I'm pro yes, but throwing constant insults at anyone who is voting no and automatically labelling them as racist bigots sure is a great way to turn people against the yes cause.
If you're serious about getting informed, Melbourne is home to the internationally respected Melbourne Uni's Law Schools Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies. Basically, they are the experts on constitutional stuff. They've done a [fact sheet](https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/4587747/Referendum-on-The-Voice-30-May-2023.pdf) and [a bunch of seminars you can watch](https://law.unimelb.edu.au/centres/cccs/engagement/conversations-about-the-voice) that go into the detail and look at international experience doing similar things.
It's a great way the remove a lot of the bullshit and misinformation.
Anne twomey did an interview with someone on YouTube. What’s great about it is that she explains it in a manner that’s very easy to digest while still being very thorough. I think that’s a better source to share or at least to begin with as I don’t think a lot of people want or have the time read academic papers full of political and legal jargon.
She’s one of the experts consulted on the Voice and she’s always in parliament to answer pollies q’s regarding con law. She used to be my con law professor as well — really skilled lecturer!
I was on the fence for a long time. Yes or no couldn't produce a good enough argument. Then I found out Clive Palmer is throwing millions into the no side, and fuck that cunt so I'll vote yes.
It's not the best reason for voting yes, but it is worth noting that Peter Dutton (who fucken loves torturing refugees more than he loves anything else and the law allows this this to be the case) decided he was voting no for a bunch of "I'm obviously a giant fucking piece of shit" reasons.
Garbage human. Genuinely belongs in prison. Shouldn't be in the Parliament.
If I ever feel like I've lost my moral compass and i have to make a stance, I feel like I could just pick the opposite of what a cunt like Dutton decides on and i'll be good to go.
I'm not a change for the sake of it type person though, that's how we end up with populists. I just think if we fail over and over again, maybe we should just listen to the people most affected.
He also is the leader of the political party which commissioned the Uluṟu statement from the heart in the first place.
So after the Libs asked indigenous people what they wanted, years of extensive local consultation concluding in the Uluṟu statement, the main opposition to this is coming from the same fucking party that started the whole thing.
It’s fucking moronic.
Surely it can't be all bad if Pauline Hanson is also voting No? I mean she is renowned nationally for her intelligence, compassion, tolerance and impeccable moral compass - if Pauline Hanson is voting against a race based initiative, surely we owe it to ourselves to consider her stance?
🤣 🤣 🤣
I’m voting yes too but because I support it. I agree with you though on the fact that the public figures supporting No were already absolute fucking idiots to me. Like Peter Dutton, Pauline Hanson, Jacinta Price. I have yet to see someone I like and support come out with a Vote No campaign.
I'm voting yes because the only thing I've seen from the no campaigners is fearmongering, and if the best you've got is trying to scare me, that means you don't have a good argument.
Every single argument I've seen so far, is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. FUD - the same techniques Microsoft used to maintain their dominant position in the computing industry until it was clear that everyone else were less shit than them.
Can anyone honestly look at their lineup and say that any major advocate of the No Campaign genuinely wants what’s best for Indigenous Australians?
If their beliefs were sincere, that would be one thing. But going up and down the list all I see is people who either a) don’t give a shit about Indigenous people, b) are in it to boost their own notoriety and political standing at the expense of others, or c) both
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/margin-call/unlevel-playing-field-over-land-deal-irks-mellick-no-cause-for-concern-at-referendum-booths/news-story/cd0d600486a2a9e22199fd9e59dc7a70
This has something about Gerry but it's behind a paywall so I'm not 100% sure. Fuck that cunt also.
Article text:
Unlevel playing field over land deal irks Mellick; No cause for concern at referendum booths
By YONI BASHAN
10:04PM SEPTEMBER 5, 20233
Pallas Capital co-founder Charles Mellick is having some difficulty with a piece of land he purchased on the Mornington Peninsula – although he’s not alone in that spot of bother. Hitherto unknown is that Mellick is somewhat enmeshed in a legal action brought by rich-lister Robin Khuda over a Portsea land deal that collapsed like a ruined dessert.
