A pretty fair post, however you seem to be over-thinking this. It's fine and sensible to consider a variety of view points, but where one sources the data to create these viewpoints is paramount.
Here's a video from the Liberal Party's former Minister of Indigenous Australians, explaining why we need this change in order to better understand the issues facing Indigenous Australians. One of the most qualified people in the country, and a former Liberal MP spells it's out succinctly. How do No Voters counter what Ken said?
https://x.com/KenWyattAM/status/1708796256120877247?s=20
It's not a political request as the Liberals have tried to make it out to be, using their Trumpian tactics of fake news. "Albo's voice" etc is shamefully inaccurate and misleading. Indigenous Australians have asked for this to help bridge the gap, Labor is letting the public vote on the matter. Adding politics to a question about recognition, communication and human decency is disgraceful.
Almost 75% of all Federal MPs in Australian parliament are in Favour of the Voice. Labor, Liberal, Greens and Independents. That's pretty much bi-lateral support, it's just sad Dutton is struggling so badly that he uses this as a means to try make himself more relevant, at the expense of others.
It is a simple request. The no voters are using the "it's so complicated and if you don't understand it then you should vote no" as a shield to deter people who can't be bothered listening/reading those who explain it. The No campaign uses a myriad of hypothetical scenarios to drown people in a sea of doubt, despite many of these hypotheticals being preposterous and already debunked by fact checking.
The voice will get involved in matters they feel impacts them, not with any and all legislation, unless they feel it impacts the lives of Indigenous Australians. It's not about money, power or revenge, it's about formalising the communication channels between Indigenous Australians and the government (who can still choose to disregard the advice they're given).
BB, firstly, I appreciate the response and the tone in which you've done so. This is exactly how people should engage in conversations around contentious topics, so good on you.
I shall now challenge you on the points I think need addressing:
It's not a political request as the Liberals have tried to make it out to be
- Albanese and the Labor government made it political the moment they presented it as a referendum topic. That is the definition of political; relating to the government and/or public affairs of a country.
using their Trumpian tactics of fake news
Red herring, assumptive and false comparison. What on earth does a campaign around Indigenous Australians' access to government decision making have to do with Donald Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon and his approach to politics?
"Albo's voice" etc is shamefully inaccurate and misleading.
Considering Anthony Albanese has been the head of the party driving the pursuit of this decision and has done so with full transparency as to the bodies and the USftH that inspired this movement, I don't understand what is shameful, inaccurate or misleading about that title. It may be lazy and incomplete as a description, but it is hardly consequential.
Indigenous Australians have asked for this to help bridge the gap
Problem is, this is not about bridging the gap. This is another example of putting the cart before the horse from the Yes camp. There are no guarantees or assurances that even if a Voice to parliament was formed that anything would change from an outcome perspective for Indigenous Australians or any measures in place to prevent worse outcomes. Who's to say that recommendations followed in the future don't make matters worse? What do we, as a country do in that scenario? Whilst that is not grounds to vote no alone, entertaining possible outcomes of a Yes vote for the benefit of undecided voters is only a good thing.
Adding politics to a question about recognition, communication and human decency is disgraceful
The recognition word possibly irks me the most in this entire nationwide discussion. What on Earth do people mean by 'recognition'? Each and every Indigenous Australian is a citizen of this country with the same rights and 'recognition' as every other... and, 'human decency' as you put it is subjective. You could argue that enshrining in the constitution that a certain ethnicity of people deserve an independent and sovereign advisory body to represent their microcosm of the country at large, whilst nobody else does, is preferential treatment and the very embodiment of a lack of equality and, by extension, a lack of human decency.
I won't argue that though, because that is a weak argument based in feelings and interpretation, not fact.
Almost 75% of all Federal MPs in Australian parliament are in Favour of the Voice. Labor, Liberal, Greens and Independents. That's pretty much bi-lateral support
Irrelevant. Red Herring. If that statistic was consequential or mattered, we wouldn't require a referendum process. The public's opinion as a whole matters. The parliament as a whole is not an accurate sample size of the country at large, despite them supposedly representing the views and voices of various electorates.
It's just sad Dutton is struggling so badly that he uses this as a means to try make himself more relevant, at the expense of others.
C'mon now my friend, this is just letting your bias squeeze out a little bit. Doesn't add anything to your argument.
It is a simple request.
Respectfully, it is not. At all. I laid that out pretty clearly in my original post.
The no voters are using the "it's so complicated and if you don't understand it then you should vote no" as a shield to deter people who can't be bothered listening/reading those who explain it.
Some are, I agree.
But that is the default. Why would one change the status quo if you're unsure of the consequences? Whilst becoming more informed on the topic is undoubtedly the correct path to take, in a society where you are forced to vote, simply going 'Meh, why not?' is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst.
Ignorant and inactive is far more benign than ignorant and active.
The No campaign uses a myriad of hypothetical scenarios to drown people in a sea of doubt, despite many of these hypotheticals being preposterous and already debunked by fact checking.
Some are, you're right. Many No-leaning people would be wise to see and read thoroughly some of the debunking of nonsensical slippery slope arguments circulating.
However, there are many legitimate doubts that are not far-fetched, are not outrageous and are justified. Once more, if people are entering into a major, contentious decision without questions and doubts, have they even bothered thinking about it properly?
The voice will get involved in matters they feel impacts them, not with any and all legislation, unless they feel it impacts the lives of Indigenous Australians.
'Matters they feel impact them' is not specific enough to make permanent changes to the constitution of a country. Indigenous Australians are Australians, first and foremost, as outlined by law, meaning that many of these issues that 'they feel affects them' may affect all of other Australians too. Do they still get to put their two-bob's worth in then?
It's not about money, power or revenge, it's about formalising the communication channels between Indigenous Australians and the government (who can still choose to disregard the advice they're given).
Let's play it forward briefly...
Say the Voice gets through, they go about formulating advice for government on the current scourge of DV in remote Indigenous communities for their very first, and public, consultation of a major matter, and yet the advice is deemed ineffective and nonsensical. Where to from there? Would this very same Labor government turn around and reject the advice? How would that go down? Will there be a public assessment of every interaction between the Voice and future governments?
The Yes vote is primarily rooted in empathy and understanding.
The No vote is primarily rooted in logic and broader implications.
Neither is rooted in racism.
How's that for over-simplifying haha.
Good chat though, mate
👍
