Referendum 2023

[The Chad]

I'll probably just pay the $20

You could afford a kg of grapes for that

 

[Lauren]

This is an Activist led Money grab.

I am, We are all Australians.

With all due respect, the dollar holds different value (importance) in different communities. Redfern and Acacia Ridge are worlds apart from Hermannsburg, Hopevale or Wilcannia.
Therefore looking at it from that (another) angle, this is a way to ensure government funding is allocated more appropriately/accordingly and distributed fairly across all communities and regions - giving priority to the social issues requiring more urgent attention.
The further up or inland you go/travel the worse it gets. Some would only want a better quality of life (for themselves and their families) in terms of Housing, Health Care (services) and Education. Think it's important to say not all communities have social or public housing and there are basically low or no employment opportunities.

Btw @watersider you've been very polite, respectful and measured in all discussions surrounding the referendum. I personally appreciate your input on the topic.

 

[gallagher]

You could afford a kg of grapes for that

I get them from the winery up the road for bugger all.

 

[Jux]

With all due respect, the dollar holds different value (importance) in different communities. Redfern and Acacia Ridge are worlds apart from Hermannsburg, Hopevale or Wilcannia.
Therefore looking at it from that (another) angle, this is a way to ensure government funding is allocated more appropriately/accordingly and distributed fairly across all communities and regions - giving priority to the social issues requiring more urgent attention.
The further up or inland you go/travel the worse it gets. Some would only want a better quality of life (for themselves and their families) in terms of Housing, Health Care (services) and Education. Think it's important to say not all communities have social or public housing and there are basically low or no employment opportunities.

Btw @watersider you've been very polite, respectful and measured in all discussions surrounding the referendum. I personally appreciate your input on the topic.

With all due respect, the dollar holds different value (importance) in different communities. Redfern and Acacia Ridge are worlds apart from Hermannsburg, Hopevale or Wilcannia.
Therefore looking at it from that (another) angle, this is a way to ensure government funding is allocated more appropriately/accordingly and distributed fairly across all communities and regions - giving priority to the social issues requiring more urgent attention.
The further up or inland you go/travel the worse it gets. Some would only want a better quality of life (for themselves and their families) in terms of Housing, Health Care (services) and Education. Think it's important to say not all communities have social or public housing and there are basically low or no employment opportunities.

Btw @watersider you've been very polite, respectful and measured in all discussions surrounding the referendum. I personally appreciate your input on the topic.

I was just listening to Tom Switzer who interviewed a Yes advocate, and she was talking about potential complications of just having a symbolic recognition in the constitution. Link below. Basically, she said that with a vague and open-ended symbolic statement like that it could create confusion and uncertainty in the courts about implications for decision making. The whole debate around recognition was equally muddled when that went round and was resoundingly defeated in the last referendum. She also said that our constitution has little of that sort of symbolic language, and a much cleaner more practical approach is the current proposal. Tom Switzer's program is on the ABC, but he's an out and out right winger (he runs a right wing think tank) who I think is strongly opposed to the Voice but I think he runs an excellent program. If you find the interview with the Yes advocate too much, he then goes to Alexander Downer, who is a big No guy and he criticises the referendum on the basis of the racial divide he sees it causing. Anyway, worth a listen and does offer a different perspective on what you're saying there:

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/betweenthelines/between-the-lines/102753646

As for Albo being deceptive. I actually think it's just an issue with the proposal itself. Basically it is right that parliament be able to determine the design and execution of the voice, because that means they can change it if it proves to not work well. So he has said that the broad idea is that it be a representative body in which communities will choose the representatives, but that parliament will be the one to work out the details of that. If you have a rigid model put into the constitution it ties you to something that might not work. The current proposal can be changed, dismissed and adapted according to the whim of the government. Many on the left of this debate dislike this aspect of the model, but I see it as the best way. I could definitely see the way it ultimately gets worked out causing complications and perhaps needing refinement, but parliament would have the power to change if that's the case.

