Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament - Part 2

[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.

 

[Chief]

If it's doing what it proposed to do, it shouldn't have to worry about being gutted from legislation.

Yeah like the LNP wouldn't go looking for excuses to gut it, deserved or not. Like they did last time. Like they do every time.

 

[Chief]

No...how do i put this lightly. You end up with the same ******* situation we have today...many disadvantaged and unheard groups. Only at the cost of more taxpayer money being spent to pay these public servants.

You're just repeating the same thing. Continuing a top-down system which has failed time and again.

 

[JackOutback]

To be fair, enshrining the voice in the constitution would not protect it from being gutted by a future government.

Correct, there's nothing stopping a future government from reducing it or ignoring it, but it always would have been there, ready to be reinstated by the next government. Legislating every time you want to restart it, requiring the majority of both the HoR and Senate, is a harder hill to climb.

 

[Chief]

I'd like to see an audit of Home Affairs covering Peter Dutton's time in charge before he starts on about wasteful government spending because as with everything Spud you can generally assume every accusation of his is an act of projection.

Did he perchance spend billions a year while making things worse?!?!

 

[ubeaut]

I love it when we spend half a billion dollars like it's nothing. How about legislate it and put the money to better use

As has been explained numerous times -
If it's merely legislated then the next government can just get rid of it, so what would be the point?

 

[Chief]

As has been explained numerous times -
If it's merely legislated then the next government can just get rid of it, so what would be the point?

They could even just set it up as part of another department and just make it a set of regulations. No laws required.

 

[Gough]

Did he perchance spend billions a year while making things worse?!?!

I know he's the LOTO bit I can't believe anyone is listening to him at all here, every step of his career has been consumed by racism and now we're supposed to believe that he has the best interests of Indigenous Australia at heart. If you pull the other one it plays Deutschland Uber Alles

 

[Tyrohad]

You're just repeating the same thing. Continuing a top-down system which has failed time and again.

The ****. The the voice is outside of this "top-down" system? Explain it it to me. I'll admit I'm ****ing confused. The pamphlet that I've read all summarised is that representatives are ELECTED, and they carry the communities wishes etc to parliament but they are still UNDER governance are they not? They're still in the top-down system

 

[1990crow]

Surprise, surprise, racist Peter Dutton has Walked back from promise to hold another referendum on constitutional recognition for FNP following the "No" "Victory".

 

[Carringbush2010]

I agree 100%. Greater political transparency when it comes to funding and spending SHOULD be a priority. We the taxpayer have every right to know where our dollars go, and what those dollars are achieving for us as a nation.

And that's what EVERY voter wants (or at least 99.99999%), regardless of altering the constitution or not.

And that's where I find the bickering on here between no and yes voters petulant.

The referendum is done and dusted, now instead of us sniping each other on here just to get on our moral superiority high horse.

Like you and ElectricG about something as futile of whether or not altering the constitution for one group over every other is preferential treatment.

Technically to the letter of definition it is, woopty *n doo!

You're not the only ones.

Instead arguing this futile subject, what should be happening now,

• is discussion about how the funds be not wasted so blatantly like they have,
• how govts at all levels will consult the right people on how to find practical solutions.
• Holding members of parliament to account to actually act on the concerns that are put forward to them.
• Actually establish advisory bodies, we can't use the constitution now,
• There may actually be advisory bodies now, let themselves be known, let's use their expertise to get practical outcomes

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So it's not one suit but a multitude of people representing the different groups all across Australia? And you're happy to pay a public servants wages for these multitude of public servants that only serves 3% of the public? Not accounting thier expenses to bring said issues to Canberra?

Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure elected MPs liase with community elders in their electorate. How is that different to the Voice?

Fair points. I'm starting to think it would have been a better idea to actually build the functioning Voice so we could all see it work in action.

This aspect of the NO vote has legitimacy, I feel. It wasn't enough for me to vote NO, but I can see your points raised clearly.

 

[Carringbush2010]

no voters don't read they just want someone to give them the details

That's probably not the insult I assume you want it to be.

 

[Chief]

The . The the voice is outside of this "top-down" system? Explain it it to me. I'll admit I'm ****** confused.

No comment.

The pamphlet that I've read all summarised is that representatives are ELECTED, and they carry the communities wishes etc to parliament but they are still UNDER governance are they not? They're still in the top-down system

So you had a problem with it as it might be wasteful or corrupt.

Then when measures are planned to ensure good governance and guard against corruption, it's not pure enough?

Kind of like, no matter how much detail you get, you'll find reasons to object.

 

[reepbot_returns]

Why on earth would the coalition support putting the voice in the constitution when one of the main arguments for putting it in the constitution was because the government thought that the coalition would demolish it as soon as they got back into power? Which is probably a reasonable claim to make, but that kind of thinking doesn't foster the sort of bipartisanship that this referendum needed if it had a chance to pass. Though I kind of think even if Dutton and Albanese joint campaigned for a yes vote the no vote would still win. There's just too much ingrained racism towards Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander people.

 

[Tyrohad]

As has been explained numerous times -
If it's merely legislated then the next government can just get rid of it, so what would be the point?

Then don't vote governments who won't have a policy of keeping the legislation.

And what if it's not working? Do we keep hitting our head against the wall? That's why I don't understand why constitution proponents are saying we can easily remove it via referendum. Yeah to the tune of half a billion dollars. Why do you think referendums are hard to come by? They're not CHEAP.

