Referendum 2023

[Tucker]

Tucker. Let it go. He is doing is best. He means no harm. Aren't we all?

Mate he can speak for himself.
He clearly thinks those voting no are not well intentioned and worse.
He just had a go at a kid stating he is voting no because he sees so much desperation in his community that this should not be the Government’s number one priority.
This thread was started to let members express reasons for voting one way or the other. That is a legitimate reason to vote no. It is one of many that have been expressed.

 

[Tiger-ferret]

If that was the sole honest reason, I would simply suggest that person look to the imbalance of the ledger in other areas and that they vote informally instead of no.

That makes no sense. That hypothetical person disagrees with the constitution being modified. So they vote no.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Is that true Kaito?

Mate he can speak for himself.
He clearly thinks those voting no are not well intentioned and worse.
He just had a go at a kid stating he is voting no because he sees so much desperation in his community that this should not be the Government’s number one priority.
This thread was started to let members express reasons for voting one way or the other. That is a legitimate reason to vote no. It is one of many that have been expressed.

Kaito. Is that true what Tucker wrote?

 

[Kaito]

Is that true Kaito?
Kaito. Is that true what Tucker wrote?

No it's not true, I don't think those voting no
are "not well intentioned and worse" as Tuck
said. Out of everyone on here I think both he
and Misty are making the most rational points
for a no vote. It's true that I had a go at my mate
Westernsuburbsboy though, I was just being
cheeky, he's my buddy. Hope that helps pal lol

 

[Kaito]

Everytime I get pissed off or disagree with what
someone says I remind myself we're all WT fans.
I've backtracked on my comments plenty times
too. I've been wrong and out of pocket on several
occasions. Only a footy forum @ the end of the day.
It's not that deep, I don't think anybody on
here comes on with ill intentions. We share
a love of the same footy club, good enough 4 me

 

[Tucker]

Everytime I get pissed off or disagree with what
someone says I remind myself we're all WT fans.
I've backtracked on my comments plenty times
too. I've been wrong and out of pocket on several
occasions. Only a footy forum @ the end of the day.
It's not that deep, I don't think anybody on
here comes on with ill intentions. We share
a love of the same footy club, good enough 4 me

The fact we all support the Wests Tigers makes me think everyone on here is a moron.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

🙏👊🙏

 

[Spartan117]

Please be objective

See what the statement Authors say about what this voice is really about.

This is the truth In their own words.

I was originally a yes voter.

Ps don't get hung up on the Pauline Hanson source.

 

[Tucker]

Yep. As we have said all along.
The indigenous leadership have never tried to hide this fact.
The Government have.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Informal = no
The referendum needs a majority yes, in a majority of states

No, informal means a vote for neither option. Said person would then be content, or have to balance their decision to not vote positively with their conscience.

 

[Winston Churchill]

No, informal means a vote for neither option. Said person would then be content, or have to balance their decision to not vote positively with their conscience.

If they use their conscience over their political ideology and dogma, it would be a no vote.

 

[Tiger-ferret]

No, informal means a vote for neither option. Said person would then be content, or have to balance their decision to not vote positively with their conscience.

That said person has not dissociated their emotion from their answer to the question.

This scenario is very convenient. If you’re a no voter, think about an informal. You’ll sleep better at night.

 

[TrueTiger]

I dont care if people vote yes or no to be honest,each of us has a choice based on their own personal views..,.I can say I have directly witnessed how some of our Indigenous brothers and sisters act,some with great respect for ALL Australian people,others with contempt toward us...
I definately dont want OUR constitution changed just for a minority group that has been given far more than other people in this great country and I put it down to solely the ineptness of all the Govts we have elected..
I will lay blame on the Govt because we elect them to serve us as ONE community,the Australian community as a whole...If we start giving some more than others then all of a sudden this becomes a divisive arguement..
I could speak on here for ages and ages about what we need and I can assure you one thing,THE GOVT ISNT YOUR FRIEND,to many get involved with Labor or Liberal when in all honesty each side only benefit themselves and their friends,but thats another debate,,,
What most have to understand is the constitution itself,if the Govt doesnt look after ITS PEOPLE we can sack them and elect new people to do the job...WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE FINAL SAY,NOT THE ELECTED who are supposed to represent us...
If we are truly one nation and the Govt is here to help all of us,then why is there homelessness,poverty and destitution in the areas where a lot of money is poored into ???

We are known as the lucky country where we all look after each other no matter colour,race or creed,however this great land has become a cesspool of degradation,racism and divide and in my opinion its the fault of the elected we choose...

Vote for whatever you feel is right,dont bag someone who votes differently ....this is what causes DIVIDE....

One people,one law ,one country....

God bless all......

 

[Tim Sheens]

That said person has not dissociated their emotion from their answer to the question.

This scenario is very convenient. If you’re a no voter, think about an informal. You’ll sleep better at night.

If they truly care about the indigenous, then yes, definitely, as it has the same result.