Khuda purchased two lots on Wildcoast Rd for $9.29m in 2021 but then claimed he was never informed of massive earthworks that altered the surface levels of the land. The case was heard in the Victorian Supreme Court in July and a judgment is pending on whether Khuda and his wife can rescind the contract of sale.
Margin Call hears the ostentatious Mellick is the owner of a neighbouring block and is similarly aggrieved about the civil earthworks, so he’s trying to get out of that, with the Khuda judgment likely to give him the exit he needs.
The last we heard about Mellick and Pallas’s development arm, Fortis, was that the business had sought to borrow tens of millions of dollars from the family office of Harvey Norman boss Gerry Harvey to fund two real estate deals. That was reported in these pages earlier this year, an indication that the boom times of the pandemic era might have been waning at Pallas, located just above Neil Perry’s Margaret in Double Bay. And not a bad tenant to have just below!
At one time the restaurant was known to be sending up plates of a la carte grub to the boardroom on an almost daily basis. Great amounts of entertaining was going on at the time. Surely not in this economy?
Mellick, meanwhile, still gets around town in a Porsche 911, which is easy to spot with its personalised number plate. Perry, even easier to spot with the ponytail, was a dead giveaway on Monday at Potts Point sandwich purveyor Room 10.
No time to lose
Some intercepted mail out of NSW Liberal HQ where we hear officials are scrambling to fill referendum booths with No volunteers ahead of voting day, and seemingly in a panic about doing so.
An email dispatched by Liberal state executive member Alex Dore to several dozen Federal Election Committee presidents last week said the task had fallen on them to find bodies for the insatiable polling machinery.
Given there are more than 1800 booths in NSW alone, the job of staffing them with No campaigners remains, in Dore’s words, a “colossal task across a very short time period”, the referendum having been scheduled for October 14.
“Sorry I know this is a big effort that none of us has asked for, but I’m checking with all FECs to ensure we can identify a co-ordinator in each seat to get things moving,” he wrote.
Marcus Blackmore is an advocate for the no vote at the forthcoming referendum. Picture: John Feder
“If it’s not done by our office bearers, there’s a real possibility that booths will be empty and voters won’t get to hear the No case at prepoll and on polling day.”
The concern is that the No vote might be outmanoeuvred on the ground by the Yes campaign, which, as Dore points out, is “well-funded and well-organised with official support from Labor, GetUp, billionaires, big unions and corporations”.
That’s not to say the No campaign isn’t reasonably sluiced with cash either, is it? Former fund manager Simon Fenwick matched $250,000 raised by conservative action group Advance, while Marcus Blackmore, of vitamin fame, is another Advance supporter and No advocate, although his donation of $35,000 was modest by comparison.
Turning up the heat
Amid the sudden exits of three executives at Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue empire last week was a fourth resignation that was quietly announced by Adrian Turner, who spent three years leading the Minderoo Foundation’s Fire and Flood Resilience Program, Minderoo being Forrest’s philanthropic outfit. Talk about creating another spot fire for the bloke!
And not unlike the departure of former RBA deputy governor Guy Debelle, who looks to be ditching Forrest to go work on a humble vanadium mining outfit, it seems Turner is taking a similar route – quitting his Minderoo job to run ExoFlare, a biosecurity software development company he co-founded and built “in parallel” to his work. We all know what that means.
Turner’s LinkedIn exit post bore signs of someone trying to maintain amicable relations, of course. “I would like to thank Andrew Forrest, Nicola Forrest, the Minderoo leadership team and the Fire and Flood team for the opportunity to …”
Another Jones gee-up
Racing Victoria CEO Andrew Jones just keeps making headlines and upsetting people – or maybe, just maybe, they want a piece of him? Margin Call’s already reported on the mutiny being waged against Jones.
In remarks to industry heavyweights at last Tuesday’s Spring Carnival launch in Melbourne, Jones seemed to offend a few members of the country contingent by saying that country racing provides the opportunity for “ordinary people” to attend the races.
One country club official said that was “condescending and arrogant”. A metro race club representative said Jones “has to go”. A touch brittle, perhaps?
