I’ll be voting Yes.
For those wanting more clarity, what do you mean? We have been given the proposed alteration to the constitution:
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.
Wanting more clarity is just a case of people trying to find a reason to vote no.
Not necessarily, I’m grateful for more clarity. Voting yes without any clarity is no better than voting no without any clarity.
Very, very sick of the no campaign brigading every discussion with terrible arguments in bad faith.
I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed. Similarly, the law is my degree. I’ve spent five years of my life studying it, and although I’m not a graduate yet (two units to go), I’d think I’d know more about this shit than Joe from bumfuck nowhere on Facebook.
There is no case for a no vote. None whatsoever. The change would not grant special rights to Indigenous Australians. It has been repeatedly explained by both lawyers and politicians. You can read the change yourself. It has to be a constitutional change, because that protects it from being outright removed by successive governments, which is the very thing that happened to the previous body that performed this role. By definition, it is not racist, as racism refers to negative treatment on the basis of race or ethnic background, and not differing treatment. This is one of three steps proposed by Indigenous Australians towards reconciliation, and isn’t the endpoint. If it fails, it will be the endpoint.
When the colonisers arrived, Indigenous Australians outnumbered colonisers. Now, they make up just 2.5% of the population. We are driving them to extinction. If this fails, by the time we get around to trying again, it is likely the genocide will have all but been completed.
Ethically and morally, a yes vote is the only choice. Legally, it is the best choice for change.
One thing that aggravates my parents (definite No voters) is that there is no acknowledgement from the Yes campaign of the internal failures of previous bodies like ATSIC. It’s fair to state that the government dismantled bodies like ATSIC, but the Yes campaign seem to be deliberately hiding or ignoring the fraud, corruption, ineffectiveness, and nepotism that existed in these organisations.
One can read all about the structural problems, lack of accountability, and failure to deliver results that were detailed in the parliamentary findings on ATSIC. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/indigenousaffairs/report/final/c02
If you have library access, the 2003 report, In the Hand of the Regions, is also worth a read: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26479564
There were also criminal investigations launched into both the Chief of ATSIC, Geoff Clark, and the deputy chairman, “Sugar” Ray Robinson.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11071533/Geoff-Clark-ex-ATSIC-chief-facing-2million-fraud-charges-threatens-senator-Jacinta-Price.html
https://www.smh.com.au/national/former-atsic-leader-sugar-ray-in-court-20060118-gdmsov.htmlFor No voters like my parents, they question why we should force a similar organisation into the Constitution, particularly when there were so many systemic (and even criminal) problems with ATSIC.
In all honesty, having read those same reports in the past (does it make me a weirdo that I enjoy reading this kind of thing?) I note that many of the individuals involved in this corruption were installed by LNP governments (tempted to say “of future past,” because that just sounds fun). I smell false flag on their part, as they have been known to install cronies into organisations they’re opposed to so they can tear it down and claim they’re ‘fixing’ them
"
The corruption happened because they were given a budget with no oversight. The Voice is only an advisory body with no budget to control.
deleted by creator
I don’t know anything about it but perhaps ATSIC was responsible for issuing funding to other bodies, whereas the budget for voice will just be their internal expenses.
I’d honestly ask them what the fuck that has to do with enshrining Indigenous representation in parliament tbh.
Oh no a govt body was corrupt!!! Do they want to remove the ability for all Australians to vote because of robodebt? Because that makes as much fcking sense.
Agreed. One of my family members worked for ATSIC from the beginning, wanting to do good. They resigned in disgust at the corruption before it was exposed and torn down. It’s an ugly bit of history that is being ignored.
Yes, I’m sure that’s their defining motivator…
It’s not at all that they’re ignorant, rusted on, bigots
Perhaps, but calling them names and hurling insults is never going to change their mind. It may even embolden their position because name-calling usually means that you don’t have a good response to their argument.
posted in wrong thread
I don’t really care to change the minds of those people, better to continue harassing and marginalising them. They get stroppy, start to post on social media, get shit canned/dumped/ostracised by friends/colleagues. It’s boring work but it’s worth it, I assume anyway
RIKSY
UNKOWN
DIVISIVE
PERMANENTYou can tell you should be worried because they use scary words and CAPITAL LETTERS. I also love how they put “it opens the door to activists” like it’s a bad thing. Personally I wouldn’t mind if Australia Day were replaced with a Treaty Day if that came to pass. It’s just an excuse to get absolutely pissed around a barbie anyway.
I also love how they put “it opens the door to activists” like it’s a bad thing
Well “activists” aren’t automatically a good thing by default.
I’ll be voting yes, if for no other reason than to encourage more referendums.
I think its insane that we need to vote people in to vote for us, who are statistically more likely to be psychopaths. The majority of Australians think weed should be legal, but it still isn’t.
Giving people the power to vote on specific issues bypasses the bureaucratic bullshit.
“Oh no, it might open the door to more changes to the constitution” GOOD
California has a proposition voting thing. It sounds like a good idea but it has caused them problems. A lot of it is in the wording of the proposition and omitting any negative consequences. For example, people might vote for less property taxes without realising that means less money to fund schools etc. Everything is a trade off and it’s hard to convey that to the general population.
