Referendum 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
full80 said:
I'm voting yes as well. The Australian constitution already has a 'race' power as part of it, where the government is allowed to make laws that only apply to a specified race. As far as I can read it, 'division' is already baked into our constitution.

Politicians already make decisions that specifically affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people, using this race power. This would just give those affected a say in what those policies should be. A say that can be ignored by the government. Like when they make laws that affect superannuants they consult the superannuation lobby.

The reason it's important that it is put in the Constitution is that twice previously, in the 80s and 90s a government has abolished the body set up to advise on Aboriginal policies. If it is in the Constitution it can't be abolished by a particular government. It's a modest ask from the oldest living culture to recognise they were the original inhabitants and would like to consult on policies that affect them.

I really feel like the outcome will not have an affect on 97% of the population but could potentially have a huge affect on the 3%.
Click to expand...
Why were the previous bodies abolished?
 
The Chad said:
Just talking for myself, but I feel this might count for a lot of people & probably is a good reason so many people are still undecided. When I read this:

"To propose alterations and additions to the text of the Australian Constitution, there are two fundamental principles that need consideration before embarking on the exercise: the designation of authority, and the principle of the separation of power."

I have zero concept of what people are talking about. And just shut down.

If I can't figure out what people are trying to sell me right away, by hiding it behind general observations of the weather or behind fancy terminology in order to either make themselves look smart or to baffle those that don't quite grasp what they are saying...I lose interest.

I've seen so many things about voting yes or no- and they nearly all end up saying nothing that the average punter wants to know.

What will it do? If another person tells me it gives aboriginals a voice in parliament but then brush away my question on "isn't that what elected aboriginal members in parliament have?" as if I don't know what I'm talking about...I'm going to lose interest in their argument too.

If someone tells me it's bad because....reasons...but can't tell me exactly what will happen, good or bad...I'm going to stop listening to them too.

What I've decided is- this is a nice distraction from the issues that are really killing Australia today. Cost of living. New employees with no experience being paid equal to staff that have 10 years experience on them because the lack of workers lets their demands & expectations escalate, housing & rental price hokes, fuel costs, grapes are $17.99 a kg...while we focus on a 'voice' like Obi Wan in the government's ear reminding them that aboriginals are part of the community too.

The people selling it need to do better. Dummies like me have no idea what they have on offer & stopped listening after the second sentence.
Click to expand...
Im far from educated in the matter but after doing a bit of reading the last couple of days i will try to answer some questions.

"isn't that what elected aboriginal members in parliament have" Yes and No. The elected Aboriginal members in parliament should be currently representing the interests of their electorates. In most cases they do come from an electorate with a high Indigenous population so in a way they do represent Indigenous people however they are not there to specifically speak on Indigenous issues. Kind of like there is a Vietnamese representative from Cabramatta. He does not specifically speak for Vietnamese migrants but as there are a lot of Vietnamese in Cabramatta he sort of does. So Yes and No. Additionally, there are currently 11 Aboriginal members of Parliament, but this number has the potential to change at each election. The Voice ensures an Indigenous representation even if there are significantly fewer elected Indigenous mps.

"If someone tells me it's bad because....reasons...but can't tell me exactly what will happen, good or bad...I'm going to stop listening to them too" At the risk of not being listened to, it appears no one can tell you exactly what will happen as the full scope of the voice isn't exactly determined. The power of the voice will be determined by the elected parliament at the time. This uncertainty is the main argument for the no campaign.
How it currently appears to supposedly work is there is a selected group of Indigenous people chosen to represent the Indigenous community. They can both bring concerns to Parliament for discussion as well as Parliament can consult them for their opinion on various matters. The thought is this consultation should lead to better policy. The Voice representative themselves have no direct power to alter legislation and this will not change, despite how empowered future parliaments may make them.

It is a distraction from other issues but i don't believe it is a manufactured distraction to keep us from asking questions about such issues (though maybe i am just naive). You are 100% correct that the people selling it need to do better.
 
