Referendum 2023

[earl]

I'm a simple man. I take people at their word. If they say that they will do something, I believe them.

Mr Albanese has said that he will implement The Uluru Statement in full if the referendum is agreed to by the Australian people.

I have to critique this first. I don't think Albanese has said he will implement the Uluru statement in full has he ? I think he has said he support the whole Uluru statement. This is not a big issue though.

So what does the Uluru Statements actually say?

From Ulurustatement.org



I note that the bold and highlighted are not mine but the ulurustatement.org websites.

So, Sovereignty was never ceded or extinguished but somehow co-exists with the Crown. Ok. How does that work? Are they equal? Logically you would think that the original Sovereign is more important than the latter day co Sovereign. What are the implications of this if this analysis is true?

How can Parliament, as representative of the Crown, have more say than Makarrata, as representative of the Aboriginal people?

You are raising what I think are really good points though. We need to face this as a nation. These are big complex issues that need to be discussed rationally, factually and calmly.

I just find the lack of imagination of some of the Yes proponents here as too what might happen if you take the Uluru Statement to its logical conclusion a little naive.

I'll explain how I view this just to show I'm not naive in my opinion.

I view the voice as one piece of the Uluru statement and in fact maybe the easiest part. Truth telling is easy as well.

The hard part will be treaty. The voice doesn't enable a treaty. In fact Indigenous no voters are stating they want a treaty and a treaty will take longer if the voice is voted in. So your point about yes voters being naive is just as applicable to no voters on this issue.

A treaty will involved reparations. How do we do this ? This is where the cost becomes important and the argument about housing policy and all other policies is important.

Are you willing to not open a hospital with specialist support in regional Australia to instead give every Indigenous person a hundred grand ?

The voice is advisory. They cannot implement legislation. That is for our politicians via voting. This is why I have separated the two issues in my head.

 

[Kaito]

Not at all Earl. Just certain issues need to be prioritised as a matter of importance & I fail to see how the Voice is more important then said issues especially that said Issue is costing the Government $350 million & it's not even guaranteed to work.

The process (uluru statement) and by extension
the voice was put into motion years ago, when
the coalition was still in government, and when
the economy started to tank coincidentally.
The government is more than able to handle
both issues with the same amount of care.
You should start another thread about housing
and cost of living crisis. That's all you've harped
on about since the start of this thread anyway lol

 

[earl]

Unfortunately for the adults I can’t see a way to get them into jobs but if there was a reason for the kids to be at school then at least a 10-15 years later you could start to see change
I also partially believe some don’t want to integrate into society and while ever we are handing out money they will just sit back and take it

I have a friend who is privileged but if I'm being honest that term is really a nice euphemism. He has always been spoiled. He hardly works since he continually gets bailed out via his mum.

You need to break these cycles somehow. I don't believe just giving people money solves issues.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

This was mentioned previously and I put Smoking gun on ignore because of it. It comes across to me as playing extremely loose with the facts.

Always the best way to discuss in good faith...

I provided references to 2% or 3% of people stating they are Indigenous.

but 33% of the prison population is indigenous.

Let's ensure we utilize facts that can be verified.

Unless they dont suit your argument and then you put people on ignore. Genius.

 

[Mistymuzzle]

One of your best Spartan, one of your best smh



I know what he meant thank you very much.
As crazycat mentioned there are several other
entities that share the same privilege. The
Minerals Council of Australia, The Australian
Medical association, Doctors Union, members
of defense & various other bodies. I wasn't
taking him out if context I was adding to it.

Then you and Crazycat are completely wrong.

Minerals Council, AMA etc can not independently approach the executive. There are actual laws against it. If there is an issue that involves them, they may be invited by the relevant executive committee at the whim of the executive government. None of these organisations are enshrined in the Constitution and none of them have High Court protection.

