Referendum 2023

[twentyforty]

I'm not sure. You investigate and tell me.

You mean to say you couldn’t find one country which has changed their constitution in this way? To include their indigenous people as a voice? I’m curious to know why? Is it because it does more harm than good?

 

[hank37w]

Barely been a year mate, you better strap in!
2013-2022 were hardly wonder years. Dutton
hasn't got a chance in hell to be the next PM,
not just imo but also based on opinion polls

Mate, I am no supporter of the LNP, but in comparison to this mob 2013-2022 were pretty good despite COVID and I would hate to see how this bunch of incompetent hypocritical dopes would have handled the situation.

Just for the record I am not a supporter of Mr Potato Head but at least he has had some real life experience unlike most of the Labor Party who have never had a real job in their lives before being parachuted into a tax payer funded position in politics.

 

[earl]

You mean to say you couldn’t find one country which has changed their constitution in this way? To include their indigenous people as a voice? I’m curious to know why? Is it because it does more harm than good?

I provided some links for you to investigate. You should investigate.

Why would this hurt anyone ? Why not take a risk to potentially improve the situation ? Is this proposal put together by Indigenous people ? Will they have to take responsibility for it working ?

I haven't yet heard a good argument for no. I've got some good arguments for yes though.

Do you think it's telling that most of the noise for voting no is solely based on the zero-sum (what about me) argument ?

 

[twentyforty]

They're not on both sides. The vast majority of indigenous Australians are in favour of it. Has every indigenous Australian been polled? Of course not, and no policy will ever please everyone. Of the figurehead Indigenous No voters there's the Mundines who are corporate sellouts, going to right wing events the other week, sitting on boards of mining companies etc, they're not exactly the voice of the common man. Jacinta Price, well she even came out last week and said that white collonialism had had a positive impact for indigenous Australians. That's just such a ridiculously insensitive, outrageous and disrespectful thing to say about her people.

It shouldn't be divisive. There is nothing to lose from saying yes, it will never even impact most of us but could help bridge the gap that sees indigenous Australians with a much lower life expectancy than non indigenous people. We've got to try something new, this is what the Uluru statement of the great asked for, Albo has merely put it to the public to have their say. Liberal politicising calling it "Labor's risky voice" is incorrect and unnecessary.

Focussing on the political angle does an injustice to the Yes No question.
Yes voters must have finally realised that voters need to know what a Yes vote actually means. Marcia Langton has put forward a blue print of not 1 voice but 36 voices. That’s another 35 voices situated around Australia talking to the head office voice.
Will these voice offices be positioned near the NIAA branch offices?
Does anyone else see this as an attempt to duplicate an already functioning agency with direct access to the PM and Cabinet?

 

[Tucker]

So what are these legitimately points? Please do share.

And yes the Mundines are right wingers, and they've sold their soul many many times. Warren being on the board of mining companies digging up sacred sites says it all. They don't care about indigenous issues, they pretend they do and sell their opinion to the highest bidder.

I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about respect and creating a shift to hopefully help our First Nations people. What we've been doing as a nation hasn't been working for decades, a change is needed. Will the voice help? Who knows, but it certainly won't do any harm.

The worst case scenario for Australia if the voice succeeds is that the opinions of the committee get ignored, or they find it too challenging to settle on consensus. Given that, why are people so afraid of giving it a go?

I fear it is just placing another barrier between Governmental Indigenous budgets and Aboriginal communities but this time, I fear that barrier will be filled by activists pushing agendas outside of helping communities.
I fear it is very unlikely to work given the incredible logistics required and the fact they haven’t even tried to work out how to do it yet speaks volumes.
It is elitist, divisive, is costing a bomb with an untold amount yet to come, and is tied to the Uluṟu Statement that directly mentions treaty and reparations. It will allow the voice of activists to be enshrined into the constitution and give them a platform to continue running the country down. Australia Day will be first on the chopping block and I fear the negative re-writing of history will be a key proponent of the “truth telling”.
Despite all this, I think rural and remote communities will receive no help and continue down the destructive paths that many Governments have turned a blind eye to now for decades.

 

[Tucker]

Voice, Treaty, Truth but I see what u did there haha

What do you think truth is going to be?

 

[twentyforty]

I provided some links for you to investigate. You should investigate.

