Referendum 2023

[Tim Sheens]

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).

Trouble is the vast majority of vote no promoters don't trade in facts.

The vote is for recognition of indigenous Australians in the constitution and an advisory voice to parliament.

Nothing more, nothing less, and anyone pretending otherwise is either a liar, or has been fooled by liars.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Meanwhile the rich get richer. Middle class is dissolved.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Trouble is the vast majority of vote no promoters don't trade in facts.

The vote is for recognition of indigenous Australians in the constitution and an advisory voice to parliament.

Nothing more, nothing less, and anyone pretending otherwise is either a liar, or has been fooled by liars.

But Albo does. Life be getting worse.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Looks like we all be Indigenous.

 

[balmain boy]

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👍

Thanks for the response and I don't have time to go into the level of detail you have right now, but kudos to you for doing so!

I would vehemently disagree that the no vote is primarily rooted in logic. Far from it.

What we've been doing for decades hasn't been working well enough. That's an indisputable fact. Changes are needed. Another indisputable fact.

If laws were being made for education, teachers and their unions would be consulted. Same for nurses and other occupations. Why is it for matters relating to indigenous Australians that consultation is viewed as optional?

I think it's also impossible to deny the racial element. If one is joining the movement siding with Pauline Hanson, One Nation and neo-nazis what does that say about your own values? If one is supporting the same causes as them, how far removed are your values from theirs? Do no voters really feel that voting alongside these groups of people is representative of their core beliefs?

References to Dutton and Trumpism are also valid. Dutton is basing his campaign around fear and fake news, spreading lies. The same tactics that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon uses. Dutton is using the referendum to boost his political aspirations using dirty tactics to do so, at the expense of Indigenous Australians. It's also not as if the No campaign is putting forth a different option for recognition and communication to be considered. Then they could at least put a stake in the game and provide meaningful options to consider, but instead they rely on fear and lies. Sad that Australian politics is descending like this.

In the end to me it's illogical to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, that's why in this scenario change is the logical answer. It's an advisory board, not a military coup that can hold the country hostage. Yes there are some unknowns, as there is in everything in life. No crystal balls... Will the voice instantly fix everything? Of course not. Will it help bridge the gap over time? Hopefully. That's the aim. The success of it won't be fully realised for decades, so why waste any more time? Let's give them a say and hope the positive outcomes occur in due course.

 

[Tucker]

Trouble is the vast majority of vote no promoters don't trade in facts.

The vote is for recognition of indigenous Australians in the constitution and an advisory voice to parliament.

Nothing more, nothing less, and anyone pretending otherwise is either a liar, or has been fooled by liars.

Not very tolerant.

 

[Tucker]

Thanks for the response and I don't have time to go into the level of detail you have right now, but kudos to you for doing so!

I would vehemently disagree that the no vote is primarily rooted in logic. Far from it.

What we've been doing for decades hasn't been working well enough. That's an indisputable fact. Changes are needed. Another indisputable fact.

If laws were being made for education, teachers and their unions would be consulted. Same for nurses and other occupations. Why is it for matters relating to indigenous Australians that consultation is viewed as optional?

I think it's also impossible to deny the racial element. If one is joining the movement siding with Pauline Hanson, One Nation and neo-nazis what does that say about your own values? If one is supporting the same causes as them, how far removed are your values from theirs? Do no voters really feel that voting alongside these groups of people is representative of their core beliefs?

References to Dutton and Trumpism are also valid. Dutton is basing his campaign around fear and fake news, spreading lies. The same tactics that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon uses. Dutton is using the referendum to boost his political aspirations using dirty tactics to do so, at the expense of Indigenous Australians. It's also not as if the No campaign is putting forth a different option for recognition and communication to be considered. Then they could at least put a stake in the game and provide meaningful options to consider, but instead they rely on fear and lies. Sad that Australian politics is descending like this.

In the end to me it's illogical to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, that's why in this scenario change is the logical answer. It's an advisory board, not a military coup that can hold the country hostage. Yes there are some unknowns, as there is in everything in life. No crystal balls... Will the voice instantly fix everything? Of course not. Will it help bridge the gap over time? Hopefully. That's the aim. The success of it won't be fully realised for decades, so why waste any more time? Let's give them a say and hope the positive outcomes occur in due course.

Cool rant.
Nothing new within it though…no hard details, no facts just emotion.

 

[Tiger-ferret]

Trouble is the vast majority of vote no promoters don't trade in facts.

The vote is for recognition of indigenous Australians in the constitution and an advisory voice to parliament.

Nothing more, nothing less, and anyone pretending otherwise is either a liar, or has been fooled by liars.

That is a fact. Agree.

Now tell us the why and how with hard concrete evidence and detail.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Not very tolerant.

Facts are facts. Alternative facts are simply lies and should not be tolerated, let alone perpetuated.

 

[Tucker]

Facts are facts. Alternative facts are simply lies and should not be tolerated, let alone perpetuated.

