Referendum 2023

[twentyforty]

She is a disgusting pig of a woman.
Can you imagine she was white and saying all this stuff about about Aboriginals?
Australia should be concerned that this person who is in a position of influence is a classic racist. She thinks black and white are at war. We have to take her platform away.

Do you think it’s possible Lidia Thorpe could be on the Voice?

 

[Magpie_Magic]

I just want to touch on the idea of reparations and a treaty in relation to this referendum.

Several no campaigners believe that voting no will make this process go quicker. So a no vote will enable quicker resolution to this process as there is no need to set up the new process post the referendum.

I have the impression that a whole bunch of no voters are voting no because they believe there is already too much spent on Indigenous people and they don't want to spend more money. My understanding is that we currently spend about $5b per year on Indigenous affairs which is less than 1% of the budget. The savings from voting no will be trivial and I don't think it will stop this process moving forward.

So if we vote yes we get changes to the constitution and a way forward towards a treaty and reparations. If we vote no some people believe we get to this process more quickly.

At some point though we will have to face reparations and a treaty.

A no vote will not stop this process.
A yes vote may or may not enable this process.

There is no difference between having the treaty and reparations go forward in relation to a change in the referendum as parliament will have to approve this no matter what.

Reparations huh. Wow, so this is what it's all about. And I'm a yes voter.

The constitution is clear. In many respects we are still a colony of the British.

With that being the case, bearing in mind all genocidal acts, lack of franchise, injustices etc.....all of this was a responsibility of the British whose laws applied and whose law enforcement prevailed.

If it is termed Australia was invaded, again this was a British action. If deemed illegal reparations are to be appropriated from the crown.

It was their responsibility as Australia was under British jurisdiction at the time of colonisation, through the colonial era and even after federation remembering that the Governor-General was nominal Head of State .

Indigenous people can sue the  crown for damages .

 

[hugh1954]

A BIG NO to dividing us on race

 

[Kaito]

Voice isn't about reparations/black sovereignty.
Why muddy the waters? It's an advisory body
that will advise on issues, which will then
be debated/argued about in parliament.
24 members would have to agree on it which
is highly unlikely. Can't see a motion being
put forth anytime soon, especially when
you consider that Warren Mundine and
Jacinta Price would want a seat at the table
if the yes vote wins and a voice is established.
Talk of reperations isn't exclusive to, but
comes from no voters (black sovereignty)
indigenous voters so yeah, there's that chestnut

 

[hugh1954]

Yes with one major difference.
This “advisory body” has to get out of its office and travel remote.
The Aboriginal culture for elders relies on yarns. Face to face meetings and discussions. The voice reps may be capital city based? but will be required to travel to complete their work. They are going to either require more hours in the day, or an army of subordinants.
Just how big this gets is a big question.

Won't happen you expect the entitled activists to actually work

 

[earl]

Life is a zero sum game.

Not it's not.

We spend less than 1% of our budget on Indigenous affairs. So even if you think this way you have this issue completely out of perspective. There are heaps of other spending issues to focus on.

I understand that this is what I'm hearing as the no 1 reason to vote no but it seems ridiculous to me. Less than 1% of your tax dollars.

 

[Magpie_Magic]

Voice isn't about reparations/black sovereignty.
Why muddy the waters? It's an advisory body
that will advise on issues, which will then
be debated/argued about in parliament.
24 members would have to agree on it which
is highly unlikely. Can't see a motion being
put forth anytime soon, especially when
you consider that Warren Mundine and
Jacinta Price would want a seat at the table
if the yes vote wins and a voice is established.
Talk of reperations isn't exclusive to, but
comes from no voters (black sovereignty)
indigenous voters so yeah, there's that chestnut

I agree and thought this initially as I didn't delve to deeply into the matter.

But the longer it goes.

I mean you mentioned previously your parents migrated here. Likewise for mine.

What on earth would reparations have to do with our ancestry which also suffered some minor discrimination.

My parents spent a couple of years in Albury Woodonga camps in the 50s.

