Referendum 2023

[dazza65]

As I have said before, in my humble opinion, the constitution of a country is written and preserved for all of its citizens - it should not be divisive in any way by, for example, singling out any one group of people..no matter who they are. Where there were originally statements of "division", in a 120 year old document representative of time and place, items have since been removed (1967 for example). So now the constitution is relevant for all; no matter whether original settlers, 5th gen anglo's, postwar poms and other europeans, 70's middle eastern, 80's Vietnamese, 2000's Indians and Africans etc. We are all supposed to be teated as equal and one under the eyes of the law - and the constitution. What we really need is better, more caring and more active representation for the people in parliament. As someone said, marginalised people in our society don't need another voice, they need representatives who hear what is already being said. Unlikely though.

 

[twentyforty]

“The Canberra Voice would be out of a job if it was successful”
”The Aboriginal industry would grind to a halt” Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.

 

[twentyforty]

Albo’s biggest mistake was giving people 33 days too long to listen to the Yes/No arguments. Albo hasn’t read the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart but insists on supporting it 100%.
One thing Australians (regardless of race) are good at is sensing when someone is selling them a pup.

 

[Red88_Tiger]

Albo’s biggest mistake was giving people 33 days too long to listen to the Yes/No arguments. Albo hasn’t read the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart but insists on supporting it 100%.
One thing Australians (regardless of race) are good at is sensing when someone is selling them a pup.

As prime minister on an issue such as this I expect due diligence
He’ll be a shoe in to run a football club when he retires from office

 

[Spartan117]

Im glad people are hearing how hollow this voice is and that the real goal is more money for the activists.

 

[twentyforty]

Im glad people are hearing how hollow this voice is and that the real goal is more money for the activists.

It’s the communist’s approach. First seize power, then riches. But only wealth for the elite.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

The saddest thing is. If they win. They can blame us. You voted for this.

 

[watersider]

I continue to believe voting yes is best for country and indigenous people.

Interesting though how successful no campaign has been:

I think most wouldn't have read the constitution or been interested in it or ever really considered the many complexities and vagaries within the document, yet we stand as defenders of the constitution against people with much greater expertise in constitutional law (such as former shadow attorney general, Julian leeser) who argue it is not constitutionally problematic.

I could post numerous articles on this but it's easy enough to dismiss these people. To conservatives, I'd recommend reading this Leeser interview.

'No campaign debating everything but the Voice', says Liberal MP

Liberal MP Julian Leeser has claimed those that are campaigning against the Voice are "arguing about everything but the constitutional amendment".

www.google.com

Now the no campaign is moving on to say '70%' of indigenous people are voting no (Price in the above linked interview). I can't claim any such specific figure, but every indigenous person I know is a 'yes' and there's no question except the usual scepticism that it probably won't be allowed to have as much influence on indigenous policies as it should. To me it feels really disingenuous for her to be claiming that number.

Fact check: Do the polls show that Indigenous support for the Voice is between 80 and 90 per cent?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has claimed surveys show Indigenous Australians support the Voice at a rate between 80 and 90 per cent. Is that correct? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.

www.abc.net.au

Totally accept polls are unreliable and would be even harder for measuring indigenous opinion, but I don't believe Price's claim and I don't think it's acceptable for her to just randomly quote unsupported numbers while at the same time deriding others for supposed deceptions.

Anyway, just my once in a while rant. I wish debate was more focused on the issue. I really think we need a better approach to Indigenous policies. I think giving a voice to Indigenous people is a great start.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Again. Why do they need us. They have the power to change everything. Bills, rent, housing, pollution, airlines, video ref etc etc etc.

 

[Tucker]

I could post numerous articles on this but it's easy enough to dismiss these people. To conservatives, I'd recommend reading this Leeser interview.

'No campaign debating everything but the Voice', says Liberal MP

Liberal MP Julian Leeser has claimed those that are campaigning against the Voice are "arguing about everything but the constitutional amendment".

www.google.com

One of the questions I would ask Julian Leeser is why the hell are you only just now trying to find a way to listen to Aboriginal voices?
He has been an MP for 9+ years, has been the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs for 4 years and the Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians for over 1 year now.
Very convenient line of argument from him when he has held positions where he could have been doing this for quite a while now. Additionally does he expect us to believe that his government assigned multiple 10’s of billions of dollars every year for Aboriginal Affairs without consulting anyone?
It’s a weak argument.

Now the no campaign is moving on to say '70%' of indigenous people are voting no (Price in the above linked interview). I can't claim any such specific figure, but every indigenous person I know is a 'yes' and there's no question except the usual scepticism that it probably won't be allowed to have as much influence on indigenous policies as it should. To me it feels really disingenuous for her to be claiming that number.

