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.

 

[Gethelred]

I’m looking foward to a whole heaps of people with legitimate concerns and questions about the referendum being immediately labelled a racist and a bigot because they dare question anything and not just tick yes without engaging their brain.

Good times.

Straya.

For someone who informs us that they're a leftie, you spend a fair amount of time whinging about lefties.

 

[campbell]

and so it begins.

 

[Gethelred]

why are you scared of questions?

See what I mean? Disingenuous.

Be better, PR. Be better, and you will be taken more seriously and given more of a hearing, instead of arguing to mislead others into agreeing with you.

 

[Festerz]

It's more than constitutional recognition though. It's creating a bureaucracy.

You are a hypocrite.

On one hand you say the referendum is completely unnecessary because it does nothing concrete and is 'wishy washy'.

And now you say it shouldn't proceed because it is 'creating a bureaucracy'.

Both are wrong of course. Naming a function in the Constitution does not create a bureaucracy. And neither does the formal recognition of first nations peoples.

Totally different to the plebiscite, where everyone knew exactly what they were voting for.

LOL. Again this is BS.

The LNP government did not release a draft bill legalising same-sex marriage prior to the plebiscite. It merely asked people's opinion on whether the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.

We were being asked to vote on an idea.

The specific changes to the Marriage Act and supporting legislation came AFTER the plebiscite.

 

[Power Raid]

See what I mean? Disingenuous.

Be better, PR. Be better, and you will be taken more seriously and given more of a hearing, instead of arguing to mislead others into agreeing with you.

OK to keep it simple and only ask one question

if the Voice was a democratic process and the indigenous people wanted a non-indigenous person to represent them; why couldn't that person represent them?

As I see this as no different to s25 of the constitution

 

[Power Raid]

You are a hypocrite.

On one hand you say the referendum is completely unnecessary because it does nothing concrete and is 'wishy washy'.

And now you say it shouldn't proceed because it is 'creating a bureaucracy'.

Both are wrong of course. Naming a function in the Constitution does not create a bureaucracy. And neither does the formal recognition of first nations peoples.



LOL. Again this is BS.

The LNP government did not release a draft bill legalising same-sex marriage prior to the plebiscite. It merely asked people's opinion on whether the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.

We were being asked to vote on an idea.

The specific changes to the Marriage Act and supporting legislation came AFTER the plebiscite.

changing the constitution is different to changing the marriage act

further a reasonable person could determine the legislative changes required ie "between a man and women" would be repealed


same with the 1967 referendum where is was disclosed to remove the words "aboriginal and torres strait islander"

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I’m looking foward to a whole heaps of people with legitimate concerns and questions about the referendum being immediately labelled a racist and a bigot because they dare question anything and not just tick yes without engaging their brain.

Good times.

Straya.

I'll talk to Chief about getting a victim badge for you

 

[Festerz]

why are you scared of questions?

Because as always your questions are not real questions at all.

You are engaging in the deceptive and completely disingenuous art of sealioning .

And I expect more of these tactics of deliberate obfuscation and deflection as the discussion on the referendum progresses.

As for you and your sea-lioning mate Rob - On to ignore you go.

 

[Cooldude]

So begins the "Australia, how racist are we in 2022?" referendum

The answer will be "very very racist"

 

[Rob]

You are a hypocrite.

lol. Name calling is all you have?

On one hand you say the referendum is completely unnecessary because it does nothing concrete and is 'wishy washy'.

And now you say it shouldn't proceed because it is 'creating a bureaucracy'.

No, I said it shouldn't proceed - based entirely on the proposed questions - because it's suggesting something that doesn't need constitutional change.

There's nothing contradictory there.

But in any case, my question is about measurable benefit.

Both are wrong of course. Naming a function in the Constitution does not create a bureaucracy. And neither does the formal recognition of first nations peoples.

It literally states that a body will be created. It's the sole purpose - and outcome - of the 3 questions.

If you're in denial that it creates a bureaucracy then you're living in fantasy land.

LOL. Again this is BS.

The LNP government did not release a draft bill legalising same-sex marriage prior to the plebiscite. It merely asked people's opinion on whether the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.

We were being asked to vote on an idea.

The specific changes to the Marriage Act and supporting legislation came AFTER the plebiscite.

What point are you making here?

 

[Gethelred]

OK to keep it simple and only ask one question

if the Voice was a democratic process and the indigenous people wanted a non-indigenous person to represent them; why couldn't that person represent them?

As I see this as no different to s25 of the constitution

Festerz posted this, earlier in the thread:

We have already seen this week how the resident One Nation racists in Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts have used the referendum as an opportunity to promote themselves.

For years Hanson has sat in the Senate and not uttered one word of protest against the recognition to country. But this week - she walks out. We all know why.

This is how the next few weeks and months will play out. Dutton has already signalled he will make it the main platform for his attacks on the government. The tabloid media will be the willing partner because promoting division and conflict is the key to generating the clicks that drive their business model.