What has any migrant post 1900 have to do with aboriginal injustices?

 

[Kaito]

I agree and thought this initially as I didn't delve to deeply into the matter.

But the longer it goes.

I mean you mentioned previously your parents migrated here. Likewise for mine.

What on earth would reparations have to do with our ancestry which also suffered some minor discrimination.

My parents spent a couple of years in Albury Woodonga camps in the 50s.

What has any migrant post 1900 have to do with aboriginal injustices?

Honestly, it's a joke. Don't even want to spend
time on the idea of reperations bro it's a joke

 

[earl]

We can’t reverse history, all we can do for each other is ease the pain and shape the future.

Agreed.

That’s what this referendum is all about, shaping the future, and closing the door behind so there’s no turning back.
I would prefer that the activists start by developing their own agency if they’re not happy with the NIAA for whatever reason. After a few years we could review this agency’s level of success in advising Businesses and Government.
The advocation that we’re (Australians) giving a group of activists free reign to effectively behave like a union under the constitution and without a way to claw back if it’s found to be not achieving the high volumes of love, harmony and substantial progress with existing programs like ‘close the gap, and is irreversible, surely is a mistake.

I don't understand why you use the word activists. It's coming from Indigenous people. I also don't think you've represented correctly what is happening. They definitely don't have free reign and I don't understand why they get to behave like a union.

In stating that I do understand the issue of changing the constitution being harder to change back. This is listed as an advantage by the yes side though.

 

[Tucker]

Do you think it’s possible Lidia Thorpe could be on the Voice?

Maybe not necessarily her, but certainly people like her.

 

[earl]

You'd be wrong by a factor of 6, and that is based upon numbers almost a decade old.

2014 Indigenous Expenditure Report

The problem is that I'm not convinced by that report.

Indigenous affairs

Budget Review October 2022–23 Index Sally McNicol This article considers Indigenous-specific measures across portfolios in the Budget October 2022–23, and other measures relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Measures covered include health, housing

www.aph.gov.au

This is stating the figure I quoted.

Who is right and why is this the case ?

It'd be great if there was an expert in this who wasn't biased to give a breakdown. It's hard to debate your points because I don't trust the data you've provided especially when the figures that I link to are the federal government and up to date.
https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/indig...t/2014/indigenous-expenditure-report-2014.pdf

Treaties are between Sovereign States. Which Sovereign State would the Commonwealth be entering a Treaty with?

I'm not sure how they'll do it but I can't see it going away. I'll add this is actually happening anyway at a state level so it's definitely achievable.

Interestingly some Indigenous (Warren Mundine included) no voters are stating a no vote will enable a treaty to be processed more quickly.

In regards to reparations, who do we pay them to? How will the lucky recipients be determined?

I assume this is what the advisory bodies will focus on. I assume we vote yes it comes from that process. If not another advisory body.

One thing I find interesting is why there seems to be such a push back to letting Indigenous people manage these processes. I prefer this. If it doesn't work it's the Indigenous bodies fault and not societies fault.

I don't want to sound harsh but any person playing the victim (not necessarily Indigenous people) who is made accountable for their own problems has no one else to blame for the way their lives have turned out.

I only see positives in relation to having Indigenous people manage these processes.

 

[Magpie_Magic]

My thoughts so far on this whole Yes / No vote , it will put a divide in this country more than what there is currently , It’s hard when you have aboriginals on both sides , send a mixed message on what is right and wrong for them

Yeah that's what will happen.

But maybe that's what Albanese wants as he can avoid attempting to fix the tough issues.

 

[earl]

That's because inter-generational trauma is not a real thing.

Smart highly educated experts disagree.

