Referendum 2023

[Tucker]

The proposal is not about dividing people by race but acknowledging the cultural diversity within Indigenous communities. It's an effort to protect the cultural rights and heritage of these communities while addressing historical injustices, which is different from perpetuating racial divisions.

The Voice has to take the form of a united front to gain any traction in Canberra. Therefore I would argue it won’t take the form of diversity of opinion within the Aboriginal communities, rather it will be bogged down by those with the loudest voice within whatever meetings will take place to set a group of representations to present to the Government.

The campaign is not about promoting discrimination; rather, it's aimed at combating it. Discrimination has been a long-standing issue faced by Indigenous communities, and constitutional recognition is a way to rectify historical injustices and create a more inclusive and equitable society. It's about ending systemic discrimination, not perpetuating it.

How will it combat discrimination when it focuses on such a small portion of society? There are far more people out there doing it every bit as tough as Aboriginals and their support is already minuscule in comparison. Now we want to further alienate them by taking one small section of this large group (the poor) who are suffering and promote their plight so that they, and they alone, will do better. I don’t see how that is inclusive nor equitable practice for that group. You mention systemic discrimination. Can you provide the current context around this please?

Agree about the questionable motives and feel it's contributed to the poor state of the campaign. Some are shameless and exploitative. Regardless of the result, the campaign highlights the importance of addressing historical and current disparities and fostering unity among all Australians.

How does it foster unity? It is divisive by design. The squeaky wheel will get oiled first, so city issues will trump remote issues. Remote issues including domestic violence, sexual assaults and youth crime are gaining traction in the media so these issues will trump those in the rural, semi rural communities which are heading the same way, but don’t have the optics of residents living in squalor to gain attention. At the end of the day, it is dividing Aboriginal communities let alone the rest of the country.

Marcia Langton showed Australia last week what they think of you if you vote no. There’s zero understanding of your concerns. There is zero care given to your questions. Your arguments simply become based in racism and stupidity…this is the tactic moving forward. At the moment the voting public are the target. If the Voice passes referendum requirements and is enshrined in the constitution…Every Government from then on is fair game. We will see Prime Ministers be told they are racist for not taking on these representations.

 

[TrueTiger]

I have kept my options open in regards to the Voice..in my personal opinion we are one country that is very,very multicultural,we live in peace with one another and supporter each other no matter what race creed or colour..it is also my opinion that we have looked after our indigenous brothers and sisters very well over the many years and I feel being born and bred in this great country,worked hard,paid taxes and helped fellow country men when needed,I feel we have far greater problems than the referendum..
We need to address the homeless,the needy,the sick and the destitute,as I said we are one country in all things TOGETHER,why should a person vote NO and be chastised for it because it differs from the YES vote..
What ever your decision is make it on your own behalf and of your own opinion,not because you feel you half to follow everyone else....

 

[BirchgroveTigers]

There are plenty of organisations and bodies that work year round to supply services and projects working off budgets in the billions of dollars.
There are 11 indigenous reps in parliament some of whom represent communities remote to the big centres.
I see the voice as something that mirrors exactly what is already happening..just higher profile.
No one has satisfactorily pointed out how this makes things better.

Fair enough. Obviously an advisory body is quite a small change so I'm also not too sure if it can shift the dial a long way. But at the same time, as it is just an advisory body, I think it's a bit of a nothing to lose proposition.

I do think it being higher profile though should help as it will provide a sense of legitimacy that other current bodies do not.

 

[Lauren]

The Voice has to take the form of a united front to gain any traction in Canberra. Therefore I would argue it won’t take the form of diversity of opinion within the Aboriginal communities, rather it will be bogged down by those with the loudest voice within whatever meetings will take place to set a group of representations to present to the Government.

How will it combat discrimination when it focuses on such a small portion of society? There are far more people out there doing it every bit as tough as Aboriginals and their support is already minuscule in comparison. Now we want to further alienate them by taking one small section of this large group (the poor) who are suffering and promote their plight so that they, and they alone, will do better. I don’t see how that is inclusive nor equitable practice for that group. You mention systemic discrimination. Can you provide the current context around this please?

