FWIW yot,
@terrey followed the original, wildly optimistic, terms of reference
I set out for the thread,
Probably better than anyone.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Indigenous Voice Yes or No?
- Thread starter eZyT
- Start date
FWIW yot,
@terrey followed the original, wildly optimistic, terms of reference
I set out for the thread,
Probably better than anyone.
Your poll has got me thinking about Rudd's apology to our indigenous brothers and sisters.
A lot of Australians were against apologising to our First Nation people..................what harm did it do?
I myself was in favour of it, for the simple reason that saying sorry might make some of our brothers and sisters feel better, and might start the healing process for them.
I wonder, post apology, what the thoughts are of those who were against the apology.
Dutton famously walked out of parliament during Rudd's apology, he now says that he regrets doing it. He is wrong in the sh!t stirring that he doing in regards to the referendum to establish a First Nations Voice to Parliament. He'll probably come out later and say that he was wrong in regards to the "voice" too.
Actually he didn't. To do that he would have just voted and not made any comment
That's what I originally did but then joined in the discussion
Re-read Sin,
He followed them to the letter.
vote, make it public if you choose, discuss elsewhere.
He did precisely that, and i thought yot's savaging wasnt helpful.
But weve all done unhelpful things, especially in passion.
Lets try build a more respectful, inclusive Australia*
I think weve made significant progress on PRE; i reckon this thread would have gotten very ugly very quickly a few years ago - the adam goodes booing era.
And it stayed pretty civil - personal abuse-free even?
150 votes in a couple of days is a great response from PRE.
Thanks everyone, especially mods for letting it roll
* geelong is not considered Australia for the purpose of this aspiration
Last edited:
Ok point taken . However i do agree with the point made by others that simply saying yes or no added absolutely nothing. In fact there was no point in posting a one word response at all. Why post it unless you are wanting to get a response ?
I voted Probably Yes. I admire the process and those involved in crafting the Uluṟu Statement, and Linda Burney’s grace in voicing her message positively, politely and dispassionately among all the emotion. And, of course, indigenous people are (mainly) asking for it.
However, I am pessimistic that it will achieve anything, in particular in remote communities where the troubles are. As a lawyer, I do foresee the proposed wording will lead to many High Court challenges once the Voice (and the legislation around it) comes into effect.
As Dutton is asking, I think Albanese should show us the draft legislation - if it’s not ready yet (completely understandable), just say that and commit to showing it in time. I’m also concerned about the cost (there will be a lot of bureaucracy attached), and I certainly feel people are entitled to ask about that rather than just “trust Parliament”. The scope of “matters relating to Aboriginal and TSI peoples” is too vague. If that wording is adopted, then Parliament legislates a definition, there will be legal challenges if someone then considers the definition is narrower than the wording.
However, I am pessimistic that it will achieve anything, in particular in remote communities where the troubles are. As a lawyer, I do foresee the proposed wording will lead to many High Court challenges once the Voice (and the legislation around it) comes into effect.
As Dutton is asking, I think Albanese should show us the draft legislation - if it’s not ready yet (completely understandable), just say that and commit to showing it in time. I’m also concerned about the cost (there will be a lot of bureaucracy attached), and I certainly feel people are entitled to ask about that rather than just “trust Parliament”. The scope of “matters relating to Aboriginal and TSI peoples” is too vague. If that wording is adopted, then Parliament legislates a definition, there will be legal challenges if someone then considers the definition is narrower than the wording.
Youre choosing to relinquish anonymity.
nailing your colors to the mast.
I respect it,
But i see why you dont.
It is interesting the way people say there is not enough detail in the referendum.
But let's compare, the wording of the 1967 referendum was as follows:
Not much detail there and that was accepted by the whole parliament and a vast majority of voters, the impact of that referendum was to:
This is a change to the constitution, the constitution is not about detail. The detail of the Voice will be up to parliament, and will most likely change over time. The detail is not really relevant given it won't be set in stone. The existence of the Voice will be set in stone, that is all, not the composition, not the way the members are chosen, not the specifics of how and under what conditions consultation takes place, not what consultation means - all of this is up to the parliament.
Why would we need detail on something we are not voting on. The referendum is about whether the Voice exists, no more than that.
DS
But let's compare, the wording of the 1967 referendum was as follows:
Not much detail there and that was accepted by the whole parliament and a vast majority of voters, the impact of that referendum was to:
This is a change to the constitution, the constitution is not about detail. The detail of the Voice will be up to parliament, and will most likely change over time. The detail is not really relevant given it won't be set in stone. The existence of the Voice will be set in stone, that is all, not the composition, not the way the members are chosen, not the specifics of how and under what conditions consultation takes place, not what consultation means - all of this is up to the parliament.
Why would we need detail on something we are not voting on. The referendum is about whether the Voice exists, no more than that.
DS
I personally voted yes & dont give a fat rats clacker which way others voted.
I am however, absolutely *smile* thrilled that we are having the conversation.
I am however, absolutely *smile* thrilled that we are having the conversation.
Hard to argue with that tbh. I mean, who do you give the power to dissolve parliament if there is evidence of corruption or a constitutional crisis? The current system doesn’t work, that’s for sure. We currently have a GG that is as dodgy AF and needs to be removed.
Urban indigenous !! I understand where you are coming from. What do they need a Voice for ?.They got an apology from Rudd & the State Premiers. They are laughing all the way to the banks now being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islands descent. Free legal ,medical, education including skills training, Royalties from Oil Mining etc etc. What is left for them for us to give. Maybe respect !!
Exactly . You nailed it. When we respect our indigenous population, their needs, their beliefs their historical ownership, and I mean really respect them, then the Voice is a given.
Laughing all the way to the bank? Yeh, sick of them tearing up my street in their Mercedes.
Who is this "us" you talk about and what is this giving?
What are you really threatened by is the Voice does receive the Yes approval?
To me it's like the gay marriage vote, what threat was it to the heterosexual population? What freedoms or rights did they lose? I never heard one good reason to oppose it. And it appears the same thing here. Anything that has thew potential and intention to improve outcomes for the indigenous population can only be a good thing. And if the majority of indigenous support it why shouldn't I?
Rudd apologised in parliament so everything is fine. You are right, it’s all great now
All those rich indigenous people are lining up at the Mercedes dealerships now
'Good day Mr Alan Bond, how you goin' bloke?
Hey, I'm your brand-new neighbour ... hey, mate you got a smoke?
And I think I'm gonna like it here
Livin' next door to Alan'
Listened to Warren Mundine this morning. He's part of the No campaign, he put up a very poor argument as to why there shouldn't be A First Nations Voice to Parliament.
www.abc.net.au
The Voice 'no' campaign starts to take shape - ABC listen
The "no" campaign on the Voice to Parliament is taking shape, with a committee advancing the case set to launch. Warren Mundine is fronting the campaign and calling for recognition, but not a Voice, for Indigenous and Torres Strait Islanders, as well as migrant Australians.
www.abc.net.au
Besides those who are entitled to royalties for land that was stolen, what money do Indigenous people get that non-Indigenous people don't?
From the snippets I've seen it really looks like Mundine is just heading the 'no' campaign because he was offered the job.Listened to Warren Mundine this morning. He's part of the No campaign, he put up a very poor argument as to why there shouldn't be A First Nations Voice to Parliament.
The Voice 'no' campaign starts to take shape - ABC listen
The "no" campaign on the Voice to Parliament is taking shape, with a committee advancing the case set to launch. Warren Mundine is fronting the campaign and calling for recognition, but not a Voice, for Indigenous and Torres Strait Islanders, as well as migrant Australians.