What are the alternate facts?

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Thanks for the response and I don't have time to go into the level of detail you have right now, but kudos to you for doing so!

I would vehemently disagree that the no vote is primarily rooted in logic. Far from it.

What we've been doing for decades hasn't been working well enough. That's an indisputable fact. Changes are needed. Another indisputable fact.

Agree 100%

If laws were being made for education, teachers and their unions would be consulted. Same for nurses and other occupations. Why is it for matters relating to indigenous Australians that consultation is viewed as optional?

Please point me to the chapter of the Constitution that enshrines the powers of the Teachers Union.

Indigenous Australians arent consulted? That shocks me. If only the Government would create an agency to enable indigenous Australians to be heard and consulted.

National Indigenous Australians Agency

The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) is committed to improving the lives of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island

www.niaa.gov.au

I think it's also impossible to deny the racial element. If one is joining the movement siding with Pauline Hanson, One Nation and neo-nazis what does that say about your own values? If one is supporting the same causes as them, how far removed are your values from theirs? Do no voters really feel that voting alongside these groups of people is representative of their core beliefs?

I will be voting No and couldnt care less what Pauline Hanson or neo Nazi's say because I have my own values and principles. Let me get this straight....because bad people dont agree with it, I should vote for it? What were you saying about logic?

References to Dutton and Trumpism are also valid. Dutton is basing his campaign around fear and fake news, spreading lies. The same tactics that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon uses. Dutton is using the referendum to boost his political aspirations using dirty tactics to do so, at the expense of Indigenous Australians. It's also not as if the No campaign is putting forth a different option for recognition and communication to be considered. Then they could at least put a stake in the game and provide meaningful options to consider, but instead they rely on fear and lies. Sad that Australian politics is descending like this.

This referendum is sad what it will do to the country and the Labor party were warned prior to calling it. There is no need for the no side to put forward an alternative because we arent discussing an alternative. We are voting on THIS proposal for the referendum. Are you of the opinion that we should vote for any alternative, to be enshrined in the Constitution forever because a better alternative isnt available?

In the end to me it's illogical to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, that's why in this scenario change is the logical answer. It's an advisory board, not a military coup that can hold the country hostage. Yes there are some unknowns, as there is in everything in life. No crystal balls... Will the voice instantly fix everything? Of course not. Will it help bridge the gap over time? Hopefully. That's the aim. The success of it won't be fully realised for decades, so why waste any more time? Let's give them a say and hope the positive outcomes occur in due course.

You can hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first.

 

[Tim Sheens]

That is a fact. Agree.

Now tell us the why and how with hard concrete evidence and detail.

Yes, it is a fact, so nothing more to add.

 

[Tiger-ferret]

Yes, it is a fact, so nothing more to add.

didn’t think so

 

[Tim Sheens]

What are the alternate facts?

Anything stating otherwise.

I suggest that you ask Winston, as he seems to be an expert on such, with an example at the bottom of each post.

I will leave you to discuss it with him and similar others.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Thanks for the response and I don't have time to go into the level of detail you have right now, but kudos to you for doing so!

I would vehemently disagree that the no vote is primarily rooted in logic. Far from it.

What we've been doing for decades hasn't been working well enough. That's an indisputable fact. Changes are needed. Another indisputable fact.

If laws were being made for education, teachers and their unions would be consulted. Same for nurses and other occupations. Why is it for matters relating to indigenous Australians that consultation is viewed as optional?

I think it's also impossible to deny the racial element. If one is joining the movement siding with Pauline Hanson, One Nation and neo-nazis what does that say about your own values? If one is supporting the same causes as them, how far removed are your values from theirs? Do no voters really feel that voting alongside these groups of people is representative of their core beliefs?

References to Dutton and Trumpism are also valid. Dutton is basing his campaign around fear and fake news, spreading lies. The same tactics that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon uses. Dutton is using the referendum to boost his political aspirations using dirty tactics to do so, at the expense of Indigenous Australians. It's also not as if the No campaign is putting forth a different option for recognition and communication to be considered. Then they could at least put a stake in the game and provide meaningful options to consider, but instead they rely on fear and lies. Sad that Australian politics is descending like this.

In the end to me it's illogical to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, that's why in this scenario change is the logical answer. It's an advisory board, not a military coup that can hold the country hostage. Yes there are some unknowns, as there is in everything in life. No crystal balls... Will the voice instantly fix everything? Of course not. Will it help bridge the gap over time? Hopefully. That's the aim. The success of it won't be fully realised for decades, so why waste any more time? Let's give them a say and hope the positive outcomes occur in due course.

No change for the common human being. No I take that back. Life is getting tougher for us all. Black, yellow, white or Olive.

 

[Tim Sheens]

didn’t think so

Yet you asked the question.

 

[Kaito]

I have no idea who the hard left are but I like them a lot more than the alt-right.