I basically think this proposal is as neat and clear and correct as it can be in terms of achieving its intention, that is a representative body for Indigenous people in the constitution. If you don't support that idea than that's understandable and reasonable, but I hope that the way it's packaged or the way politicians talk about it is not the thing that is getting in the way of you voting for something you would otherwise agree with.

I suppose if I have one frustration with this debate it's that on both sides we seem to get away from that fundamental question of whether we want a representative body for Indigenous people. In that way I respect Alexander Downer for his opinion, because he doesn't bother with the legal distractions, he's just fundamentally opposed to the idea, and that I think is an honest and fair and

I agree with you wholeheartedly Lauren. Watersider’s contribution is excellent and 💯 on point. I just hope he is wearing headgear as he keeps attacking that wall.

 

[Spartan117]

Who's calling you an invader mate?

Has someone said it's not your country, or it's not going to still be your country if there is a permanent advisory body for indigenous people?

I was part of a welcome to country speach given by a Sydney grandmother named Aunty Ding at a corporate event I was at recently.

We were told that it was her people's land, and I was a not connected to my home.

I was not a true Australian l.

This was the moment I moved from Yes to No.

 

[Winston Churchill]

Just talking for myself, but I feel this might count for a lot of people & probably is a good reason so many people are still undecided. When I read this:

"To propose alterations and additions to the text of the Australian Constitution, there are two fundamental principles that need consideration before embarking on the exercise: the designation of authority, and the principle of the separation of power."

I have zero concept of what people are talking about. And just shut down.

If I can't figure out what people are trying to sell me right away, by hiding it behind general observations of the weather or behind fancy terminology in order to either make themselves look smart or to baffle those that don't quite grasp what they are saying...I lose interest.

I've seen so many things about voting yes or no- and they nearly all end up saying nothing that the average punter wants to know.

What will it do? If another person tells me it gives aboriginals a voice in parliament but then brush away my question on "isn't that what elected aboriginal members in parliament have?" as if I don't know what I'm talking about...I'm going to lose interest in their argument too.

If someone tells me it's bad because....reasons...but can't tell me exactly what will happen, good or bad...I'm going to stop listening to them too.

What I've decided is- this is a nice distraction from the issues that are really killing Australia today. Cost of living. New employees with no experience being paid equal to staff that have 10 years experience on them because the lack of workers lets their demands & expectations escalate, housing & rental price hokes, fuel costs, grapes are $17.99 a kg...while we focus on a 'voice' like Obi Wan in the government's ear reminding them that aboriginals are part of the community too.

The people selling it need to do better. Dummies like me have no idea what they have on offer & stopped listening after the second sentence.

Great post Chad, hit the nail on the head. I'm sure the majority of aussies are in the same boat.

 

[Spartan117]

The voice architects said that will.make Australia pay, That's what a treaty is.

"Politicians will Fear us"

Wheres that Thomas Mayo video?

 

[watersider]

I was part of a welcome to country speach given by a Sydney grandmother named Aunty Ding at a corporate event I was at recently.

We were told that it was her people's land, and I was a not connected to my home.

I was not a true Australian l.

This was the moment I moved from Yes to No.

Hahaha, how did that 'welcome' go down with the corporates? They probably wanted something a little bit bland and more digestible.

I don't feel her response is representative of all or even anywhere near a majority of indigenous people, though no doubt there are many indigenous people who do feel that way.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities​

• Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.
• Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities.
• To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process.

Doesnt matter.......

to quote the actual proposed amendment to the Constitution.....

"the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures."

The Federal Government has the power to change the people on the Voice.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Are you guys that are upset about potential implications of power of the voice over our democracy also concerned about our situation as a constitutional monarchy? We've already seen our government dismissed by governer general in recent history.

I personally do not think the voice, an advisory body with no power and at the whim of parliament, is such a threat, but happy to accept others interpretation on it.

