it a bit dodgy and entwined by mythology. Even written history (The Bible ?) can be pretty dodgy.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Europeans "were" more prolific at keeping records though. Art and artefacts can be clues, but its not like a body of recorded history.
We ALL descended from somewhere.



We all have our decedents? What is your point here?

( There is some dispute about the 80 000 years at Madjebebe , but it makes no real difference anyway ).

Everyone knows they have been here a long time.
Their history is largely passed on by mouth, which makes it a bit dodgy and entwined by mythology. Even written history (The Bible ?) can be pretty dodgy.

See, I could never answer your question any better than you just did

Your privileged, conquering, white male, dismissal of Indigenous Peoples history is exactly the point.

 

[O Grobbecker]

See, I could never answer your question any better than you just did

Your privileged, conquering, white male, dismissal of Indigenous Peoples history is exactly the point.

You concluded that from
Europeans "were" more prolific at keeping records though. Art and artefacts can be clues, but its not like a body of recorded history.
We ALL descended from somewhere.

( There is some dispute about the 80 000 years at Madjebebe , but it makes no real difference anyway ).

Everyone knows they have been here a long time.
Their history is largely passed on by mouth, which makes it a bit dodgy and entwined by mythology. Even written history (The Bible ?) can be pretty dodgy.

?

Out of interest, who is the author/copyright holder of that timeline ?

 

[JackOutback]

That’s psycho babble, merely stream of conscience wild allegations against the psychology of strawmen. Bearing in mind that the proposal is to change the constitution, what the less hysteric undecideds and cautious opponents ask is
(a). What powers the Voice will hold ;
(b) how this new body will “aid” , the word used persistently in the 2021 Report, bridging the gap between the lives of many indigenous and the majority.

This sort of post merely personalises and polarises the debate and resolves nothing.

LOL, most people don’t care about the Constitution and haven’t thought about it since Year 10. There are plenty pretending to care about it all of a sudden.

 

[Mofra]

We need to know the details so Dutton et al know what they're avoiding when they leave the chamber

 

[O Grobbecker]

LOL, most people do y(sic) care about the Constitution and haven’t thought about it since ... Year 10. There are plenty pretending to care about it all of a sudden.

Why do you think that most people don't care about the Constitution ? If you are right, though, perhaps that's why Albanese doesn't want to compose and distribute the customary Yes and No cases.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

You concluded that from
Europeans "were" more prolific at keeping records though. Art and artefacts can be clues, but its not like a body of recorded history.
We ALL descended from somewhere.

( There is some dispute about the 80 000 years at Madjebebe , but it makes no real difference anyway ).

Everyone knows they have been here a long time.
Their history is largely passed on by mouth, which makes it a bit dodgy and entwined by mythology. Even written history (The Bible ?) can be pretty dodgy.

?

Out of interest, who is the author/copyright holder of that timeline ?

Nothing flash, i believe that it just reflects the commonly held views.
Like i said, some of the timing is in dispute.

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/world-history-beginnings/origin-humans-early-societies/a/where-did-humans-come-from

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Why do you think that most people don't care about the Constitution ? If you are right, though, perhaps that's why Albanese doesn't want to compose and distribute the customary Yes and No cases.

If you care so much about it, come you have never mentioned it previously?

 

[Festerz]

As at now, the government has said it will not draft and publish "'for' and 'against' arguments ....as per referendum protocols,". How does that fare agaisnt your "In politics, it pays to look at not just what is said, but why, and most importantly when" test?

Taxpayer funding will not be used to fund the yes and no campaigns.

That you think that means no yes and no campaigns will take place is reflective of either your ignorance, or deliberate attempt to mislead.

It is just that the government believes that these campaigns and community education should be community funded in line with the spirit of the referendum objectives - by the community.

Because the Government rightly believes that to publicly and equally fund a yes and no advertising and information campaign (and to disallow community funding for community education as applied under the Howard Republican Referendum) for such an important equity issue for First Nations Australians would send the completely wrong community messaging about the importance of establishing a formal representative body for First Nations Australians to the Australian Parliament. It would suggest that the government believed that opposing the establishment of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament has equal merit to the decades long process for establishing it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And to support community education, the Government proposes to temporarily lift a funding restriction that applies in the current Referendums Act, to enable funding of educational initiatives to counter misinformation.

Legislation - the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 - to allow these changes was presented to Parliament last month - AFTER the Nationals had already decided to not support the referendum.

This sort of post merely personalises and polarises the debate and resolves nothing.

LOL - the irony.

Dutton and the Nationals, and their insipid on line trolls, attempts to drag down a Voice for Indigenous Australians is obvious. As is the dog whistling half truths, lies and sea-lioning techniques to spread false information is to make their case.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

See, I could never answer your question any better than you just did

Your privileged, conquering, white male, dismissal of Indigenous Peoples history is exactly the point.

