Referendum 2023

[TillLindemann]

Yeah I know. I’ve been banging on about this all thread.
As per the mandate;

The Voice will be empowering, community-led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed​

• Members of the Voice would be expected to connect with – and reflect the wishes of – their communities.
• The Voice would consult with grassroots communities and regional entities to ensure its representations are informed by their experience, including the experience of those who have been historically excluded from participation.

It’s going to be a monumentally hard job to get around all this with just 24 members:

View attachment 6794

In a non-political statement, can I just say based on that map, all hail the Wiradjuri (my neck of the woods), they definitely carved out the most impressive territory compared to all their neighbours.

 

[colinbh]

AparApartheid: A system of discrimination and segregation founded on race.

Do you actually believe that?
Seriously?

Trying to undo centuries of white mistreatment towards indigenous Australians by actually giving them a direct say in matters that impact them? Treating a minority that has been marginalised with respect isn't apartheid, it's equality and respect.

Do you realise indigenous Australians have a life expectancy more than a decade lower than non indigenous people? Much more likely to go to jail the list of issues if extensively.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

AparApartheid: A system of discrimination and segregation founded on race.

Lets be serious, its not apartheid by any stretch of the imagination. No one is being prevented from anything and extreme statements like that do not help the discussion or the outcome.

Clearly though IMO there is an imbalance based on race and personally that is not something I am comfortable with and IMO sets a dangerous precedent for the future. When I say dangerous, not necessarily blood in the streets but definitely on a cultural basis.

Right now under the Constitution, all Australians have a say in how this country is run and we all have equal representation in the parliament regardless if we are black, white, brindle, man, woman, short, tall, gay straight, rich or poor. However no Australians are supposed to have access or representation to the executive and there are actually many mechanism set up to keep track and prevent this.

Under the Voice proposal, all Australians will have representation to Parliament as they do now. Indigenous Australians will have additional representation to Parliament to directly make representation on individual bills. Indigenous Australians will also have representation to the executive, government and executive committees that no non indigenous Australians get.

IMO this is very dangerous and sets a horrible precendent especially if it is enshrined in the Constitution and therefore has High Court protection.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Ive stated many times here that IMO The Voice shouldnt be enshrined in the Constitution and doesnt need to be.

The only argument I have seen as to why it should be enshrined in the Constitution is that its so future Lib Governments cant sack it like ATSIC. Leaving out the obvious argument of what happens if it bcomes like ATSIC and needs to be sacked.......what if it works?

We keep hearing that The Voice NEEDS to be adopted to "close the gap" and correct the disadvantage and differences between indigenous and non indigenous society. What happens when the The Voice works and the gap is closed and one part of Australian society has disproportionate representation under the Constitution?

 

[Magpie_Magic]

Just as a little dig. I'm not reporting your post and I'm not having a tantrum but certain posters with multiple accounts do exactly this to me when I use a word they don't like.

😎

 

[balmain boy]

AparApartheid: A system of discrimination and segregation founded on race.

But there is no discrimination or segregation, other than what already exists, and is trying to get reversed by the voice.

 

[balmain boy]

Lets be serious, its not apartheid by any stretch of the imagination. No one is being prevented from anything and extreme statements like that do not help the discussion or the outcome.

Clearly though IMO there is an imbalance based on race and personally that is not something I am comfortable with and IMO sets a dangerous precedent for the future. When I say dangerous, not necessarily blood in the streets but definitely on a cultural basis.

Right now under the Constitution, all Australians have a say in how this country is run and we all have equal representation in the parliament regardless if we are black, white, brindle, man, woman, short, tall, gay straight, rich or poor. However no Australians are supposed to have access or representation to the executive and there are actually many mechanism set up to keep track and prevent this.

Under the Voice proposal, all Australians will have representation to Parliament as they do now. Indigenous Australians will have additional representation to Parliament to directly make representation on individual bills. Indigenous Australians will also have representation to the executive, government and executive committees that no non indigenous Australians get.

IMO this is very dangerous and sets a horrible precendent especially if it is enshrined in the Constitution and therefore has High Court protection.

Precedent? Are you serious? Precedent for what?
How many indigenous voices do you think are going to be enshrined in the constitution? Or are you implying that every culture living in Australia will suddenly want to be included in the constitution?

 

[stephen]

Do you actually believe that?
Seriously?

Trying to undo centuries of white mistreatment towards indigenous Australians by actually giving them a direct say in matters that impact them? Treating a minority that has been marginalised with respect isn't apartheid, it's equality and respect.