Ur entitled to ur vote , but be ready to pay for it , they will take everything to the high court unless they get paid a fortune, then u will see how it affects every other Australian, take western aust , they wanted $2.5 million so they could plant hundreds of little trees along a river bed , it’s all about MONEY nothing else
 
Wearyfan22 said:
This article is deliberately convoluted and full of misinformation and pearl clutching. It is ironic that many of the countries he mentions already have constitutional recognition and Treaty with their First Nations people.

The voice question is "to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice."

The voice being advisory body that is enshrined in the Constitution so it cannot be done away with at the whim of government to government.

It's not a fourth chamber of government. It does not have legal or constitutional power to override government. It's look and design with be legislated by the government.

We have Aboriginal politicians elected. They do not solely represent Aboriginal people. They represent their party and their electorate.

Look past the misinformation and the noise. Look past your own political preferences. Vote on the question as it is presented, whether that be yes or no.

If anyone cares, the biggest reason I'm voting yes is for a prominent body to keep governments accountable for their decision making. The Voice will also put accountability and responsibility back onto Aboriginal people when it comes to decisions that directly effect them. This is because governments have done a pretty awful job of this up until now.
Click to expand...
Its educated. But do what
Wearyfan22 said:
This article is deliberately convoluted and full of misinformation and pearl clutching. It is ironic that many of the countries he mentions already have constitutional recognition and Treaty with their First Nations people.

The voice question is "to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice."

The voice being advisory body that is enshrined in the Constitution so it cannot be done away with at the whim of government to government.

It's not a fourth chamber of government. It does not have legal or constitutional power to override government. It's look and design with be legislated by the government.

We have Aboriginal politicians elected. They do not solely represent Aboriginal people. They represent their party and their electorate.

Look past the misinformation and the noise. Look past your own political preferences. Vote on the question as it is presented, whether that be yes or no.

If anyone cares, the biggest reason I'm voting yes is for a prominent body to keep governments accountable for their decision making. The Voice will also put accountability and responsibility back onto Aboriginal people when it comes to decisions that directly effect them. This is because governments have done a pretty awful job of this up until now.
Click to expand...
The part I dont understand is Albanese catching up with Bill Gates. The computer guy. And I respect your opinion. 100% Weary. 100%. I dont want to argue. Our country is in a good position. Albanese has kept all his promises. We are in good shape.
 
Plus. Im pretty dumb. I got to be honest. I just hope they are altruistic. Dont listen to me. I dont know. As if I did. Just care about you guys and your children. Thats all.
 
Tucker said:
It works in theory, heavily doubt it works in practice.

I live in FNQ and have spent my life travelling and living in the top end.
If often travel west and spend time in camps and stations as I go.
There is plenty of housing, plenty of work, plenty of benefits, huge health care pushes with dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander clinics and marketing drives on stuff like smoking, post natal care, drinking and domestic violence prevention.
It is a city perspective that they are forgotten about. They are provided with far more than poor non indigenous living in the same areas.
Click to expand...
I actually admire you for what you do for the Aboriginal community - with providing jobs. But it also seems like genuinely care about finding solutions with Youth issues and you highly value the opinions of Indigenous Elders.
 
bptiger 0 said:
I have to disagree about public housing, there is always house built for them put they trash them , I was just talking to a bloke who works in far north gld , he’s been there for two years and he was telling us that the houses don’t last for more than a couple of months then they have to restore them , they don’t want to live like we do so why not ask them what they want and give them that , rather the wasting all that money
Click to expand...
I don't wish to pass judgement on them. I mean no offence but must say it however supports the argument some communities aren't as lucky in having their housing needs fulfilled.

Upon some research I can see there is still no public or social housing available in the locations I'm speaking of, with the only properties being community (Aboriginal) housing and private rental.
In one of those places a total of 6 houses were built during early ATSIC days - to replace tin humpies, and then a further 6 more three years prior to it's abolishment. They still stand and are now currently managed by an Aboriginal Housing company stationed 6 hours away. No new homes have been built since then though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 927 (members: 21, guests: 906)
Back
Top