Referendum 2023

[AmericanHistoryX]

Every time I see Lee dressed like Al Capone I cant help but to think I took money from my kids and the table where we break bread to pay for his threads.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Agree,

But why a voice and not a treaty?

Cause one is business the other is Love.

 

[gregjm87]

Agree,

But why a voice and not a treaty?

I agree that a treaty would be preferable.

I think the concept of a voice is a good idea in that obviously (and despite the money being thrown towards it) current attempts to address disadvantage are not working. Perhaps a voice will lead to an overhaul of these failing attempts and establish some useful ones.

However I believe in reality a voice will achieve very little and despite obviously being very Pro-Indigenous reparations I'm borderline anti-Voice due to my pessimism of the whole thing.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

Look at the system of political donations that are no disclosed publicly or the 100s of corporate lobbyists in Canberra with access to politicians. How is it not corrupt? Big businesses not paying back public money given during covid when they still make huge profits.

It often seems to me indigenous Australian get judged by a different standard to wealthy capitalists. Billions in fossil fuel subsidies seen as justified.

Good post.

Senator Shoebridge recently referred the Hunter Class frigate to the National Anti Corruption Commission on the basis the procurement may amount to a breach of public trust. His concerns relate to integrity around Govt decision making.

No minutes or records of the decision making apparently were kept. This from the Financial Review -

In 2018, defence officials recommended the frigate contract be handed to BAE Systems despite not conducting a value-for-money assessment as part of the tender process and finding its Type 26 design had “extreme risk” measured against two of the selection criteria.

Bungled navy warship referred to anti-corruption watchdog

Greens senator David Shoebridge says the process of picking the winner of the $45 billion future frigate contract should be examined.

www.afr.com

The Greens are criticised on many issues but Shoebridge imo has it correct. I could never understand why the design was selected ahead of mature designs already in service.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

I agree that a treaty would be preferable.

I think the concept of a voice is a good idea in that obviously (and despite the money being thrown towards it) current attempts to address disadvantage are not working. Perhaps a voice will lead to an overhaul of these failing attempts and establish some useful ones.

However I believe in reality a voice will achieve very little and despite obviously being very Pro-Indigenous reparations I'm borderline anti-Voice due to my pessimism of the whole thing.

Not anti voice. Your Voice.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

I will be voting no, and obviously I have posted quite a few posts here strongly arguing for the no side of the debate, but I would like to make one thing clear.

I actually strongly support the general idea of The Voice. I would very much like a centralised Voice as a group of people selected somehow to accurately reflect the disparate communities representing the diverse people and issues face by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in this Country. This group should be legislated, funded and exist to distill and coalesce aboriginal voices into one to advise the federal government. I dont think it should be included in the Constitution as the Constitution is supposed to be the core of legislation for all australians equally.

I would also like to recognise indigenous Australians in the Constitution on a symbolic basis, but seperate from the Voice.

 

[watersider]

The constitution is just vague. I think in keeping with the constitution this proposal must provide framework but not necessarily details:

2. The constitutional design

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page Constitutions explain only a fraction of how democratic governments actually work, but they do provide the organizational and procedural framework for government action. There are two aspects of the Australian Constitution tha

www.aph.gov.au

"Constitutions explain only a fraction of how democratic governments actually work, but they do provide the organizational and procedural framework for government action. There are two aspects of the Australian Constitution that make it particularly interesting. One is the way in which it attempts to combine responsible government with strong bicameralism. The other is the number of critically important provisions that cannot be found in the Constitution—or that can be found only by implication, and then only by those who know where to look and how to read between the lines."

Some highlights from the Constitution. Have any of you read this stuff? I find it pretty interesting. We are 100% a colony:

61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

62. There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

63. The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

64. The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

And later from that article:

'Nowhere does the Constitution mention the prime minister, the Cabinet, or the concept or practice of responsible government by which the prime minister and Cabinet continue in office only so long as they continue to enjoy the confidence of a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives. The only hint of such things is the requirement that each minister must be, or soon become, a member of the House or Senate.'

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

And wear sheep wool on their head without looking stupid as the cross the traffic streets. Only in the CBD. Not suburbs. The Working Class Man.

 

[Tucker]

Why do the rich want us to debate? Why can't they just share the love?

Because when the general public is distracted, the rats start sneaking things through.

 

[Tucker]

I agree that a treaty would be preferable.

I think the concept of a voice is a good idea in that obviously (and despite the money being thrown towards it) current attempts to address disadvantage are not working. Perhaps a voice will lead to an overhaul of these failing attempts and establish some useful ones.

However I believe in reality a voice will achieve very little and despite obviously being very Pro-Indigenous reparations I'm borderline anti-Voice due to my pessimism of the whole thing.

A treaty will bankrupt the country

 

[Betterdays22]

A treaty will bankrupt the country

We will have a good test case for this, seeing as Victoria and South Australia are in the process of negotiating treaty. I have a feeling they will not be going broke.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Not the people. They cannot negotiate. They have no say. They will still be broke. The rulers will make the rules for everyone.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

This is not a test. This is the real deal. Read your history books written by the powerful. The rulers

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Unless you are Dostoevsky.

 

[dazza65]

Why do the rich want us to debate? Why can't they just share the love?

I’ll just leave this here…..

 

[Tucker]

We will have a good test case for this, seeing as Victoria and South Australia are in the process of negotiating treaty. I have a feeling they will not be going broke.

They won’t have anywhere near the amount, nor the quality of activists that the federal one will have.
They have already written into that Uluṟu Statement from the Heart that they will seek a percentage of Australia’s GDP to be funnelled into coffers set up specifically for Treaty.
What percentage you may ask? Well they are greedy bastards with the worlds biggest chips on their shoulders. Absolute fundamentalist victims….
They’ll go big.

 

[TillLindemann]

Agree,

But why a voice and not a treaty?

Why should people who were not alive during colonisation sign a treaty with other people who were not alive during colonisation?

 

[TillLindemann]

I am hoping for you to elaborate on why you think this is a bad thing. Because this is the substantive point in the entire referendum.

Because a body that I and 97% of other Australians get no say in, will have a powerful influence on how my tax dollars are spent.

The voice says to government "we need x dollars spent on y to fix it", government does so as it fears the media storm and racism accusations from saying no, the result is x dollars that can't be spent on something else that might affect my community, and yet I have no say in it because my family tree isn't special enough.

 

[Tucker]

Can't believe this thread has not turned into a complete shit fight and been shut down by now.

Mostly respectful and reasonably well thought out contributions, let's hope it stays that way right across the forum.

I think that’s because no one is informed enough to become a radical one way or the other yet. Even though on a fundamental level, there are differing viewpoints, we are all still pretty much in the dark on this one.
I am finding myself starting to be convinced by some of the pro yes arguments even though there’s a voice in the back of my mind reminding me that I really do not trust that this will end well.

 

[Magpie_Magic]

Why should people who were not alive during colonisation sign a treaty with other people who were not alive during colonisation?

That's true too.

That's why full reconciliation is impossible.

Add to that some Aboriginals have ancestors who were both colonisers and possibly oppressors as well as indigenous who were oppressed.