 

[Tucker]

Voice isn't about reparations/black sovereignty.
Why muddy the waters? It's an advisory body
that will advise on issues, which will then
be debated/argued about in parliament.
24 members would have to agree on it which
is highly unlikely. Can't see a motion being
put forth anytime soon, especially when
you consider that Warren Mundine and
Jacinta Price would want a seat at the table
if the yes vote wins and a voice is established.
Talk of reperations isn't exclusive to, but
comes from no voters (black sovereignty)
indigenous voters so yeah, there's that chestnut

The Voice isn’t about reparations, but it’s the first step towards them.
The Uluṟu Statement from the Heart makes this abundantly clear.
Voice, Treaty, Reparations. That’s the recommendations from that report.
It isn’t a conspiracy theory. People are aware of the intentions.
I don’t necessarily think saying no to the voice will stop this movement, it is well underway, but I can see why people are concerned.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Voice isn't about reparations/black sovereignty.
Why muddy the waters? It's an advisory body
that will advise on issues, which will then
be debated/argued about in parliament.
24 members would have to agree on it which
is highly unlikely. Can't see a motion being
put forth anytime soon, especially when
you consider that Warren Mundine and
Jacinta Price would want a seat at the table
if the yes vote wins and a voice is established.
Talk of reperations isn't exclusive to, but
comes from no voters (black sovereignty)
indigenous voters so yeah, there's that chestnut

Recognition in the constitution and a permanent advisory body, that's it, nothing more, nothing less. Everything pretending it is otherwise, is fear based spin.

Want to talk about reparations, how about our head of state and family benefits to this day from slavery, whilst their fellow slave owning countrymen and rich families were paid reparations for their loss of human product.

In the US, similar to some arguing against a voice here, continually whine about peoples wanting to cross a river back into the lands taken off their ancestors.

 

[earl]

Honestly, it's a joke. Don't even want to spend
time on the idea of reperations bro it's a joke

Is it ?

The Uluru statement mentions:-

1. A voice
2. A treaty
3. Truth telling.

Would a treaty include reparations ? Do you realize and do the no voters realize that some Indigenous people believe a no vote will help fast track the other two components ?

I accept it's the first step but the idea that this first step isn't also about the other steps doesn't seem to concur with the way a lot of Indigenous people are viewing the situation.

 

[earl]

Recognition in the constitution and a permanent advisory body, that's it, nothing more, nothing less. Everything pretending it is otherwise, is fear based spin.

I think you are right but we should discuss it rationally and calmly. It's mentioned on this video as well.

 

[twentyforty]

Yes with one major difference.
This “advisory body” has to get out of its office and travel remote.
The Aboriginal culture for elders relies on yarns. Face to face meetings and discussions. The voice reps may be capital city based? but will be required to travel to complete their work. They are going to either require more hours in the day, or an army of subordinants.
Just how big this gets is a big question.

There will need to be hundreds? They’re asking for research analysts and a variety of other office workers. When asked how they would interact with the NIAA, the response was ‘with respect.’
At this stage all we know about these people is that they will be offering advice to Business and Governments.

 

[TillLindemann]

Smart highly educated experts disagree.

'smart'.
As I said, there is not a society or culture on earth that hasn't experienced all of these horrors in their history. If anything the Australian experience was quite moderate.

Why would someone in Australia have worse 'trauma' from events 200 years ago than someone in Europe whose family just in the 20th century might have gone from imperial domination (e.g by Austro-Hungarian empire) to mass bloodshed in the war to end all wars, followed by the Great Depression, followed by Bolshevik colonisation, followed by another World War and Nazi occupation and mass murder, followed by Soviet colonisation and more mass murder.

Academic wankers only talk about 'generational trauma' when talking about specific minority groups because it serves their political agenda, not because they're genuinely interested in trauma.

 

[colinbh]

Not it's not.

We spend less than 1% of our budget on Indigenous affairs. So even if you think this way you have this issue completely out of perspective. There are heaps of other spending issues to focus on.

I understand that this is what I'm hearing as the no 1 reason to vote no but it seems ridiculous to me. Less than 1% of your tax dollars.

30 billion a year for 3% of the population???

Some of those 3% " identify " as indigenous when they may not be genuine.

A full inquiry and audit must be carried out on this ongoing expenditure.