Referendum 2023

[balmain boy]

Precedent for unequal representation based on race. There are no clauses in the Constitution at present that differentiate Australians on the basis of skin colour or race. This is a clear and unarguable precendent.

One.

I dont know you Balmain Boy, but lets assume you are non indigenous, and for the argument, lets say i pass the 3 part test for indigenous.

If you have a pressing issue, important to you and in your opinion important to the nature or your culture. How are you represented and how do you get this representation expressed in consideration of legislation? Your only representation is your local federal member. so you can go to your federal member and he/she can represent you in parliament. Systematically that is the end of it. If your local member happens to be in the party in power and have a position on an executive committee, you might be lucky but there is no constitutional representation beyond your local member in Parliament.

On the other hand if I am indigenous, I also have my local member to represent me in parliament on any important issue impacting me and my culture, same as you and every Australian. Then on top of that I have a second representation through the Voice that can also express my representation through the parliament, so twice the representation in parliament. Then on top of that, my representation through the Voice directly expresses my representation straight into the executive government and executive committees which you simply do not have.

Its not opinion, the structure of it is simply unbalanced representation. Whether you think its a good thing or not. Personally i think the unbalanced representation in itself isnt a bad thing to directly address a critical issue but enshrining in the Constitution with the protection of the High Court is very dangerous.



Im not implying anything, Im explicitly expressing that IMO when one race gets imbalanced representation over others, it is going to impact the relationship between those different races and IMO set back the cause of genuine reconciliation.

Individuals won't simply have access to the voice and hence the executive. There will be various processes in place to review and prioritise what gets escalated to those on the voice committee. In theory they have access to 2 channels to parliament, yes, and that's fine with me given how poorly these people have been represented in the past. If systems previously put in place were more consultative and effective the voice wouldn't be necessary, sadly it is.

 

[balmain boy]

Only because Labor MPs are not allowed to express a opinion other then the official socialist line , many would be voting NO
But would be exterminated if given free choice to express this, so don't run that propaganda

Actually i think you'll find anyone who is a centrist, or left wing is pro voice. Labor, Greens and Independents are all largely in favour, as that's who their constituents want and those are the values of those parties. One or two strays aside. That's why those Liberals MPs that aren't as far right as the Liberal party has become, are pro common sense, respect and fairness. Even in highly conservative Liberal metro areas the people and MPs are largely pro voice.

 

[balmain boy]

Go ahead and report me, for what, stating the facts. You can't see that radical elements are hijacking this whole campaign for the Voice?

Thanks a lot Albo for causing this division and using it as a distraction from all the other matters that need attention.

The radical elements high jacking the discussion are the No leaders who are blatantly lying to try and persuade people. These lies are causing division.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Individuals won't simply have access to the voice and hence the executive. There will be various processes in place to review and prioritise what gets escalated to those on the voice committee. In theory they have access to 2 channels to parliament, yes, and that's fine with me given how poorly these people have been represented in the past. If systems previously put in place were more consultative and effective the voice wouldn't be necessary, sadly it is.

This is simply not true. Every proposed legislation has to go through the voice to check for indigenous significance and therefore input from the Voice. Every one. Because it’s in the Constitution, anything that isn’t can and will be tested in high court

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Actually i think you'll find anyone who is a centrist, or left wing is pro voice. Labor, Greens and Independents are all largely in favour, as that's who their constituents want and those are the values of those parties. One or two strays aside. That's why those Liberals MPs that aren't as far right as the Liberal party has become, are pro common sense, respect and fairness. Even in highly conservative Liberal metro areas the people and MPs are largely pro voice.

Wow. Everyone is an automaton incapable of contrasting thought on a complex issue depending on who they vote for?

 

[Winston Churchill]

Earl continues to have the worst takes in this thread.
I’ve stopped replying to him.
He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, yet throws his ill considered and uneducated opinions around as if others need to read them.
Wouldn’t be surprised if he is trolling. Deserves to be ignored.

We learnt about Earls ability to have an honest conversation from the Political thread he pushed the mods to shut down. Ignore button mate, ignore button, youll miss nothing.

