Referendum 2023

[twentyforty]

Talk about twisting my post , read the thing again , it’s about ur people stealing from the poor people living in the bush and how the privileged ones live like kings , and yes every year the tax payers of this racist land hand over around 50 billion dollars to help ur people but Iam sure a lot finds it way into the privileged ones coffers . Surly u can’t be that blind with ur inappropriate reply

$50B? That’s about $53k for every Aboriginal man woman and child. Is that every year? seems like a lot? Especially if you compare it with the paltry $1.7m WA contributes to Wests Tigers?

 

[Siberian Kitten]

What stopped them forming an advisory committee without changing the Constitution?

The claim is that future governments might disband it. Given that Labor would not disband it, the fear is that a future Coalition might do so. That makes the referendum about controlling Coalition policies in the future.

The Voice appears likely to fail so you'd expect that, after the recriminations die down, Albo will probably form an advisory committee anyway. Thing is, there's heaps of advisory committees - as there should be - because Aboriginals in different areas have very different needs.

 

[hank37w]

$50B? That’s about $53k for every Aboriginal man woman and child. Is that every year? seems like a lot? Especially if you compare it with the paltry $1.7m WA contributes to Wests Tigers?

Not sure if 50 billion would fix the Wests Tigers, maybe a constitutional change is what is needed.

Maybe a shake up of the current set up would be worth looking at, how about we identify the problems and see if there is any wastage or corruption taking place and we could tweak a few things as we go along, we could even start tomorrow.

Nah, why bother doing that when we could set up a new board, let's call it an Advisory body or a Voice even. Let's have a Referendum and enshrine it in the Constitution even if we don't know how it will work, who will be on it, what it will cost but what the heck just vote YES and hope it's not a disaster because if it is, it probably can't be undone anytime soon or without having another Referendum.

Having said that, it doesn't sound all that much different to the current Wests Tigers Board set up that is currently in place and we know what a success that has been.

 

[earl]

Talk about twisting my post , read the thing again , it’s about ur people stealing from the poor people living in the bush and how the privileged ones live like kings , and yes every year the tax payers of this racist land hand over around 50 billion dollars to help ur people but Iam sure a lot finds it way into the privileged ones coffers . Surly u can’t be that blind with ur inappropriate reply

I don't understand a lot of this but again in the context of the voice isn't this what it is trying to fix. it's feedback from people like you are stating ? Your argument in the context of the Voice to me sounds like you are pro the Voice. You are literally stating that there are rich Indigenous people taking from poor Indigenous people. The voice would provide feedback on this occurring and how to rectify it by the people involved.

**** Off topic on the voice:-

Who is stealing from the people in the bush. You are talking about malfeasance. This is the sort of stuff that Gladys was busted for. If you have any proof of this you should raise it to the appropriate authorities. If somehow you aren't comfortable with this provide me the proof and I'll raise it.

Why is this land racist ? Who are ur people ?

 

[earl]

And yet you will vote yes to change the constitution. This is the problem.


Yep, all good things. The Voice is a good idea, a worthy update on the previously failed ATSIC. Could be legislated on Monday, with no need for division or updating the Constitution.


So your solution to disproportionate incarceration is allow indigenous people to commit crimes without punishment? So if an indigenous person commits a crime...play on but if a non indigenous person commits the crime? What could go wrong. Like everyone else, I dont know how the Voice will be chosen, but I hope your name is on the list Earl. That is groundbreaking.


And yet you will vote yes to change the Constitution. Bravo.
The changes are the proposed amendement to the Constitution. Albaneses Government could pass the Voice as legislation on Monday without any need for Constitution enshrinement and change.

Interesting perspective but I only see your last point as providing any sort of criticism of this referendum.

We should ensure we understand this issue properly though. I'll explain the difference between what you are stating though and what the referendum is doing. I'm not putting a judgement on this. You are stating that this can occur without a referendum which might be true. The reason the idea is via a referendum is that the proposers of this solution want this to be an on-going component of our government. Something that doesn't change based on changing governments etc.

That point though is something for me to think on. I'm not sure what I think about that just yet. It's a good point. I can see the flip side in that maybe if this doesn't work you want to get rid of it.

 

[earl]

Not only do I believe it, it is a measureable fact. Please point me to the law, regulation or government institution that disadvantages indigenous people? There are literally federal laws that prevent institutional racism. It is punishable by gaol.

I get this as well but I'm not sure it has anything to do with the issue.

As I stated previously and I don't think you or anyone disagrees with this. The average Indigenous person is not doing as well as the average Australian.

