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.

 

[Power Raid]

I'd be happy to support a voice to parliament on the proviso it would resolve the question of 'Indigenous Sovereignty'.

this is a state government issue not federal government

further you should give the State Government in WA a call to understand what has already been done and the steps from here. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Schneebly11]

Looks like the Invasion Day rallies are going far left and campaigning against the Voice. This can’t be good for the cause:

Invasion Day rallies will campaign against the Voice

Rallies in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane will carry slogans of “Treaty before Voice” or “Sovereignty before Voice”.

amp.smh.com.au

 

[QuietB]

Bizarre someone who clearly sees themselves s “anti racist” making such a discriminatory comment. Why would you look at an at risk Indigenous child any different to an at risk non Indigenous child, if not for a pretty clear underlying bias against Indigenous people.

It is attitudes and views like these which have done more to contribute to the poor outcomes for Indigenous people of this country more than anything else. Why would we need to consult the Indigenous community about issues such as that or drug/alcohol abuse but wouldn’t dare for the Asian or any other community?

The entire Voice discussion seems to be so the rest of the population don’t have to soil themselves by having to deal with the wider Indigenous communities and just the one designated blackfella.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is the discriminatory comment?

 

[Power Raid]

Looks like the Invasion Day rallies are going far left and campaigning against the Voice. This can’t be good for the cause:

Invasion Day rallies will campaign against the Voice

Rallies in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane will carry slogans of “Treaty before Voice” or “Sovereignty before Voice”.

amp.smh.com.au

nothing quite like policies based on race to create racial divide

I can't believe any politician can promote racial divide for votes

If we want to enshrine anything in our constitution, we should enshrine governments have no power in regards to race

 

[Northalives]

Can you point to any tangible real benefits that have flown from Rudd’s apology apart from making inner city leftist’s feel all warm and fuzzy inside because they are protecting the poor blacks who can’t defend or help themselves from the nasty redneck racists?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was a massive step forward in Indigenous non-Indigenous relations. It's called truth telling and that was the first, important step. A Voice to Parliament would emancipate Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders from the yoke of patriarchy and give them a say in what laws are put in place which directly effect them.

 

[Gough]

Hundreds of pages of detail and Spud wants more, you could almost be forgiven for thinking he doesn't want this at all. Per the graund blog.

Honestly, let’s be serious about it. Bob Hawke or John Howard would never have conducted themselves this way. You can’t just say that we’re going to change the constitution. There are legitimate concerns that people have about the interventions from the High Court, the way in which that could be interpreted and expanded. There are legitimate questions that people have about the detail, the operation. All of us share in common a desire to help Indigenous Australians, but if the prime minister of the day can’t stand up and explain the detail of what it is he’s asking people to vote for, how can people be expected to vote for it?

 

[Festerz]

Excellent article by former Treasury Boss Ken Henry on Dutton's politicking with the Voice Referendum.

His razor sharp takedown of the simplistic 'more details needed' rhetoric of Dutton is undeniable in its logic and unshakeable in its accuracy:

"Dutton has accused the government of treating people “like mugs” for not providing “detail” on the Voice. This ostensibly “detailist” argument won’t strike all Australians as unreasonable. But that’s how doublespeak works. And as an example of doublespeak, this is about as crass as it gets."

"Imagine for a moment that you were participating in one of the constitutional conventions of the 1890s, pondering the merits of including in the Constitution a clause (section 51 of the Australian Constitution) that would give the parliament the power “to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth” with respect to things like trade, taxation, quarantine, statistics, banking, immigration, marriage and old-age pensions. How much patience would you have for a protest that such a clause should not be considered unless and until everybody was fully informed of everything that the parliament might do with those powers?"

Dutton, along with every other one of our elected representatives will get the opportunity to haggle over every bit of detail when the Voice legislation comes before the parliament, following a successful referendum.

Henry also dispenses with the absurd reverse racism BS that has made a brief appearance in this thread and used by some to claim a special body to represent Indigenous Australians is not needed:

"Generations of Australian politicians have had all the power and apparatus of the Australian state at their disposal, yet have merely borne witness to their own failure to prevent the ever-worsening tragedies of Indigenous child protection, incarceration, and suicide; and shamefully persistent gaps in Indigenous life expectancy, employment, educational attainment, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, mental and physical health outcomes"

If the detailists won’t support constitutional recognition and a partnership with Indigenous Australians through the Voice, it is not because they have the answers. A terrible history of policy dysfunction puts the lie to any such notion.