 

[TillLindemann]

Even in highly conservative Liberal metro areas

These don't exist anymore. The wealthiest metropolitan areas all lean very much to the left, at least on social issues. The few wealthy urban seats still held by the Libs are held by the most progressive libs and are increasingly marginal.

The most conservative seats are all working class outer suburban / regional seats.

A whole tome could be written on this seismic political shift. Insightful media analysis on it is sorely lacking though, as 100% of journalists and talking heads in Australia live and work in the former seats, and zero live and work in the latter seats, and so they tend to have very little understanding of the latter.

 

[Siberian Kitten]

Actually i think you'll find anyone who is a centrist, or left wing is pro voice. Labor, Greens and Independents are all largely in favour,

A recent poll has 58% of Labor voters supporting the Voice, and falling. So 42% of Labor voters are Nos. MistyMuzzle is right to point out that we are individuals, not just members of a bloc.

Age is a much better indicator than political leaning. 23% of over 55s are No but 62% of 18-34s are Yes.

Oldies who remember the corruption and boys club at ATSIC will be less likely to vote Yes than young people, many of whom seem to see it as a vote of support for Aboriginals and do not have the experience to imagine what could go wrong.

Thing is, it's pointless. They can just set up an advisory committee now. No point forcing future Lib governments to keep it via the Constitution. If future Libs want to neuter the Committee, there'll be nothing to stop them. It would exist in name only. So you might as well just set up a Committee and, if you want it to stay, make sure it's working well, fulfilling its function, and not constantly pushing for scope creep.

 

[shiretiger]

The Voice referendum: Shocking moment uni professor and Yes campaigner SPITS on No activist

One way to gain my vote

 

[TrueTiger]

The Voice referendum: Shocking moment uni professor and Yes campaigner SPITS on No activist

One way to gain my vote

Funny how they all said it wont divide the nation but bring us together.....I suppose if you dont vote yes,you deserve to be spat on...What a great ad for the yes campaign...

 

[twentyforty]

Albo has given the Quandamooka people $25m to fund a native title claim on the Redland Shire Council area. Approximately 160,000 people live in Redland. If you live in Redlands Shire, expect your rates to go through the roof because Albo hasn’t given the council any financial support to defend the claim.
This is considered a test case, considering 50% of Australia’s land mass has been reclassified under the Native Title act.
Another one filed on the Spit Gold Coast.

 

[dazza65]

An example of why a national voice is not warrranted. Direct consultation happens already.

and doesn't need to be enshrined in the constitution to work..

 

[Kaito]

Funny how they all said it wont divide the nation but bring us together.....I suppose if you dont vote yes,you deserve to be spat on...What a great ad for the yes campaign...

To be clear this is not on. Theres kooks on both
sides. I've seen heaps of videos of crazy no
voters this week. chose not to post, no point. it's
despicable behaviour either way you look at
it. Continuing 235 years of denial and exclusion
of Indigenous people constitutionally is the only
thing continuing to divide Australians. On Oct 14
we vote on 2 things - recognition and a voice
to Parliament. How the voice will work, how representations are made, the composition of committee are all legislation. Fed govt, your party, Nationals, Greens X bench & the others will have input into legislation. Leave
the logistics and implementation up to our
elected officials. Our job is to vote yes or no

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Continuing 235 years of denial and exclusion
of Indigenous people constitutionally is the only
thing continuing to divide Australians.

indigenous people are not excluded from the Constitution Unless you don’t consider them Australians?

Fun fact, Aboriginal women were allowed to vote in South Australia before any women were able to vote in the rest of Australia, UK or US.

 

[TillLindemann]

I'm more than happy for Aboriginal people to be recognised as the original inhabitants of the country etc in the consitution, quite separate from the voice. Though as long as it doesn't include the usual white liberal romanticised (and patronising) claims about 'spiritual connections' etc. The fact is the vast majority of Aboriginal Australians today are either Christian, agnostic, or atheist, rather than actual practitioners and believers of pre-1788 spirituality (which I might add is a great shame, as I find their pre-Christian culture and beliefs very interesting).