So it might not be institutionalized racism but it's a moot point.

Ive already explained this. There was historic institutional racism and the effects are inter-generational and the effects are still felt today.

I'm fine with this. The issue is we need to try and fix it.

No problem with that. Needs to be fixed by the Government. Could be legislated on Monday.

This isn't true but it's also not true of the voice. You cannot fix this via legislation. You cannot fix this via the Voice.

All the voice is doing is providing a feedback mechanism. Maybe a better way to phrase this is why would this hurt ?

no problem with that. Please explain why it needs to be enshrined within the Constitution?

I explained this earlier but I'll state it again. It's been put forward as a constitutional change to ensure there is a direct feedback mechanism to improve decision making.

I'm not stating that this will work but I've yet to hear why it won't work. I'm leaving aside the discussion of what it means for something to work. You want to have low criteria when judging this in an on-going capacity. You cannot expect this to close the gap.

 

[twentyforty]

Not sure if 50 billion would fix the Wests Tigers, maybe a constitutional change is what is needed.

Maybe a shake up of the current set up would be worth looking at, how about we identify the problems and see if there is any wastage or corruption taking place and we could tweak a few things as we go along, we could even start tomorrow.

Nah, why bother doing that when we could set up a new board, let's call it an Advisory body or a Voice even. Let's have a Referendum and enshrine it in the Constitution even if we don't know how it will work, who will be on it, what it will cost but what the heck just vote YES and hope it's not a disaster because if it is, it probably can't be undone anytime soon or without having another Referendum.

Having said that, it doesn't sound all that much different to the current Wests Tigers Board set up that is currently in place and we know what a success that has been.

Surely someone has an idea of what it could look like? Just not saying anything for fear of ridicule? We don’t care if it’s all on a coaster or blackboard, just give us something?
The activists and the left may be able to think with their heart on such matters involving other people‘s money and how it should be spent, but a few of us need detail so we can rationalise expected outcomes.
Albo is not providing detail or reasons why he thinks its a good idea because he now says it’s not his referendum, that he’s simply supporting it.
Voting is compulsory, or risk a $20 fine, so we need to know what it is we’re voting for.

 

[Winston Churchill]

Voting yes ❤️ Hope progress of our country is shown to be true

Voting No. Stop the rot of the progressives, sorry, regressives. I know it's a wild idea but I'm not too much of a fan of segregation. Hoping just doesn't do it for me. Political ideology, fairytales and feels are awesome and everything but I need to know what I'm voting for and what that actually looks like in reality.

 

[bptiger 0]

I don't understand a lot of this but again in the context of the voice isn't this what it is trying to fix. it's feedback from people like you are stating ? Your argument in the context of the Voice to me sounds like you are pro the Voice. You are literally stating that there are rich Indigenous people taking from poor Indigenous people. The voice would provide feedback on this occurring and how to rectify it by the people involved.

**** Off topic on the voice:-

Who is stealing from the people in the bush. You are talking about malfeasance. This is the sort of stuff that Gladys was busted for. If you have any proof of this you should raise it to the appropriate authorities. If somehow you aren't comfortable with this provide me the proof and I'll raise it.

Why is this land racist ? Who are ur people ?

Again u don’t address my post u turn it into something different, what the hell has Gladys got to do with the voice, and we’re the hell will I get information on who’s ripping of ur people , Dutton can’t even get info from Albo or anyone else about the voice so my chances are well below 0 . Maybe instead of changing the facts u open ur eyes and be a realist, I can see from some of ur post that ur not a hard leftie but u need to see what’s what’s behind things not albos lies

 

[earl]

Again u don’t address my post u turn it into something different, what the hell has Gladys got to do with the voice

Firstly I'm trying to address your post. I am acting in good faith.

You clearly stated that there was some corruption going on at this point. I just want the details. If there isn't then don't say it.

, and we’re the hell will I get information on who’s ripping of ur people , Dutton can’t even get info from Albo or anyone else about the voice so my chances are well below 0 . Maybe instead of changing the facts u open ur eyes and be a realist, I can see from some of ur post that ur not a hard leftie but u need to see what’s what’s behind things not albos lies

I'm not trying to change any facts. I'm trying to focus only on the facts. I assume you mean who is representing Indigenous Australians and I'm not Indigenous.

My response is I don't care. I don't want to get that involved. I don't expect the answers now. I actually agree with this approach. I worked in project management and I honestly think that is the right way to approach the issue. Just to explain this from my perspective there is no use planning down to the micro level too early. It just adds cost with no value.