They also voted down treating gig economy workers like employees through that proposition system. But the AEC runs the show with our referendum system. They’re at least a referee to ensure that things are presented fairly.
Absolutely. Foremost, the governments job is to keep everything ticking along. My issue is with the politicians who vote against the will of the majority of the people, when it has no impact on keeping the gears turning.
Legalising weed would do nothing but good for our economy, numerous countries have already proved that. If I can step over them and skip months of bickering back and forth (so they can go back to arguing about how to improve things), I’m going to step over them.
If the people voted to legalise weed, the government would be scrambling to figure out how to test if people are high when driving. What’s an acceptable amount of weed in your system and can the police run accurate, cheap tests.
I don’t think the amount of people getting high will change much. It’s pretty easy to find weed wherever you go. All this will do is remove the black market, and provide high-quality weed for cheaper prices.
No studies have been able to show [canabis impairment] increases the actual risk of crashing, or that drivers with THC in their blood cause a disproportionate number of crashes.
It seems redundant to worry about it. Alcohol is worth testing for, the physiological impairment is dangerous (blacking out, blurred vision), and drunk people make riskier decisions.
The difference is now the police can charge people if they detect any cannabis in their system. If it were legal, there would need to be an acceptable level and ways for the police and the public to determine if they are over that level.
While several studies have shown increased risk associated with cannabis use by drivers, other studies have not found increased risk. From that same wikipedia article. It sounds like there’s no general consensus.
I have yet to see a single rational reason to vote no. I just don’t get it. How could you possibly be against consulting people before you make decisions that affect those people?
Do the No voters think that the government shouldn’t listen to the AMA when making health policy? That they shouldn’t listen to teachers and principals when they make education policy?
I think some of the “No” reasons are valid questions to ask, so simply brushing them off as irrational is not going to win over anyone sitting on the fence. When I have spoken with family & friends, some of their uncertainty and concerns can be found amongst the ten No arguments.
For example, the question of inequitable representation (point #3 of the No arguments) is a fair one. Shouldn’t all Australians, regardless of their gender, race, or ancestry be represented equally in the Constitution?
In 1962, all Indigenous Australians were given the fair right to vote, giving them the same level of voice and representation as that of any Australian citizen. This resolved the issue of equal voting rights, which allows all Australians to have their voice equally represented in parliament. The Voice would now add an additional representation above what voting provides to the average Australian and it will be mandated in the Constitution.
Which personal factors determine if one can be awarded this additional amount of representation? Do you have to prove you are Indigenous by way of a blood test, a written exam, a form of ID, or just by stating that you identify as an Indigenous Australian? I even know of some people who have claimed benefits of Indigenous Australians (e.g. scholarships) when they themselves were Pacific Islander. How pure does your bloodline need to be in order to receive additional representation?Your argument is driven by racism. The same old tired racist arguments that have been floating around since time immemorial.
“People are just claiming they are Aboriginal to get government handouts”
“They’re not really asylum seekers they are economic migrants looking for government handouts”
“They are going to create a new level of government so they can claim government handouts”
They are not getting inequitable representation. They are effectively being given a constitutionally recognised lobby group. The Government of the day will be able to completely ignore them like they ignore climate scientists and environmentalists.
Ok yes. “But then why does it need to be in the constitution” because the Coalition disbanded every non constitutionally recognised group that has ever been created.
The Government of the day will be able to completely ignore them like they ignore climate scientists and environmentalists.
This is how it is supposed to be. They’re ignored, but so is everyone else. We all wish that the government would only listen and act on our preferences and beliefs, but the system is designed so that every Australian citizen receives one vote to elect their preferred representative and we must engage with that elected representative to guide parliament.
There are always going to be lobbyists, special groups, or even corruption that interfere with this system, but these are issues that can be managed by legislation and government processes. Indigenous Australians already have The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), employing 1,023 full time staff and a budget of $285M each year specifically for the purpose to “lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.”Regardless of race or ancestry, let’s all be ignored by government equally.
You’re making a bad faith argument here. No one who can count to ten(do you have fingers?) could make that argument and expect to be taken seriously.
So lame when legitimate points are dismissed as ‘racism’. It is absolutely possible to make these arguments, not all of which I even agree with, or present these issues, without having a racist intent.
I was hoping the level of discourse would be better here, sadly it’s just /r/Australia2
It wasn’t “dismissed”. They clearly outlined why these are long-standing racist tropes and why the “inequitable representation” argument is dishonest. Did you actually bother to read the whole comment or did you just get to “racism” and have a mental breakdown?
I have absolutely no problem with the traditional indigenous owners of the land, who have never ceded sovereignty, having a special status in the constitution.
Because why the hell not?
Obtuse racist bullshit, if all you have is bad faith LNP propaganda then you’re probably just a bigot
Do the No voters think that the government shouldn’t listen to the AMA when making health policy? That they shouldn’t listen to teachers and principals when they make education policy?
They fall mostly into the LNP camp, and given their track record… yes, that is exactly what they think.
