Referendum 2023

[Tucker]

A lot of racists are voting No to be clear haha.
Treating the general public as racists and mugs
isn't a clever strategy though. You hit the nail
on the head in your previous post when you
said "The Yes campaign really needed to sell
to the Australian public why" That's the crux of
it all - It's probably what will sink the Voice too

Just as many racists are voting yes, don’t worry about that.
I’m not looking forward to this verdict. Gonna be blood in the streets for months afterwards.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Blood for most. Money for the few.

 

[Tim Sheens]

I think the point is, if you read the actual proposed amendment, it is actually impossible to know the scope, power and composition of the Voice, therefore many will vote no.

When its actually written down in english its hard to be ignorant.

With genuine respect to all the yes voters, I actual feel that it is the yes side of the argument that is potentially more ignorant, or probably better to say, more willing to fill in the blanks themselves. Plenty of yes voters telling me "The Voice will just be this...", The Voice will just be that....", "The Voice doesnt have the power...".

Thats all fine. popint me to the words in the proposed amendment that says that.

The change is simple and has already been spelt out clearly on these pages, being easy to understand and interpret, just like the the wording of "Don't Know, Vote No" wording that you responded to. The proposal is an advisory body, nothing more, nothing less

Legally it is the same, as only those acting as shills are misleading the community in pretending that it isn't, which is disgraceful.

It is ridiculous to expect exact wording on the legislation as the people vote on it and then their elected representatives implement it, and can improve it upon implementation. Just as the whole nation and it's states and territories run, legally bound to the constitution.

 

[Enmore_Tiger]

Government and business lobbying does not impact actual wages in the private sector. Low wages for "digital economy workers" is directly related to massive oversupply of unskilled workers relative to demand and opportunity. Again a simple equation.



That is not what I said at all and it 100% incorrect. I said the minimum wage is set by Government and unions. Actual wages (in the private sector) are set by the market and that is the whole point. That is why capitalism works (better than any other system in history). The minimum wage is a safety net and if you are earning minimum wage you are either very young and not yet developed skills to increase your intrinsic worth, or you have some other problem or impediment that is preventing development and these people need to be looked after with a minimum wage. The market looks after everyone else.

Wage growth has more to do with immigration policy. The fact that wages havent grown is due to a unending supply of unskilled labout filling in at the bottom due to immigration. Low wage growth is a GOOD thing in teh economy unless it is swamped by inflation which it is at the moment due to unrestrained government spending at the worst time possible.

Government and business lobbying does not impact actual wages in the private sector. Low wages for "digital economy workers" is directly related to massive oversupply of unskilled workers relative to demand and opportunity. Again a simple equation.



That is not what I said at all and it 100% incorrect. I said the minimum wage is set by Government and unions. Actual wages (in the private sector) are set by the market and that is the whole point. That is why capitalism works (better than any other system in history). The minimum wage is a safety net and if you are earning minimum wage you are either very young and not yet developed skills to increase your intrinsic worth, or you have some other problem or impediment that is preventing development and these people need to be looked after with a minimum wage. The market looks after everyone else.

Wage growth has more to do with immigration policy. The fact that wages havent grown is due to a unending supply of unskilled labout filling in at the bottom due to immigration. Low wage growth is a GOOD thing in teh economy unless it is swamped by inflation which it is at the moment due to unrestrained government spending at the worst time possible.

The current "Cost of living crisis", more accurately monetary inflation, has nothing to do with corporate greed, tax breaks, negative gearing or wage increases. 3 years ago inflation was at record low rates and has been for a long time and all of those things existed prior to that. The sole cause of the current inflation spiral is simply federal governments globally (most notably the US) pumping trillions and trillions of dollars into the economy for 'Covid rebates', climate programs, stimulus etc at exactly the same time that global supply chains were broken. Too much available cash in the market chasing scarce commodities equals inflation. its a very simply formula.

Housing affordability also has nothing to do with it. The housing affordability crisis is directly a predictable result of two things. Firstly the ponzi scheme that poses as our current immigration policy which brings in 230,000 new people a year, all needing housing and secondly the insanely liberal foreign investment policies.

People whine and howl about buzzwords and peripheral things when in truth the problems are more simple but bigger and the real problem is both sides of parliament support these issue

Points accepted.

With regard to immigration it's driven by the capitalist economic system to keep wages low and stimulate the continuous need for economic growth.

With regard to capitalism being better than any system in history, this cannot be truly known because capitalism has historically attacked and destroyed all alternative economic systems. One thing that can be said it is the most powerful system in history. And does the sustainabilty of the system get included in the measure of it being the best as it destroys the atmosphere, biosphere and natural system that sustains life. How long will the system that depends on endless growth last?