Dutton presumes to know what voters want on the Voice. They told him at the election

Australians have had enough of contrived political game-playing for self-serving, personal advantage.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Gough]

Demanding more details on The Voice is the early twenty first century Australian version of "I'm not racist but..."

 

[Rob]

Don't see why this would be controversial, but it does beg the question - if it can simply be legislated, why not just do it now and hold the referendum at the next federal election (or even at all)? It would take any argument about "lacking detail" off the table.

 

[tandino]

But detail will make it less likely to pass.

 

[Festerz]

Don't see why this would be controversial, but it does beg the question - if it can simply be legislated, why not just do it now and hold the referendum at the next federal election (or even at all)? It would take any argument about "lacking detail" off the table.

This is something covered in the extensive documentation prepared referred to countless times in this thread. I won't bother linking again.

This is a summary of my views:

The formal creation of a body (the Voice) to provide representation and input of Indigenous Australians into Australia's Governance system (Parliament and the Executive) will be done via the established legislative mechanisms of Parliament. i.e. the introduction of a Bill that would be debated, amended and (hopefully) passed by a majority of Houses and given assent by the GG.

YES, this could happen WITHOUT changing the Constitution and so no referendum is needed.

BUT what the Referendum does is two things:

1. Provide a formal recognition in Australia's Constitution of our nation's first peoples and a unique representative body to engage them in our democratic processes; AND

2. Provide a popular mandate (via a 'yes' vote from the majority of people in the majority of States) for the Parliament to establish the Voice.

Point 2 is critical to overcome the divisive and binary political culture wars that will inevitably result if the Government of the day proceeds to establish the Voice without that mandate.

We only need to look at the process and outcome of the 2017 Same Sex Marriage Plebiscite to see how critical it is to get on record the views of all voting age Australians to clear the path for meaningful social reform that has a significant and potentially life changing effect on a minority of our population.

 

[Rob]

This is something covered in the extensive documentation prepared referred to countless times in this thread. I won't bother linking again.

This is a summary of my views:

The formal creation of a body (the Voice) to provide representation and input of Indigenous Australians into Australia's Governance system (Parliament and the Executive) will be done via the established legislative mechanisms of Parliament. i.e. the introduction of a Bill that would be debated, amended and (hopefully) passed by a majority of Houses and given assent by the GG.

YES, this could happen WITHOUT changing the Constitution and so no referendum is needed.

BUT what the Referendum does is two things:

1. Provide a formal recognition in Australia's Constitution of our nation's first peoples and a unique representative body to engage them in our democratic processes; AND

2. Provide a popular mandate (via a 'yes' vote from the majority of people in the majority of States) for the Parliament to establish the Voice.

Point 2 is critical to overcome the divisive and binary political culture wars that will inevitably result if the Government of the day proceeds to establish the Voice without that mandate.

We only need to look at the process and outcome of the 2017 Same Sex Marriage Plebiscite to see how critical it is to get on record the views of all voting age Australians to clear the path for meaningful social reform that has a significant and potentially life changing effect on a minority of our population.

Would you be opposed to the body being set up now, with the referendum to be held later?

If not, why not?

 

[Festerz]

Would you be opposed to the body being set up now, with the referendum to be held later?

If not, why not?

As per previous post:

2. Provide a popular mandate (via a 'yes' vote from the majority of people in the majority of States) for the Parliament to establish the Voice.

Point 2 is critical to overcome the divisive and binary political culture wars that will inevitably result if the Government of the day proceeds to establish the Voice without that mandate.

We only need to look at the process and outcome of the 2017 Same Sex Marriage Plebiscite to see how critical it is to get on record the views of all voting age Australians to clear a smooth path for meaningful social reform that has a significant and potentially life changing effect on a minority of our population.

Edit: I just know this is going to go down the 'sea-lioning' wormhole. Answers begetting more questions. Exactly what Dutton 'where's the detail' wants. And I expect entirely disingenuous. I won't be playing the game any further.

The answers to your questions and many more are in the extensive documentation linked previously. Take the time to read them and the countless informed articles linked here and elsewhere.