Those looking for detail will be disappointed. These pamphlets don’t provide clarity either way. I don’t think it’s the fault of the aec, but rather how something like this is inserted into the constitution.
That seems to be the problem after reading these - there is no clarity by design of the government. They aren’t telling us what the thing we’re voting on actually is.
That’s because Parliament will decide.
The change of the Constitution says it must be created and that it’s not at the whim of a future government to abolish it.
The meat and potatoes of how many, who, when etc will go through as an act of Parliament so your local MP gets a say
In a way it needs to be like that. If we are voting on the detail, which can be changed, people will feel misled. Were voting on the concept only.
Unfortunately we’re voting on them to put something that we don’t know the details on into the constitution, something that is not taken lightly. I’d kinda like to know.
Well, the voice has no real power over government. The senate does. The method of electing the senate is also left up tot he government. If we trust them with that power, why would we not trust them with the power to legoslate for the voice in the same way.
As it’s in the constitution, they could not remove it. They could change it, and I would expect changes over time to make it more effective.
If the detail is being voted on now, we would need to have another referendum every time we make a change.
For me, it comes down to whether the concept of a voice is a good idea. Assuming we think it is, it’s up to the parties to campaign on how that should be. We can vote accordingly, just like every other policy. The only option off the table is no voice, unless they want to run on having another referendum.
Sure, there are those that think it shouldn’t be in the constitution. They are the same ones that removed it before, which is why it needs to be in the constitution. There are those that think it won’t work. They offer no alternative, and if it doesn’t work, we can vote again to remove it.
it’s been explained to you clearly and concisely here. If you’re too stupid, listen to legal experts or better yet, well regarded constitutional lawyers(they’re all yes voters)
You really need to stop this “the only right vote is a yea vote” holier than thou garbage. You realise that you’re telling indigenous people that they’re bigots and wrong for voting no, don’t you?
It’s hardly garbage to assert that bigots are bad people, moreover I’m saying indigenous people voting no are looked at as cookers(not bigots). Try to read before responding please.
I still honestly don’t know which way to vote. Most of my indigenous friends have been posting on socials saying to vote no, so I’ll probably go that way, but part of me just thinks no matter how tokenistic and kinda “us white men good, help black fella have say” it comes across, surely having it would have to be better than not having it?
Why couldn’t this just be like gay marriage where the only reason you’d vote no is because you’re a religious nut or a bigot? (unfortunately, it seems 40% of our population fit into those categories)
The “yes” brochure arguments really sound like a lot of political fluff. “Recognition”…cool, but what does that get them? What does “being recognized in the constitution” mean? “Listening”…ok but are you actually going to do anything? Who are you listening to out of the hundreds/thousands(?) of indigenous tribes around the country? “Better Results”…so got any actual plans for those things? How does the voice help achieve those results?
Having now looked at the “no” brochure, they basically echo what I just asked above haha. The Government literally won’t divulge the details of what the Voice actually entails. That seems super dodgy.
I mean, there’s a 270 page report about the design of the thing here https://voice.gov.au/resources/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report
With zero answers for the main things people want to know, like how many parole are appointed, how they’re appointed, how long they’re appointed for, what powers they have, etc.
As a result of this, and through careful deliberation, the final proposal for a National Voice is a 24-member model including 5 members representing remote regions, and one member representing the significant number of Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland. (p. 12)
Members of the Local & Regional Voices within each state and territory would collectively determine National Voice members from their respective jurisdictions. (p. 12)
Members would serve 4-year terms. These terms would be staggered, with half the membership determined every 2 years to ensure continuity. There would be a limit of 2 consecutive terms per member. (p. 108)
• The National Voice would be an advisory body to the Australian Parliament and Government. These relationships would be two-way interactions, with either party able to initiate advice or commence discussion around relevant policy matters… The National Voice would have no power to veto laws made by the Parliament or decisions made by the Australian Government. (p. 109)
I’m still seeing too many ‘No’ people wanting more than a voice, like treaty. Why can’t we have both? A no on this one is going to push treaty back further.
These are wreckers. They didn’t engage with the extensive, inclusive process that came up with the path forward.
Voice. Treaty. Truth.
In that order. “More” is explicitly required and this is the first step.
Please, please, please read the Uluru Statement From The Heart. It’s one page.
This dialogue needs to be in the media more. Shame it’s just all about “polls” increasing the no vote.
Politics before people every time.
Vote yes is the only true choice
I guess it can go both ways - it can either put it back further because people rejected it, or it could lead to further discussions around a better solution (with hopefully more details given before being asked to vote).
At the moment it seems we’re voting yes or no on a title of “the voice” while being told we don’t need to know what the voice can actually do.
This is exactly what happened with the Republic referendum. People didn’t like the model, so they voted no. It’s been 24 years since that referendum and in that time there has never been a conversation around a different model.
The public said no, so no politician wants to touch it.
If you vote no, treaty will never happen.
No it’s not. In fact it’s not specifically because of the Republic referendum. People just won’t take responsibility for their laziness or inability to read a simple document.
The simple truth is that Australians are mostly racist.
Im not sure I understand your reply.