Obviously, we all know the monarchy DOES right now have powers over our democratically elected processes and so was curious if this is an issue for you? That sounds judgy but I am just curious about thoughts and how it fits with your thinking on this.

Firstly, unlike the proposed Voice, the reserve powers of the Governor General are clearly defined, set in stone and unequivocal so we at least know what they are. There were also changed after 1975.

 

[Wearyfan22]

The Voice empowers bureaucracy over democracy
Christopher Reynolds

Getty Images
26 August 2023 5:00 AM

The Australian people will soon be asked through a national referendum to alter the Constitution to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

It is proposed that non-elected representatives of a racially identified cohort called ‘First Peoples’ be a Voice-committee-of-oversight to determine the course of parliamentary and executive government decisions and actions. It is proposed that a new Chapter IX – Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, be added to the Constitution, and that the government be trusted to devise the text without public foreknowledge. Further, there is no definition provided for the cohort referred to as ‘First Peoples’ – a term alien to Australia or the traditional Aborigines of this continent.

To propose alterations and additions to the text of the Australian Constitution, there are two fundamental principles that need consideration before embarking on the exercise: the designation of authority, and the principle of the separation of power.

The Constitution defines the structure of government for the nation of Australia. To cite a party (entity, body, or person), in the Constitution is, ipso facto, to delegate power, authority, and responsibility to that party. The moment a party is mentioned in the Constitution, that party is placed alongside and in relationship to the other parties in the document. To mention a party in the Constitution is to ascribe power, but to ascribe a party with the title ‘First Peoples’ is to not only ascribe power, but also priority.

The second consideration is that of the democratic principle of the separation of powers. Australia has a democratic form of government based on the principle of the separation of powers, as does Canada, Britain, the United States of America, Ireland, New Zealand, India, Japan, Italy, and many more. The division of power in a democratic system separates the legislature (Parliament), the executive (government) and the judiciary (courts) and thereby creates checks and balances. This system goes all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215 by King John and his barons wherein the document effectively limited the power of the executive (sovereign king). The principles of this 800-year-old document are still fundamental to the operation of state and Commonwealth government in Australia. It is the basis of what is often referred to as the rule of law.

The proposal to create, by way of an extra Chapter in the Constitution, a Voice committee to oversee the Parliament and the executive is to create a fourth tier to the structure of democratic government and to neutralise the ancient tradition of the separation of powers.



(A democratic system of government will be replaced in Australia with a form of totalitarian government whereby the Australian Parliament and Executive will be rendered subservient to the wishes and directives of the Voice committee.)



Until now, we have had a democratic form of government across the states and Commonwealth where one person had one vote. The Voice system of government will mean one vote equals very little to nothing and representative government will be undermined as decisions by elected representatives will be vetted by the unelected Voice committee: a committee that will be a fully funded para-Parliament.

When Arthur Phillip arrived in Australia, it was the Declaration of February 7, 1788 with the reading of King George III Letters Patent that established British government and British law over this continent. It was the first time in history that such a declaration of sovereign rule included benevolence towards the inhabitants whereby they were immediately considered British subjects, equal under the law and with equal rights to all other British subjects. And it was the first time in history that slavery was banned.

In 1855, the Constitution of New South Wales was made law, allowing for self-government in the colony. Constitutions for the other colonies soon followed, as did secret ballot elections – later known as the Australian ballot as the system was first introduced in Australia. In 1900, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act passed the British Parliament, which was inaugurated here in 1901 as a federation of the states. Aborigines first got a ‘voice’ to Parliament in 1856, along with everyone else, and Aborigines voted in the referendum for Federation, along with everyone else.

Reviewing the discussion on the ‘voice debate’, it is reasonable to conclude, as Anthony Albanese’s tee-shirt declared the night he attended a Midnight Oil concert, that the Voice will lead to Treaty and to Truth-Telling, where Voice has to do with power, Treaty is to do with money – compensation and taxes, and Truth-Telling involves education and children.