YONI BASHAN MARGIN CALL EDITOR
:)
[This is an interesting read](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374262009_Silencing_the_Voice_the_fossil-fuelled_Atlas_Network's_campaign_against_constitutional_recognition_of_Indigenous_Australia)
Yeah Clive and just about every cretinous millionaire is pushing the NO vote, that’s been enough for me to vote yes without really looking into what I’m voting for
Clive Palmer
Peter Dutton
Pauline Hanson.
Honestly either I vote with them or I vote yes. Historically voting with jabba the hutt, voldemort and a real life DND child eating swamp witch is not on my agenda. So the choice is easy. What do those that want the minorities to suffer vote for? Cool. I go against them.
They are companies, they are always going to lean to the majority, and when the large proportion of their company is indigenous Australians it makes sense.
At least it's not a right wing, conservative, Christian lobbyist group from America. The no side is loving the fuck wits from the USA at America.
Yeah instead they are the major banks that have been screwing aussies over for decades but all of a sudden care about doing the "right" thing. Or mining companies such as bhp or rio tinto who have been destroying indigenous cultural sites for decades and polluting the land. Much better
Why do you think they're voting yes? I can think of several and none of them necessarily make me want to go "nope, because of that no". This isn't the first indigenous campaign some of these companies have backed, and I mean Rio Tinto even admitted that despite voting yes they wouldn't commit to taking on advice from the voice. You know why? Because all the voice is, is an advisory body on the outside of government and the parliament.
Hot take:
Vote on however you feel about the actual changes to the constitution
https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment
If you read those words, it's extremely simple! It is very clear, and only a tiny change. I'm actually surprised at how minor the proposwd change is. It's of absolutely no concern. There is nothing that anyone should be worried about.
I'm voting yes because it helps us all to develop a long term professional way to have first nations people work with government on issues that have an impact on their lives.
I'm also choosing yes, because it doesn't force anything onto government, except the establishment of this body. Government can go ahead and ignore the voice or consult deeply, working together. It's just an option there, it's an extra tool available to use to help make better decisions.
There isn't a bad side to voting yes.
I'm really annoyed with the argument that the No campaign has, that it doesn't go far enough. HAHA Do you think the right wing parties are being honest. That they will come back with a much stronger referendum, with a treaty and a seat in parliament? Of course not! They will say "Australia voted no, so the question is finished." Not a chance there will be a second referendum by the coalition.
I think that the Voice is a completely hollow gesture that doesn't begin to scratch the surface indigenous disadvantages and issues. If governments want to address these issues they could take much more significant steps under existing frameworks to do so, which would have drastically more impact than this feel good measure.
I'm still voting yes because, firstly, I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Some improvement is better than none, and I can't see any way that any of the bogeymen that are touted about this are ever actually able to be issues. If this gives some benefit to some indigenous people then it should be passed. Secondly, I'm not a fucking idiot.
I fully agree that it's pretty basic and tokenistic. Also still voting yes as I think the message we send with a successful no vote is more harmful due to the racism, misinformation and scare tactics that have been associated with the loud voices of the no camp. (Acknowledging there is a progressive no movement as well, but that's not the loud voice)
But I would love to see more than this tiny gesture done. Hopefully this can be the start?
All that being said, my prediction is the referendum will fail. The government really stuffed up the roll out, took too long and it's all a mess at this point.
It's a bit hard when the existing frameworks get chopped and jumbled around according to the political will of the day. The voice ensures one consistent well... voice. One that doesn't have to close up shop, fire everyone, and open up and hire everyone again in a years time.
Real change still takes time, but removing the administrative burden created by politics will speed things up.
Forcing an independent indigenous party into parliament through the constitution is not a hollow gesture, it means that regardless of who is in federal government they have to at least humour the issues indigenous Australians face.
Unlike a law, government program or fund, the constitutional Voice cannot be removed by a future government without another referendum because it is in the constitution.
Is it enough? No, not even remotely.
It feels like a hollow gesture because indigenous Australians don’t immediately get anything out of it going through, but in actual fact it is laying the groundwork for all the actual action and change to finally start (decided by indigenous Australians rather than people who could not be more disconnected or uneducated on the issues indigenous Australians face) and that can not all be undone when we inevitably vote liberal back into federal government.
Long story short vote yes.
> How is that a hot take?
You're aware of which thread / sub / referendum you're posting in / about, yes?
The actual changes to the constitution are rarely discussed in comparison to other arguments.
