Referendum 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
TillLindemann said:
So the voice will be directly elected, is this correct?

All I have seen is a vague wishy washy "The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities" but this doesn't necessarily mean direct elections, it could mean anything, it could mean self-appointed (or committee-appointed) 'representatives' decide what "the wishes of local communities" are.

The whole thing is a dog's breakfast and it is not good enough to be expected to vote yes without having more detail on how it would actually be selected.
Click to expand...
That implies that there will be some kind of process for choosing it's members, yes.

Would finding out the exact details of how members will chosen influence whether you agree in principle to the idea of the Voice?

They aren't able to give those details because those details need to be agreed upon by the parliament. Which we elect.

TillLindemann said:
And of course, it's not just any regular old 'advice'. All future governments will be under a great deal of pressure to legislate any such advice, as not doing so would be seen as defying the express wishes of Aboriginal people.
Click to expand...
I am hoping for you to elaborate on why you think this is a bad thing. Because this is the substantive point in the entire referendum.
 
The Chad said:
I don't like to be an alarmist, so I rarely get too involved in the serious debates. But, something to think about.

One of the concerns about The Voice is that it separates indigenous people from the community. It's no longer 1 big community- it's them, and us.

Let's say the yes vote goes through. I get why it would- well intentioned as it is, I think in a sensible society, we wouldn't have to ask if this would lead to future issues among other groups.

So we have a Voice for the indigenous. How long before the alphabet community want a voice? How long before single mothers want a voice? Don't these groups also have issues specifically for their demographic? How many voices does it take to satisfy everyone?

I'd like to think sensibility would take place. But then I see men swimming in female races because they identify as women & some part of society think that sounds good. We have people in our community that feel overlooked, abandoned, left out, separated, different, left behind, forgotten...in all areas.

With ONE voice in place for the indigenous people, does that mean we will be open to every group wanting a voice as well? And when that happens, what was the point of the Voice in the first place if suddenly there are no end of lobbying groups?

It might sound extreme. It probably does. But nothing we are being told (sold) by those that are responsible for giving us a reason to change the constitution has changed the idea that by giving one group a voice, that we are putting one group's needs over another. Or, as a result, starting an avalanche of groups wanting to be heard over others.
Click to expand...
I don't think caring and being passionate about things like this is alarmist at all. In fact i'd argue being passionate about things like this (whether on either side) is more important that passion for a football team. Passionate debate is how progress is made. Debate is how to moderate extreme viewpoints. I think it is important.

The group we are talking about is the oldest living culture on the plant. Direct actions from consecutive governments over hundreds of years have resulted in some of the largest health, crime and life outcomes between groups within a first world country on the planet. Most other colonial countries have constitutional recognition for their first nations people, as well as a treaty. There ever been any debate about adding any other cohort in those countries. .
 
Just to reiterate, and I hope people see this for what it is:

It is the RESPONSIBILITY of those wanting to change the constitution to give the community the necessary tools, information, desire, comfort & understanding to convince the community to give it the green light.

It is the communities RESPONSIBILITY to gather all the information & make as educated a choice as possible.

I don't see either side having done this.

The responsible choice, until the plan is clearly marked out, until everyone (not just those that want to vote either way- everyone) has been given the proper opportunity to make a choice based on all the facts & ideals that this change will bring, is to say 'no'.

There is ZERO reason we have to vote on this in a month. Come back in 2 years once you have actually got the plan laid out. I think MOST people would be willing to give a very reasonable vote, if they knew what they were voting on.

As it stands- there are just too many unanswered questions. Don't be angry at no voters or the 'no team'. Be angry that those proposing the plan have not put the detail to it.

That is, quite simply, their responsibility to do so.
 
KingRobbie said:
Absolutely.

Have really enjoyed and valued reading the vast majority of contributions so far.

Move on from the personal stuff so the thread can remain open.
Click to expand...
Can't believe this thread has not turned into a complete shit fight and been shut down by now.

Mostly respectful and reasonably well thought out contributions, let's hope it stays that way right across the forum.
 
The Chad said:
I don't like to be an alarmist, so I rarely get too involved in the serious debates. But, something to think about.

One of the concerns about The Voice is that it separates indigenous people from the community. It's no longer 1 big community- it's them, and us.

Let's say the yes vote goes through. I get why it would- well intentioned as it is, I think in a sensible society, we wouldn't have to ask if this would lead to future issues among other groups.

So we have a Voice for the indigenous. How long before the alphabet community want a voice? How long before single mothers want a voice? Don't these groups also have issues specifically for their demographic? How many voices does it take to satisfy everyone?

I'd like to think sensibility would take place. But then I see men swimming in female races because they identify as women & some part of society think that sounds good. We have people in our community that feel overlooked, abandoned, left out, separated, different, left behind, forgotten...in all areas.

With ONE voice in place for the indigenous people, does that mean we will be open to every group wanting a voice as well? And when that happens, what was the point of the Voice in the first place if suddenly there are no end of lobbying groups?

It might sound extreme. It probably does. But nothing we are being told (sold) by those that are responsible for giving us a reason to change the constitution has changed the idea that by giving one group a voice, that we are putting one group's needs over another. Or, as a result, starting an avalanche of groups wanting to be heard over others.
Click to expand...
Good post.
If it does work and achieves results, then yes, why shouldn't any number of disadvantaged groups get one also?
And if it doesn't work, well, we're stuck with it anyway as it's in the constitution.
 
The Chad said:
I don't like to be an alarmist, so I rarely get too involved in the serious debates. But, something to think about.