How does it foster unity? It is divisive by design. The squeaky wheel will get oiled first, so city issues will trump remote issues. Remote issues including domestic violence, sexual assaults and youth crime are gaining traction in the media so these issues will trump those in the rural, semi rural communities which are heading the same way, but don’t have the optics of residents living in squalor to gain attention. At the end of the day, it is dividing Aboriginal communities let alone the rest of the country.

Marcia Langton showed Australia last week what they think of you if you vote no. There’s zero understanding of your concerns. There is zero care given to your questions. Your arguments simply become based in racism and stupidity…this is the tactic moving forward. At the moment the voting public are the target. If the Voice passes referendum requirements and is enshrined in the constitution…Every Government from then on is fair game. We will see Prime Ministers be told they are racist for not taking on these representations.

Hope this is easy for you to read and you are able to see/determine what it corresponds to.

I acknowledge your concern about the focus of the Voice on a specific portion of society and its potential impact on other disadvantaged groups. The Voice's focus on Indigenous Australians is not meant to alienate or exclude other marginalised groups. Instead, it aims to address specific historical injustices that Indigenous communities have faced, recognising that these injustices require targeted solutions. While there are others facing hardships in society, the Voice does not aim to diminish their struggles but seeks to rectify historical disparities unique to Indigenous Australians. Systemic discrimination is still a significant issue for Indigenous communities, with disparities in areas like education, healthcare, employment, and criminal justice, highlighting the need for targeted measures.

In terms of inclusivity and equity, the Voice is not about making one group 'do better' at the expense of others. It's about creating a more inclusive and equitable society for all by addressing specific historical challenges faced by Indigenous Australians.

I understand your concern about the potential divisiveness of the Voice and its impact on regional and city issues. While these are valid concerns, it is important to clarify the Voice's intention is not to divide but to foster unity by addressing historical disparities. It's designed to give Indigenous communities a formal voice within the constitutional framework, allowing them to actively participate in policies that affect their lives.

Regarding the potential for city issues to overshadow remote ones, the Voice is designed to be inclusive and to address the diverse needs and concerns of Indigenous communities across Australia. The governing body responsible for the Voice will play a pivotal role in ensuring this inclusivity by actively engaging with and representing the voices of all Indigenous communities, regardless of their location. The aim is not to prioritise one set of issues over another but to create a balanced approach that respects the unique challenges and perspectives within Indigenous communities, whether they are in urban or remote areas. This approach ensures that the concerns of all Indigenous Australians are heard and considered in the decision-making process, fostering unity and understanding among communities.
The Voice to Parliament fosters unity by acknowledging historical injustices, providing inclusive representation, and empowering Indigenous communities, all within the constitutional framework. It aims to create a more inclusive and equitable Australia, ensuring that all voices are heard and respected.

As for the concern about labeling governments as racist, it's essential to stress that the Voice is intended to be a responsible and constructive mechanism for addressing historical injustices and improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. Surely safeguards will be put in place to ensure its responsible use. The aim is not to make baseless accusations of racism but to hold governments accountable for their actions and policies through thoughtful consideration and engagement. By focusing on its intended purpose and employing a responsible approach, the Voice can contribute to a more inclusive and equitable society for all Australians, while respecting diverse perspectives and needs.

 

[Tucker]

Hope this is easy for you to read and you are able to see what it corresponds to.

I acknowledge your concern about the focus of the Voice on a specific portion of society and its potential impact on other disadvantaged groups. It's essential to clarify that the Voice's focus on Indigenous Australians is not meant to alienate or exclude other marginalised groups. Instead, it aims to address specific historical injustices that Indigenous communities have faced, recognising that these injustices require targeted solutions.
So while it's true that there are others facing hardships in society, the Voice does not aim to diminish their struggles. Instead, it seeks to rectify historical disparities unique to Indigenous Australians. Systemic discrimination is still a significant issue for Indigenous communities, with disparities in areas like education, healthcare, employment, and criminal justice. These disparities highlight the need for targeted measures.
In terms of inclusivity and equity, it's crucial to emphasise that the Voice is not about making one group 'do better' at the expense of others. It's about creating a more inclusive and equitable society for all by addressing specific historical challenges faced by Indigenous Australians.