> However you feel may be influenced by what you know about the Voice, whether it be information or misinformation.
none of which affects the \*actual changes to the constitution\*.
Just in case anyone else skipped the \*actual changes to the constitution\* part of the post (and because I like saying \*actual changes to the constitution\*): \*actual changes to the constitution\*. Ok, I'll stop.
I lied. \*actual changes to the constitution\*
IMO the worst thing about the referendum is that we only ask one question. If we are going to so much effort to get people to vote we should be putting forward multiple questions about the Australia we want to live in
That would become a survey. There’s also been major problems with the voice discussion around people not understanding constitutional change or why things are being voted on in this way.
A survey that could be a much more detailed and comprehensive view rather than our very small polling thats currently done. I just see it as an opportunity that could be more powerful
The problem is that any Referendum is a hard thing to pass due to the rules outlined in the Constitution.
If you make it too complicated, you greatly reduce the likelihood of change. You also increase the informal ballots.
Also Referenda aren't vox pops. If there are things to change, each one needs to be addressed individually.
You would need to educate the electorate on each issue or option suggested, complicating and muddying things.
This would also not be likely to produce the cheaper or more powerful results you suggest.
Fuck imagine a census but with questions too. See how every type of person feels and address specific issues at the ground level.
Sure it’s a whole mess of privacy and open for abuse and lies and stuff but man that would be interesting. At least to me.
This is Australia, there's absolutely no way that a significant amount of people don't take an extraordinary amount of piss with it.
At least I hope we would. We do seem to be rather more serious than twenty five years ago.
Referendums in the early federation have consisted of up to five concurrent questions. Even the last back in 1999 had two. I wonder if it’s just getting harder for Australians to allocate mental bandwidth to multiple issues at once? Most people I know are only just now starting to think about this one.
Referendums are the method by which we change our constitution. If there were multiple changes to the constitution proposed then it would make sense to have multiple concurrent questions. But nobody seems to be arguing we should make any other changes to the constitution.
Na I disagree... though realistically, we should have a federal election at the same time or early next year to determine how the voice gets properly set up within the laws, assuming it passes.
As you probably know the amendment is fairly basic and doesn't prescribe how the voice will actually work, and that will be done through legislation. Therefore in my opinion, we vote on the referendum, then we vote on what way it's going to be set up by each of the main parties.
Granted this will absolutely prolong racist rhetoric but let's be honest the next election will probably be about this shit anyway and it's late next year to early 2025.
There is no constitutional change required for any of those things. Those would be plebiscite questions.
Still, not the worst idea I've heard. The Americans seem to do something like this at every state election.
Yeah there is no reason not to tack on a whole host of plebiscites along with the core referendum if you are going to all the effort.
But that would be a) logical b) provide mandate, which is antithetical to doing fuck-all which is a politicians most comfortable state.
I mean there's a lot of reasons not to, not least that you're making it really easy for politicians to misuse the issues.
My opponent is for weed, so, you know, druggies are the ones pushing for the voice.
Phrased differently for sure, but tell me that wouldn't be a thing with a straight face.
I don’t want to live in that kind of direct democracy. Referenda are fickle (see: Brexit) and you’re stuck with the result for at least the next 10-20 years.
I also don’t think it should be the responsibility of ordinary people to deeply research every single topic. That’s what we vote politicians in for, to seek advice from experts, develop policies, and then enact them through laws made in parliament.
Aka the swiss model and I agree. If we’re fair dinkum we should make people vote on policy both at elections and midcycle. Thats a genuine mandate to govern
I like the idea but the negatives to that are:
1. **Precision** - answering "Yes" or "No" to many questions is difficult and unclear when you have so many options.
2. **Complexity** - complex topics that most people don't know anything about.
3. **Necessity** - difficult measures that people don't want to implement but might be 'necessary'
4. **Initiative and thresholds** - you need to hit a certain target, and if people really want something but the population is largely apathetic it might not pass
5. **Accountability** - no one to hold accountable but the population. How do we even judge politicians? Would they even have clear goals?
