Referendum 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kelce68 said:
Too much of that all round.

Though, it's the lack of engagement in discussion that is the bigger tell for an ill-informed opinion.

A refusal to engage in discourse, particularly on a contentious topic, is the domain of an incomplete person.
Click to expand...

The irony of saying that to Earl, who has everyone who disagrees with him in a political thread....on ignore! And Earl liked the post!!! Hilarious. The self awareness is at an all time low in this place.

Isnt it Earl? Earl??
 
AmericanHistoryX said:
Kaito. Did you make up your mind. Leaving or staying. No animosity. Just asking brother.
Click to expand...

Haha all good. Yeah hopefully, everything is pretty
much contingent on our tenders. Projects over
there at that scale usually take an age to start -
or they want them started tomorrow. Everyone
is on middle eastern time over there. You get
used 2 hearing/using the word inshallah a lot lol
 
I'm not qualified to determine what the logical steps are to take to begin improving the issues Aboriginal people face in their own country. But I know something is needed.

I don't see how there is any real downside to voting yes. Arguments to voting no just sound like the same opposition rhetoric as usual designed to leverage in built biases. Dutton is a master at it. Someone literally told me they think voting yes will make the price of things go up like there's a direct correlation somehow. People have just been manipulated into attaching their general dissatisfaction towards society to this current vote.

People seem to be angry at the ALP for the state of the economy and housing system and wish to penalise them via voting down the first genuine chance we've had to show our Aboriginal family that we want to improve the country for them. Even though the main no vote enthusiast was a key member of the government that has managed the country during the period of rot.

I'll be voting yes without any hesitation.
 
Winston Churchill said:
I bet you nobody voting YES will even bother watching that video. Why bother to watch a far right programme when they are already an all knowing morally superior being? Just ask formerguest.
Click to expand...

We are voting on whether we should write into the constitution that there should be a body named the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander voice that is permitted to make comment on and recommendations to the Australian parliament on matters that relate to them.

That is worth putting in the constitution. Forget detail and minutae. Why would you not want this to be constitutional? Please summarise your reason in a way I can understand.
 
Here is a random excerpt from the Australian constitution.

121. New States may be admitted or established

The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.

Vague. Who knows what crazy shit this might lead to. How does putting this in help? Whoever pushed for this probably had the agenda of wanting to create a separate paradise state for all the elite.

In practice... it's just a framework. A structure. It's a tool the legal system of Australia is forced to operate within the contexts of. The government's at every level then run the country under this ruleset.

Adding a Voice is a dope idea. Vote yes ffs.
 
101. Inter-State Commission

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.

This was a constitutionally appointed commission. The high court found it contravened the constitution and as a result line 101 of our constitution is now a relic.

So for those who wish to make the argument that if it turns out a bad idea we get stuck with it, no, just more fearmongering.

Not that "an Aboriginal voice" could ever actually truly be a bad thing for literally anyone.
 
If you familiarise yourself with the actual text of the constitution you will realise what sort of document that it is and most arguments about the merit of or lack thereof this proposed addition are ridiculously flawed and this argument had been turned into far more than the sum of itself.

https://www.aph.gov.au/constitution read it.

What we are being asked is nothing more than do you think Aboriginal people need a voice to parliament.

I would love to hear reasonable no arguments. I don't think they exist.

One of the key things people fail to realise is that Australia can't treaty with the "Aboriginals" because there is no such body to treaty with. The Aboriginal people of Australia are over 300 separate nations and language groups of differing levels of organisation themselves. That their opinions different from clan to clan is true but they all have in common that they are on the wrong end of almost every key metric from education to health to wealth to housing to crime. These people need more from us and this is a simple simple easy start and should absolutely be a no brainer.
 
a_dog said:
If you familiarise yourself with the actual text of the constitution you will realise what sort of document that it is and most arguments about the merit of or lack thereof this proposed addition are ridiculously flawed and this argument had been turned into far more than the sum of itself.

https://www.aph.gov.au/constitution read it.