I didn't even vote last election and I probably
won't again in the referendum. I'm kind of over
it and want to leave it to others to scrap it out.
The focus and point of this referendum has
been masterfully distorted & lost on the good
people of Australia. It's genuinely unfortunate.
After being obliterated in the elections the LNP
are doing their best to scrape back some form
of respectability after a disastrous 10 years.
By doing they do best - making it a political game.

A point that seems to be missed or ignored by
a lot of no voters I've noticed. The hard left = hippies
/queers/climate & race activists vs hard-right,
nazis/racists/capitalists/conspiracy theorists.
it's obviously not that black & white but you get
the point anyway. This whole voice vote turned
from, "let's help our first nations & build our nation",
to "not enough info", to dissemination of false
info, to the inconceivable idea that "this is racist",
to "it costs so much & is a logistical nightmare".
Really makes you wonder sometimes anyway.

The hide to say yes voters dont understand or
are too emotional is preposterous & morally
wrong. The throwing around of words like
apartheid, socialism & communism make me
sick. Please refrain from quoting me 100 times
on here as well, I'm happy to engage with you
guys just needed to vent, its been a minute since
I've posted on here but have enjoyed the convo
and learnt a bit too on here 4 the most part.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

And not all No voters are dickheads. Wish it was true. Somehow I will always be a dickhead. I dont mind that.

 

[Kelce68]

Thanks for the response and I don't have time to go into the level of detail you have right now, but kudos to you for doing so!

I would vehemently disagree that the no vote is primarily rooted in logic. Far from it.

What we've been doing for decades hasn't been working well enough. That's an indisputable fact. Changes are needed. Another indisputable fact.

If laws were being made for education, teachers and their unions would be consulted. Same for nurses and other occupations. Why is it for matters relating to indigenous Australians that consultation is viewed as optional?

I think it's also impossible to deny the racial element. If one is joining the movement siding with Pauline Hanson, One Nation and neo-nazis what does that say about your own values? If one is supporting the same causes as them, how far removed are your values from theirs? Do no voters really feel that voting alongside these groups of people is representative of their core beliefs?

References to Dutton and Trumpism are also valid. Dutton is basing his campaign around fear and fake news, spreading lies. The same tactics that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon uses. Dutton is using the referendum to boost his political aspirations using dirty tactics to do so, at the expense of Indigenous Australians. It's also not as if the No campaign is putting forth a different option for recognition and communication to be considered. Then they could at least put a stake in the game and provide meaningful options to consider, but instead they rely on fear and lies. Sad that Australian politics is descending like this.

In the end to me it's illogical to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, that's why in this scenario change is the logical answer. It's an advisory board, not a military coup that can hold the country hostage. Yes there are some unknowns, as there is in everything in life. No crystal balls... Will the voice instantly fix everything? Of course not. Will it help bridge the gap over time? Hopefully. That's the aim. The success of it won't be fully realised for decades, so why waste any more time? Let's give them a say and hope the positive outcomes occur in due course.

Me either at this stage, but appreciate the effort of reply haha.

Just quickly -

If one is joining the movement siding with Pauline Hanson, One Nation and neo-nazis what does that say about your own values? If one is supporting the same causes as them, how far removed are your values from theirs?

To indicate how illogical this is, Hitler was a huge fan of dogs. As am I. Does that mean all my likes/dislikes and values are aligned with Hitler? Of course not.

Not only does whoever shares an opinion on a particular matter give no indication of their shared values on other matters, it doesn't tell of their motivation for holding that opinion, which can, and often is, wildly different from person to person.

If I were to vote no (undecided) and in the booth next to me was a self confessed neo-nazi (if you can find one) and they were to vote no, the only thing that it indicates is we voted a particular way on an issue when given two options.

It doesn't even indicate we have the same opinion on that very topic.

Secondly, in regards to the teachers' union examples, unfortunately, that's a really poor analogy.

One's occupation is a choice, is not an exclusionary group (meaning anybody can join), is definable and regulated (eg accreditation with the College of Teachers). Aboriginality, and all it entails, is an immutable characteristic that cannot be quanitifed, defined or regulated (don't dare ask someone what percentage they are).

So, as Misty pointed out, just as Unions are not privy to or enshrined in constitutional perpetuity despite actually being tangible, nor should an innate, indefinable trait that is self-assessed and exclusionary by nature, be anywhere near the constitution.

Indigenous matters are Australian matters. I agree that changes need to happen and that there are big issues, but this is not the start of a linear improvement process by default.

It is a placative distraction.

 

[Kaito]

And not all No voters are dickheads. Wish it was true. Somehow I will always be a dickhead. I dont mind that.

Yes, not all no voters are dickheads & neither
are you mate. No camp have brought up some
compelling points but to me it's doesn't pass
the litmus test. It's turned into a shit fight and
Labor party are partly to blame as well. They
should have known what was coming & planned
a bit better in my opinion, but here we are hey