I understand your concern about the potential divisiveness of the Voice and its impact on regional and city issues. While there are valid concerns, it's essential to clarify that the Voice's intention is not to divide but to foster unity by addressing historical disparities. It's designed to give Indigenous communities a formal voice within the constitutional framework, allowing them to actively participate in policies that affect their lives.

Regarding the potential for city issues to overshadow remote ones, it's crucial to emphasise that the Voice is designed to be inclusive and to address the diverse needs and concerns of Indigenous communities across Australia. The governing body responsible for the Voice will play a pivotal role in ensuring this inclusivity by actively engaging with and representing the voices of all Indigenous communities, regardless of their location. The aim is not to prioritise one set of issues over another but to create a balanced approach that respects the unique challenges and perspectives within Indigenous communities, whether they are in urban or remote areas. This approach ensures that the concerns of all Indigenous Australians are heard and considered in the decision-making process, fostering unity and understanding among communities.
The Voice to Parliament fosters unity by acknowledging historical injustices, providing inclusive representation, and empowering Indigenous communities, all within the constitutional framework. It aims to create a more inclusive and equitable Australia, ensuring that all voices are heard and respected.

As for the concern about labelling governments as racist, it's essential to stress that the Voice is intended to be a responsible and constructive mechanism for addressing historical injustices and improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. Surely safeguards will be put in place to ensure its responsible use. The aim is not to make baseless accusations of racism but to hold governments accountable for their actions and policies through thoughtful consideration and engagement. By focusing on its intended purpose and employing a responsible approach, the Voice can contribute to a more inclusive and equitable society for all Australians, while respecting diverse perspectives and needs.

That all sounds great…on paper.
I think everything you posted in bold font, which I assume comes from the website, are uplifting and emotional in their approach. They are aspirational.
They are also completely hollow as there is zero content added to them that supplies the meat and potato’s of how this will work.
Let’s start at the beginning. Apparently the voice will comprise of 24 members:
3 members from WA
3 members from the NT
3 members from QLD
3 members from NSW
2 members from the ACT
2 members from VIC
2 members from TAS
3 members from SA
3 members from the TSI

24 members. Very coveted positions wouldn’t you think? How will they be appointed?
Additionally, the 3 WA members are covering a huge area compared with the 2 ACT members. In fact the TSI, NT, ACT, TAS and SA have 13 of the 24 members controlling 18 percent of the population. That is a power inbalance surely?



Please see below the maps of Aboriginal communities in WA.
1. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Map1_A4_r.pdf
2. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Map2_A4_r.pdf
3. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_East_Kimberley_r.pdf
4. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Goldfields_r.pdf
5. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Metro_r.pdf
6. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Midwest_r.pdf
7. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Pilbara_r.pdf
8. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Southern_r.pdf
9. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_West_Kimberley_r.pdf

That’s just the West. Point being, the brochures can say that this is going to give everyone in these communities a voice and be inclusive as it engages with all…HOW? It is literally not possible with only a handful of members.
It all falls apart very quickly when you talk logistics. That’s why it’s being hidden from us.

 

[Spartan117]

Found this interview with Lidia Thorpe's father.

He calls her a racist, cruel and privileged.

He is English/ Irish decent.

1 minute was enough.

 

[earl]

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.

 

[jadtiger]

That all sounds great…on paper.
I think everything you posted in bold font, which I assume comes from the website, are uplifting and emotional in their approach. They are aspirational.
They are also completely hollow as there is zero content added to them that supplies the meat and potato’s of how this will work.
Let’s start at the beginning. Apparently the voice will comprise of 24 members:
3 members from WA
3 members from the NT
3 members from QLD
3 members from NSW
2 members from the ACT
2 members from VIC
2 members from TAS
3 members from SA
3 members from the TSI

24 members. Very coveted positions wouldn’t you think? How will they be appointed?
Additionally, the 3 WA members are covering a huge area compared with the 2 ACT members. In fact the TSI, NT, ACT, TAS and SA have 13 of the 24 members controlling 18 percent of the population. That is a power inbalance surely?