The Voice is proposed to be enshrined in the Constitution and they will not only be providing advice when asked like the AMA etc, the parliament AND the executive are compelled to consult the Voice on ALL legislation to give them the to advise if it potentially impacts indigenous people and if the executive doesnt, it can be taken to the High Court.

So they dont share the same privilege, there is no organisation or people in the country that will have this privilege as the proposed Voice.

 

[WesternSuburbsBoy]

You should start another thread about housing
and cost of living crisis. That's all you've harped
on about since the start of this thread anyway lol

Yeh bro sorry for trying to focus on real issues instead that effect all Australians not just 3% of them. Sorry for questioning something that's not even guaranteed to work. You think the government cares about Aboriginals? please all Politics is is a game of power... Libs come in make promises & do f all & now Labour doing the same thing. When the result inevitably ends up being no Albanese won't give a rats he'll just say whatever I tried & that will be that.

Tell Albanese to go out to remote & rural communities where the Aboriginal people really struggle or tell him to go out to NT & see what's going on there. The NIAA exists for a reason where countless resources & funding has already gone out to Aboriginals & a lot of them get given these opportunities & do nothing with them... is that my fault? is that your fault? A referendum that guarantees actual change I can get behind but I'm not voting yes for a bunch of what ifs when people all around me are struggling to make ends meet.

 

[shiretiger]

I have to critique this first. I don't think Albanese has said he will implement the Uluru statement in full has he ? I think he has said he support the whole Uluru statement. This is not a big issue though.

He did. The evening of 21 May 2022. It was the second thing out of his mouth, after acknowledging the traditional owners of Australia, in his victory speech.

Read incoming prime minister Anthony Albanese's full speech after Labor wins federal election

"I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet. I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. And on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I commit to the Uluru Statement from the heart in full.

You are raising what I think are really good points though. We need to face this as a nation. These are big complex issues that need to be discussed rationally, factually and calmly.

Gee thanks. Such praise coming from you has warmed the cockles of my heart.

I'll explain how I view this just to show I'm not naive in my opinion.

I view the voice as one piece of the Uluru statement and in fact maybe the easiest part. Truth telling is easy as well.

The hard part will be treaty. The voice doesn't enable a treaty. In fact Indigenous no voters are stating they want a treaty and a treaty will take longer if the voice is voted in. So your point about yes voters being naive is just as applicable to no voters on this issue.

A treaty will involved reparations. How do we do this ? This is where the cost becomes important and the argument about housing policy and all other policies is important.

Are you willing to not open a hospital with specialist support in regional Australia to instead give every Indigenous person a hundred grand ?

The voice is advisory. They cannot implement legislation. That is for our politicians via voting. This is why I have separated the two issues in my head.

Bully to you, all good points.

I have made my position on Treaties already.

treaty, a binding formal agreement, contract, or other written instrument that establishes obligations between two or more subjects of international law (primarily states and international organizations). The rules concerning treaties between states are contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), and those between states and international organizations appear in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations (1986).

Once again. I am a simple man and I can see a number of obvious issues with your treaty, the prime one being that they are between Sovereign Nations. There goes that S word again.

If we can't get to treaty, well reparations are moot, however I will humour you. One thing that I can guarantee if they are on the table is that in the next Census, this country will have an amazing explosion of people ticking the box that they are aboriginal, and the funniest thing in this woke day and age where ones identity is everything, is that there is nothing that you will be able to do to stop it. How dare you question the fact that I identify as an aboriginal person.

The Voice is advisory you say, it can't implement legislation you say. That may be your truth that you hold but I believe that you have managed to have my original point about Sovereignty to just go right over your head.

If the aboriginal people are Sovereign, or at worst co-Sovereign, it doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to see Makarrata turning around and saying "we were here first, do as we say". Why should the Crowns Parliament be superior to Makarrata if they were here first?

It all boils down to that S word.

Why do you think they always say "always was, always will be" in their Welcome to Country? It is the aboriginal way of expressing Sovereignty over this land.