Just to add that just because I think that is okay I can understand if other people don't think it is okay however how involved do you get in how we spend money on our hospital system. I just expect them to manage it correctly.

 

[dazza65]

Not divisive at all, hey.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Nailed it

You nailed it Tony.

Not divisive at all, hey.

I dont think anyone wanted to be decisive on purpose. I believe we all agree that we want a better and happier planet. Its just that - it seems they are playing the people. Deep down- the people do have power - they need to change the rule book. The Constitution. They need us. Until one day they dont. Little by little.

If Yes means it will be a better world than Yes. If No means a better world than No. The irony is - they have the money - we don't- they have the power - we don't. Why they be asking us? They brought it up. We didn't give it a second thought. Boom! It just suddenly happened.

 

[watersider]

Some pertinent questions from Ben Fordham today on 2GB

“We don’t know how many people will sit on the Voice.

“We don’t know if they will be appointed or if they will be elected.

“We don’t know if the Voice will have a headquarters in Canberra.

“We don’t know if the Voice needs its own support staff.

“We don’t know if it will have an annual budget.

“We don’t know if members of the Voice will be paid.

“If members of the Voice are divided on a particular issue, we don’t know which opinion the government will listen to.

“If the Voice is to advise on policies impacting Indigenous Aussies, we don’t know what law or policy doesn’t impact Indigenous Australians.

“We don’t know if some issues are off-limits to the Voice.

“We don’t know if the government is expected to consult the Voice on all major decisions.

“We don’t know if the Voice has to be consulted on routine changes to legislation that affects Indigenous people.

“We don’t know if the Treasurer is expected to brief the Voice on what’s included in an upcoming budget.

“We don’t know what constitutes proper notice for the Voice to consider each issue that comes before it.

“We don’t know what would be regarded as sufficient information to provide the Voice so it can make informed representation.

“We don’t know if the Voice will be expected to respond to each proposal in a set period of time.

“We don’t know if the Voice would have to be heard before a decision is made.

“We don’t know if the Voice will speak directly to ministers or individual departments.

“We don’t know if public servants are expected to consult the Voice because they are part of the executive government.

“We don’t know what happens if the Voice is consistently ignored and whether this may lead to a legal challenge.

“We don’t know which former High Court judge is going to be proven right when it comes to potential legal issues.

“We don’t know if the Voice will be expected to achieve targets when it comes to closing the gap.

“We don’t know if the Voice can better direct the billions of dollars we’re already spending on Indigenous affairs.

“We don’t know how the Voice will interact with other Indigenous bodies.

“We don’t know if the Voice will make representations on issues such as changing the flag or moving the date of Australia Day.

“And we don’t know if the Voice is going to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians.”

Do you guys like and listen to Fordham? Is he any good?

 

[TillLindemann]

If a group of people are clearly worse off than the average person shouldn't we do something to help ?

Plenty of groups are worse off than the average - as I noted earlier in the thread, there is just as big a gap in health, work, education, transport, life expectancy etc between rural and metropolitan Australians (for example) as there is between indigenous and non indigenous. But the rural / metropolitan gap can't be explained by racism, so is less fashionable for rich air headed wankers in Surry Hills and Bondi, or academic drones.

If the voice was actually likely to achieve anything concrete, why shouldn't it also be used for any number of other disadvantaged groups or intractable issues? (it's not, so it won't).

Also the argument that 'something' needs to be done, isn't an argument that 'this particular thing' needs to be done.

 

[TillLindemann]

I will give an example of when feedback may help. I remember years ago a lady commenting on TV that one of the reasons for such high incarceration rates was that some Indigenous people got caught doing dumb stuff when they were already close to getting locked up. They would for instance not pay a fine. If society let these little things go maybe it would lower incarceration and lead to less deaths in custody.

White eshay does something dumb and goes to jail, black eshay does same dumb thing and gets let off because his family tree is more special.

Earl this is ridiculous.

 

[watersider]

To those voting yes, what are the timelines you would be happy with to get The Voice up and running?
Follow up question, what timelines would be appropriate for the voice to do its due diligence and get back to the Executive Government so that the policise/laws could be debated and signed off in a timely manner?

My responses are remarkably similar to Winston's satirical take. But here goes... parliament usually faffs around not working most the time, spending the next part of that not working looking at opinion polls and party stuff and at some point get around to doing something only for the greens to come in with a block of some sort which then leads to another mess and a whole bunch of repeat of not doing much or focus groups or whatever before it is either somewhat resolved badly or not at all. In relation to the voice is say it will be the same. I think there's a lot for parliament to work out and agree on such as what the body would look like and how to create a meaningful representative body. But they'll probably also get scared and turn it into something that they can silence and control.