My point about the republic was that if people say no to the Voice because it doesn’t go far enough, will end up killing the conversation that could become treaty. Just like the republic conversation died with the 1999 referendum
My point is that the people who vote no because they’re gormless bigots vastly outweighs those who do do over structural concerns.
So the indigenous people telling everyone to vote no are bigots and racists?
The Government literally won’t divulge the details of what the Voice actually entails.
That is miss-information propagated by the “No” campaign. The governemnt absoltuely has divulged what The Voice entails, and it’s really simple. These words will be added to the constitution:
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii. 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;
iii. 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.”
Let me make it even simpler:
There will be a group of people authorised to give a small speech on indigenous issues when parliament is in session and occasionally have meetings with relevant politicians/government workers.
The government will do their normal job (passing laws, etc) after taking into consideration what was said.
It’s not complex. There is no risk. We’re not giving Indigenous Australians some kind of exclusive right. The reality is anyone can write a letter to a politician, and if the letter has any merit at all a staff member will ensure the politician reads it. If the contents of your letter are actually important the politician will even meet with you in person.
The only thing that this changes is The Voice won’t need to have their message approved by the staff member. I suppose in theory, that could result in wasting a few minutes of our politicians time… but I doubt that will happen. The reality is sensible people will given the power to speak for all indigenous peoples, and they will only talk about the most important issues affecting indigenous people. They will have an endlessly long list of points to bring up, and they’ll pick the most important ones - which will never be a waste of time to bring up in Parliament.
At the end of the day it’s a matter of respect. It’s a formal process to do what is already being done informally. Indigenous issues won’t need to be raised via back channels anymore.
A few details, like how many people will be on The Voice and how long they can speak in Parliament for, etc are still to be decided on, but none of those really matter. Does it matter if there’s ten people or fifty in The Voice? Only one of them will be allowed to speak in any given parliament session. There’s generally a 15-20 minute time restriction on anything raised in parliament, and I’d expect the same limit will be applied to The Voice. But if they allow 60 minutes instead… honestly who cares. By not putting it in the constitution the government is allowing those decisions to be changed without going back and doing an entire referendum all over again.
I’m having some serious problem with how this is worded:
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;
Since the First Peoples already have representation as a part of their Australian citizenship, the way this is worded presumably gives them extra representation compare to a non-indigenous citizen. If this “representations” is purely advisory, then I don’t have a problem. Having it explicitly written into the constitution is a huge can of worm I’m not sure if I’m willing to touch.
before anyone starts, I’m a first-gen immigrant with no skin in this game, and I haven’t read any arguement from either sides outside of this post.
making representations and being represented are two different things. To make a representation is to express your opinion: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/make-representations-a-representation-to
That’s still not really giving any specifics. How many people? How are they selected? Do they have any power? How long is their term?
That’s just more waffle about “giving them a seat at the table”.
These questions are not just trivial details that don’t matter. What if it’s a single person with a lifetime appointment?
What if I told you it was going to be set up like the NAC or the NACC or the ATSIC or the NIC or the NCAFP??
And if you don’t know or weren’t concerned how any of these were structured or operated why are you concerned about the next version of an advisory body?
How much do you know about the structure and functions of other advisory bodies?
Was I asked to vote on if those bodies should become part of our constitution?
Not op, and I agree with you…
My issue is that the libs get in and then we get the watered down mixed NBN that’s worse every way compared to the original NBN.
Basically, with no safeguards any government will shape the body as they see fit.
Still voting yes
The government has rightly said that what the voice exactly looks like will be decided after the vote, because there’s no point putting the investment in (both in time and funding) to flesh this out, if the public doesn’t back it.
The specifics to the level you’re asking, in my opinion, make no difference to how you vote, with the exception of “Will they have power”, and that has been answered - the voice is to be consulted and their feedback collected, they have no power to enforce anything, but consulting them really is the least the government should do.
Don’t think about whether or not it will actually be useful - there is no way to predict this. Just focus on this one thought:
If Australia votes No, it will kill all political momentum behind the ongoing fight for Indigenous rights to governance and sovereignty. This will be perceived as a damaging failure by Labor and neither they, nor the Liberals, will go anywhere reforms of this scale for a long time.
I understand and support those who are voting No based on their lived experiences, but the rest of us have an obligation to vote Yes as far as I’m concerned. This referendum is the culmination of decades of work by Indigenous Australians and voting against it would be a morally reprehensible act.
So even if the indigenous people we know are telling us to vote no, we should vote yes?
Yes.
I hope you realise how dumb that is.
About as dumb as paedophiles in the catholic church, or african-americans in the GOP, yet, here we are.
Not quite as dumb as blindly doing whatever your friends tell you to do.
Good thing I’m not doing that.
@Whirlybird @Mountaineer I am similarly not decided. If it helps, these are the official pamphlets
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-yes.pdf?v=1.0
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-no.pdf?v=1.1
I’ll be voting Yes. If over the coming months we were to find out that somehow the Voice to Parliament will have a negative impact on demands for Treaties, truth telling, sovereignty among other things then I might change my mind but I find that unlikely. Who knows.
