Referendum 2023

[Kaito]

I've mentioned previously how I think the lack of detail in this referendum is a good thing. This is a commonly raised by by no voters but to me it's completely missing the point.

It's good to read an opinion on this from an expert that states that this isn't a very good argument.

Proposed Voice to Parliament already more detailed than most of the constitution

www.sydney.edu.au

No campaign have been gaslighting yes voters
into thinking that Indigenous people don't want
the Voice - all the while trotting out fringe groups
opposed to it, but pro-sovreignty and saying,
"Look, see". No voters don't seem to understand
that a large amount of no voters actually seek
sovereignty, which is more extreme than a voice
to parliament. They're not on your side! Haha

 

[dazza65]

No campaign have been gaslighting yes voters
into thinking that Indigenous people don't want
the Voice - all the while trotting out fringe groups
opposed to it, but pro-sovreignty and saying,
"Look, see". No voters don't seem to understand
that a large amount of no voters actually seek
sovereignty, which is more extreme than a voice
to parliament. They're not on your side! Haha

I think the line of thinking here is that if something as "potentially" benign as the Voice doesn't get up there is no way a treaty/Blak Sovereignty etc etc will ever be legislated, let alone enshrined in constitution.

 

[earl]

I think the line of thinking here is that if something as "potentially" benign as the Voice doesn't get up there is no way a treaty/Blak Sovereignty etc etc will ever be legislated, let alone enshrined in constitution.

I don't think a treaty will even be enshrined in the constitution and I don't think the voice referendum really impacts a treaty that much. Indigenous no voters like Warren Mundine and Michael Mansell are voting no because they believe a treaty will come quicker this way.

They believe as soon as a no vote occurs they can request a treaty.

I don't think they've gotten this right but I could be wrong and they could be right.

 

[Kaito]

I think the line of thinking here is that if something as "potentially" benign as the Voice doesn't get up there is no way a treaty/Blak Sovereignty etc etc will ever be legislated, let alone enshrined in constitution.

That's a fair call Daz, they're not allies that's 4 sure

 

[hank37w]

I've mentioned previously how I think the lack of detail in this referendum is a good thing. This is a commonly raised by by no voters but to me it's completely missing the point.

It's good to read an opinion on this from an expert that states that this isn't a very good argument.

Proposed Voice to Parliament already more detailed than most of the constitution

www.sydney.edu.au

The reason there is no detail is because the real purpose of this referendum is to change our system of government by injecting a permanent element of racial privilege into the heart of the Constitution. It would give Indigenous Australians – and their descendants for all time – a second method of influencing public policy that goes beyond the benefits of representative democracy that are already enjoyed by all citizens regardless of race.

It would constitutionalise a race-based lobby group, equipped with a separate bureaucracy, that would give Indigenous citizens the ability to have an additional say on every law and administrative decision, not just those relating specifically to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

Although Constitutional recognition of Indigenous people is a worthwhile goal, this referendum should be rejected as it introduces a new entity within the Constitution with almost unlimited scope that threatens equality of citizenship in Australia.

Once again this last paragraph comes back to why, if Albo was being fair and not trying to be deliberately deceptive, there should have been 2 questions asked at this referendum as myself and others on here have previously outlined.

 

[watersider]

The reason there is no detail is because the real purpose of this referendum is to change our system of government by injecting a permanent element of racial privilege into the heart of the Constitution. It would give Indigenous Australians – and their descendants for all time – a second method of influencing public policy that goes beyond the benefits of representative democracy that are already enjoyed by all citizens regardless of race.

It would constitutionalise a race-based lobby group, equipped with a separate bureaucracy, that would give Indigenous citizens the ability to have an additional say on every law and administrative decision, not just those relating specifically to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

Although Constitutional recognition of Indigenous people is a worthwhile goal, this referendum should be rejected as it introduces a new entity within the Constitution with almost unlimited scope that threatens equality of citizenship in Australia.