The disingenuous won't give a shit, so it won't make any difference at all to their sleeping habits.

 

[watersider]

Well, at some stage you have to take a step back and say “we’re doing enough, it’s up to them”.
Continually trying to run their lives for them is what’s not working.
We don’t know better, and neither will a representative body, unless it is in constant communication with them…which we’ve pointed out is near on impossible considering the information we currently have about how it will operate.

This is pretty much the justification for why the voice could improve conditions. You believe a representative body won't work, I think it could. I think at least it could do it better than current approaches. When we boil down our yes/no positions we share a lot of opinions on the issues, we seem to differ on effectiveness of the voice. I'm hopeful.

 

[watersider]

Please be objective

See what the statement Authors say about what this voice is really about.

This is the truth In their own words.

I was originally a yes voter.

Ps don't get hung up on the Pauline Hanson source.

Treaty shouldn't scare people. It could be positive. Albo isn't talking about treaty because that's not what this vote is on. Absolutely it's a priority of the Uluru statement and indigenous leaders but what that looks like and whether there can be consensus reached on the issue is a way off. So see it as sneaky and use that to vote no, but I see that position as reasonable. This country isn't ready for treaty and the voice isn't about that, it's about an indigenous voice to parliament. Treaty ideas don't go away if you vote no. The idea of treaty is still one that will be constantly discussed by indigenous people. The voice is just giving them a representative body.

I value history, I value continuing these discussions. Sometimes I feel in Australia we feel bothered by discussion and debate and just want things neat and in the background. Is that too harsh? I think talking about these issues gets us focused on ourselves, our land, our people and away from the real enemy, which is the apathy inducing saturation of American culture and politics. This is our story. It's better for us.

 

[twentyforty]

That said person has not dissociated their emotion from their answer to the question.

This scenario is very convenient. If you’re a no voter, think about an informal. You’ll sleep better at night.

I’ll sleep better at night knowing that we have a government we can sack if it’s not doing a good job.
Surely as Wests Tigers supporters we can appreciate that level of democracy.
The alternative is we’re governed by a select group of politicians who are chosen by only 3% of voters and the high court.
But here’s the kicker, and it’s a biggy, we can’t even persuade them to have a review of themselves.

 

[Spartan117]

Treaty shouldn't scare people. It could be positive. Albo isn't talking about treaty because that's not what this vote is on. Absolutely it's a priority of the Uluru statement and indigenous leaders but what that looks like and whether there can be consensus reached on the issue is a way off. So see it as sneaky and use that to vote no, but I see that position as reasonable. This country isn't ready for treaty and the voice isn't about that, it's about an indigenous voice to parliament. Treaty ideas don't go away if you vote no. The idea of treaty is still one that will be constantly discussed by indigenous people. The voice is just giving them a representative body.

I value history, I value continuing these discussions. Sometimes I feel in Australia we feel bothered by discussion and debate and just want things neat and in the background. Is that too harsh? I think talking about these issues gets us focused on ourselves, our land, our people and away from the real enemy, which is the apathy inducing saturation of American culture and politics. This is our story. It's better for us.

Based on these activists words and the history of their tax payer money wasting

It scares the hell out of me.

 

[earl]

The alternative is we’re governed by a select group of politicians who are chosen by only 3% of voters and the high court.

That isn't what we are voting on though.

Culture and Empowering Communities | NIAA

Strengthening of Indigenous cultural expression and conservation and working with communities to set priorities and greater influence over decisions that affect them.

voice.gov.au

Laws are made in the following fashion.

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Can we try and use facts that are verifiable and then opinions on top of those facts. That bolded part above clearly states that parliament will have the power to make laws.

Law-making - Parliamentary Education Office

This fact sheet explains the law-making process in the Australian Parliament. It also describes where ideas for laws come from and the history of law-making in the Parliament.

peo.gov.au

Path of a bill​

To become a law, a bill must be:

• introduced into and debated by both the Senate and the House of Representatives
• passed by a majority vote in the Senate and House
• agreed to in identical form by both the Senate and House
• given Royal Assent – signed into law – by the Governor-General.

 

[watersider]

Based on these activists words and the history of their tax payer money wasting

It scares the hell out of me.

I don't think it should. There were similar complaints and fears about the ramifications of an apology. I think the media plays on this and when you listen to indigenous elders they're more reasonable than how media portrays them to get sensationalist stories.

You don't have to look to a hypothetical treaty and a hypothetical spend of money to find fear and outrage at government spending.

Proven corruption, massive contracts, politicians getting cushy jobs after leaving office. But let's focus on the hypothetical rather than what's in front of us.

This is defence consultancy:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/102699506

Since 2012 defence contracts awarded to consultancy firms PwC, Deloitte, EY and KPMG have totalled more than $3.7 billion, with the great bulk of the department's spending occurring since 2016.

Redirect Notice

Australian government spending on big four consultancy firms up 1,270% in a decade, analysis shows