The big problem for me after seeing these is that it seems the government is refusing to give us actual details on what the Voice to Parliament entails. Why are they being so secretive about it and asking us to vote on something that they won’t tell us what it is?
I don’t think it’s anything nefarious. More like Labor shooting themselves in the foot by running a shit campaign.
Very possible unfortunately. Not having an answer for basic questions like how many people are appointed, how they’re appointed, and for how long is pathetic.
The cynic in me goes straight to that there’s a reason why they’re not divulging these things and it’s because the yes voters wouldn’t like the answers.
More billshit, that assertion has already been directly disproven earlier in this thread. Why are you so committed to posting misinformation?
It was not disproven. If it is then you should be able to answer my questions in the comment you replied to then, right?
How many people are appointed?
How are they appointed?
How long are the terms of appointment?
Someone already answered this for you here. I have engaged with you in good faith previously, but it’s becoming increasingly clear you are completely full of shit and are simply attempting to spread doubt and fear.
Read the responses others have already posted; you’ll find that your asinine bullshit has already been roundly disproved. You’re constantly posting content you know is false. Why?
Just pointing out that this claim has been debunked many times before.
The entire proposed amendment has been published - that is what we are voting on. This Government Resource may be useful
The implementation of the amendment is subject to Parliament and it can be changed by successive governments to suit the needs of their constituents. This article from The Conversation was posted here recently and helped a few people to better understand the amendment
I hope this clears it up a little bit for you. I’m not going to tell you to vote yes or no - just want to make sure you have the facts straight.
Cheers for the Conversation article. Even though it’s clearly a “Vote Yes” PR article, it has good information in it.
The issues that I still have with it are that basically we could all vote Yes, have a voice put in the constitution, but then the government at any time can just completely change what the Voice actually entails and how it’s used. With so much handling of it left to the government of the time, it’s very hard to see how it’s not just going to be essentially ignored/reduced every time the LNP get in power for example.
I guess a “Yes” vote is really a vote for “It’s something at least, it’s a start”, which can definitely be a good thing.
deleted by creator
It’s not, and that’s an issue. It shouldn’t be something that can be gutted by the government to the point of it being irrelevant.
deleted by creator
It would be so much easier if they just said that the Voice was going to adopt the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) or even just blatantly copy their documents.
Here’s the corporate plan, with its vision statements, purpose, performance measures, timelines, and deliverables.
Here’s the annual report on it’s performance so far.
Here’s the reconciliation action plan.
Bullshit. If you worked, or where at all involved with, in indigenous communities you’d know the overwhelming sentiment is a yes vote and that those opposed are considered cookers.
You post a lot of well rehearsed nonsense
Just a friendly reminder to keep discussions civil and respectful. It is important that we share a wide variety of opinions and debate around the topic is important. When responding to people who differ in opinion to you it is important not to respond with aggression or name-calling as it discourages these important conversations. If you notice the conversation getting off track please make a report so action can be taken if necessary.
The pamphlets are a waste of time because there was no legal obligation to make them truthful or factual.
Which is why the constitutional lawyer Dutton quoted is demanding his quote be removed pending legal action
The pamphlets have not helped me decide whatsoever. I was sortof leaning yes but…I just don’t know.
The pamphlets are for the people who decide in the voting booth, it’s worthwhile to look for more detail on the questions you have.
I’m voting Yes for two main reasons.
-
When I look at NZ and the recognition of the Maori I feel embarassed that we have the oldest continuous civilization on the planet and we don’t give a shit about it at all.
-
We haven’t moved the dial on any of the major markers impacting indigenous people in the last twenty years. Perhaps it’s time we actually started listening and giving them a voice isn’t a bad start.
Also there’s nobody on the No side I have any respect for. Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine are Opportunists, Lidia Thorpe is just the other side of the same coin. That tells me enough about the right side to be on.
-
So do some reading, see what the legal community is saying, look for political academics commenting. Just stay away from political campaign drivel.
For me, I expect us to be an international laughing stock if we vote this down. We already have a reputation for serious racism and a referendum like this failing would make me actively seek alternative citizenship just out of embarrassment.
As for indigenous Australians, if we vote no I hope they start to radicalise. I’ll be on their side
Lol, give it up tankie it ain’t gonna happen 🤣
???
So avoiding politics and listening to legal and academic (bourgeoisie) opinions is Communist?
Ok boomer
Lol I’m not quite old enough to be a boomer
Whatever happens with the referendum you aren’t going to see many radical First Nations people. There will always be a small few who are, like now, but generally no it ain’t gonna happen
A no vote at the referendum means an effective end of the path to a treaty; you’re vastly underestimating the importance of this in indigenous communities.
I’m probably going to regret this but I’m a glutton for punishment so here goes.
At this stage I have some real reservations on the “The Voice” on both practical and philosophical grounds.
-
In a liberal democracy, in principle everyone should be equal under the law, with no particular group being elevated in terms of representation above beyond anyone else, and certainly not on the basis of race. While it’s true government may make policy targeted at different groups, the voice is a bridge too far for me, in essence setting up a third chamber of parliament. And while the Voice cannot block legislation directly I could foresee it doing so indirectly. Depending on the issue this could be bad or a good thing. If one doesn’t agree with this and thinks it’s powerless, then why bother?