 

[Rob]

As per previous post:

It's very different to the same sex marriage plebiscite though - that was a simple question with a simple answer. This is about establishing a bureaucracy, enshrining it in our constitution. Why not set up the body first?

 

[Gavin Excell]

Can you point to any tangible real benefits that have flown from Rudd’s apology apart from making inner city leftist’s feel all warm and fuzzy inside because they are protecting the poor blacks who can’t defend or help themselves from the nasty redneck racists?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it brought awareness to the majority of the public who wouldn't really have had much understanding 15 years ago

Anyone my generation (born 1960s) simply had nil education about the indigenous experience.

This is slow burn stuff all the same. Will take time. For that reason I think the referendum will fail while Libs play the politics. Would need extraordinary strong leadership from Dutton to ensure bipartisan support. It's doomed without it

 

[campbell]

Round and round we go........
Sadly.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

• Go to Google.
• Type in "Report on the Voice to Parliament"
• Select the Australian Parliament House site.
• Download the document, all 287 pages

And still the racist crazies say there is not sufficient information

 

[Gough]

The Libs are opposing it while pretending to support it and they're being allowed to.

 

[Gough]

Lesser let the cat out of the bag a bit when said he was concerned nobody has been able to say if The Voice will get a say in the national curriculum.

 

[Pie eyed]

This is something covered in the extensive documentation prepared referred to countless times in this thread. I won't bother linking again.

This is a summary of my views:

The formal creation of a body (the Voice) to provide representation and input of Indigenous Australians into Australia's Governance system (Parliament and the Executive) will be done via the established legislative mechanisms of Parliament. i.e. the introduction of a Bill that would be debated, amended and (hopefully) passed by a majority of Houses and given assent by the GG.

YES, this could happen WITHOUT changing the Constitution and so no referendum is needed.

BUT what the Referendum does is two things:

1. Provide a formal recognition in Australia's Constitution of our nation's first peoples and a unique representative body to engage them in our democratic processes; AND

2. Provide a popular mandate (via a 'yes' vote from the majority of people in the majority of States) for the Parliament to establish the Voice.

Point 2 is critical to overcome the divisive and binary political culture wars that will inevitably result if the Government of the day proceeds to establish the Voice without that mandate.

We only need to look at the process and outcome of the 2017 Same Sex Marriage Plebiscite to see how critical it is to get on record the views of all voting age Australians to clear the path for meaningful social reform that has a significant and potentially life changing effect on a minority of our population.

In short the Referendum is to negate the possibility the ********ing dog ****ers in the LNP could overturn the legislation.

 

[JackOutback]

Lesser let the cat out of the bag a bit when said he was concerned nobody has been able to say if The Voice will get a say in the national curriculum.

Our kids are already getting a much broader view of Australia's history than I did. It's a losing battle if they are worried people might find out what the English actually did to Aboriginal people.

 

[Gough]

Our kids are already getting a much broader view of Australia's history than I did. It's a losing battle if they are worried people might find out what the English actually did to Aboriginal people.

I don't know when the curriculum started to change but my high school Australian history was seen from an entirely white Anglo point of view even when briefly touching on post 1788 Indigenous history and prior to 1788, forget about it. I was talking to a friend of mine about the Bicentenary a couple of days ago and just how differently it would be marked these days.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I don't know when the curriculum started to change but my high school Australian history was seen from an entirely white Anglo point of view even when briefly touching on post 1788 Indigenous history and prior to 1788, forget about it. I was talking to a friend of mine about the Bicentenary a couple of days ago and just how differently it would be marked these days.

I was taught Cook discovered Australia
But even on that fantasy whitewashing bullshit, The Dutch were here 150 years earlier and the Portuguese 200 yours before the Dutch
We were never taught Indiginous History or the fact they had been here for 60,000 to 80,000 years before the whites invaded

 

[Not Important]

 

[Festerz]

Demanding more details on The Voice is the early twenty first century Australian version of "I'm not racist but..."

Dutton is clearly trying to destroy the Voice. He refused the invitation to attend the Garna Festival of Traditional Cultures. He walked out on the Apology. And now he's trying to whip up a racially motivated frenzy by calling press conferences and making ignorant and superficial claims into the deep seated Indigenous unrest issues in Alice Springs.

Add to the mix his long standing hysteria around 'African crime gangs' and appalling record on the treatment of refugees.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...