 

[Trevros]

The Voice referendum: Shocking moment uni professor and Yes campaigner SPITS on No activist

One way to gain my vote

If someone spat on me there is only one reaction and it would be an instant reaction regardless of their sex being a southpaw - a straight left.

 

[hank37w]

I have a different take. I can't see any possible damage in our lifetimes or my great grand kids life. It'll take years until Indigenous people have the same life expectancy etc compared to the average Australian,

I don't know what you mean about the 2 separate questions being asked. Can you please clarify ?

I Thought that was fairly straight forward, the question we are being asked to answer YES or NO to is about altering the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Question one should be along the lines of do you agree to a proposal to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia. If this was the question being put, I would say that it would almost certainly achieve a majority YES result.

Question two would then be asking do you agree to a proposal to alter the Constitution by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

This is where the majority of voters will most likely vote NO due to the lack of understanding of how this will actually work and the fear that we will be stuck with it if turns out to be another bloated, unwieldy and inefficient or corrupt money pit as many of these idealistic schemes end up being.

People understand that if this is enshrined in the constitution it becomes almost impossible to undo and by rolling these 2 questions into 1 it is most likely going to be defeated because of the second part of the proposition.

 

[Kaito]

Fun fact, Aboriginal women were allowed to vote in South Australia before any women were able to vote in the rest of Australia, UK or US.

Interesting. Just read up a bit about it now as
well as the 1967 referendum.
Aboriginal men living in South Australia had
the right to vote when the South Australian
Constitution passed in 1856. South Australian
Aboriginal women were given the right to vote
under colonial laws in 1894, but they were often
not informed of this right or supported to enrol
to vote. In some cases, Aboriginal people were
actively discouraged from enrolling or voting.
The 1902 Commonwealth Franchise Act
removed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people’s right to vote in federal elections.
In 1962, this right was reinstated in the
Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
were not included in the census until the
1967 Referendum. This change gave
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
a symbol of recognition, and gave the
Australian Government power to address
inequalities in society.

The 1967 Referendum​

Key facts​

• The Australian Constitution sets out the laws of Australia.
• Referendums are the only way that you can change the Australian Constitution.
• The 1967 Referendum sought to change two sections of the Constitution in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
• 90.77 per cent of Australian voters voted ‘Yes’ to the changes.

While many people think that the Referendum gave Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the right to vote, this wasn’t the case. Aboriginal people could vote at the state level before Federation in 1901; Queensland and Western Australia being the only states that expressly prevented Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from voting.
It wasn’t until 1962, when the electoral act was amended, that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were given the right to register and vote, but voting was not compulsory. Full voting rights were not granted federally until Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were required to register on the electoral roll in 1984.

 

[earl]

I Thought that was fairly straight forward, the question we are being asked to answer YES or NO to is about altering the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Question one should be along the lines of do you agree to a proposal to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia. If this was the question being put, I would say that it would almost certainly achieve a majority YES result.

Question two would then be asking do you agree to a proposal to alter the Constitution by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

This is where the majority of voters will most likely vote NO due to the lack of understanding of how this will actually work and the fear that we will be stuck with it if turns out to be another bloated, unwieldy and inefficient or corrupt money pit as many of these idealistic schemes end up being.

People understand that if this is enshrined in the constitution it becomes almost impossible to undo and by rolling these 2 questions into 1 it is most likely going to be defeated because of the second part of the proposition.

This is good feedback. I understand these points.

I don't agree on the bloated point. I think that is overly dramatic. It's less than 1% of our federal budget spend and the idea is to get better feedback. I think the idea is to improve the spend. I'd call this a positive and not a negative. One other point is that the voice is from the Uluru statement so Indigenous people want this. I don't think it has to be in the constitution but I don't give a toss and I don't think it matters.

The only point where I think money becomes an issue is reparations but that is down the track and I think in reality the issue of reparations should be decoupled from this referendum.

 

[Kaito]

Lets be serious, its not apartheid by any stretch of the imagination. No one is being prevented from anything and extreme statements like that do not help the discussion or the outcome.

Here here. Glad someone called that out as well