So anyway, maybe I'm naive but I'd like to see something in place a year from the vote, give or take a bit from that.

I'm not naive about politics, I don't think many of us feel that living and working conditions, the environment, social cohesion have really been enhanced by government, but actually maybe government does a great job and we're just a bunch of sooks, I'm never quite sure. But to my point, the process to the voice will be messy, the finished product will be compromised, future governments will mess with it if it actually works because they won't want a genuine voice, other future governments will mess with it just to serve their own agenda. It will be a plaything of parliament. But I vote for it despite these things because I think some kind of voice could even within that muck be powerful and I'm not confident in current processes and I respect the Uluru statement and I'm concerned about the situation of indigenous people and I like discussing our history and I think it gives significance to all that and I hope it allows us to talk and learn more about it, while also connecting better to the needs of indigenous people.

I'm not clear on your second question . Could you rephrase and make more simple for me.

 

[watersider]

Can I suggest everyone go to

and listen to this Holder of Grandmother Lore and Colonial Juris Doctor in Law.
Its very pertinent and may help some with their decision on which way to vote. It's called "my thoughts on the voice"

With this black sovereignty argument, I don't understand why a change to a constitution they don't recognise as lawful would make any difference to them? Whatever it says, isn't it still illegitimate until they've recognised it? While the voice will be a representative body of indigenous people that does not in itself sanction the constitution. She would know much more about indigenous issues and the constitution so I must be missing something. But I'd summarise my understanding as follows:

black sovereignty movement without voice does not recognise constitution and continues to fight for sovereignty.

Black sovereignty movement with a voice to parliament in constitution is still not recognised and they continue to fight for sovereignty.

How does a voice change their situation? Thank you to those for assisting me to understand.

 

[Tucker]

I will give an example of when feedback may help. I remember years ago a lady commenting on TV that one of the reasons for such high incarceration rates was that some Indigenous people got caught doing dumb stuff when they were already close to getting locked up. They would for instance not pay a fine. If society let these little things go maybe it would lower incarceration and lead to less deaths in custody. I'd suggest as well that Indigenous people in communities that have these issues can provide better feedback than what I've just done.

🙄 This might be the stupidest take I’ve seen so far.
Earl, you clearly have no idea. You clearly have never experienced remote, or even rural living. You clearly have never experienced violence or crime.
I understand you think you are trying to make a difference, but trust me, and hear me clearly…the sort of help that people like you provide MAKE THINGS WORSE.

 

[watersider]

I'm as left as they come. Anything that is packaged as helping the vulnerable should be the simplest decision I can make. When the referendum was put forth I thought "ok, vote yes move on".
I dont share the fears of others that a Voice will lead to an unrecognisable Australia of land disputes and sovereignty.
I still want to vote yes on the basis that heck it's gotta be better than the status quo for Indigenous peoples. But, how can I any faith that it will when not only are these questions unanswered, I dont think the Government has any idea of the answers themselves.
I still perplexed that the Yes campaign has been so poorly managed that thks lefty is leaning 'No'.

Fine to vote no and don't be limited by viewing things as necessarily left or right. So much focus on that false binary, when neither side seems able to meaningfully handle big issues and media and corporate pressure. And I think we, the voting public, also are generally scared and don't like anything too threatening either.

It also might not necessarily be the fault of 'the left' that you are voting no, the left has no entitlement to your vote, you just probably don't like the idea much.

 

[Tucker]

I'm not clear on your second question . Could you rephrase and make more simple for me.

So, what little we do know about how the voice operates is this:

1. The Government initiates work on a new bill.​

2. They request The Voice Committee to provide recommendations to assist with further development of the bill.​

3. The Voice Committee go away, and conduct their own research throughout their constituents and draft their recommendations.​

4. The Voice presents their input to the Government​

5. The bill gets drawn up and goes through the regular process.​

This seems to be an over view of how The Voice works.

My question is how long does the Government give the committee to complete the meetings and draw up their documents involved in points 2 and 3? I don’t know your background with working with Aboriginal bodies, but my experience is, they cannot be held to schedules. As it pertains to my point 3 above, this action could take a week, a month or even a year to complete and you cannot pressure them to get it done sooner. It’ll take as long as it takes. Meanwhile the Government sits by patiently waiting?
I don’t see how this will be effective or efficient in any way. I don’t see how this provides better outcomes for communities.