Referendum 2023

[hank37w]

Well said the voice should only be legislated do not touch the constitution

There is to much shady dealings by design to be not deliberate about not being allowed to ask questions and all the information should be on the table 6 months before the vote to have an open discussionits to important not to

100% correct, there is no way that the constitution should be changed.

Imagine the problems that were created with things like the Aboriginal Heritage Act in Western Australia.

The Woke do-gooders thought that was a wonderful thing until all the greedy and ridiculous claims started pouring in.

Fortunately in that case it was legislated and they were able to put a stop to that absurdity before it completely destroyed the state.

Just think about the 40,000 land claims that are on the books in New South Wales alone and how things could could go badly with a change to the Constitution that no one can 100% say how it will work or how far reaching it might be and that cannot be undone without another referendum.

Look at the billions of dollars that are already being spent on Aboriginal Corporations which number into the thousands in this country along with more than 100 Government Departments that deal with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues.

It seems that the serious issues with Indigenous Communities have pretty much been identified but what have the Woke Greeny Governments actually done to solve these issue and don't talk to me about that piece of garbage Albo who had to get dragged kicking and screaming to go to the Northern Territory to see what was happening there and then only spent a couple of hours there.

The lying hypocritical piece of garbage human being that is Albo is only interested in this Voice being his legacy and going down in history as some sort of hero.

Get off your arse and fix the problems that are already identified instead of creating another tax payer funded body that you cannot explain how it will work or how much more it will cost the already suffering tax payers of this country and even worse cannot be undone when it proves to be a total disaster pretty much like everything else that you touch.

Guess what, I will be voting NO, not a tick, not a cross, just NO. Surely this does not make me a racist, but I'm sure that some will choose to call me one anyway.

 

[Enmore_Tiger]

100% correct, there is no way that the constitution should be changed.

Imagine the problems that were created with things like the Aboriginal Heritage Act in Western Australia.

The Woke do-gooders thought that was a wonderful thing until all the greedy and ridiculous claims started pouring in.

Fortunately in that case it was legislated and they were able to put a stop to that absurdity before it completely destroyed the state.

Just think about the 40,000 land claims that are on the books in New South Wales alone and how things could could go badly with a change to the Constitution that no one can 100% say how it will work or how far reaching it might be and that cannot be undone without another referendum.

Look at the billions of dollars that are already being spent on Aboriginal Corporations which number into the thousands in this country along with more than 100 Government Departments that deal with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues.

It seems that the serious issues with Indigenous Communities have pretty much been identified but what have the Woke Greeny Governments actually done to solve these issue and don't talk to me about that piece of garbage Albo who had to get dragged kicking and screaming to go to the Northern Territory to see what was happening there and then only spent a couple of hours there.

The lying hypocritical piece of garbage human being that is Albo is only interested in this Voice being his legacy and going down in history as some sort of hero.

Get off your arse and fix the problems that are already identified instead of creating another tax payer funded body that you cannot explain how it will work or how much more it will cost the already suffering tax payers of this country and even worse cannot be undone when it proves to be a total disaster pretty much like everything else that you touch.

Guess what, I will be voting NO, not a tick, not a cross, just NO. Surely this does not make me a racist, but I'm sure that some will choose to call me one anyway.

100% correct, there is no way that the constitution should be changed.

Imagine the problems that were created with things like the Aboriginal Heritage Act in Western Australia.

The Woke do-gooders thought that was a wonderful thing until all the greedy and ridiculous claims started pouring in.

Fortunately in that case it was legislated and they were able to put a stop to that absurdity before it completely destroyed the state.

Just think about the 40,000 land claims that are on the books in New South Wales alone and how things could could go badly with a change to the Constitution that no one can 100% say how it will work or how far reaching it might be and that cannot be undone without another referendum.

Look at the billions of dollars that are already being spent on Aboriginal Corporations which number into the thousands in this country along with more than 100 Government Departments that deal with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues.

It seems that the serious issues with Indigenous Communities have pretty much been identified but what have the Woke Greeny Governments actually done to solve these issue and don't talk to me about that piece of garbage Albo who had to get dragged kicking and screaming to go to the Northern Territory to see what was happening there and then only spent a couple of hours there.

The lying hypocritical piece of garbage human being that is Albo is only interested in this Voice being his legacy and going down in history as some sort of hero.