Also of course Capitalism being the best assumes indigenous economic systems that survived and thrived for millenia don't count in the measure.

Just some of my personal beliefs that I accept that all won't agree with, and I respect that.

 

[Tim Sheens]

A lot of racists are voting No to be clear haha.
Treating the general public as racists and mugs
isn't a clever strategy though. You hit the nail
on the head in your previous post when you
said "The Yes campaign really needed to sell
to the Australian public why" That's the crux of
it all - It's probably what will sink the Voice too

Let us call a spade a spade.

Racists (other than the exclusively anglo hating ones to appease those for whom it is not obvious), whether rabid, closet, or in between, are voting no. Probably along with most of the casual ones, and that isn't debatable. Whether that is a motive for some on here is also a statistical certainty, just as it isn't for others.

 

[Enmore_Tiger]

When the Bernie Madoffs of this world implement a Ponzi scheme, they know its not sustainable and they know it will end in tears but they dont care because in the mean time they benefit massively, in the present moment.

Same with the governments immigration Ponzi scheme. Each government on both sides doesnt care what its going to happen down the track, they care about the next 4 years if that long. So for the next 4 years the benefit by:
- keeping GDP growth positive and not slipping into recession which they would without it.
- propping up domestic production by means of the Construction industry which is dependent on population growth.
- Maintaining a cheap and abundant unskilled workforce for their corporate mates and keeping wages low adn therefore reducing inflation.

Massive immigration is a scheme for the here and now and both sides of parliament are so deep in now they cant kick the habit.

I am derailing the thread with this economics/immigration talk.....lets stay on topic

It's all interconnected and relevant. The referendum cannot be separated from the current reality. Keep posting on the topic.

 

[Tucker]

Let us call a spade a spade.

Every racist, whether rabid or closet is voting no. Probably along with most of the casual ones, and that isn't debatable. Whether that is a motive for some on here is also a statistical certainty, just as it isn't for others.

Call it both ways.
White hating racists are voting yes as well.
Absolutely undeniable.
We have to rise above and ignore these dipshits, not use them as an excuse.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Legally it is the same, as only those acting as shills are misleading the community in pretending that it isn't, which is disgraceful.

I see you have been to the Marcia Langton School of Diplomacy and Making Friends. You've learnt your judo well Formerguest.

Seems to me that only one side of the aisle deems all that oppose "deplorables" and that side cant help themselves even if it costs them the referendum.

 

[Tim Sheens]

I see you have been to the Marcia Langton School of Diplomacy and Making Friends. You've learnt your judo well Formerguest.

Seems to me that only one side of the aisle deems all that oppose "deplorables" and that side cant help themselves even if it costs them the referendum.

I am from the school of calling a spade a spade, and being unaware of what you are referring to, I trust that she did too and it upset the spades.

 

[Tucker]

 

[watersider]

I don't see how it helps anyone to start labelling people racist. It's just a massive distraction from the proposal anyway. Labelling someone that doesn't help them reflect, it just makes everyone defensive and entrenches everything.

What Langton said was either stupid or naive, even accepting what she said was altered by the media. It's just fodder for conservatives and you can see the impact of it in this forum with 'yes you are' 'no I'm not' starting up. I like Langton, too. But I feel like the yes campaign is a bit like the 'get up' people and while pushing hard for an issue they only seem to succeed in pushing people away.

I try to avoid the noise on both sides and look at the proposal. The media will also twist and distort it all. I just think this is a simple and good proposal that is worth trying. I understand people who are more cautious about it, but I hope you all continue to think on it.

 

[The Chad]

If nothing else, this botched proposal should only reinforce the need for the Australian public to demand better from government.

Someone mentioned that governments are only focused on 4 years- because they are desperate to keep their jobs.

Gone are the days where the ideal of doing better for the community was the aim.

It's all about staying in power. At all levels. Government in Australia (don't start me on the rest of the world) has not been held accountable for too long. We as a nation tend to get sucked in on the popularity contest & less on the actual politics. And as a result- the parties, nearly all of them, are more concerned about making you feel warm & fuzzy & less about making the country better.

There are only a couple of parties I can think of that don't make "policies" that are designed to put a smile on the greater public's face, or hit all the PC notes required to not be shouted down.

And the last time I remember a politician having the kahones to actually make the REALLY uncomfortable moves, to hard line through things in a way that upset a lot of public, he was voted out unanimously at the next election (Campbell Newman). Doesn't matter if you agree with Newman's policies or not- he had a plan, knew it was unpopular, but put it in place anyway. He suffered for it as a result.

Now- everyone just plays nice & we achieve nothing.