-
Having the voice as a permanent entity seems to suggest to me that the problems in some sections amongst the aboriginal community basically will continue on forever and hence putting the voice in the constitution, and I find this incredibly racist and insulting. Assuming they implemented the Voice and it did the trick and everything is all good in ten years time, I’m very skeptical a future referendum to disband it would ever fly. Once people get into power they will absolutely hang on to it.
-
If we setup a voice for this particular minority group, what’s next? an LGBTQIA+ voice, or some other minority voice? This could set a very unworkable precedence.
-
I’m sure this is going to be an unpopular point of view, but at some point people do need to take responsibility for their own choices. Not everything is someone else’s fault, and certainly not someone that’s been dead for 200 years, or even 50 years. I have more sympathy for kids with fucked up parents (I’ve been there), and early childhood intervention involving kids from difficult homes needs to be looked at in general regardless of race. But we don’t need the voice to point out this really patently obvious fact.
-
There have been many aboriginal advisory and policy groups in the past that were dismantled due to dysfunction and corruption. To this day there is still a vast bureaucracy dedicated to aboriginal issues. What exactly is happening to all of their advice and their reports and all of their policy work? This doesn’t seem to be fixing the problem. And for some reason we are supposed to believe, without any evidence, that another layer of bureaucracy is going to help? Parliament barely functions, let alone another bolted on elected body in the form of a voice. I’m skeptical, and I’d really want to see just a shred of empirical evidence it would make a difference. Let’s say for arguments sake it would work. Great. Form the body today through legislation and stop dicking around in the constitution. If it’s the best thing since sliced bread then it should meet with little resistance.
-
This voice just seems like a really ham fisted and convoluted way of trying to implemented aboriginal recognition in the constitution. If that’s the real goal, then there’s got to be a better way to do it. Some suggest slipping in a bit of text into the constitution saying “Aborigines were here first” or words that effect. To me it seems quite ridiculous since this is history and it seems pointless to restate the historical facts in the constitution. If it makes someone feel better I’m not against it but I’m not sure it would change how people feel in the long run, aboriginals included.
-
For aboriginals that are looking for real power (i.e. dedicated seats in parliament), this seems like a very watered down version of it. For aboriginals that only want aboriginals in this country and want everyone else to fuck off it’s most definitely unsatisfactory. The more I think about it the more I think the “The Voice” is the absolute worst of all worlds.
-
The way I see it is that we are all here in this country as a result of some type migration, even aboriginals. And each wave of migration has had impacts to the continent, Australian wildlife and it’s inhabitants, good and bad. And there is good and bad in all of humanity. The way this debate is going, whoever is on the other side is automatically deemed bad and whoever agrees is good. And perhaps this is the problem with the modern era overall.
with no particular group being elevated in terms of representation above beyond anyone else, and certainly not on the basis of race.
No one is being elevated. This myth of “special rights” or “special treatment” has been repeatedly debunked by constitutional law experts.
in essence setting up a third chamber of parliament.
This is 100% false - the Voice is purely an advisory body. To equate it to the House of Representatives or the Senate is just a flat out lie.
And while the Voice cannot block legislation directly I could foresee it doing so indirectly.
How? It has no power.
If one doesn’t agree with this and thinks it’s powerless, then why bother?
Powerless is not the same as unnecessary. The Voice will be able to make more informed recommendations to government than any other advisory body when it comes to matters specific to Indigenous Australians. It is true that a potential lack of willingness from government, particularly conservative government, to actually listen to and work with the Voice is a concern. However there is no guarantee that this will be the case.
Having the voice as a permanent entity seems to suggest to me that the problems in some sections amongst the aboriginal community basically will continue on forever and hence putting the voice in the constitution, and I find this incredibly racist and insulting.
The Voice would not exist solely to solve the “problems” you’re referring to. Issues relating specifically to Indigenous Australians will continue to exist for as long as they exist. Having an advisory board that can offer better advice than anything that has come before it will always be important. It needs to be permanent so that it cannot be instantly wiped out by a conservative government, as has been emphasised repeatedly for months now.
Assuming they implemented the Voice and it did the trick and everything is all good in ten years time, I’m very skeptical a future referendum to disband it would ever fly.
Again - you completely misunderstand the point of the Voice. It is not a quick bandaid solution for social problems. There is absolutely no intention of abolishing it once it “does the trick”. This is why it is in the constitution.
Once people get into power they will absolutely hang on to it.
Once again - the Voice doesn’t have power.
If we setup a voice for this particular minority group, what’s next? an LGBTQIA+ voice, or some other minority voice? This could set a very unworkable precedence.
Come on dude, really? This is textbook slippery slope fallacy. Please be better than this if you are serious about engaging in discussion and debate.
I’m sure this is going to be an unpopular point of view, but at some point people do need to take responsibility for their own choices. Not everything is someone else’s fault, and certainly not someone that’s been dead for 200 years, or even 50 years. I have more sympathy for kids with fucked up parents (I’ve been there), and early childhood intervention involving kids from difficult homes needs to be looked at in general regardless of race. But we don’t need the voice to point out this really patently obvious fact.