The recent Pathway to Treaty Act, 2023, in Queensland, clearly declares that the ‘First Nations’ cohort (not defined) do not see themselves as Australians but claim to be a separate sovereign power who are claiming Crown land as their own and want Australians to pay taxes (rents) to live on and have homes on, ‘First Nations’ land. Since ‘compensation’ has also been mentioned in the context of the proposed Voice referendum, it follows that treaty and ‘truth-telling’ are also in line for legislation by the Commonwealth Government. The recent enactment of the Western Australian Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act of 2021, is also a sign of things to come.

The proposal to create a Voice to Parliament and acceptance of the Uluru Statement is nothing short of a government-sponsored succession from the Commonwealth.

The hidden objective is to recognise and empower a separate sovereign state to oversee the government of Australia.

Now, we may see debate and difference of opinion expressed under our current system of government and in our parliaments, but we have a functioning democracy with a separation of powers system for checks and balances with regular elections to change a government if the majority of the population so determine.

What is being proposed is a social, political, and legal experiment. It is the most dangerous threat to our democracy and system of government since Federation in 1901.

Dr Christopher Reynolds is the author of What a Capital Idea – Australia 1770-1901

This article is deliberately convoluted and full of misinformation and pearl clutching. It is ironic that many of the countries he mentions already have constitutional recognition and Treaty with their First Nations people.

The voice question is "to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice."

The voice being advisory body that is enshrined in the Constitution so it cannot be done away with at the whim of government to government.

It's not a fourth chamber of government. It does not have legal or constitutional power to override government. It's look and design with be legislated by the government.

We have Aboriginal politicians elected. They do not solely represent Aboriginal people. They represent their party and their electorate.

Look past the misinformation and the noise. Look past your own political preferences. Vote on the question as it is presented, whether that be yes or no.

If anyone cares, the biggest reason I'm voting yes is for a prominent body to keep governments accountable for their decision making. The Voice will also put accountability and responsibility back onto Aboriginal people when it comes to decisions that directly effect them. This is because governments have done a pretty awful job of this up until now.

 

[twentyforty]

NIAA, You mean the body that is funded to the tune of $4.5 Billion in the last Financial Year?

Last I heard it was going to remain. I mean how many of these Bodies and Corporations do we need and we still have the same problems in Indigenous Communities.

How many more voices do we need?

The difference is the Voice doesn’t have any power, all they can do is advise parliament and business apparently, they are an activist group within the constitution.
Where as the NIAA is a service agency, which formulates policy and provides on the ground realistic assistance, such as monitoring and improving programs like ’close the gap’ and ‘jobs land and economy’ designed to assist communities to become more self sufficient. It‘s possibly working to some extent if the NIAA budget is dropping.
Im sorry if I offend anyone, but at this point, I see the NIAA as a practical solution as opposed to the symbolic solution proposed by this referendum.
Im willing to change my mind if more information comes to hand?

 

[Wearyfan22]

The difference is the Voice doesn’t have any power, all they can do is advise parliament and business apparently, they are an activist group within the constitution.
Where as the NIAA is a service agency, which formulates policy and provides on the ground realistic assistance, such as monitoring and improving programs like ’close the gap’ and ‘jobs land and economy’ designed to assist communities to become more self sufficient. It‘s possibly working to some extent if the NIAA budget is dropping.
Im sorry if I offend anyone, but at this point, I see the NIAA as a practical solution as opposed to the symbolic solution proposed by this referendum.
Im willing to change my mind if more information comes to hand?

There is no world where you can argue what has been done up to this point worked. It's time for something different. By having a public platform, the Voice can hold government to account. In the same vein, it's brings accountability back to Aboriginal people. As it puts them at the centre of decision making.

 

[Wearyfan22]

Just talking for myself, but I feel this might count for a lot of people & probably is a good reason so many people are still undecided. When I read this:

"To propose alterations and additions to the text of the Australian Constitution, there are two fundamental principles that need consideration before embarking on the exercise: the designation of authority, and the principle of the separation of power."