Why would this hurt anyone ? Why not take a risk to potentially improve the situation ? Is this proposal put together by Indigenous people ? Will they have to take responsibility for it working ?

I haven't yet heard a good argument for no. I've got some good arguments for yes though.

Do you think it's telling that most of the noise for voting no is solely based on the zero-sum (what about me) argument ?

Why is voting Yes a risk?

 

[twentyforty]

I fear it is just placing another barrier between Governmental Indigenous budgets and Aboriginal communities but this time, I fear that barrier will be filled by activists pushing agendas outside of helping communities.
I fear it is very unlikely to work given the incredible logistics required and the fact they haven’t even tried to work out how to do it yet speaks volumes.
It is elitist, divisive, is costing a bomb with an untold amount yet to come, and is tied to the Uluṟu Statement that directly mentions treaty and reparations. It will allow the voice of activists to be enshrined into the constitution and give them a platform to continue running the country down. Australia Day will be first on the chopping block and I fear the negative re-writing of history will be a key proponent of the “truth telling”.
Despite all this, I think rural and remote communities will receive no help and continue down the destructive paths that many Governments have turned a blind eye to now for decades.

That pretty much is a summation of why Australia should vote No.
great post Tucker.

 

[Siberian Kitten]

A few potential risks off the top of my head:

1. Cost - not a risk but a certainty
2. Legislative roadblocks
3. That it becomes corrupt like ATSIC, only serving a minority of Aboriginals

The main issue for me is that there are already so many indigenous organisations. Hundreds. Yet, based on what Yes voters suggest, none of the old problems have been fixed so these costly organisations are basically useless. How about getting these hundreds of organisations to do a better job?

There's nothing to stop the govt from creating an extra advisory committee - or another two hundred of them.

So why lock it into the Constitution? Labor will always keep the committee, so all the referendum decides is whether future Liberal governments will be forced to maintain the committee.

Why the hell would the Liberal Party agree to be locked in like that? I'm centre/left, not a rightie, but I can see that it would be naiive for Dutton to agree to effectively having Labor decide aspects of Coalition policy permanently.

It's just a political game. Want to do something for Aboriginals? Improve the existing services so they aren't a waste of taxpayer money. This appears to currently be the case for many of them, given that Aboriginal problems have not improved despite the billions of dollars, an aggressive affirmative action program and many, many discussions and committees.

 

[earl]

Why is voting Yes a risk?

Any change involves risk and a smart person would recognize no change has risk as well. It's just that I think a small percentage of people are actually conservative in that they are risk averse. They see any change as an issue.

It's not really relevant to this referendum. It's just that a small percentage of people may vote not because they are that way inclined.

 

[earl]

A few potential risks off the top of my head:

1. Cost - not a risk but a certainty
2. Legislative roadblocks
3. That it becomes corrupt like ATSIC, only serving a minority of Aboriginals

The cost is nothing. It's irrelevant. It's like looking at 1% of your personal budget and stating well I have to save money there. It's illogical.

I don't know what you mean by legislative roadblocks. That isn't a risk. It's a process.

Corruption is a general risk in any sort of government or government body. I mentioned Gladys earlier in this thread. Should we disband all governments.

The risks you mentioned are trivial.

The main issue for me is that there are already so many indigenous organisations. Hundreds. Yet, based on what Yes voters suggest, none of the old problems have been fixed so these costly organisations are basically useless. How about getting these hundreds of organisations to do a better job?

This to me is clearly a reason to vote yes.

I'll explain this to you. A voice is about greater representation on how we spend the available funds towards Indigenous affairs. So it provides greater accountability for that spend on the recipients of that spend.

There's nothing to stop the govt from creating an extra advisory committee - or another two hundred of them.

It could be done via legislation. Personally I wish this was the case. It misses a key point though and that is Indigenous recognition in the constitution.

It depends on how highly you judge this issue.

Personally I don't see the idea of not being able to change this body as being so important.

It's just a political game. Want to do something for Aboriginals? Improve the existing services so they aren't a waste of taxpayer money. This appears to currently be the case for many of them, given that Aboriginal problems have not improved despite the billions of dollars, an aggressive affirmative action program and many, many discussions and committees.

This isn't fair. You may as well call hospital care a political game or climate change. It's a real issue that is complex and multifaceted.

You can't just wave a wand and state well it hasn't worked. Maybe there has been good progress but not enough. I don't know but we need facts and data before stating it didn't work. What was the definition of success ?