Get off your arse and fix the problems that are already identified instead of creating another tax payer funded body that you cannot explain how it will work or how much more it will cost the already suffering tax payers of this country and even worse cannot be undone when it proves to be a total disaster pretty much like everything else that you touch.

Guess what, I will be voting NO, not a tick, not a cross, just NO. Surely this does not make me a racist, but I'm sure that some will choose to call me one anyway.

100% correct, there is no way that the constitution should be changed.

Imagine the problems that were created with things like the Aboriginal Heritage Act in Western Australia.

The Woke do-gooders thought that was a wonderful thing until all the greedy and ridiculous claims started pouring in.

Fortunately in that case it was legislated and they were able to put a stop to that absurdity before it completely destroyed the state.

Just think about the 40,000 land claims that are on the books in New South Wales alone and how things could could go badly with a change to the Constitution that no one can 100% say how it will work or how far reaching it might be and that cannot be undone without another referendum.

Look at the billions of dollars that are already being spent on Aboriginal Corporations which number into the thousands in this country along with more than 100 Government Departments that deal with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues.

It seems that the serious issues with Indigenous Communities have pretty much been identified but what have the Woke Greeny Governments actually done to solve these issue and don't talk to me about that piece of garbage Albo who had to get dragged kicking and screaming to go to the Northern Territory to see what was happening there and then only spent a couple of hours there.

The lying hypocritical piece of garbage human being that is Albo is only interested in this Voice being his legacy and going down in history as some sort of hero.

Get off your arse and fix the problems that are already identified instead of creating another tax payer funded body that you cannot explain how it will work or how much more it will cost the already suffering tax payers of this country and even worse cannot be undone when it proves to be a total disaster pretty much like everything else that you touch.

Guess what, I will be voting NO, not a tick, not a cross, just NO. Surely this does not make me a racist, but I'm sure that some will choose to call me one anyway.

Woke, greeny, do-gooder... you make it hard to focus on your possibly valid points.

 

[Enmore_Tiger]

I don't trust anything politicians say as we always cop it up the arse. I have lived in remote communities including Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Leonora for a total of 15 years and all of the people there cop it up the arse regardless of their race. I even worked for an Aboriginal Health Corporation in Tennant Creek as IT Manager for 2 years and the waste of money I saw was unbelievable. Saying yes to this is like signing a blank cheque. A definite NO from me.

Amazing experience and perspective. Sounds like the current system isn't working though.

 

[gregjm87]

This part of the Hildebrand article that Winston shared is what stands out.

As is explicitly clear to any layman, and as innumerable legal experts – including the last High Court Chief Justice – have clearly stated, the only power in this amendment resides in the Parliament. All the Voice can do is “make representations” – i.e. say what it thinks.

This appears as though all the fears around a yes vote are unfounded. Whether the Voice can actually achieve anything is another matter. But it appears as though it won't hurt to try.

 

[Lauren]

For those interested, the following article provides further outlined details on the upcoming referendum and it's proposal. I have also added links for interactive YES and NO pamphlets published by the AEC - which are also available on their website.

What is the Indigenous voice to parliament, how would it work, and what happens next?

Here’s what we know so far about how the Albanese government hopes to enshrine an Indigenous voice in the constitution via a referendum

www.theguardian.com

The yes pamphlet: campaign’s voice to parliament referendum essay – annotated and factchecked

Pamphlets written by politicians and published by the AEC have put the official case for a yes and no vote. They were not independently factchecked before publication, so Guardian Australia has added notes to the full essays to help you make better sense of them

www.theguardian.com

The no pamphlet: campaign’s voice to parliament referendum essay – annotated and factchecked

Pamphlets written by politicians and published by the AEC have put the official case for a yes and no vote. They were not independently factchecked before publication, so Guardian Australia has added notes to the full essays to help you make better sense of them

www.theguardian.com

 

[Winston Churchill]

This part of the Hildebrand article that Winston shared is what stands out.

As is explicitly clear to any layman, and as innumerable legal experts – including the last High Court Chief Justice – have clearly stated, the only power in this amendment resides in the Parliament. All the Voice can do is “make representations” – i.e. say what it thinks.

This appears as though all the fears around a yes vote are unfounded. Whether the Voice can actually achieve anything is another matter. But it appears as though it won't hurt to try.

The problem is the yes campaign has completely failed over a large period of time to lay out what a yes vote means to the average person in their everyday life. The yes campaign has clearly failed to show what one is actually voting yes to.

