Referendum 2023

[Magpie_Magic]

"The government has not yet stated how the voice would interact with parliament or government, or how its advice would be delivered or considered."

Why?

This is a weakness .

Which mechanism exists to preclude greater weight to be given to the recommendations of the voice to government?

Hypothetically, what stops a government from making the recommendations of the voice to parliament binding?

I notice reparations are being mentioned in discourse. Is this where it's heading?

I'm starting to worry this is more a socialist experiment rather than truly a determination to help disadvantaged indigenous to access.

I am a Yes supporter but the activist's playing the race card are not doing the cause any favours.

Quite simply there is little to do with racism regarding the proposal.

It's all about the perceived delineation of power.

 

[Tucker]

I did. I find stuff like this weirder than weird. I'm not being tricked. I don't care about some different version of the constitution and corporations in relation to Indigenous people in the context of what she is stating.

I suggest opinions like this don't help anyone at all. I also think it's the same argument Anthony Mundine makes which to me is a fantastic reason to take the opposite approach.

You once said that Joe Biden is one of the good guys and has done an excellent job as U.S. President. Your judgement is very questionable.
It is also the height of arrogance for you with little knowledge to totally dismiss what this woman with huge knowledge is saying and flippantly suggest it’s weird and without substance.
Do your own research and debunk what she is saying if you are so sure it’s bullshit that doesn’t matter.

Typical city based non indigenous attitude…you know better. Slacktivism at its finest.

 

[Kaito]

The Yes counter will be "but The Voice has no power and is only an advisory body...." which is certainly true at inception, but what do you think is going to happen when an advisory board that is enshrined in the Constitution and was democratically voted in by the Australian people in a Referendum goes to the Parliament and says "What is good for aboriginal people is sovereignty/reparations?". How does Government counter that? How does Government counter that if opposition use it as a political tool (which will happen 100%). The answer is it will become a Federal Election issue which will tear this nation apart.

Elected MP's & parliament will debate it & decide
when and if the advisory board propose it.
I personally think reparations/sovereignty is a
pipe dream. Pretty much every polarising issue
in this country is used as a political tool...
The claim that this will tear the country apart
is a bit hyperbolic. I don't think 24 members of
the committee will push for sovereignty as It
would effectively make their positions redundant.
Black nationalists who seek reparations are
the minority, much like in the United States

 

[Kaito]

I've read a little about the history of Black Intergrationism v Black Nationalism in America. Martin Luther King was an Intergrationist and Malcome X a Nationalist for example.

The argument in this video appears to be that the Voice model is too Intergrationist in that it cedes Aboriginal sovereignty to the Federal Parliament. That's why Black Nationalists like Lidia Thorpe are against it.

Given the argument presented in the video is that the Voice model submits Aboriginal Australia to the Parliament, you might think more people might support it on that basis.

I note the previous post of a story how an Indiginoues person refused to recognise a Court on the basis of sovereignty, possibly the Voice would solve that issue based on the argument presented in the video.

(I'm not claiming any expertise here, just my quick thoughts in response to the video posted.)

I watched the video too. She raises some good
points. She through me off a bit by claiming that
all elections are rigged which is a little outlandish

 

[Enmore_Tiger]

I watched the video too. She raises some good
points. She through me off a bit by claiming that
all elections are rigged which is a little outlandish

I think she was referring to the pre-selection process, in that we have to vote for candidates selected via questionable means.

 

[Tucker]

I agree that there is far more to the debate...
I'm happy to leave it there and move on too.
We've found middle ground on several other
issues, there's no point getting hung up on
this one. I've enjoyed your posts 4 the most
part and have nothing against you personally

I don’t care about middle ground. It’s a yes or no answer. You can’t add an addendum or a qualifier. This thread is not about finding where we all agree or disagree. It’s about finding that one point that will push you over the edge to vote one way or the other. I am not the only undecided voter in here and even though I’m heavily leaning towards no, I am seeking reason to vote yes.
To that end, I don’t give a stuff if people feel proud to vote a certain way. I don’t give a stuff about peoples opinions if they aren’t bringing anything to the debate bar emotion…that’s why I keep saying labelling people who think either way is dumb. It is unhelpful. It is the incorrect approach to this question.

 

[Tucker]

I watched the video too. She raises some good
points. She through me off a bit by claiming that
all elections are rigged which is a little outlandish

There’s an old saying…big decisions are far too important to leave to the people….I don’t necessarily think elections are rigged, but wouldn’t be surprised at the same time.

 

[Tim Sheens]

An amazing contribution, hopefully after a break you will be back.