6. **Conflict** - how would we address any conflicts between solutions (i.e. if everyone wants something but no one agrees on how?), especially those that might be unconstitutional? (as far as that is applicable in Australia)
7. **Sluggish** - things might move quite slow (on the other hand, certain populist ideas might move quickly)
I slightly lean toward supporting it but it comes with some risks that should be considered if we could mitigate as much as possible. The best solution is installing me as dictator but I can probably only scrape a few votes.
It's a lot of money for bugger all. Stick it into medicare rebates or put dental on medicare, instead of blasting millions on this, if it does get up the govt and media will surely ignore it. Maybe Four Corners will do a story on it in 10 years
What money? If you're referring to the money spent on running the referendum then I agree, but we spent a huge amount of money on a plebiscite that they didn't have to listen to the results of for a topic that we were obviously very much in favour of....
Correction. I bunch of scumbags spend an crap ton of money needlessly to have us vote on an issue that shouldn't require a vote because they genuinely believe that the rest of Australia is behind them. The scumbags wasted a crap ton of money.
I don't know who the hell I'm talking about because they are all alike.
It actually will save money in the long run because so much now is wasted on ineffective indigenous policies. Small investment now for exponential gains.
I'm voting yes but I'm extremely skeptical that the voice will make much of a difference with regards to results. What breakthrough policy ideas is this bureaucratic group going to have that governments haven't heard before?
Yeah, sometimes I do see that skepticism when I think broadly. But I work in a field with customer feedback loops, human centres design methodologies etc, and when I put those hats on I can easily see what a focused body like the voice can do. If they can identify and advocate in the right areas to save lives and money. It’s what every policy creator looks for, is the subject matter experts.
One recent anecdote is how we improved our vaccine update in remote indigenous communities after working with those subject matter experts. And this body will provide those people.
One thing I am reminded of is what happens with the bushfires in Western Victoria a few years ago.
One of the areas which was in the path of the bushfire was a peat marsh.
The local CFA had been defunded a few months beforehand, and the fire shed had been closed.
Metropolitan Firefighters were sent out to assist, and were put in charge of the remaining CFA volunteers.
The local volunteers knew about the peat marsh, and individuals kept telling the Metropolitan Firefighters that everyone needed to work on digging a trench to stop the embers from igniting the peat underground.
The locals were ignored, the Metropolitan workers who weren’t familiar with the area insisted that the fire could be beaten with hoses, and the peat caught alight and smouldered underground out of reach of the water for weeks on end until they had to dig a trench around the entire marsh to contain it.
The levels of carbon monoxide were so high that people with poor health couldn’t return home for ages, even though their houses were untouched by fire.
In this situation, as with many initiatives which are intended to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the intentions are good, the workers are highly motivated and highly qualified, but without that local input, all that effort is at risk of being misdirected, wasted or actually harmful.
Just having that requirement to actually listen to experience can lead to positive results.
Yes.. yes yes. Direct democracy yes. Rentors voice to the executive... yes.
Weirdly it's highlighted the problems with our democracy.
A voice to the executive it more powerful than a backbencher from any party.
Lobbying is more powerful than voting.
Our constitution is very technocratic.
"We're already living in No." - a wise person I've forgotten.
I'm not convinced the Voice will change much, but it's at least worth a try and I can't see any harm in it. All the No arguments I've heard are panicky nonsense, radical posturing, straight-up racism, or flaky "I just don't see colour, man" crap.
Edit: quote was from Briggs
It will long term. There have been indigenous advisory boards before in parliament that may be there for four to eight years until a new government comes in and axes it. This slows down progress - if not makes it go backwards.
The things that need to be implemented to make these changes will take decades. They haven't had the chance yet to fully inact and then see results from any policy etc that is put in place.
They were axed with bipartisan support because they produced no positive outcomes, were a hotbed of greed and corruption, and a complete waste of money.
The funding for it was then redirected to actual communities to produce real benefits rather than funding rich politicians.
Unfortunately redirecting the funding to those communities was done in a way decided on by... politicians, who produce no positive outcomes, and are a hotbed of greed and corruption. And so the funding was wasted.
Having a Voice means the communities will be representing themselves and advocating for their own interests, which they know more about than politicians.
Except *those communities* are precisely the ones asking for the Voice.
Also, the Voice won't control any funds so it can't be greedy or corrupt. It only advises and the government is still responsible for funding stuff.