I have zero concept of what people are talking about. And just shut down.

If I can't figure out what people are trying to sell me right away, by hiding it behind general observations of the weather or behind fancy terminology in order to either make themselves look smart or to baffle those that don't quite grasp what they are saying...I lose interest.

I've seen so many things about voting yes or no- and they nearly all end up saying nothing that the average punter wants to know.

What will it do? If another person tells me it gives aboriginals a voice in parliament but then brush away my question on "isn't that what elected aboriginal members in parliament have?" as if I don't know what I'm talking about...I'm going to lose interest in their argument too.

If someone tells me it's bad because....reasons...but can't tell me exactly what will happen, good or bad...I'm going to stop listening to them too.

What I've decided is- this is a nice distraction from the issues that are really killing Australia today. Cost of living. New employees with no experience being paid equal to staff that have 10 years experience on them because the lack of workers lets their demands & expectations escalate, housing & rental price hokes, fuel costs, grapes are $17.99 a kg...while we focus on a 'voice' like Obi Wan in the government's ear reminding them that aboriginals are part of the community too.

The people selling it need to do better. Dummies like me have no idea what they have on offer & stopped listening after the second sentence.

To be fair mate you are reading an article riddled with misinformation outlining a "no" perspective. The author has used convoluted and technical language with the purpose of getting the exact response that you have given. "This is too complicated and hard to understand therefore I'm voting no". Refer to my post above for a simple reason why I'm voting yes.

 

[bptiger 0]

With all due respect, the dollar holds different value (importance) in different communities. Redfern and Acacia Ridge are worlds apart from Hermannsburg, Hopevale or Wilcannia.
Therefore looking at it from that (another) angle, this is a way to ensure government funding is allocated more appropriately/accordingly and distributed fairly across all communities and regions - giving priority to the social issues requiring more urgent attention.
The further up or inland you go/travel the worse it gets. Some would only want a better quality of life (for themselves and their families) in terms of Housing, Health Care (services) and Education. Think it's important to say not all communities have social or public housing and there are basically low or no employment opportunities.

Btw @watersider you've been very polite, respectful and measured in all discussions surrounding the referendum. I personally appreciate your input on the topic.

I have to disagree about public housing, there is always house built for them put they trash them , I was just talking to a bloke who works in far north gld , he’s been there for two years and he was telling us that the houses don’t last for more than a couple of months then they have to restore them , they don’t want to live like we do so why not ask them what they want and give them that , rather the wasting all that money

 

[twentyforty]

Just talking for myself, but I feel this might count for a lot of people & probably is a good reason so many people are still undecided. When I read this:

"To propose alterations and additions to the text of the Australian Constitution, there are two fundamental principles that need consideration before embarking on the exercise: the designation of authority, and the principle of the separation of power."

I have zero concept of what people are talking about. And just shut down.

If I can't figure out what people are trying to sell me right away, by hiding it behind general observations of the weather or behind fancy terminology in order to either make themselves look smart or to baffle those that don't quite grasp what they are saying...I lose interest.

I've seen so many things about voting yes or no- and they nearly all end up saying nothing that the average punter wants to know.

What will it do? If another person tells me it gives aboriginals a voice in parliament but then brush away my question on "isn't that what elected aboriginal members in parliament have?" as if I don't know what I'm talking about...I'm going to lose interest in their argument too.

If someone tells me it's bad because....reasons...but can't tell me exactly what will happen, good or bad...I'm going to stop listening to them too.

What I've decided is- this is a nice distraction from the issues that are really killing Australia today. Cost of living. New employees with no experience being paid equal to staff that have 10 years experience on them because the lack of workers lets their demands & expectations escalate, housing & rental price hokes, fuel costs, grapes are $17.99 a kg...while we focus on a 'voice' like Obi Wan in the government's ear reminding them that aboriginals are part of the community too.