Do you realise indigenous Australians have a life expectancy more than

Do you actually believe that?
Seriously?

Trying to undo centuries of white mistreatment towards indigenous Australians by actually giving them a direct say in matters that impact them? Treating a minority that has been marginalised with respect isn't apartheid, it's equality and respect.

Do you realise indigenous Australians have a life expectancy more than a decade lower than non indigenous people? Much more likely to go to jail the list of issues if extensively.

a decade lower than non indigenous people? Much more likely to go to jail the list of issues if extensively.

Yeah that's what will happen.

But maybe that's what Albanese wants as he can avoid attempting to fix the tough issues.

Why do they have lower life expectancy, and are more likely to go to gaol?
Are white Australians the cause of that?

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Precedent? Are you serious? Precedent for what?

Precedent for unequal representation based on race. There are no clauses in the Constitution at present that differentiate Australians on the basis of skin colour or race. This is a clear and unarguable precendent.

How many indigenous voices do you think are going to be enshrined in the constitution?

One.

I dont know you Balmain Boy, but lets assume you are non indigenous, and for the argument, lets say i pass the 3 part test for indigenous.

If you have a pressing issue, important to you and in your opinion important to the nature or your culture. How are you represented and how do you get this representation expressed in consideration of legislation? Your only representation is your local federal member. so you can go to your federal member and he/she can represent you in parliament. Systematically that is the end of it. If your local member happens to be in the party in power and have a position on an executive committee, you might be lucky but there is no constitutional representation beyond your local member in Parliament.

On the other hand if I am indigenous, I also have my local member to represent me in parliament on any important issue impacting me and my culture, same as you and every Australian. Then on top of that I have a second representation through the Voice that can also express my representation through the parliament, so twice the representation in parliament. Then on top of that, my representation through the Voice directly expresses my representation straight into the executive government and executive committees which you simply do not have.

Its not opinion, the structure of it is simply unbalanced representation. Whether you think its a good thing or not. Personally i think the unbalanced representation in itself isnt a bad thing to directly address a critical issue but enshrining in the Constitution with the protection of the High Court is very dangerous.

Or are you implying that every culture living in Australia will suddenly want to be included in the constitution?

Im not implying anything, Im explicitly expressing that IMO when one race gets imbalanced representation over others, it is going to impact the relationship between those different races and IMO set back the cause of genuine reconciliation.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

But there is no discrimination or segregation, other than what already exists, and is trying to get reversed by the voice.

What institutional racism exists today and how will the voice reverse it?

 

[Magpie_Magic]

Why do they have lower life expectancy, and are more likely to go to gaol?
Are white Australians the cause of that?

Dat you earl

 

[hank37w]

I love it when someone brings up facts that are rational and sane and don't sound at all racist. I'm clearly being sarcastic.

Just as a little dig. I'm not reporting your post and I'm not having a tantrum but certain posters with multiple accounts do exactly this to me when I use a word they don't like.

Go ahead and report me, for what, stating the facts. You can't see that radical elements are hijacking this whole campaign for the Voice?

Thanks a lot Albo for causing this division and using it as a distraction from all the other matters that need attention.

 

[hank37w]

This makes no sense whatsoever. It's less than 1% of spend.

Give us facts not hyperbole.

Sorry mate, they were the facts.

 

[earl]

Go ahead and report me, for what, stating the facts.

No making racist comments like this:-

hundreds of radical, city dwelling indigenous rat bags throwing a spanner in the works at every opportunity, many of them whiter than you or me, some with very questionable roots

I won't report you because I'm not a whining sook like some people who have multiple accounts on here. You wonder what sort of a loser does that but anyway.

You can't see that radical elements are hijacking this whole campaign for the Voice?

Well it is about an Indigenous voice.You aren't making any sense or providing any facts.

I'll try and explain what a fact is. A fact is checking the federal budget and seeing we spend about $5bn on Indigenous affairs. An emotional rant is what you do when you made your racist comment above.

Try facts and not rants.

Thanks a lot Albo for causing this division and using it as a distraction from all the other matters that need attention.

What are you talking about ? This is clearly an issue that needs attention. What is this division ?

 

[hank37w]

No one is stating it'll fix anything. You can't fix people's problems. The no voters crying what about me will still be crying what about me because they blame society for their problems rather than creating a good life for themselves.

It's about recognizing Indigenous people in the constitution and giving them more input into the spend that we make. It's one of the key components Indigenous people have requested via the Uluru statement.