Having read Joe's article I'm now moved to thinking yes with more of my own research to do.

What absolutely shits me is what he also alludes to, akin to religious zealots, the overhyping of the people voting yes just for virtue signalling points even though they too fail to articulate what yes actually means but rather are happy to jump on the bandwagon as it's perceived to be the correct thing to do in their political ideology.

I think a huge portion of those that will vote no are simply uninformed of what the voice actually is and that's the failing of the yes campaign to articulate that to all Australians.

 

[hammertime]

Joe Hildebrand is such a gifted writer. Summed it up perfectly.

 

[watersider]

100% correct, there is no way that the constitution should be changed.

Imagine the problems that were created with things like the Aboriginal Heritage Act in Western Australia.

The Woke do-gooders thought that was a wonderful thing until all the greedy and ridiculous claims started pouring in.

Fortunately in that case it was legislated and they were able to put a stop to that absurdity before it completely destroyed the state.

Just think about the 40,000 land claims that are on the books in New South Wales alone and how things could could go badly with a change to the Constitution that no one can 100% say how it will work or how far reaching it might be and that cannot be undone without another referendum.

Look at the billions of dollars that are already being spent on Aboriginal Corporations which number into the thousands in this country along with more than 100 Government Departments that deal with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues.

It seems that the serious issues with Indigenous Communities have pretty much been identified but what have the Woke Greeny Governments actually done to solve these issue and don't talk to me about that piece of garbage Albo who had to get dragged kicking and screaming to go to the Northern Territory to see what was happening there and then only spent a couple of hours there.

The lying hypocritical piece of garbage human being that is Albo is only interested in this Voice being his legacy and going down in history as some sort of hero.

Get off your arse and fix the problems that are already identified instead of creating another tax payer funded body that you cannot explain how it will work or how much more it will cost the already suffering tax payers of this country and even worse cannot be undone when it proves to be a total disaster pretty much like everything else that you touch.

Guess what, I will be voting NO, not a tick, not a cross, just NO. Surely this does not make me a racist, but I'm sure that some will choose to call me one anyway.

I get the resentment about all that. I don't vote for the proposal because I like politicians and believe what they say. I do however see value in a representative body that speaks for Indigenous people. And that should mean at least a counterbalance to those politicians who do say they care about the issue but then only spend 5 minutes in Alice Springs because the issues seem too difficult.

I hope you remember this isn't a vote on Albanese and Dutton, it doesn't really matter what they think or how they use this. I think both are probably motivated politically and also personally on this issue, but their motivation isn't really important.

In response to your question, I think a representative body for indigenous people will have more insight into Indigenous issues. The broad and general direction of the voice is to have communities choose the representative participants, and I think this would be a new and promising approach to issues. I feel the way we've gone about it in the past has been bad and the results are rubbish.

On the constitutional and legal stuff, many legal people have verified that the limits of this voice are clear, and it cannot be a great and limiting power on our democracy. However, I'd argue that if your issues are more about the legal implications rather than the base idea of Indigenous people having a representative body then you should reconsider your 'no' vote and look into those matters more because I don't think the idea itself could be packaged in a clearer or better way.

But if you vote no it doesn't mean you're racist, far from it.

Not that it matters what I think, but I thought you put your arguments together well and made heaps of good points about how hypocritical our politicians are. While there will be heaps of disagreement on this referendum issue, I'm sure we all can come together in a spirit of harmony and celebration in saying that politicians are a pack of bastards!

 

[crazycat]

I do and I'm not.

You died of TB? Tuberculosis?

 

[crazycat]

Joe Hildebrand is such a gifted writer. Summed it up perfectly.

Joe Hildebrand is Entertainment... But one of his best works is the $#itsville express ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitsville_Express ). Honestly it is so good because everyone cops a serve and they just throw ideologies at "wedge issues".

If you think Hildebrand is a gifted writer, and I get that.... Watch the above. It is excellent.

 

[crazycat]

100% correct, there is no way that the constitution should be changed.

Ofcourse the constitution should be changed, it should be changed rarely but consistently refined. No constitution is perfect and the writers had no idea of the issues we face today.

Heck one of the reasons why is that the constitution doesn't even recognise Aboriginal people!

Slow Gradual change, with regular debate and citizen initiated referendum! if 5% of the Australian population sign on to an issue, that issue should face a referendum.