I don’t even know where to start with this. You are completely ignorant of history if you think the social problems that exist today are a consequence of people not “taking responsibility for their actions”. The dispossession of land, genocide, incarceration, Stolen Generations - all of this is quite literally someone else’s fault. White people tried to wipe Indigenous Australians out, failed and have left a mountain of problems behind that cannot be solved solely by the individual choices of the victims.
There have been many aboriginal advisory and policy groups in the past that were dismantled due to dysfunction and corruption. To this day there is still a vast bureaucracy dedicated to aboriginal issues. What exactly is happening to all of their advice and their reports and all of their policy work? This doesn’t seem to be fixing the problem. And for some reason we are supposed to believe, without any evidence, that another layer of bureaucracy is going to help?
The Voice will be 100% run by Indigenous Australians. Its advice will therefore be superior to that of any other body. For example, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which the conservative No campaign is attempting to use as evidence that the Voice is redundant, is only 22% Indigenous.
Let’s say for arguments sake it would work. Great. Form the body today through legislation and stop dicking around in the constitution.
It needs to be in the constitution so it isn’t immediately abolished by a future, most likely conservative, government. You literally just acknowledged yourself that many previous advisory and policy groups have been dismantled by government.
Some suggest slipping in a bit of text into the constitution saying “Aborigines were here first” or words that effect. To me it seems quite ridiculous since this is history and it seems pointless to restate the historical facts in the constitution. If it makes someone feel better I’m not against it but I’m not sure it would change how people feel in the long run, aboriginals included.
Are you Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? No? Then no one cares about how you feel. This isn’t about you. Not everything is about you.
For aboriginals that are looking for real power (i.e. dedicated seats in parliament), this seems like a very watered down version of it.
The Voice is just one aspect of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The majority of Indigenous Australians support it, but this does not mean that they are opposed to further additions and implementations. The Voice is a start, it is not the be all and end all.
For aboriginals that only want aboriginals in this country and want everyone else to fuck off it’s most definitely unsatisfactory.
If such people even exist they are an extreme, extreme minority. You are very closeted if you actually believe such a group is large enough to warrant a mention.
The way I see it is that we are all here in this country as a result of some type migration, even aboriginals.
Use your brain please. What is the key difference here? One group was here first. Non-Indigenous peoples displaced those who were here first. You are either extremely ignorant of Australia’s history, or just downright dishonest if you think we are all the same in this respect.
The way this debate is going, whoever is on the other side is automatically deemed bad and whoever agrees is good.
Welcome to politics. Welcome to our ever polarising society. This is not an excuse for you to play the victim. Your failed arguments and lies do not magically gain more weight because someone hurt your feelings.
Probably more direct than I would have been but good post, glad you’ve argued with people on the internet so I don’t have to.
A mixture of slippery slope, a complete disregard for the weight of history and a lack of understanding of the difference between “law” and “justice” seem to be a recurring set of arguments when it comes to disagreeing with social justice issues.
I figured no one else was going to do it because it was too long. On platforms like reddit and Lemmy you kinda have to shut this stuff down instantly or dumb people start upvoting it. Most are too lazy to actually read stuff properly or fact check it themselves so if they see a comment with a high number of upvotes they just blindly believe it has some value even when it is completely useless dribble like the one above. I also enjoy the bit where these losers rage reply or cry about their hurt feelings after you completely destroy their flimsy little soap box, so that’s extra motivation I guess.
I could respond to everything you said but you are not dscussing this in good faith. You are dismissive, rude and insulting. I will not engage with someone with an attitude.
It’s the Yes side that wants something and wants to change. It’s up to the Yes side to argue for they want convincingly and respectfully and you won’t get it by being rude.
You can keep responding if you like, but I would only hope you take my advice because it’s the best thing for the Yes side, or shoot yourself in the foot, it’s up to you.
I don’t care about changing your opinion dude. I have no fucking idea who you are or why you think you’re so important to me but you’re not not - sorry to break it to you. The emotional blackmail is not going to work; lose the main character syndrome.
The only reason I replied is to debunk your lies and correct your misconceptions. People like you always attempt to overwhelm everyone by just spewing out as much garbage as possible - this is literally the conservative No campaign’s tactic for the referendum.
If you actually want to defend your drivel for whatever reason, grow up and get a real argument. “You hurt my feelings” is not an argument; it is childish behaviour.
Whether you believe they are an idiot or not for having their views is irrelevant. The sidebar says to keep discussion civil and respectful, I find having to remind everyone of this is like being a primary school teacher
I disagree with your political position, but I do agree with your stance on being disrespected.
I still feel like you should reply, but take the high road, continue to be respectful and address the points of disagreement. I want to see where this conversation goes.
I’m not playing ball with somebody who calls me a liar, accuses me of playing the victim (which made no sense) and calls me an idiot.
This is the problem with some on the Yes side, who feel the need to engage in personal attacks, often on people they don’t even know. And there’s no doubt some of that on the No side too.
Ultimately I’ll have my say on referendum day, assuming I decide to take part. And what I don’t find persuasive is personal attacks from either side, and I imagine many others are the same.