 

[1990crow]

Why on earth would the coalition support putting the voice in the constitution when one of the main arguments for putting it in the constitution was because the government thought that the coalition would demolish it as soon as they got back into power? Which is probably a reasonable claim to make, but that kind of thinking doesn't foster the sort of bipartisanship that this referendum needed if it had a chance to pass. Though I kind of think even if Dutton and Albanese joint campaigned for a yes vote the no vote would still win. There's just too much ingrained racism towards Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander people.

Because they said they would.

 

[Tyrohad]

No comment.


So you had a problem with it as it might be wasteful or corrupt.

Then when measures are planned to ensure good governance and guard against corruption, it's not pure enough?

Kind of like, no matter how much detail you get, you'll find reasons to object.

No comment because you don't know or that's what was intended of the Voice? Come on educate the unwashed here. I'm genuinely curious where this body sits in the system.

Pretty much. If you want to be fair, fork out the money for every mob in the country or not at all.

Why is it a bad thing to be skeptical and have differing views? You're touting this system like it's faultless and the saviour of closing the gap. Im pointing out issues that I can see coming.

It human nature to be tribal and looking inward toward the tribe. When one gets more benefits from the same system, the other shows disdain. Then we're back to where we are.

 

[Werewolf]

Though I kind of think even if Dutton and Albanese joint campaigned for a yes vote the no vote would still win. There's just too much ingrained racism towards Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander people.

Doubt it. Most polls indicate that "Yes" was leading better than 60-40 a year ago:

Opinion polling for the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum

 

[Gavin Excell]

I'm not going to question/ comment you. But I am going to question / comment.

1. Then if the program/spending was not achieving overall objectives it needs to be investigated as to why and then a solution is implemented. Those on the ground i;e those living those problems need to be involved in the scrutinizing and solution process.

2. Why are the parameters 'narrow'? By being narrow does that imply that the audit process is prone to incorrect outcomes?

3 Why not? Too hard basket? Is it possible that we could have an advisory body to look at alternative solutions i;e we don't need to alter the constitution to have one or many as many as we need? Do we already have advisory bodies that aren't being consulted to achieve better outcomes? I'm going to fairly speculate that the dismissing of alternative options is where a lot of money has been wasted.

I'm hopeful that now after the spotlight has put front and centre the plight of ATSI people, that govts. of all levels will obtain advisory bodies or employ bodies / consultants that already exist to achieve more positive outcomes. < The right people to consult.

In short the ideal can be achieved without the need to enshrine a Voice in the constitution (which we can't now).

As for recognition, you could argue that as a society we definitely recognize ATSI people, as we should, now we just need the Federal Govt. to make it official. How that looks I don't know.

Fair questions

It might be differences in terminology. An audit (in government context) generally focusses on correct adherence with the processes and Guidelines etc put in place. Therefore was organisation X awarded a grant in a correct manner and did it acquit its funding appropriately (eg spent on eligible program work rather than upgrading the CEOs office etc).

What you are referring to is an evaluation of the programs effectiveness which can be outside scope of an ANAO audit. This is often where things fall down or miss the mark, the follow through in reviewing what worked what didn't and how to improve delivery. As you point out it's the consideration of alternative and new options that is likely to be where improvements are made.

 

[1990crow]

Doubt it. Most polls indicate that "Yes" was leading better than 60-40 a year ago:

Opinion polling for the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum

All Australia needed was for the LNP to support their own proposal for the Voice that they drafted.

Unfortunately full blown redneck racists Dutton and Little to be Proud of got into power and dropped their parties support.

This will forever be a stain on the LNP.

 

[Tyrohad]

Fair points. I'm starting to think it would have been a better idea to actually build the functioning Voice so we could all see it work in action.

This aspect of the NO vote has legitimacy, I feel. It wasn't enough for me to vote NO, but I can see your points raised clearly.

That's probably the resounding reason why. Many can't picture it in practice and where it sits in our system.

We're just told it's the solution to the problem and to trust the system that hasn't even existed yet.

I'd get behind it if it actually existed and showed proven results compared to the old way.

 

[faible]

Then don't vote governments who won't have a policy of keeping the legislation.

And what if it's not working? Do we keep hitting our head against the wall? That's why I don't understand why constitution proponents are saying we can easily remove it via referendum. Yeah to the tune of half a billion dollars. Why do you think referendums are hard to come by? They're not CHEAP.

60% of the population just voted No. It's clearly not something that is going to be sufficient to stop a party intent on removing said legislation from getting in to power.

 

[faible]

I'd get behind it if it actually existed and showed proven results compared to the old way.

 

[reepbot_returns]

All Australia needed was for the LNP to support their own proposal for the Voice that they drafted.

Unfortunately full blown redneck racists Dutton and Little to be Proud of got into power and dropped their parties support.

This will forever be a stain on the LNP.

More like a stain on Albanese.

 

[nut]

As I was telling I support recognition for first people. And consultation with communities. But Voice was not just recognition but for improving disadvantage. Constitution is permanent thing. So if putting it then it assumes permanent disadvantage. And assumes all Aboriginal descent are disadvantaged.

My children have grandparents from four cultures including Aboriginal. We celebrate all. We don't need it in constitution to keep culture.

No you assume that it’s about permanent disadvantage …