The people selling it need to do better. Dummies like me have no idea what they have on offer & stopped listening after the second sentence.

You’re in good company Chad, I feel the same way. 😂
Could it be that dummies like you and me account for the majority of the population?

 

[Spartan117]

Hahaha, how did that 'welcome' go down with the corporates? They probably wanted something a little bit bland and more digestible.

I don't feel her response is representative of all or even anywhere near a majority of indigenous people, though no doubt there are many indigenous people who do feel that way.

Respect @watersider

My colleagues didn't even hear it, the company is like most.

I feel we need to stay equal.to me it's reverse racism.

Thanks to all for a very respectful debate here on the WTF

 

[Tucker]

Therefore looking at it from that (another) angle, this is a way to ensure government funding is allocated more appropriately/accordingly and distributed fairly across all communities and regions - giving priority to the social issues requiring more urgent attention.

It works in theory, heavily doubt it works in practice.

The further up or inland you go/travel the worse it gets. Some would only want a better quality of life (for themselves and their families) in terms of Housing, Health Care (services) and Education. Think it's important to say not all communities have social or public housing and there are basically low or no employment opportunities.

I live in FNQ and have spent my life travelling and living in the top end.
If often travel west and spend time in camps and stations as I go.
There is plenty of housing, plenty of work, plenty of benefits, huge health care pushes with dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander clinics and marketing drives on stuff like smoking, post natal care, drinking and domestic violence prevention.
It is a city perspective that they are forgotten about. They are provided with far more than poor non indigenous living in the same areas.

 

[Tucker]

I have to disagree about public housing, there is always house built for them put they trash them , I was just talking to a bloke who works in far north gld , he’s been there for two years and he was telling us that the houses don’t last for more than a couple of months then they have to restore them , they don’t want to live like we do so why not ask them what they want and give them that , rather the wasting all that money

100% accurate.
To tell another story, I have a mate working as a diesel mechanic on a very prominent station. Part of his job is too travel out into the dessert and fetch the odd vehicle that has been left out there. They are usually government funded brand new Landcruisers that have been left on the side of the road where they ran out of fuel.
Chucking money at problems doesn’t work. NO ONE appreciates free money as much as money they’ve earned.

 

[full80]

This article is deliberately convoluted and full of misinformation and pearl clutching. It is ironic that many of the countries he mentions already have constitutional recognition and Treaty with their First Nations people.

The voice question is "to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice."

The voice being advisory body that is enshrined in the Constitution so it cannot be done away with at the whim of government to government.

It's not a fourth chamber of government. It does not have legal or constitutional power to override government. It's look and design with be legislated by the government.

We have Aboriginal politicians elected. They do not solely represent Aboriginal people. They represent their party and their electorate.

Look past the misinformation and the noise. Look past your own political preferences. Vote on the question as it is presented, whether that be yes or no.

If anyone cares, the biggest reason I'm voting yes is for a prominent body to keep governments accountable for their decision making. The Voice will also put accountability and responsibility back onto Aboriginal people when it comes to decisions that directly effect them. This is because governments have done a pretty awful job of this up until now.

I'm voting yes as well. The Australian constitution already has a 'race' power as part of it, where the government is allowed to make laws that only apply to a specified race. As far as I can read it, 'division' is already baked into our constitution.

Politicians already make decisions that specifically affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people, using this race power. This would just give those affected a say in what those policies should be. A say that can be ignored by the government. Like when they make laws that affect superannuants they consult the superannuation lobby.

The reason it's important that it is put in the Constitution is that twice previously, in the 80s and 90s a government has abolished the body set up to advise on Aboriginal policies. If it is in the Constitution it can't be abolished by a particular government. It's a modest ask from the oldest living culture to recognise they were the original inhabitants and would like to consult on policies that affect them.

I really feel like the outcome will not have an affect on 97% of the population but could potentially have a huge affect on the 3%.