"Your capacity to be offended, isn’t something that I or anyone else needs to respect. Your capacity to be offended isn’t something you should respect. In fact, it’s something you should be on your guard for, perhaps more than any other property of your mind.
This feeling can mislead you. If you care about justice (and you absolutely should) you should care about facts and the ability to discuss them openly. Justice requires contact with reality.
It simply isn’t the case, it cannot be the case, that the most pressing claims on our sense of justice need come from those who claim to be most offended by conversation itself."
- Sam Harris
- In an ideal liberal democracy that’s been set up with agreement from all parties yes. But the aboriginals didn’t even get a vote on being colonised, nevermind Federation. They’ve essentially been under occupation for more than 200 years. The Voice is meant as a first step in resolving that conflict so we can move forward as a nation. Voice, Truth, Treaty. Even the racist yanks made treaties with their natives. Can we not even live up to that low bar?
- I personally don’t think the Voice will be a permanent feature but I also don’t think me or my grandchildren will be around to see it abolished. There is multigenerational trauma that needs to be acknowledged and healed. That’s the Truth and Treaty bit btw. The Voice is meant to make sure the government of the day doesn’t forget those two things.
- Not going to entertain slippery slopes. Other minorities consented to participate in the liberal democracy we established. See point 1 above.
- See point made by @Ilandar@aussie.zone about 200 years of oppression and attempted genocide.
- The Voice will be permanent that can’t be abolished like all the previous groups. It’s still purely advisory so parliament could absolutely ignore it but they have to consider the optics of the thing. Because now the Voice will be visible. Hand to heart, how many people could name all the previous aboriginal bodies before this debate? I know I couldn’t.
- The point is to not be purely performatory. Just adding a line in the Constitutions then patting ourselves on the back and calling it a job well done isn’t enough. So many organisations already do that today and it’s become nothing more than an empty ritual now. Do you notice all the “original custodian acknowledgements” uttered at the opening of every function? Adding a line to the Constitution would be just that.
- The point is to have a symbol that is visible. To move forward to Truth and Treaty. I think that’s an important step to take to right the wrongs of the past so we can move forward together.
- See point from @Ilandar@aussie.zone about them being here first. Also see point 1 about not really having a choice of being part of our modern nation.
I’m not even aboriginal. My ancestors came from China during the gold rush. There are things I’d like to see redressed too but I haven’t had it as bad. They’re first in line, so to speak.
A lot of people have responded intelligently, but I’m going to respond like a dum-dum:
- In a liberal democracy, everyone should be equal under the law, but this country was colonised. We could all just leave and come back later, or we could pay reparations. Otherwise, we’re basically stealing shit and saying “OK we’re starting liberal democracy… NOW”… wait (steal more stuff) “now”… I mean (steal more) now. Now for real! The Mabo ruling literally happened in the 90s. So much for Liberal Democracy.
- The Voice does not exist to “fix Aboriginal problems”. It exists as a first step towards reconciliation, there will be other steps which will need more constitutional amendments. The “problem” is non-aboriginal people.
- It’s not a “minority group”, it’s a dispossessed group due to colonisation. Yes, if you steal land and assets from “other minority groups” then maybe they would need recognition. This is consistent with other nations such as NZ.
- Yes, white Australians definitely need to take responsibility for colonisation and its effects which are happening to this day. You should definitely feel for people who have had violence committed on them regardless of race.
- Aboriginal advisory groups are often designed to fail and then shut down. It is an obvious problem for people who want to take things out of this country, sell it, and fuck off back to Britain. This one has constitutional power, so they won’t be able to do that. This will protect Australians.
- It’s not “were here first” it’s “were colonised”. If China won a war and took over Australia, they would not just change the constitution to say “sucks to be you”, they’d have to make up some shit, if only to create some sort of consent. The Australian constitution basically says “the queen says we’re a country now”
- Aboriginal people aren’t dickbags, they don’t want “real power”. They want recognition and reconciliation. They want to re-glue the history of this nation. Take a look at the Uluru statement from the heart. It is about subtlety, sharing, and growth, not about power and control.
- Some people are bad because they are idiots, others are bad because they choose to ignore history, and some are bad because they want to engineer hurt to others just to help themselves. You take your pick.
Thought provoking post. I want to do everything possible to help address aboriginal issues. But I would have preferred they trial the voice for a couple of years first to see if it works and iron out any issues. Then if it’s a success, use that as evidence why it should be added to the constitution. It seems wild to commit to something before we’ve really tried it.
It seems wild to commit to something before we’ve really tried it.
There’s been lots, either recognised or appointed by the government over the years.
And whenever they become inconvenient (publicly saying things the Government doesn’t want the public to hear), the Government of the day dismisses them.The whole point here is to institute a body that can
- Speak in parliament - which means whatever they say will be permanently a matter of record.
- Not get shut down the moment they are inconvenient.
The Government of the day doesn’t have to do what The Voice says and the The Voice has no veto - but they do have to publicly acknowledge what has been said to them.
That being said, I’ll still vote yes.
It would be lot more persuasive than blind faith that’s for sure.
-