View attachment 6751

Please see below the maps of Aboriginal communities in WA.
1. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Map1_A4_r.pdf
2. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Map2_A4_r.pdf
3. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_East_Kimberley_r.pdf
4. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Goldfields_r.pdf
5. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Metro_r.pdf
6. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Midwest_r.pdf
7. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Pilbara_r.pdf
8. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_Southern_r.pdf
9. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-06/ABL-AboriginalCommunities_West_Kimberley_r.pdf

That’s just the West. Point being, the brochures can say that this is going to give everyone in these communities a voice and be inclusive as it engages with all…HOW? It is literally not possible with only a handful of members.
It all falls apart very quickly when you talk logistics. That’s why it’s being hidden from us.

So it is almost the same way the Senate is elected and helps govern Australia except it is only an advisory body unlike the Senate and it has a higher representation for NT and Torres Strait.
Personally i am not a fan of the Senate as it gives too much power to the smaller states imho however i will be still voting YES as it is only an advisory body unlike the Senate.

 

[twentyforty]

Are we forgetting about the 20% of Australia’s population that carry generational trauma and the guilt of carrying convict blood?
Some convicts were kids and treated inhumanely, suffered an 8 month journey by sea, after receiving a 14 year sentence for stealing a chook to relieve their hunger, only to arrive here to have spears thrown at them.
If the Voice wants to fastrack this wonderfully sounding “inclusivity and equitable society for all Australians“ then wouldn’t it make sense to have a Voice for those who’s relatives were forcibly shipped here prior to 1868? Or is it not a culture worth preserving?

 

[Tucker]

Found this interview with Lidia Thorpe's father.

He calls her a racist, cruel and privileged.

He is English/ Irish decent.

1 minute was enough.

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.

 

[earl]

Are we forgetting about the 20% of Australia’s population that carry generational trauma and the guilt of carrying convict blood?
Some convicts were kids and treated inhumanely, suffered an 8 month journey by sea, after receiving a 14 year sentence for stealing a chook to relieve their hunger, only to arrive here to have spears thrown at them.
If the Voice wants to fastrack this wonderfully sounding “inclusivity and equitable society for all Australians“ then wouldn’t it make sense to have a Voice for those who’s relatives were forcibly shipped here prior to 1868? Or is it not a culture worth preserving?

It's not a zero-sum game. It's about helping out Indigenous people. This is the what about me argument. I don't see this as a valid argument.

The good thing is though no matter if we vote yes or no I can't see many Australians going for this idea. I think most people will think it's ridiculous.

 

[Tucker]

Are we forgetting about the 20% of Australia’s population that carry generational trauma and the guilt of carrying convict blood?
Some convicts were kids and treated inhumanely, suffered an 8 month journey by sea, after receiving a 14 year sentence for stealing a chook to relieve their hunger, only to arrive here to have spears thrown at them.
If the Voice wants to fastrack this wonderfully sounding “inclusivity and equitable society for all Australians“ then wouldn’t it make sense to have a Voice for those who’s relatives were forcibly shipped here prior to 1868? Or is it not a culture worth preserving?

They haven’t suffered inter-generational trauma…or so says the narrative.

 

[earl]

So it is almost the same way the Senate is elected and helps govern Australia except it is only an advisory body unlike the Senate and it has a higher representation for NT and Torres Strait.
Personally i am not a fan of the Senate as it gives too much power to the smaller states imho however i will be still voting YES as it is only an advisory body unlike the Senate.

I think the real question is should this advisory body be enshrined in the constitution or not.

I haven't heard a valid reason not to enshrine it in the constitution. At the same time I don't think that enshrining it in the constitution will make much difference. Legislation can be around for a long time.

The pro argument for enshrining this in the constitution is twofold:-

1. Recognition of Indigenous people in the constitution.
2. Ensuring this body cannot be disbanded via future governments.

I'm thinking maybe that the Albanese government have taken the politically soft approach here since they could have just legislated this body. This way it's a vote from the people rather than being a labour government initiative which may hurt them in the next election.

It's going to be interesting what happens over the next 5-10 years. I don't think this is going away and I think our government needs to have a treaty to resolve the issue.