What we are being asked is nothing more than do you think Aboriginal people need a voice to parliament.

I would love to hear reasonable no arguments. I don't think they exist.

One of the key things people fail to realise is that Australia can't treaty with the "Aboriginals" because there is no such body to treaty with. The Aboriginal people of Australia are over 300 separate nations and language groups of differing levels of organisation themselves. That their opinions different from clan to clan is true but they all have in common that they are on the wrong end of almost every key metric from education to health to wealth to housing to crime. These people need more from us and this is a simple simple easy start and should absolutely be a no brainer.
Click to expand...
This is one of the difficulities behind a treaty, but it can be done with one exception.

Some of the tribes are dead.
Yet I totally recognise how difficult such a task would be. When you have many different tribes and different groups, to even work out who to speak too is very hard.

It's one of the flaws in Lidia Thorpe, etc and the Greens policy* of Treaty before Voice. While the Treaty may be an end goal for some, it's a huge process.

The voice is straightforward and simple. As usual though the muck-wreckers in the Murdoch media want to hurt Australia. You would think after paying out the Billions in compensation that people would learn how silly the terrorgraph and sky news is.

*The Greens earlier adopted a policy of Treaty before Voice, contrary to the Uluru statement. This has switched to backing the voice.
 
balmain boy said:
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).
Click to expand...
So well said.
Notice how the right disregard Noel Pearson and Ken Wyatt.
It's very sad how they are being ignored when inconvient, yet were key people under Abbott, Morrison and Turnbull.

Dutton wants to kick a goal for the far right Fringe, that's all. Aboriginal Australia can suffer if it helps him get elected.
 
Kelce68 said:
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👍
Click to expand...
Nothing would ever get done if you think too negatively.
I guarantee you, doing Nothing will lead to nothing.

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,
Click to expand...
You get a stack of recommendations from those consultations when they happen. You hear forums with Domestic Violence survivours and it's "have/get a female officer if one is available", "don't close the help lines after midnight...(as DV happens after midnight)" or the one I pointed too "close the pub for 6 hours (as done in NSW) to stop days of binge drinking".

^None of that is "ineffective and nonsensical"... People who experience real shit, experience real shit!
It's the BS academic speak or Canberra brown nosing that leads to Nonsense.

A young Indigenous man is more likely to go to Jail (8.2%) vs go to University (3.5%)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10...an-jail-university-anthony-albanese/102932912

^That's a symptom of a huge amount of pain for Aboriginal communities. They are hurting badly. If your not Aboriginal you can afford to do nothing. It's the easy out, but leaves the big problems in the Aboriginal communities unchanged.
 
crazycat said:
Nothing would ever get done if you think too negatively.
I guarantee you, doing Nothing will lead to nothing.


You get a stack of recommendations from those consultations when they happen. You hear forums with Domestic Violence survivours and it's "have/get a female officer if one is available", "don't close the help lines after midnight...(as DV happens after midnight)" or the one I pointed too "close the pub for 6 hours (as done in NSW) to stop days of binge drinking".

^None of that is "ineffective and nonsensical"... People who experience real shit, experience real shit!
It's the BS academic speak or Canberra brown nosing that leads to Nonsense.

A young Indigenous man is more likely to go to Jail (8.2%) vs go to University (3.5%)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10...an-jail-university-anthony-albanese/102932912

^That's a symptom of a huge amount of pain for Aboriginal communities. They are hurting badly. If your not Aboriginal you can afford to do nothing. It's the easy out, but leaves the big problems in the Aboriginal communities unchanged.
Click to expand...
Other than the fact you completely missed the point I was making, you've just rolled out a veritable red carpet of tired talking points.

You've just fired your passion cannon at the wrong user, I have no idea where this enthusiastic ejaculation of red herrings has come from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,468 (members: 34, guests: 1,434)
Back
Top