Fact check: Do the polls show that Indigenous support for the Voice is between 80 and 90 per cent?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has claimed surveys show Indigenous Australians support the Voice at a rate between 80 and 90 per cent. Is that correct? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.

www.abc.net.au

Totally accept polls are unreliable and would be even harder for measuring indigenous opinion, but I don't believe Price's claim and I don't think it's acceptable for her to just randomly quote unsupported numbers while at the same time deriding others for supposed deceptions.

Can I ask where you live mate?
My experience is quite opposite of yours. Price comes from the NT. It’s not a stretch to say her experience is closer to mine than yours. I doubt her 70% claim as I mentioned earlier but that 80% poll number is certainly not right either going off what I’m seeing and hearing.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Looking forward to the majority across the states and territories voting positively in this voice referendum, as I believe in the younger generations and their abilities to look straight past the rhetoric of the truly divisive ones, that are trying to fool them of this being otherwise. Sky news viewer types with land line home phones represent well in their polling, though not across the community as a whole.

This is recognition of our first peoples, and an advisory voice, nothing more, nothing less. It is a stain on our nation's history that Peter Dutton and his ilk have abused this process for potential political gain, and it will not be totally erased, even upon those cheering them rapidly dying out. Despite him and a few others, I expect good will to carry the day and look forward to the count beginning 16 days from now.

The saddest part is that race and the ability to enforce based upon it, will remain in our constitution and it should be removed from that document.

 

[Tucker]

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Looking forward to the majority across the states and territories voting positively in this voice referendum, as I believe in the younger generations and their abilities to look straight past the rhetoric of the truly divisive ones, that are trying to fool them of this being otherwise. Sky news viewer types with land line home phones represent well in their polling, though not across the community as a whole.

This is recognition of our first peoples, and an advisory voice, nothing more, nothing less. It is a stain on our nation's history that Peter Dutton and his ilk have abused this process for potential political gain, and it will not be totally erased, even upon those cheering them rapidly dying out. Despite him and a few others, I expect good will to carry the day and look forward to the count beginning 16 days from now.

The saddest part is that race and the ability to enforce based upon it, will remain in our constitution and it should be removed from that document.

The saddest part is they have the money to do it without a referendum.

 

[crazycat]

He is a little bit all over the place and not making a coherent argument. Why does voting no lead to a treaty happening more quickly ? What reasons are there to vote no apart from getting to a treaty more quickly ? If Indigenous people are doing well why do we have the closing the gap idea being agreed to from all sides of politics ?

The thing is when he says we have to stop the hand-out mentality that appeals to a lot of people including myself. This to me is a discussion that needs to happen and it to me should be part of truth-telling. The reality is that you (and me) are responsible for your (our) life. I also don't see Indigenous people suffering from being a victim anymore than any group within the general population.

The question is where do you draw this line. At this point I can't say no to the Voice because the cost is basically nothing. The Indigenous spend right now is less than 1% of our federal budget. That is fact.

I tire of the "ALL THE ARGUMENTS".

Sure, some on the No camp argue "no voice, treaty!". Others argue "no voice, no change"... blah.
Yet when the same arguments come from the same person, it's madness.

Re the handout mentality... Anyone arguing against this I want to see a real commitment. I have worked with the long term Unemployed, Were taking:
1 on 1 coaching.
min 6 month job placement/job experience.
Specific skills shortage.

It takes real effort to turn it around. I see people attack "centerlink dole bludgers" why don't they go on "seek" and apply for jobs.... Ever hired on Seek.com, you get flooded with emails because "centerlink dole bludgers" keep getting told to apply there!

Real solid investiment in people can turn things around.

 

[crazycat]

Then why a Voice enshrined in the Constitution? Might I suggest you are a little bit all over the place and not making a coherent argument?

CMON we know why!

Government forms committee to work out the serious problems facing Aboriginal communities.
Committtee spends 2 years coming up with a Report.

That report says the same thing the last 20 reports have said.
Government of the day doesn't like what the committee says, Fires key people or disbands entire committee.

Malcolm Turnbull fired Tony Abbott's committee, who fired the committee before them.

We need consistency. That is the argument from the "yes" vote. If the Aboriginal representatives are going to change in parliament it should be the Aboriginal people who choose that, not whatever political factional pimpleface blows in. Aboriginal people should decide who speeks for them.

Imagine being told that Lidia Thorpe/Ms Price/mr Mundine Speaks for you? Simple argument Aboriginal people should decide who speaks for them and not have a committee formed by politicians picking people they like.