And when it comes to dog whistling, facts just don't matter.

For the record, here are the three suggested sentences to change the Constitution. Rest assured that the vocal opponents to the changes will not be making any reference to them because they don't in any way support the conflict and chaos that they suggest will result from them being included.

As far as I can tell, in those mooted alterations, there is nothing stopping the Voice from being non-indigenous.

 

[Gough]

I’m looking foward to a whole heaps of people with legitimate concerns and questions about the referendum being immediately labelled a racist and a bigot because they dare question anything and not just tick yes without engaging their brain.

Good times.

Straya.

To paraphrase Billy Bragg on Brexit, not everyone who will oppose this is racist but every racist will oppose this.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

changing the constitution is different to changing the marriage act

further a reasonable person could determine the legislative changes required ie "between a man and women" would be repealed


same with the 1967 referendum where is was disclosed to remove the words "aboriginal and torres strait islander"

If you ever realise you're on the same side as Pauline Hanson, it's probably time to have a good think about what you stand for.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

There's going to be a whole lot of racists in this country who are about to become experts on constitutional law all of a sudden.

Its the Vibe.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

If you ever realise you're on the same side as Pauline Hanson, it's probably time to have a good think about what you stand for.

I'm sure she doesn't support free crystal meth for the masses.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Why won't the government disclose details on the referendum?

What ensures the Voice represents aboriginal people, not just special interest groups? Will there be a separate indigenous election, for seats in the Voice, to ensure the body represents the will of the people and controls?

Will the GG have power to dismiss the Voice, effectively removing indigenous people the right and power to vote?

Why are we enshrining racism?

What problem are we trying to resolve?

Why the secrets and non-disclosure, especially if it is so important?

An Aboriginal election?

So they need to listen to the "Voice" but someone like Scomo would be free to ignore it? So less power than an insignificant backbencher.

Seems like a lot of questions need to be answered before we can even do a referendum such as this.
You really shouldn't rush into constitutional changes.

 

[Xtreme]

Would I like to see it happen ? Yes

But I don't see it passing successfully, the devil is in the detail.

 

[JackOutback]

I’m looking foward to a whole heaps of people with legitimate concerns and questions about the referendum being immediately labelled a racist and a bigot because they dare question anything and not just tick yes without engaging their brain.

Good times.

Straya.

And I’m looking forward to whole heaps of people with no understanding of the constitution suddenly becoming constitutional experts whose wholly irrelevant concerns are disguised as providing important oversight.

 

[Power Raid]

And I’m looking forward to whole heaps of people with no understanding of the constitution suddenly becoming constitutional experts whose wholly irrelevant concerns are disguised as providing important oversight.

we wouldn't have to become constitutional experts if the government was open and honest about the referendum.

why say an entity like this hasn't been done before; when it has. It was shut down in 2004 with bipartisan support.
why aren't the learnings from the past being adopted? The past entity represented interest groups rather than indigenous people......so why isn't this entity democratic?
why can't indigenous people have a non-indigenous person to represent them, if they chose to?
what are it's goals and measures of success?
why can't the entity be wound up, if it needs to be?
why does the GG have to dissolve the entity when it fails? why not have an indigenous voice.....by voting?

these are all simple things an honest government would do, for something so important. Instead we get secrecy and lies and lies as an opening stance. Twitter politics at its best!

 

[Power Raid]

If you ever realise you're on the same side as Pauline Hanson, it's probably time to have a good think about what you stand for.

so far you have the best argument supporting the voice is............Pauline something something

can you outline a positive position to promote discussion?

 

[JackFlash]

Not quite 3 months into the job and the division is about to become wider...

 

[Gough]

To look at this from a purely political point of view Albo has executed the sort of wedge in two months that Morrison spent three years trying for. This simplicity of the proposal means that to oppose it is going to be an uphill battle regardless of how pure those who do might have it their motives are. I dips me lid.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

so far you have the best argument supporting the voice is............Pauline something something

can you outline a positive position to promote discussion?

Ok.

Racism will not be tolerated in this thread. Be mindful of that.

 

[Power Raid]

Seems like Albo will have to come clean

Download Menu

classic.austlii.edu.au

Referendums Overview

www.aec.gov.au

Chapter VIII. Alteration Of The Constitution.

ul.constitution-contents { counter-reset: constitution-number; margin: 0 0 1em; padding: 0; } ul.constitution-contents > li { margin: 0 0 1em; } ul.constitution-contents, ul.constitution-contents ul, li.chapter ol { list-style: none; } li.chapter ol > li { margin: 0 0 0

www.aph.gov.au

I think we will all look forward to the details

 

[Power Raid]

Ok.

Racism will not be tolerated in this thread. Be mindful of that.

yeah yeah, I get it

if you don't support or question the secretive and deceptive government's proposal; you're a Pauline Hanson clone and thus a racist


Perhaps try and contribute and discuss the topic based on its merits or concerns. A good moderator should try better than..........you're on Pauline's side or threats without basis