 

[hank37w]

Ofcourse the constitution should be changed, it should be changed rarely but consistently refined. No constitution is perfect and the writers had no idea of the issues we face today.

Heck one of the reasons why is that the constitution doesn't even recognise Aboriginal people!

Slow Gradual change, with regular debate and citizen initiated referendum! if 5% of the Australian population sign on to an issue, that issue should face a referendum.

Have no problem with that and YES would be a no brainer which I am certain would get a majority in all states if that was all that the referendum was about, but by trying to be cunning and bundling the Voice proposition in with it instead of voting on the 2 separate issues almost guarantees this referendum is doomed to fail.

The fact that Albo has not been able to, or is not willing to provide details about how it will all work and the fact that by enshrining this in the Constitution and not in law which could be repealed or amended if it all goes badly is a very dangerous move and the Australian public are waking up to this.

Have no time for politicians that try to treat the voting public as fools.

Can see a valid argument for citizen initiated referenda to be held at the same time as general elections are held so that there is no additional, or little additional cost to the tax payer at the time.

 

[watersider]

Have no problem with that and YES would be a no brainer which I am certain would get a majority in all states if that was all that the referendum was about, but by trying to be cunning and bundling the Voice proposition in with it instead of voting on the 2 separate issues almost guarantees this referendum is doomed to fail.

The fact that Albo has not been able to, or is not willing to provide details about how it will all work and the fact that by enshrining this in the Constitution and not in law which could be repealed or amended if it all goes badly is a very dangerous move and the Australian public are waking up to this.

Have no time for politicians that try to treat the voting public as fools.

Can see a valid argument for citizen initiated referenda to be held at the same time as general elections are held so that there is no additional, or little additional cost to the tax payer at the time.

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 debatable approach.

 

[Tommy]

No

 

[Odessa]

100% correct, there is no way that the constitution should be changed.

Imagine the problems that were created with things like the Aboriginal Heritage Act in Western Australia.

The Woke do-gooders thought that was a wonderful thing until all the greedy and ridiculous claims started pouring in.

Fortunately in that case it was legislated and they were able to put a stop to that absurdity before it completely destroyed the state.

Just think about the 40,000 land claims that are on the books in New South Wales alone and how things could could go badly with a change to the Constitution that no one can 100% say how it will work or how far reaching it might be and that cannot be undone without another referendum.

Look at the billions of dollars that are already being spent on Aboriginal Corporations which number into the thousands in this country along with more than 100 Government Departments that deal with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues.

It seems that the serious issues with Indigenous Communities have pretty much been identified but what have the Woke Greeny Governments actually done to solve these issue and don't talk to me about that piece of garbage Albo who had to get dragged kicking and screaming to go to the Northern Territory to see what was happening there and then only spent a couple of hours there.

The lying hypocritical piece of garbage human being that is Albo is only interested in this Voice being his legacy and going down in history as some sort of hero.

Get off your arse and fix the problems that are already identified instead of creating another tax payer funded body that you cannot explain how it will work or how much more it will cost the already suffering tax payers of this country and even worse cannot be undone when it proves to be a total disaster pretty much like everything else that you touch.

Guess what, I will be voting NO, not a tick, not a cross, just NO. Surely this does not make me a racist, but I'm sure that some will choose to call me one anyway.

Question mate if you could help I heard part of the discussion but did not catch it all

So the water front land in the whole of the Sutherland shire has had a claim put forward and parks as well in multiple claims

So once the clam is granted it becomes Aboriginal land 32 percent of this massive country is already Aboriginal land and alot of that Aboriginals are not allowed on for some reason

But my question is with the rezoning of land near the aboriginal claim say Cronulla is claimed then the residential land next to it gets rezoned is my understanding so you can not build there ? Is it knocked down your home ?

Or is it like in cooper Pedy when the residents had to come to an agreement with the now Aboriginal land owners to rent there homes off them

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Hiya Misty, I'm no constitutional expert, and I've never (and will never) read it. However, I just saw an article today in the Herald by Judge James Spigelman on your point. He starts with the example of section 101 of the constitution which states 'there shall be an Interstate Commission', with the commision having 'such powers...as the parliament deems necessary...relating to trade and commerce'. He points out this is language and direction very similar to the voice suggestion. Now that's total second hand recount on my behalf, so I make no suggestion of authority on that matter, but it seems, as far as I understand, it is the domain of the constitution to have such directions as proposed by this referendum.