Once again this last paragraph comes back to why, if Albo was being fair and not trying to be deliberately deceptive, there should have been 2 questions asked at this referendum as myself and others on here have previously outlined.

If The Voice became an all powerful force over parliament and they end up desiring to use their power to have say over all laws, this would presumably prove to be very unpopular with the Australian public. What would stop us then from another referendum and removing the voice from the constitution? Would the Voice be so powerful in your thinking that it would be able to veto and refuse referendum on the issue? I presume in that situation they would also sack parliament, appoint their own prime minister, turn the military against the Australian public and violently suppress all thoughts against the Voice. Presumably the Voice will ultimately have the power to do this.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

No campaign have been gaslighting yes voters
into thinking that Indigenous people don't want
the Voice - all the while trotting out fringe groups
opposed to it, but pro-sovreignty and saying,
"Look, see". No voters don't seem to understand
that a large amount of no voters actually seek
sovereignty, which is more extreme than a voice
to parliament. They're not on your side! Haha

Anybody that votes yes, or no based on who is on "their side" is a moron and should have no part in voting in a democracy

 

[watersider]

First of all, you have to get the parents to change their world view when it comes to money. Continually throwing cash at them has created a mindset of “easy come, easy go” and “there’s more where that comes from”. They don’t appreciate it like we do. Just say I was given a $10k cheque. I would sit down with my wife, pull out our budget and work out what to do with it. A lot of them would blow it very quickly on nothing. They might buy mag wheels for their Datsun, and spend the rest getting off chop. So first thing is first…get them jobs. Teach them skills. Give them a reason to start their day each morning, give them a reason to be proud…not just proud of being Aboriginal (which is such a stupid slogan) but actually proud of what they can contribute to their societies, enabling them to set goals and achieve them. This will have a positive, sustainable impact on communities as substance abuse as well as violence will decline.

When the kids see their parents are improving their lives, providing clean and comfortable housing for them and not getting wrecked and fighting with them, it will have positive outcomes. The kids are likely to stay home at night time, instead of wandering the streets, getting into trouble. They will have proper role models raising them, not shitbag peers who influence them to go the easy route of crime. Eventually they will understand that stealing gets you quick cash that doesn’t last, but working gives you consistent money without the risks. Correlating success with education will improve communities through school attendances. We must then ensure that proper teachers fill these classrooms, not apologist activists who constantly teach the kids they are victims.

I think this suggestion of course relies on generalisations, but I'm sure there are many examples of what you say. I feel that a Voice to parliament helps to make Indigenous people both more engaged and accountable. I don't really see it as potentially making these issues worse. As many have said, there are many agencies and huge money going into the issues, and outcomes for Indigenous people aren't improving fast enough, so we need to try something else. I just can't see how a representative Indigenous body makes this worse.

 

[crazycat]

To be honest in this day and age with smartphones computers and the like there isn't as much need for representative democracy acting as a proxy for us.

We could all vote electronically on most issues bypassing the need for politicians in many cases.

At the very least many more frequent referendums and plebiscites generating real buy in from the public creating a more enfranchised electorate.

But I suppose that would largely mean the end of corruption and outside interference in our affairs not to mention real issues would need to be addressed head on instead of destructive and distractive ones.

Look, it's an idea, it has merit...
1. lets set aside security issues with this, they are HUGE! Pen and Paper voting all the way (if you doubt me look up Harri Hursti/Prof J Alex Halderman. Don't look up Qanon 2000 mules space lazer rubbish).

2. The Australian democrats tried to vote on every party issue. this isn't even general population, this is just one political party. The membership was exhausted. Things like supporting a GST was passed on a 51% margin with 10% of the membership being bothered to vote. People just became exhaused. (I still believe such a structure is a good idea, but needs fine tuning).