A fun fact: conquest was only outlawed in International Law in 1949.

conquest, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war at the expense of a defeated state. An effective conquest takes place when physical appropriation of territory (annexation) is followed by “subjugation” (i.e., the legal process of transferring title).

 

[Tim Sheens]

It's disappointing but not totally surprising that a number of people on here are planning to vote no.
I don't understand why people can live with such hatred, to deny indigenous people the opportunity to have a direct say on matters that impact them.

There are currently dozens of similar groups covering various other segments of society. This would just be the 30th different voice to parliament for a community sector, the only difference is this one would be added to the constitution, and that is simply so it cannot be dismantled by any future far right governments that may take government.

Hopefully Australia never again has another government as far right like Abbott or Scomo. But safe guarding this body from them is a sad but necessary step.

The no vote has sadly followed Trumps lead in targeting political conservatives with lies, fake news and fear. Many of these people simply believe what they're told and can't be bothered doing any reading/research on the matter, hence they absurdly offensive "don't know, vote no" slogan. The far right treat Aussies as morons, who are incapable of thinking for themselves and simply don't want Australians to find out answers to their question, as if they did they are far more likely to vote yes. It's fantastic to see lots of Liberal MPs coming out in support of the voice, more should hopefully follow their lead.

I am curious to hear any genuine reasons to vote no that aren't based on ancient white australia policies, ignorance or casual racism.

Hear, hear.

 

[Siberian Kitten]

No campaign have been gaslighting yes voters
into thinking that Indigenous people don't want
the Voice - all the while trotting out fringe groups
opposed to it, but pro-sovreignty and saying,
"Look, see". No voters don't seem to understand
that a large amount of no voters actually seek
sovereignty, which is more extreme than a voice
to parliament. They're not on your side! Haha

There's been gaslighting from both sides.

I don't have a political side. I like logical analysis. The argument, 'If you support x then you must be associated with y' does not work logically, nor does it embarrass me into obedience. The claim that No voters are full of hate and bigotry is pure gaslighting. 60% of Australians are planning to vote No ...

I'm not much interested in changing the systems per se. The deck chairs have been shuffled continuously on this particular Titanic for my entire life, at least, and I am old enough to remember the Tigers' muddy 11-2 victory over the Bunnies victory in the '69 GF. Aboriginal people from all over the county have formed committees and provided advice in those many decades. There's now 11 Aboriginal MPs. Have things improved with all this advice and representation?

Some programs have worked, providing opportunities for Aboriginal people, and others have struggled. There is nothing to stop the govt from seeking advice about fixing problems right now. If the govt thinks that the hundreds, or more, Aboriginals who have so far provided advice to all levels of government and many NGOs over the decades have not succeeded, then they are just repeating the same mistakes with The Voice.

Aboriginal advice is already very freely available. Maybe if there was less newadvice and some of the old recommendations were heeded - by both sides of parliament - this referendum would not be on the table?

In the meantime, there is no need for a constitutional Voice, just to nact good policy based on the mountains of prior advice received.

The fear is that future governments would dismantle it but, given the ambiguity, it would be easy for a hostile administration to restructure the Voice committee into irrelevance for their entire term of office.

As stated, given that future Labor governments would be unlikely to disband the Voice, this referendum is entirely about controlling the actions of future Liberal governments. That's it. Nothing else.

There has been much division and cost in this political game. I've voted Labor, Democrat or Green all my life and even I think Dutton would need even more potato in his head than he already has to give bipartisan support to this.

That's why the referendum is a massive waste of time, money and energy that could have been put into more productive areas.

 

[Winston Churchill]

Mate - they have just passed housing legislation. This came prior to the voice so your argument is poor. They've done exactly what you are complaining they haven't done.

The $350 million is the cost of doing a referendum. The money surely can't be an issue because I'm using the $5bn figure that I obtained from the federal budget figures and this is less than 1% of the federal budget.