I don't need to be privileged or white to see the technical flaws in the recording of Aboriginal history.

The trouble with history • Peter Sutton & Keryn Walshe

The authors of Farmers or Hunter-gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate respond to Bill Gammage’s “The Great Divide”

insidestory.org.au

 

[O Grobbecker]

If you care so much about it, come you have never mentioned it previously?

Deflection but look at post 1,152 anyway. Back to it, though, why do you think that most people don't care about the Constitution ?

 

[Gough]

Taxpayer funding will not be used to fund the yes and no campaigns.

That you think that means no yes and no campaigns will take View them?place shows your ignorance.

It is just that the government believes that these campaigns and community education should be community funded in line with the spirit of the referendum objectives - by the community.

And to support community education, the Government proposes to temporarily lift a funding restriction that applies in the current Referendums Act, to enable funding of educational initiatives to counter misinformation.

Legislation - the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 - to allow these changes was presented to Parliament last month - AFTER the Nationals had already decided to not support the referendum.

Your attempts to drag down a Voice for Indigenous Australians is obvious. But stop using half truths and lies to make your case.

I've got a lot more respect albeit grudging for the Nationals who've at least said they're opposed to the Voice, Dutton's weasel words are just so transparent.

 

[Not Important]

 

[O Grobbecker]

Taxpayer funding will not be used to fund the yes and no campaigns.

That you think that means no yes and no campaigns will take View them?place shows your ignorance.

It is just that the government believes that these campaigns and community education should be community funded in line with the spirit of the referendum objectives - by the community.

And to support community education, the Government proposes to temporarily lift a funding restriction that applies in the current Referendums Act, to enable funding of educational initiatives to counter misinformation.

Legislation - the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 - to allow these changes was presented to Parliament last month - AFTER the Nationals had already decided to not support the referendum.

Your attempts to drag down a Voice for Indigenous Australians is obvious. But stop using half truths and lies to make your case.

It's the Government that is running the referendum and promoting the Yes response. Its current position is that it will only propose in principle amendments to the constitution, the current 3 appear regularly in this thread, a few comments up on my screen. The 3rd is particularly concerning because it delegates to Parliament power to make laws with respect to composition, functions, powers and procedures of this Voice. It's a trust-me package. Before something gets entrenched in the constitution, the public is entitled to know what composition, powers, functions, powers and procedures this Government proposes to legislate. We know a little bit about what the previous government might have intended as composition and function, by the December 2021 Recommendations, but this Government has said nothing and has said that it won't. Parliament customarily publishes a Pamphlet which sets out arguments for and against the proposed changes which have been authorised by members of the Commonwealth Parliament who either favour or oppose the proposed changes, the Yes/No cases. This government has said that it won't. That's very concerning because it will set it up a body with who knows what powers, functions, composition and procedures, unfettered. It isn't an issue of public education, it's amendment of the Constitution to imbed a body, chosen by and from among 3 % or fewer of the population..

Stop arguing ad hominem and treating any argument / position that you don't agree with as "half truths and lies", indicative of support for a side of politics you don't or any of the other weird and wonderful pejoratives by your ilk that proliferate in this thread.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

It's the Government that is running the referendum and promoting the Yes response. Its current position is that it will only propose in principle amendments to the constitution, the current 3 appear regularly in this thread, a few comments up on my screen. The 3rd is particularly concerning because it delegates to Parliament power to make laws with respect to composition, functions, powers and procedures of this Voice. It's a trust-me package. Before something gets entrenched in the constitution, the public is entitled to know what composition, powers, functions, powers and procedures this Government proposes to legislate. We know a little bit about what the previous government might have intended as composition and function, by the December 2021 Recommendations, but this Government has said nothing and has said that it won't. Parliament customarily publishes a Pamphlet which sets out arguments for and against the proposed changes which have been authorised by members of the Commonwealth Parliament who either favour or oppose the proposed changes, the Yes/No cases. This government has said that it won't. That's very concerning because it will set it up a body with who knows what powers, functions, composition and procedures, unfettered. It isn't an issue of public education, it's amendment of the Constitution to imbed a body, chosen by and from among 3 % or fewer of the population..

Stop arguing ad hominem and treating any argument / position that you don't agree with as "half truths and lies", indicative of support for a side of politics you don't or any of the other weird and wonderful pejoratives by your ilk that proliferate in this thread.

Rubbish. Bad faith poster parroting Dutton’s talking points.

 

[O Grobbecker]

Rubbish. Bad faith poster parroting Dutton’s talking points.

A rare treat to encounter a response as articulate and considered.

 

[Festerz]

 

[campbell]

ah, that entitled white male.
What solution you talking about Mal?