"At the very least many more frequent referendums and plebiscites generating real buy in from the public creating a more enfranchised electorate." Yes

I don't think voting on every issue is the solution. I do think More frequent referendums are a good solution AND I think we need a means to ensure the issues we want are on the agenda. i.e.
Should the government provide Free Dental care?
Iraq war 2? (should have gone to a referendum and been voted down).
Any changes to the electoral act! (these are going via parliament which is IMHO wrong).

Note the use of "referendum" the Stupidity of the plebicite was a total waste of time. If you put the question up, you must accept the results. It was completely gutless to have the results taken and people's will acknowledged but not have it acted upon. (not talking about SSM particularly, only referendum vs plebicites).

 

[twentyforty]

First of all, you have to get the parents to change their world view when it comes to money. Continually throwing cash at them has created a mindset of “easy come, easy go” and “there’s more where that comes from”. They don’t appreciate it like we do. Just say I was given a $10k cheque. I would sit down with my wife, pull out our budget and work out what to do with it. A lot of them would blow it very quickly on nothing. They might buy mag wheels for their Datsun, and spend the rest getting off chop. So first thing is first…get them jobs. Teach them skills. Give them a reason to start their day each morning, give them a reason to be proud…not just proud of being Aboriginal (which is such a stupid slogan) but actually proud of what they can contribute to their societies, enabling them to set goals and achieve them. This will have a positive, sustainable impact on communities as substance abuse as well as violence will decline.

When the kids see their parents are improving their lives, providing clean and comfortable housing for them and not getting wrecked and fighting with them, it will have positive outcomes. The kids are likely to stay home at night time, instead of wandering the streets, getting into trouble. They will have proper role models raising them, not shitbag peers who influence them to go the easy route of crime. Eventually they will understand that stealing gets you quick cash that doesn’t last, but working gives you consistent money without the risks. Correlating success with education will improve communities through school attendances. We must then ensure that proper teachers fill these classrooms, not apologist activists who constantly teach the kids they are victims.

Isn’t this all being done by the HIAA? They are making some progress with the programs, but cultural change doesn’t happen fast enough for activists and the political class.

IMO, the major challenges are...

1. 65% of Aboriginals live in regional or remote areas where services are reduced and the average life expectancy is way lower than that of their city Aboriginals. In one community I visited for a few days there was a small medical centre but not always attended. A nurse was flown in periodically.

2. Aboriginals living in two worlds. How can they access the lifestyle and service benefits of a modern society while not losing their culturally significant way of life, while at the same time, leaving behind the 'might is right tribal law' and other associated bad behaviours?

I agree with the notion that handouts are not solving much of the real issues.
In a small town in NT saw a sign on the verandah of a corner store, which simply stated "Don't forget to fill out your form to get your $6,000 for home repairs.' 'Forms available here and if you can't fill it out we will do it for you.'

 

[earl]

The reason there is no detail is because the real purpose of this referendum is to change our system of government by injecting a permanent element of racial privilege into the heart of the Constitution.

I just can't go for this. You've lost me now,

I cannot call Indigenous people privileged. Do you know what privilege is ?

It would give Indigenous Australians – and their descendants for all time – a second method of influencing public policy that goes beyond the benefits of representative democracy that are already enjoyed by all citizens regardless of race.

I agree with this but I'm not convinced it's a bad thing.

It would constitutionalise a race-based lobby group, equipped with a separate bureaucracy, that would give Indigenous citizens the ability to have an additional say on every law and administrative decision, not just those relating specifically to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

Although Constitutional recognition of Indigenous people is a worthwhile goal, this referendum should be rejected as it introduces a new entity within the Constitution with almost unlimited scope that threatens equality of citizenship in Australia.

This is such a bad read of the idea. It's so dramatic and over the top.

The voice cannot vote for parliament. It's simply feedback.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

I just can't go for this. You've lost me now,

I cannot call Indigenous people privileged. Do you know what privilege is ?



I agree with this but I'm not convinced it's a bad thing.



This is such a bad read of the idea. It's so dramatic and over the top.