Stop making stuff up and start being rational.

If no one is stating that it'll fix anything then why risk the possible damage it could cause, especially trying to enshrine it in the Constitution where the damage cannot be undone if it was simply passed by law.

Recognizing Indigenous people in the Constitution is a no-brainer, that one on it's own easily gets voted in, it's the fact that Albo is trying to sneak the Voice in on the back of it and not having 2 separate questions being asked at this Referendum and on top of all that not providing detail is the part that is wrong.

What is it that I have made up and what part is not rational?

 

[earl]

If no one is stating that it'll fix anything then why risk the possible damage it could cause, especially trying to enshrine it in the Constitution where the damage cannot be undone if it was simply passed by law.

I have a different take. I can't see any possible damage in our lifetimes or my great grand kids life. It'll take years until Indigenous people have the same life expectancy etc compared to the average Australian,

I don't see the downside. It's a small cost.

At the same time I also don't think it has to be enshrined in the constitution. Personally I wish they hadn't done this because I think it'll be a no vote and they could have just done this quietly.

This is already happening in Australia anyway. States are working through treaties.

Recognizing Indigenous people in the Constitution is a no-brainer, that one on it's own easily gets voted in, it's the fact that Albo is trying to sneak the Voice in on the back of it and not having 2 separate questions being asked at this Referendum and on top of all that not providing detail is the part that is wrong.

I don't care about the detail. My opinion is it's better without the detail. It's just stupid planning. I accept that some people like excessive planning but it's a non-issue to me and I don't think it should be an issue for anyone since you aren't implementing it. You don't ask for details on how the submarines will be built and that costs a lot lot more than this.

I don't know what you mean about the 2 separate questions being asked. Can you please clarify ?

What is it that I have made up and what part is not rational?

You did great. No complaints from me.

 

[hugh1954]

You're delusional. Labor has nothing to do with the voice. Indigenous Australians requested it, Albo is letting the public decide it. Once it gets established it won't be run by Labor. Labor will have zero control over it.

I hope you realise that a large section of Liberal MPs are in support of the voice, especially in metro areas. The national party aren't, which is no surprise and they would never support indigenous Australians, neither will the far right. I haven't seen a national poll but I know in Sydney nearly every Liberal MP supports the voice. Bi-partisan support exists because the MPs realise it's time for recognition, for empowerment and for real consultation to create solutions that are still yet to come to fruition

Only because Labor MPs are not allowed to express a opinion other then the official socialist line , many would be voting NO
But would be exterminated if given free choice to express this, so don't run that propaganda

 

[twentyforty]

We need to strengthen the culture of Australia so that we become less reliant on governments to fix our problems and become more self reliant and confident in the knowledge that we can do it ourselves.

 

[hugh1954]

I have a different take. I can't see any possible damage in our lifetimes or my great grand kids life. It'll take years until Indigenous people have the same life expectancy etc compared to the average Australian,

I don't see the downside. It's a small cost.

At the same time I also don't think it has to be enshrined in the constitution. Personally I wish they hadn't done this because I think it'll be a no vote and they could have just done this quietly.

This is already happening in Australia anyway. States are working through treaties.



I don't care about the detail. My opinion is it's better without the detail. It's just stupid planning. I accept that some people like excessive planning but it's a non-issue to me and I don't think it should be an issue for anyone since you aren't implementing it. You don't ask for details on how the submarines will be built and that costs a lot lot more than this.

I don't know what you mean about the 2 separate questions being asked. Can you please clarify ?



You did great. No complaints from me.

Yes don't tell the people details, Albo has tried that sneaky tactic from the beginning but thankfully he is not bright enough to keep the radical activists in the bottle. Hence people were gleaning information like the WA tree planting saga which started the rise in NO poll numbers

 

[balmain boy]

Ive stated many times here that IMO The Voice shouldnt be enshrined in the Constitution and doesnt need to be.

The only argument I have seen as to why it should be enshrined in the Constitution is that its so future Lib Governments cant sack it like ATSIC. Leaving out the obvious argument of what happens if it bcomes like ATSIC and needs to be sacked.......what if it works?

We keep hearing that The Voice NEEDS to be adopted to "close the gap" and correct the disadvantage and differences between indigenous and non indigenous society. What happens when the The Voice works and the gap is closed and one part of Australian society has disproportionate representation under the Constitution?

Given it will take generations for change to ultimately make meaningful progress, there's plenty of time to think about what to do with the constitution