I'm facsinated via housing policy though. You should start a thread on that issue.

Earl, a self proclaimed millionaire telling the peasants that their issues are not important to them, rather its more important to virtue signal cause of feels.

 

[Winston Churchill]

It's disappointing but not totally surprising that a number of people on here are planning to vote no.
I don't understand why people can live with such hatred, to deny indigenous people the opportunity to have a direct say on matters that impact them.

There are currently dozens of similar groups covering various other segments of society. This would just be the 30th different voice to parliament for a community sector, the only difference is this one would be added to the constitution, and that is simply so it cannot be dismantled by any future far right governments that may take government.

Hopefully Australia never again has another government as far right like Abbott or Scomo. But safe guarding this body from them is a sad but necessary step.

The no vote has sadly followed Trumps lead in targeting political conservatives with lies, fake news and fear. Many of these people simply believe what they're told and can't be bothered doing any reading/research on the matter, hence they absurdly offensive "don't know, vote no" slogan. The far right treat Aussies as morons, who are incapable of thinking for themselves and simply don't want Australians to find out answers to their question, as if they did they are far more likely to vote yes. It's fantastic to see lots of Liberal MPs coming out in support of the voice, more should hopefully follow their lead.

I am curious to hear any genuine reasons to vote no that aren't based on ancient white australia policies, ignorance or casual racism.

Replace 'no' with 'yes' and replace all your arguments with 'bigotry of low expectations'

Easy

 

[earl]

Once again. I am a simple man and I can see a number of obvious issues with your treaty, the prime one being that they are between Sovereign Nations. There goes that S word again.

Indigenous treaties in Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is the thing we are already in the process of creating treaties. The states are already doing this. I don't think you have to worry about the sovereign nations issue.

A treaty is a formal, legally binding written agreement between actors in international law. It is usually made by and between sovereign states,[1] but can include international organizations, individuals, business entities, and other legal persons

If we can't get to treaty, well reparations are moot, however I will humour you. One thing that I can guarantee if they are on the table is that in the next Census, this country will have an amazing explosion of people ticking the box that they are aboriginal, and the funniest thing in this woke day and age where ones identity id everything, is that there is nothing that you will be able to do to stop it. How dare you question the fact that I identify as an aboriginal person.

I don't understand the woke comment and I don't want too. I'm not interested in alt-right politics.

My expectation and I assume the vast majority of people's expectations are that Australia comes out of this ahead and not behind. It's not coming out ahead if we pay too much money or there is a bunch of malfeasance.

The Voice is advisory you say, it can't implement legislation you say. That may be your truth that you hold but I believe that you have managed to have my original point about Sovereignty to just go right over your head.

If the aboriginal people are Sovereign, or at worst co-Sovereign, it doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to see Makarrata turning around and saying "we were here first, do as we say".

This is a follow on from your sovereignty point above which you've misunderstood. Treaties are happening now and they aren't between sovereign nations and they don't have to be.

It's an extremist argument and I really can't see it ever happening. Interestingly some indigenous no voters want this and I stated earlier in the thread what I think of those people.

 

[shiretiger]

You crack me up @earl . I have gone from raising really good points to an alt-right extremist in 60 seconds.

Like a few already here, I'm finished engaging with you.

 

[Spacecub]

There's only 3 things that should be in the referendum
Abolishing welcome to country at all sporting events
Abolishing daylight savings
Removal of Justin Pascoe

 

[Todd Packer]

It's disappointing but not totally surprising that a number of people on here are planning to vote no.
I don't understand why people can live with such hatred, to deny indigenous people the opportunity to have a direct say on matters that impact them.

There are currently dozens of similar groups covering various other segments of society. This would just be the 30th different voice to parliament for a community sector, the only difference is this one would be added to the constitution, and that is simply so it cannot be dismantled by any future far right governments that may take government.

Hopefully Australia never again has another government as far right like Abbott or Scomo. But safe guarding this body from them is a sad but necessary step.