 

[Mistymuzzle]

I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about respect and creating a shift to hopefully help our First Nations people. What we've been doing as a nation hasn't been working for decades, a change is needed. Will the voice help? Who knows, but it certainly won't do any harm.

So why enshrine in the Constitution? Just chuck any idea in the Constitution, whether it will work or not?

The worst case scenario for Australia if the voice succeeds is that the opinions of the committee get ignored, or they find it too challenging to settle on consensus. Given that, why are people so afraid of giving it a go?

That is a long way from the worst case scenario.

 

[colinbh]

Why is voting Yes a risk?

⁹

 

[colinbh]

⁹

It's treating people differently because of their race. It's called apartheid.

 

[Siberian Kitten]

The cost is nothing. It's irrelevant. It's like looking at 1% of your personal budget and stating well I have to save money there. It's illogical.

I don't know what you mean by legislative roadblocks. That isn't a risk. It's a process.

Corruption is a general risk in any sort of government or government body. I mentioned Gladys earlier in this thread. Should we disband all governments.

The risks you mentioned are trivial.



This to me is clearly a reason to vote yes.

I'll explain this to you. A voice is about greater representation on how we spend the available funds towards Indigenous affairs. So it provides greater accountability for that spend on the recipients of that spend.



It could be done via legislation. Personally I wish this was the case. It misses a key point though and that is Indigenous recognition in the constitution.

It depends on how highly you judge this issue.

Personally I don't see the idea of not being able to change this body as being so important.



This isn't fair. You may as well call hospital care a political game or climate change. It's a real issue that is complex and multifaceted.

You can't just wave a wand and state well it hasn't worked. Maybe there has been good progress but not enough. I don't know but we need facts and data before stating it didn't work. What was the definition of success ?

I'm not interested in debating but I will say that I either mildly of strongly disagree with every one of your points. It's very easy to dismiss points with an airy wave of the hand. I have seen my thoughts dismissed this way many times and, in the last half century, I've found that those who airily dismiss fair claims always turn out to be underestimating the problems. Airbrushing.

I also note that the one point you did not address that the Voice is purely a political tool to control the Liberal Party. I don't like the Libs but they'd be fools to allow Albo to dictate as aspect if policy forever.

The fault for this mess is entirely Albo's. He knew that referendum needed bipartisan support yet he devised a system guaranteed not to achieve bipartisanship. Millions down the drain already, and it hasn't even started.

 

[earl]

I also note that the one point you did not address that the Voice is purely a political tool to control the Liberal Party. I don't like the Libs but they'd be fools to allow Albo to dictate as aspect if policy forever.

I don't see it like this. I couldn't care less about political battles between Labour and Liberal. My focus is on good policies being implemented and improving the country.

This sounds more like a political point than a point about this referendum. Does that make sense ?

 

[earl]

I have seen my thoughts dismissed this way many times and, in the last half century, I've found that those who airily dismiss fair claims always turn out to be underestimating the problems.

It's cool to have a different opinion but I don't believe I'm underestimating any problems or airily waved away any fair claims.

Let's put the cost into perspective fairly though because it's important to react appropriately to various spending and it's good to separate fact from emotion.

The Nuclear submarines cost $300bn. Indigenous spend is $5bn.

 

[Kaito]

It's treating people differently because of their race. It's called apartheid.

C'mon with that bulljive. That's what the cookers
said about lockdowns. I have family friends
from Sth Africa who moved here due to apartheid.
To draw parallels with the voice is really deranged

 

[AdelaideTiger]

I'm not usually one to advocate my political opinion in any forum, and I'll try not to here either.

But I really think that if you're going to vote on the voice, put all the media rhetoric to one side and just have a read (or a re-read) of the Uluru statement from the heart, because that's really all we are voting on.

If you agree with what's in that statement, vote yes,
If you don't agree with it, vote no.

 

[Kaito]

Mate, I am no supporter of the LNP, but in comparison to this mob 2013-2022 were pretty good despite COVID and I would hate to see how this bunch of incompetent hypocritical dopes would have handled the situation.

Who knows? maybe wouldn't have wasted so much
money on jobkeeper handouts and would have
put safety nets in place to recoup money from
companies who turned profits to the tune of
billions. Frydenberg & friends handled that poorly