 

[LeichhardtTiger]

I think it is a definite possibility.
Albanese has committed to the Uluṟu Statement in full.
The moron has stated he hasn’t read it, but has committed to it in full!
There are videos out there containing leading figures who helped create the statement directly contradicting his message about the Voice and the limited impact it will have. They are on record stating it is a document with over 15 pages plus annexes - he is condescendingly yelling that it is 1 page long.
They are saying the Voice will be the first step in their plan for treaty and reparations. They have not hidden their intentions.

Albanese has been so blasé about everything to do with this…the guy cried when he announced the referendum FFS. He has run around the country and drummed up support for a yes campaign including big end of town, unions, celebrities and sporting organisations, has a huge war chest for marketing and is attacking his opponents with fury….yet he apparently HAS NOT READ the entire Uluṟu Statement from the Heart!

This has a huge stench to it. We had a blowup yesterday on here that got a bit out of hand surrounding concerns of corruption. The ones who will get themselves appointed to the Voice commission will not be everyday citizens. They will be these same activists. They will introduce “Truth Telling” which will be a distorted history of the country that will favour their narrative only. They already do it in schools up here. It’s “their truth” and it’s dangerous. From there, they’ll embark upon implementing the worst parts of the Uluṟu Statement….the one Albanese hasn’t read but SUPPORTS IN FULL!!!

The more you look into it, the worse this gets.

That is quite possibly the scariest sentence on the Voice that I have read - "The more you look at it, the worse it gets" They are coming for our Nation - we must deny them! BTW I am from a Czechoslovakian background - (before the split) We never had a coastline - we were invaded each and every day of the week - the only reason you don't hear about Czech land rights issues is cos we copped it sweet just like every Nation on the planet that isn't Australia. America had a revolution vs the Poms but did anyone scream about the American Indians? Nup! BTW, Caste system in India - hah! Human rights in China? The Jewish racist system? Japan FFS? We are doing OK in OZ given the crap that the rest of the World is into.

Which child of Eddie Betts, Stan Grant (married a privileged White woman BTW) Cathy Freeman, Ash Barty, Latrell Mitchell, Evonne Goolagong Cawley, Lionel Rose, Etc was born disadvantaged? Wake the Fk, up Australia!

 

[Lauren]

Well this has been fun but it's time for me to bow out. Honestly, the increasing talks in the media is doing my head in already.
Thanks to those who maintained a constructive and courteous debate while staying on topic and those who added valuable insights. (Glad you created the thread @Tucker if just to draw attention to the referendum).
Please try to to uphold a respectful tone at all times, and good luck to everyone.

Just wanted to leave my final thoughts also. Sorry about the length but wanted to convey my message more concisely and leave nothing unsaid.

Beyond the economic challenges we face, it's important to emphasise that my support for this referendum aims to foster better relations in Australia. I am deeply convinced that this referendum is pivotal in recognising the historical and cultural importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. As such, I am voting YES in enthusiastic support of the proposal.

Overview of the key details:
- Amendment of the Australian Constitution: This proposal aims to amend the constitution.
- **Introduction of a new chapter:** It includes the introduction of a new chapter titled 'Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.'
- Establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice: A central element is the creation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, which will represent Indigenous communities.
- Representation before Parliament and Executive Government: This Voice will present Indigenous interests to both.
- Parliament's authority: The Australian Parliament will have the power to legislate on the Voice's composition, functions, powers, and procedures.

Incorporating these changes into the constitution doesn't suggest a negative shift or an unpredictable future; rather, it signifies a positive stride towards a more diverse and equitable Australia.
I strongly believe this referendum isn't merely a compilation of facts; it constitutes a unifying and pivotal moment in Australian history. It symbolises our dedication to acknowledging the diverse and integral cultures that compose our nation. Voting YES represents a significant move towards rectifying historical injustices, bridging divides, and fostering a fairer Australia.
Robust government-Indigenous relations convey a powerful message of inclusivity, unity, and recognition of diversity. They empower every voice and enrich a nation's cultural heritage, cultivating a cohesive society.

In conclusion, my resolute support for the Voice to Parliament proposal is grounded in ongoing discussions surrounding this critical issue. Despite any shortcomings in the campaign process, I remain unwavering in my commitment to the bigger picture. Engaging with diverse viewpoints has enriched my understanding that only Indigenous people possess these unique experiences and perspectives. Recognition is paramount for a brighter future in Australia, as it contributes to healing past wounds and acknowledging historical injustices. Listening to their voices is an essential step toward achieving unity, justice, and a more inclusive society. This referendum is about forging the way to close the gap for Indigenous Australia, and I firmly believe it's a crucial step forward. I am voting YES to help build a more equitable and just future for all Australians.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

Well this has been fun but it's time for me to bow out. Honestly, the increasing talks in the media is doing my head in already.
Thanks to those who maintained a constructive and courteous debate while staying on topic and all who added valuable insights. Your dedication is much appreciated.
Please try to to uphold a respectful tone at all times, and good luck to everyone.