 

[Tucker]

Real solid investiment in people can turn things around.

They have that already and have done so for many years.
Breaking the cycle of handout dependency is the real struggle.

 

[Tucker]

Imagine being told that Lidia Thorpe/Ms Price/mr Mundine Speaks for you? Simple argument Aboriginal people should decide who speaks for them and not have a committee formed by politicians picking people they like.

Why?
How will that be any less subject to corruption?

 

[crazycat]

They have that already and have done so for many years.
Breaking the cycle of handout dependency is the real struggle.

I agree, real solid investments in
2,000 Gas Fridges and Gas Stoves... For Arnhem land with no GAS!
Real solid investments in half arsed youth development programs that last maybe 6 months.
Real solid investments in experts that have travelled all of Canberra to Quenbian!

Ever heard the phrase "Toyota's" it refers to people who drop in on an Aboriginal community and disappear after ... 2 days (could be 2 weeks if they are dedicated).

The closer you are to the person concerned, the better you will be able to work with them. The closer you are, the more you understand what they are going through, what will work and what won't. Politicians are stuck in Canberra, most don't live anywhere near Aboriginal communities. Yet they make decisions for those communities every damn day.

It's just like the Wests Tigers Board! Who make decisions on Rugby league every day with the whole Expertise of Lee H's Legal background! Lawyers know how to coach a football team right? *wrong*

Likewise politicians want to win their own local seat, many don't live in amongst different separate Aboriginal communities and don't/can't talk to the people their decisions effect. At least let the Aboriginal people have a say on the next stupid brainfart to come from Canberra.

 

[watersider]

One of the questions I would ask Julian Leeser is why the hell are you only just now trying to find a way to listen to Aboriginal voices?
He has been an MP for 9+ years, has been the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs for 4 years and the Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians for over 1 year now.
Very convenient line of argument from him when he has held positions where he could have been doing this for quite a while now. Additionally does he expect us to believe that his government assigned multiple 10’s of billions of dollars every year for Aboriginal Affairs without consulting anyone?
It’s a weak argument.

Can I ask where you live mate?
My experience is quite opposite of yours. Price comes from the NT. It’s not a stretch to say her experience is closer to mine than yours. I doubt her 70% claim as I mentioned earlier but that 80% poll number is certainly not right either going off what I’m seeing and hearing.

I live in inner west Sydney. They have reeducation camps here if you're voting no.

My work in education gives me connections to indigenous communities in South West Sydney and Mt Druitt. Families I know aren't elites, many kids struggling with school attendance, parents not educated. Some of them run community programs. None I've ever met sound like Price, particularly on colonisation. Have heard opinions more in line with Thorpe expressing general mistrust about government etc. I'm not claiming any sort of expertise, and perfectly willing to accept 80% support in those polls is somewhat inflated, but that is a polling company number based on some sort of method, and to me Price's claim of 70% support for no in indigenous community feels way off. That's way above even opinion polls of all Australians, and I just don't think that sort of skewing of information is right.

I called out Langton when I thought she said something dumb, and I've complimented Downer for arguing against the voice, but doing so with consideration of the issues not constitutional fear mongering, but Price should also be held accountable when she is being dishonest. It's not right to assert that 70% of Indigenous people are against the voice, that's just way off.

And on Price:

Very popular in white urban areas within her electorate. Not so much rural indigenous communities:

Jacinta Price claims to represent NT’s Indigenous communities but the data suggests otherwise | Jon Faine

The conservative senator was elected thanks to suburban voters in Darwin and Alice Springs not remote communities she aims to champion

www.theguardian.com

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

I agree, real solid investments in
2,000 Gas Fridges and Gas Stoves... For Arnhem land with no GAS!
Real solid investments in half arsed youth development programs that last maybe 6 months.
Real solid investments in experts that have travelled all of Canberra to Quenbian!

Ever heard the phrase "Toyota's" it refers to people who drop in on an Aboriginal community and disappear after ... 2 days (could be 2 weeks if they are dedicated).

The closer you are to the person concerned, the better you will be able to work with them. The closer you are, the more you understand what they are going through, what will work and what won't. Politicians are stuck in Canberra, most don't live anywhere near Aboriginal communities. Yet they make decisions for those communities every damn day.

It's just like the Wests Tigers Board! Who make decisions on Rugby league every day with the whole Expertise of Lee H's Legal background! Lawyers know how to coach a football team right? *wrong*

Likewise politicians want to win their own local seat, many don't live in amongst different separate Aboriginal communities and don't/can't talk to the people their decisions effect. At least let the Aboriginal people have a say on the next stupid brainfart to come from Canberra.

Do they?