 

[Tucker]

So it is almost the same way the Senate is elected and helps govern Australia except it is only an advisory body unlike the Senate and it has a higher representation for NT and Torres Strait.
Personally i am not a fan of the Senate as it gives too much power to the smaller states imho however i will be still voting YES as it is only an advisory body unlike the Senate.

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.

 

[426Tlgerland]

Found this interview with Lidia Thorpe's father.

He calls her a racist, cruel and privileged.

He is English/ Irish decent.

1 minute was enough.

What a mess

 

[426Tlgerland]

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

 

[TillLindemann]

They haven’t suffered inter-generational trauma…or so says the narrative.

That's because inter-generational trauma is not a real thing. There is not a society on earth that hasn't experienced wars, depressions, conquest , colonialism, invasion, persecution, if you want to look at previous generations.

 

[shiretiger]

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.

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

2014 Indigenous Expenditure Report

Key points

• Total direct expenditure on services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in 2012-13 was estimated to be $30.3 billion, accounting for 6.1 per cent of total direct general government expenditure. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians made up 3.0 per cent of the population in 2013.
• Indigenous expenditure increased in real terms by $5.0 billion (19.9 per cent) from 2008-09 to 2012-13, while non-Indigenous expenditure increased by 9.0 per cent. Expenditure per Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person increased by 10.3 per cent, and expenditure per non-Indigenous person increased by 2.2 per cent.
• Estimated expenditure per person in 2012-13 was $43 449 for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, compared with $20 900 for other Australians (a ratio of 2.08 to 1 — an increase from a ratio of 1.93 to 1 in 2008-09). The $22 550 per person difference in 2012-13 reflected the combined effects of: – greater intensity of service use ($15 438 or 68.5 per cent) — because of greater need, and because of the younger age profile of the population – higher cost of providing services ($7112 or 31.5 per cent) — for example, because of location, or because targeted services are provided in addition to mainstream services (for example, Indigenous liaison officers in hospitals).
• Total direct expenditure on services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in 2012-13 was made up of: – $24.7 billion (or $35 313 per person) on services where expenditure is directly related to service use (a proxy for ‘on the ground’ services) – $5.7 billion (or $8137 per person) on services where expenditure is attributed on the basis of their share of the population (expenditure in areas such as defence, foreign affairs and industry assistance, which benefits all Australians equally).

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

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

 

[Mistymuzzle]

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

2014 Indigenous Expenditure Report

Key points

• Total direct expenditure on services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in 2012-13 was estimated to be $30.3 billion, accounting for 6.1 per cent of total direct general government expenditure. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians made up 3.0 per cent of the population in 2013.
• Indigenous expenditure increased in real terms by $5.0 billion (19.9 per cent) from 2008-09 to 2012-13, while non-Indigenous expenditure increased by 9.0 per cent. Expenditure per Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person increased by 10.3 per cent, and expenditure per non-Indigenous person increased by 2.2 per cent.
• Estimated expenditure per person in 2012-13 was $43 449 for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, compared with $20 900 for other Australians (a ratio of 2.08 to 1 — an increase from a ratio of 1.93 to 1 in 2008-09). The $22 550 per person difference in 2012-13 reflected the combined effects of: – greater intensity of service use ($15 438 or 68.5 per cent) — because of greater need, and because of the younger age profile of the population – higher cost of providing services ($7112 or 31.5 per cent) — for example, because of location, or because targeted services are provided in addition to mainstream services (for example, Indigenous liaison officers in hospitals).
• Total direct expenditure on services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in 2012-13 was made up of: – $24.7 billion (or $35 313 per person) on services where expenditure is directly related to service use (a proxy for ‘on the ground’ services) – $5.7 billion (or $8137 per person) on services where expenditure is attributed on the basis of their share of the population (expenditure in areas such as defence, foreign affairs and industry assistance, which benefits all Australians equally).

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

6% of expenditure is incredible

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

Reparations are people who havent committed a crime paying money to people who have never had a crime committed on them, because other people did 200years ago.

 

[twentyforty]

It's not a zero-sum game. It's about helping out Indigenous people. This is the what about me argument. I don't see this as a valid argument.

The good thing is though no matter if we vote yes or no I can't see many Australians going for this idea. I think most people will think it's ridiculous.

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