The voice cannot vote for parliament. It's simply feedback.

Love watching Earl debate himself, arguing for and against the same thing all at once in the same post.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

I just can't go for this. You've lost me now,

I cannot call Indigenous people privileged. Do you know what privilege is ?

Having advisory access to the executive committees and levels of Government? Pretty much the definition of privilege.

 

[hank37w]

I just can't go for this. You've lost me now,

I cannot call Indigenous people privileged. Do you know what privilege is ?

Noun: privilege

1. A special advantage, immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all
2. A right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group

 

[earl]

Noun: privilege

1. A special advantage, immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all
2. A right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group

Can you in all seriousness state Indigenous people are entitled ?

My dad was a specialist doctor and we lived a good life. I consider that entitled especially compared to an Indigenous person living in relative poverty.

 

[hank37w]

How about you use the word privilege in the context that it was written in, that the Voice if it got up would give that group a special advantage or benefit not enjoyed by non indigenous Australians.

It would also be a right which we cannot be sure how far it would in reality extend and if enshrined in the Constitution and at some stage was found to have undesirable or unintended consequences would be very difficult or even impossible to change.

 

[earl]

How about you use the word privilege in the context that it was written in, that the Voice if it got up would give that group a special advantage or benefit not enjoyed by non indigenous Australians.

I honestly think this is a bit immature. Are you stating that I am less privileged compared to an Indigenous person living in relative poverty if the Voice gets voted in ?

I have wealthy family. They are much wealthier than my parents who like I said are rich. They holiday in the south of France. Their kids get bought houses close to the uni they intend. I have a sister in law who lives in New York in daddies apartment, holidays in the Hamptons and when she is Sydney hangs around her rich friends in the Eastern suburbs.

Are these people less privileged than an Indigenous person living in poverty if the Voice is voted in ?

It just sounds really immature and I hate to say it but stupid.

It would also be a right which we cannot be sure how far it would in reality extend and if enshrined in the Constitution and at some stage was found to have undesirable or unintended consequences would be very difficult or even impossible to change.

I don't think so. It's just an advisory body. You need a lot more detail to convince me of this.

 

[Kaito]

Anybody that votes yes, or no based on who is on "their side" is a moron and should have no part in voting in a democracy

Yeah, well, good luck with that...

How about you use the word privilege in the context that it was written in, that the Voice if it got up would give that group a special advantage or benefit not enjoyed by non indigenous Australians.

"Boo-hoo, poor me, what about me" lol
data with regards to life expectancy,
disease, poverty & incarceration rates
have been posted here countless times.

What you don't seem to grasp is that no
other ethnicity or race has had the horrific
history that they've endured in this country -
and that they are the original inhabitants.
Bridging the gap helps all Australians
and makes us more prosperous in the future

 

[Mistymuzzle]

"Boo-hoo, poor me, what about me" lol
data with regards to life expectancy,
disease, poverty & incarceration rates
have been posted here countless times.

What you don't seem to grasp is that no
other ethnicity or race has had the horrific
history that they've endured in this country -
and that they are the original inhabitants.
Bridging the gap helps all Australians
and makes us more prosperous in the future

You reply to Hanks post saying to use use the word int he context it was used in, by completely ignoring the context it was used in.
Hank never said that indigenous people are privileged, he said that the access to the executive is a privilege (by the injection in the Constitution) , and it is.

Dont fall into Earls trap of framing everyones point of view into your narrow window so you can attack it.

 

[Spartan117]

Individuals won't simply have access to the voice and hence the executive. There will be various processes in place to review and prioritise what gets escalated to those on the voice committee. In theory they have access to 2 channels to parliament, yes, and that's fine with me given how poorly these people have been represented in the past. If systems previously put in place were more consultative and effective the voice wouldn't be necessary, sadly it is.

Do you really believe this will be governed in the interest of people who Need it?

Just like ATSIC,

This is enshrining racism and corruption in our constitution!