Just wanted to leave my final thoughts also. Sorry about the length but wanted to convey my message more concisely and leave nothing unsaid.

Beyond the economic challenges we face, it's important to emphasise that my support for this referendum aims to foster better relations in Australia. I am deeply convinced that this referendum is pivotal in recognising the historical and cultural importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. As such, I am voting YES in enthusiastic support of the proposal.

Overview of the key details:
- Amendment of the Australian Constitution: This proposal aims to amend the constitution.
- **Introduction of a new chapter:** It includes the introduction of a new chapter titled 'Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.'
- Establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice: A central element is the creation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, which will represent Indigenous communities.
- Representation before Parliament and Executive Government: This Voice will present Indigenous interests to both.
- Parliament's authority: The Australian Parliament will have the power to legislate on the Voice's composition, functions, powers, and procedures.

Incorporating these changes into the constitution doesn't imply a negative shift or an unpredictable future. Instead, it represents a positive stride towards a more diverse and equitable Australia.
I firmly believe this referendum is not just a collection of facts; it's a unifying and crucial moment in Australian history. It embodies our commitment to recognising the multifaceted and integral cultures that make up our nation. By voting YES, we take a significant step toward healing historical injustices, bridging divides, and building a fairer Australia.

In conclusion, my resolute support for the Voice to Parliament proposal is grounded in ongoing discussions surrounding this critical issue. Despite any shortcomings in the campaign process, I remain unwavering in my commitment to the bigger picture. Engaging with others and gathering various opinions or viewpoints, on may subject matters, has enriched my understanding that only Indigenous people possess these unique experiences and perspectives. Recognition is paramount for a brighter future in Australia, as it contributes to healing past wounds and acknowledging historical injustices. Listening to their voices is an essential step toward achieving unity, justice, and a more inclusive society. This referendum is about forging the way to bridge the gap for Indigenous Australia, and I firmly believe it's a crucial step forward. I am voting YES to help build a more equitable and just future for all Australians.

Great post Lauren.

 

[Kaito]

Let us call a spade a spade.

Racists (other than the exclusively anglo hating ones to appease those for whom it is not obvious), whether rabid, closet, or in between, are voting no. Probably along with most of the casual ones, and that isn't debatable. Whether that is a motive for some on here is also a statistical certainty, just as it isn't for others.

I'll pay that. I think there's merit in that 4 sure

 

[TillLindemann]

Points accepted.

With regard to immigration it's driven by the capitalist economic system to keep wages low and stimulate the continuous need for economic growth.

With regard to capitalism being better than any system in history, this cannot be truly known because capitalism has historically attacked and destroyed all alternative economic systems. One thing that can be said it is the most powerful system in history. And does the sustainabilty of the system get included in the measure of it being the best as it destroys the atmosphere, biosphere and natural system that sustains life. How long will the system that depends on endless growth last?

Also of course Capitalism being the best assumes indigenous economic systems that survived and thrived for millenia don't count in the measure.

Just some of my personal beliefs that I accept that all won't agree with, and I respect that.

Good post sir.

 

[Tucker]

Can we debate the topic instead of labelling the other side?
Racism has nothing to do with this referendum for the very vast majority.
There is more than enough doubt associated with this issue to vote no.
It is pathetic desperation to blame it on racism.

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

Could people who vote Yes be racists? 🤔
Are Yes voters that hate or diss some Aborigines "racists"?
Or they just play smoke and mirrors party politics, by towing their party line without question?🤔
Are there exceptions, like if a person hates "inconvenient" Aborigines e.g. W Mundine, B and J Price.
And those people are somehow not "racists"? 🤔
Or are they just young, naive and confused?🤔

 

[Kaito]

Can we debate the topic instead of labelling the other side?
Racism has nothing to do with this referendum for the very vast majority.
There is more than enough doubt associated with this issue to vote no.
It is pathetic desperation to blame it on racism.

We have been debating the topic 4 days...
Avoiding the issue that racism plays in the
referendum isn't ingenuous. It's 1 or the big
reasons people are voting no. Avoiding that
point there and pretending it doesn't exist is
ignorant. It is not the main reason but is A
reason. The obfuscation & lies are coming
from one side only as far as I can see. You
don't have to agree and you probably won't,
but racism plays a bigger part in the voice
than you're prepared to admit - whether it's
closet racism, flat out racism or rooted racism.
You mentioned that racism has nothing to
do with the referendum for the vast majority
of voters and I'm inclined to agree. Doesn't
mean it's not there and hasn't been used to
exploit a large sum of voters though does it