One of the concerns about The Voice is that it separates indigenous people from the community. It's no longer 1 big community- it's them, and us.

Let's say the yes vote goes through. I get why it would- well intentioned as it is, I think in a sensible society, we wouldn't have to ask if this would lead to future issues among other groups.

So we have a Voice for the indigenous. How long before the alphabet community want a voice? How long before single mothers want a voice? Don't these groups also have issues specifically for their demographic? How many voices does it take to satisfy everyone?

I'd like to think sensibility would take place. But then I see men swimming in female races because they identify as women & some part of society think that sounds good. We have people in our community that feel overlooked, abandoned, left out, separated, different, left behind, forgotten...in all areas.

With ONE voice in place for the indigenous people, does that mean we will be open to every group wanting a voice as well? And when that happens, what was the point of the Voice in the first place if suddenly there are no end of lobbying groups?

It might sound extreme. It probably does. But nothing we are being told (sold) by those that are responsible for giving us a reason to change the constitution has changed the idea that by giving one group a voice, that we are putting one group's needs over another. Or, as a result, starting an avalanche of groups wanting to be heard over others.
Click to expand...
Only the one minority group became marginalised as a direct result of historical legislation and continue to suffer socially and economically as a result. Pro-Indigenous initiatives by Government is an attempt to repair the damage done.
I'm sure other demographics have their own issues, but how many of them can claim these issues are partially or directly a result of past Government policy?
This is why the Indigenous get a voice and the singe parents do not.
 
Last edited:
The Chad said:
I don't like to be an alarmist, so I rarely get too involved in the serious debates. But, something to think about.

One of the concerns about The Voice is that it separates indigenous people from the community. It's no longer 1 big community- it's them, and us.

Let's say the yes vote goes through. I get why it would- well intentioned as it is, I think in a sensible society, we wouldn't have to ask if this would lead to future issues among other groups.

So we have a Voice for the indigenous. How long before the alphabet community want a voice? How long before single mothers want a voice? Don't these groups also have issues specifically for their demographic? How many voices does it take to satisfy everyone?

I'd like to think sensibility would take place. But then I see men swimming in female races because they identify as women & some part of society think that sounds good. We have people in our community that feel overlooked, abandoned, left out, separated, different, left behind, forgotten...in all areas.

With ONE voice in place for the indigenous people, does that mean we will be open to every group wanting a voice as well? And when that happens, what was the point of the Voice in the first place if suddenly there are no end of lobbying groups?

It might sound extreme. It probably does. But nothing we are being told (sold) by those that are responsible for giving us a reason to change the constitution has changed the idea that by giving one group a voice, that we are putting one group's needs over another. Or, as a result, starting an avalanche of groups wanting to be heard over others.
Click to expand...
Hypothetically, in the future we could have a Voice in Parliament for;

A Green voice,

A COVID voice

A voice for visa holders

A voice for minors etc etc.

Before you know it a panel of experts can exercise democracy for us.

Perhaps a formal treaty would've been better.
 
The Chad said:
Just to reiterate, and I hope people see this for what it is:

It is the RESPONSIBILITY of those wanting to change the constitution to give the community the necessary tools, information, desire, comfort & understanding to convince the community to give it the green light.

It is the communities RESPONSIBILITY to gather all the information & make as educated a choice as possible.

I don't see either side having done this.

The responsible choice, until the plan is clearly marked out, until everyone (not just those that want to vote either way- everyone) has been given the proper opportunity to make a choice based on all the facts & ideals that this change will bring, is to say 'no'.

There is ZERO reason we have to vote on this in a month. Come back in 2 years once you have actually got the plan laid out. I think MOST people would be willing to give a very reasonable vote, if they knew what they were voting on.

As it stands- there are just too many unanswered questions. Don't be angry at no voters or the 'no team'. Be angry that those proposing the plan have not put the detail to it.

That is, quite simply, their responsibility to do so.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of truth to this post. Details surrounding the Voice definitely should be better explained. The yes campaign has failed greatly in their attempt to clarify and win us over.

I have highlighted the from either side part in your post however because the No campaign benefits from clouding the details and creating further doubt around the Voice proposal. The No campaigners are deliberately misleading and down right untruthful in order to create further confusion and doubt around the Voice.

Having said that Voting No because we don't Know is a valid stance and just reaffirms the first point of the yes campaigns failures.
 
I am a yes supporter but this hasn't been done well.

If enacted it's powers are vague and open ended.

It can also be viewed as condescending towards indigenous as they get to supposedly vote for a body which supposedly knows best for them.

A formal treaty would have been superior in my opinion and better in terms of an attempted reconciliation and in having clear legal parameters.

Further assistance towards indigenous could be legislated and already is.
 
Every time I vote either way - things seem to be getting worse. Especially the animals. The elephants, lions, birds, whales.....disappearing..trees being cut down, the bees.... for what.......and humans, sleeping in the streets...... and then on a lower tier..... Wests Tigers supporters that fund the club....
 
gregjm87 said:
Only the one minority group became marginalised as a direct result of historical legislation and continue to suffer socially and economically as a result. Pro-Indigenous initiatives by Government is an attempt to repair the damage done.
I'm sure other demographics have their own issues, but how many of them can claim these issues are partially or directly a result of past Government policy?
This is why the Indigenous get a voice and the singe parents do not.
Click to expand...
Agree,

But why a voice and not a treaty?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,324 (members: 4, guests: 1,320)
Back
Top