Like yourself, I dont have a deep knowledge of the Constitution, or the Interstate Commission but I am willing to assume that the interstate commission impacts and represents all Australians. As such if some change was made by the federal govt to change it and people thought it was a bad idea then they could vote accordingly at the next federal election. Additionally, if the Interstate Commission was given some form of extreme powers, would it impact and benefit different people differently?

Part of my objection to the Voice being entrenched in the Constitution is tha tthe Constitution sets out the basis of laws for ALL australians whereas the Voice represents a subsection of Australians. If the Voice under the constitution makes recommendations and is an advisory body to government, then indigenous Australians get to represent two people to represent them and non indigenous people only get to vote for one.

its pretty fundamental.

In thinking about the issue, not being a legal man myself (thank goodness), my consideration is to whether or not I think a representative Indigenous voice to parliament to 'advise' government on Indigenous issues is a good idea. I think it is a very good idea. I think it will help inform government understanding of Indigenous issues and will, as a consequence, lead to better outcomes for Indigenous people. This I think will contribute to a more inclusive (rather than divisive) country. But that's my view on it.

With respect yo are wrong (not opinion). Everything you say above could be legislated. by including in the Constitution it would literally be the only part of the Constitution that represents a subset of Australia and not the whole populace. By its actual definition it is divisive.

Perhaps start there in your contemplation of the issues and if you don't agree with that you need no further consideration of the issue and can vote no. If you do think there's merit in that idea, but are concerned about the many legal and constitutional implications, then you should have a look into those matters. From my reading on the matter the proposal is legally sound and the parliament control over the voice is a good thing, but as I said at the beginning, I'm no authority on the matter.

Mate with as much respect as I can muster, that is very condescending. "Perhaps" I should start by thinking about your opinion and make a change but if not...ok? Your opinion needs no review? Perhaps?

 

[Mistymuzzle]

I think its hilarious how many people on here think that Tigers members and fans should be able to have more of a say in how the club is run but somehow don't think people getting a say in how their lives are run by the government is somehow crazy. If you want to know why to vote Yes in a Wests Tigers forum then the anwser is the current Wests Tigers board and their actions. If you would sign a petition for change on the board then vote Yes

Lets take your analogy further. Lets say that all members can vote for who is on the Wests Tigers Board, but members who were voting members of Balmain and Western Suburbs Football Clubs in 1999 get a second vote for a second committee who tell the Wests Tigers Board what to do? Good solution? What is wrong with it?

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Agree and it makes 100% sense in reality but politicians and the white knight types cant virtue signal over that. So that isn't allowed to make sense.

or alernatively the government can just govern for all Australians

 

[Mistymuzzle]

This part of the Hildebrand article that Winston shared is what stands out.

As is explicitly clear to any layman, and as innumerable legal experts – including the last High Court Chief Justice – have clearly stated, the only power in this amendment resides in the Parliament. All the Voice can do is “make representations” – i.e. say what it thinks.

This appears as though all the fears around a yes vote are unfounded. Whether the Voice can actually achieve anything is another matter. But it appears as though it won't hurt to try.

Unfortunately, Hildebrand correctly condradicts this a couple fo paragraphs later when he points out.....

"This power is written there plain as day in the final line of the amendment: The Parliament has total control over the Voice’s “composition, functions, powers and procedures” – in other words, who is on it, what it is able to do and how it is able to do it."

The govt of the day change change the powers of the Voice by increasing or decreasing them so no one knows exactly what the powers of teh Voice are or will be. at the end of the day its at the whim of the Govt and obviously govts or opposing sides are going to increase then counteract the powers of the voice. Inredibly divisive and unnecessary.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

The problem is the yes campaign has completely failed over a large period of time to lay out what a yes vote means to the average person in their everyday life. The yes campaign has clearly failed to show what one is actually voting yes to.

Having read Joe's article I'm now moved to thinking yes with more of my own research to do.

What absolutely shits me is what he also alludes to, akin to religious zealots, the overhyping of the people voting yes just for virtue signalling points even though they too fail to articulate what yes actually means but rather are happy to jump on the bandwagon as it's perceived to be the correct thing to do in their political ideology.

I think a huge portion of those that will vote no are simply uninformed of what the voice actually is and that's the failing of the yes campaign to articulate that to all Australians.

100% of those voting yes are uninformed of what the Voice actually is because no one knows what it actually is. It is at the whim of the Govt.