The no vote has sadly followed Trumps lead in targeting political conservatives with lies, fake news and fear. Many of these people simply believe what they're told and can't be bothered doing any reading/research on the matter, hence they absurdly offensive "don't know, vote no" slogan. The far right treat Aussies as morons, who are incapable of thinking for themselves and simply don't want Australians to find out answers to their question, as if they did they are far more likely to vote yes. It's fantastic to see lots of Liberal MPs coming out in support of the voice, more should hopefully follow their lead.

I am curious to hear any genuine reasons to vote no that aren't based on ancient white australia policies, ignorance or casual racism.

How could you be surprised or disappointed that there are no voters on here when the current polls have the majority of Australians voting no?
It's the sanctimonious assumptions of racism that make the average Aussie feel insulted.
I will be voting no simply because I feel separating Australians by race and enshrining it in the constitution is in itself a racist act.
This constant vilifying of people that don't agree with the Yes camp will ensure the proposition's failure.

 

[twentyforty]

No because I come from that background and none of my family are Aboriginal.



I don't know about this but I don't like discussing feelings without some sort of data to back it up.



This was mentioned previously and I put Smoking gun on ignore because of it. It comes across to me as playing extremely loose with the facts.

I provided references to 2% or 3% of people stating they are Indigenous.

Let's ensure we utilize facts that can be verified.

Yes, as you’ve previously mentioned you are privileged. I get that.
When it comes to statistics I draw them from the ABS.
The last census showed 3.2% of our population identified as Aboriginal, an increase from 2.8% previously. But I’m more curious about the increased numbers. Is it a result of improved living standards, health etc? Or because of other factors? And why such big increases in Melbourne surrounds and the ACT?
check the government site and let’s know what you think?

 

[Mistymuzzle]

Yes, as you’ve previously mentioned you are privileged. I get that.
When it comes to statistics I draw them from the ABS.
The last census showed 3.2% of our population identified as Aboriginal, an increase from 2.8% previously. But I’m more curious about the increased numbers. Is it a result of improved living standards, health etc? Or because of other factors? And why such big increases in Melbourne surrounds and the ACT?
check the government site and let’s know what you think?

Dont worry about Earls 2 - 3%, he is referring to me correctly pointing out that indigenous prisoners die in custody at a lower proportion to non indigenous prisoners. He claimed I was wrong because only 2 -3% of the national population are indigenous, but when I explained to him and sent him the ABS statistics that 30% of the prison population is indigenous, he put me on ignore. That is what he is talking about.

 

[earl]

When it comes to statistics I draw them from the ABS.
The last census showed 3.2% of our population identified as Aboriginal, an increase from 2.8% previously.

It's .4%. Who knows why it has occurred. I don't see the relevance. What is your point on this ?

 

[hugh1954]

Just vote No and get on with our lives. Albo needs watching he's as dangerous as the minions that are controlling poor Joe

 

[Winston Churchill]

Yes, as you’ve previously mentioned you are privileged. I get that.
When it comes to statistics I draw them from the ABS.
The last census showed 3.2% of our population identified as Aboriginal, an increase from 2.8% previously. But I’m more curious about the increased numbers. Is it a result of improved living standards, health etc? Or because of other factors? And why such big increases in Melbourne surrounds and the ACT?
check the government site and let’s know what you think?

We know why the figures have increased. Bulletproof, no DNA test required, no questions ever allowed to be asked, greatest loophole scam going around.

I personally know of 3 family groups - a total of 17 people that are now claiming they are aboriginal. None of them are. They do not get questioned at all. 1 family is white as driven snow with blue eyes and my mate has done his DNA test on Ancestry.com and it has come back 100% Northern European. Doesnt stop them claiming everything and anything from Centrelink and marking aboriginal on every piece of form to get preferential treatment. Honestly, as a native born in this country i'm thinking about ticking the box on every form going forward. It is not ever questioned cause that would be racist.