Some have concerns about High Court challenges, it would be great to see your views on that issue.

Any challenge potential is up there as the biggest furphy of all.

The wording is simple and unmistakable.

 

[Tucker]

The claim that this will tear the country apart
is a bit hyperbolic. I don't think 24 members of
the committee will push for sovereignty as It
would effectively make their positions redundant.
Black nationalists who seek reparations are
the minority, much like in the United States

It may seem hyperbolic to you in Sydney. It will cause a shitstorm like you wouldn’t believe in rural and remote communities. It already is starting to.
As for Sovereignty and Reparations…The authors of the Uluṟu Statement have recommended both. It no longer resides in the fringes.

 

[Kaito]

There’s an old saying…big decisions are far too important to leave to the people….I don’t necessarily think elections are rigged, but wouldn’t be surprised at the same time.

Yeah, we do put a lot of faith in the democratic/
electoral process. Wouldn't surprise me either
if they're tainted due to the stakes being so high

 

[Kaito]

It may seem hyperbolic to you in Sydney. It will cause a shitstorm like you wouldn’t believe in rural and remote communities.

You would know better than me given your
background. A lot of differing views and 'voices'
condensed into one. The indigenous community
aren't aligned on many of the major issues.
A lot of folk pulling from a lot of sides it seems.
I'm hopeful that the committee can
remedy that when all things are considered

 

[Magpie_Magic]

Any challenge potential is up there as the biggest furphy of all.

The wording is simple and unmistakable.

Why didn't the proponent's of the referendum add,

Any recommendations from the voice to parliament cannot be binding given that would definitely be enough to get it over the line?

All legal bills should have clear parameters.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Yeah, we do put a lot of faith in the democratic/
electoral process. Wouldn't surprise me either
if they're tainted due to the stakes being so high

We have a fantastic separate, very accurate and fair system, and that should be clear to all and sundry.

The ignorant attacks on the referendum process from top politicians a week or two back were extremely disappointing.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Why didn't the proponent's of the referendum add,

Any recommendations from the voice to parliament cannot be binding given that would definitely be enough to get it over the line?

All legal bills should have clear parameters.

The word ADVISORY covers that completely, so there is no need for a single additional one.

It is as basic as it gets.

 

[Kaito]

We have a fantastic separate, very accurate and fair system, and that should be clear to all and sundry.

The ignorant attacks on the referendum process from top politicians a week or two back were extremely disappointing.

Agree mate. Just saying it wouldn't surprise me

 

[Kaito]

The ignorant attacks on the referendum process from top politicians a week or two back were extremely disappointing.

Gutter politics. They knew what they were doing

 

[Tucker]

You would know better than me given your
background. A lot of differing views and 'voices'
condensed into one. The indigenous community
aren't aligned on many of the major issues.
A lot of folk pulling from a lot of sides it seems.
I'm hopeful that the committee can
remedy that when all things are considered

Can you imagine how big of a job that will be?
I can’t…I mean I have some idea but I would be off by a large factor.
Overwhelming would be the correct descriptor.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Gutter politics. They knew what they were doing

I often catch up with parliament question time through the About The House YouTube channel. Listening whilst doing life's stuff and couldn’t believe the leader went so low as to knowingly misquote the still very polite, despite being continually barraged Linda Burney, in yet another question earlier this week, yet refused to apologise or retract it, even after the Hansard was produced.

 

[bptiger 0]

Elected MP's & parliament will debate it & decide
when and if the advisory board propose it.
I personally think reparations/sovereignty is a
pipe dream. Pretty much every polarising issue
in this country is used as a political tool...
The claim that this will tear the country apart
is a bit hyperbolic. I don't think 24 members of
the committee will push for sovereignty as It
would effectively make their positions redundant.
Black nationalists who seek reparations are
the minority, much like in the United States

Ur dreaming , if they get the yes vote up , the 1st they will want is a treat and reparation on a huge scale , how the hell can u people not see this , the people on the committee have come out on tv ( go and have a look ) that is there only goal , it can’t be any clearer

 

[Magpie_Magic]

The word ADVISORY covers that completely, so there is no need for a single additional one.

It is as basic as it gets.

Disagree with this.

It’s too basic. Advisory bodies for indigenous people already exist as has been previously mentioned. I get this is meant to be a centralised one but nevertheless there is little need to change the constitution for an advisory body.

As I said law must have clear parameters.

And as I've said I will be voting yes by post. But I too have misgivings.

Given this is a 50/50 chance if it fails I'm sure that the lack of boundary will be the difference for a good 10% of voters.