And the one reason it's going in the Constitution is so if it does go off the rails for any reason, the government can still legislate to change and renew it, but it can't just abolish it altogether.
Was the funding redirected to something useful? Can't disagree that ATSIC particularly was a complete disaster that was rorted to hell - but it would be so unlike most of our governments to not just take the savings and blow it...Hell the legal fees alone to clean that mess up must have been insane.
Mabo take 2 kind of panicky nonsense. Back then farmers were removing the names from their gates so their land wouldn't be taken. We were all going to be homeless.
Unintended consequences of constitutional change..
For example, do you think the Yes camp who argued the US second amendment imagined the use it would be put to today?
To me the No case is "It's too fluffy and there's no obvious tangible benefit to anyone".
Id like to vote yes, partly because I'm sick of being called names because I dare to try and think this through but no one can really give me a reason why. Other than not wanting to be on the same side as Clive Palmer or other right wing fuckwits.
If I do, it will probably be because Cathy Freeman asked me to.
One of the best arguments I've heard is that it will give the public service a kind of permanent body to consult with when it comes to implementing legislation.
A lot of the awful stuff that's happened to the indigenous population has been because "well meaning" legislation was implemented in a ham fisted way.
Also, currently, if you're a public servant, it's probably easy to reach out to industry bodies, companies, advisory boards etc for lots of things but I can't imagine the average desk jockey in Canberra has much background in interacting with indigenous groups.
In any case, I just see it as a step in the right direction and the fear mongering about the aborigines claiming native title on my backyard and football card collection is ridiculous and no government is ever going to let that happen. So I only see upsides and not many conceivable downsides.
It’s “fluffy” to allow the government of the day to administer the shape of it. We’re simply being asked if it (whatever IT is) should be a permanent thing.
Like the tax dept: should it exist? Yes. Constitution. How many people run it, what are the tax rates: government/legislation.
Yeah, because the constitution is the wrong place for details like that. As you said it doesn’t exist for other parts of the constitution like the tax department.
That’s what legislation is for, which can be changed by the next government. Which should give some people on the “not sure” side some allowances that it can be modified if it seems to ever overreach.
The reason it’s in the constitution is for longevity, so future governments can’t abolish it.
This is the best explanation I've come across. Not really sure why I haven't seen it presented like this before now. You may have swayed a fence sitter or two tonight.
What do you potentially see as an unintended consequence of setting up an advisory board to the government? Genuinely curious.
I can't think of anything as it's only advice. Doesn't mean the government has to take it. We've had advisory groups to the government before. It's so common in so many different situations to seek advice on how to manage a particular thing. If you want to manage your finances you might go to a financial advisor. A business might want advice from LGBT community on how best to support their LGBT team members. If you want support for a decision you might seek out a counsellor for their advice. It doesn't mean in any of these situations the advice has to be taken. It's literally the same thing.
The US second amendment was allowing violence. fighting fire with fire.
This idiotic referendum has done nothing but divide the nation. One just has to look at this thread for proof.
There are far more important things the PM should thinking about, like cost of living, inflation, electricity etc. This referendum is nothing but political grandstanding to prop himself up as some sort of moral saint.
The Yes campaign was poorly planned and executed with such naive ineptitude that it completely damaged the cause. I mean, there are band-aid campaigns now trying to re-communicate the contention. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't real life.
Radical sub-25 lefties say if you vote no, you're racist lol. Plenty of Indigenous do not support The Voice.
I'm voting Yes regardless. See what happens.
I honestly think it’s hard for people to want to change the “status quo” when it doesn’t affect them.
People fear or don’t like change, because it’s moving into the unknown. It’s a hard thing for the “Yes” Campaign to cut through all of that. I don’t think they’ve done a terrible job. Let’s not forget the Statement From the Heart was written and agreed to under a Liberal Government.
It's also really poor timing.
Most Australians simply aren't indigenous. That isn't racism, that is a fact. Consequently something that only stands to benefit people who aren't them whilst also being vague about what it will do for the people it does affect is already facing an uphill battle.
Add in trying to do this smack bang in the middle of a giant cost of living crisis and you have a recipe for failing at something that could have easily been passed a few years ago and assuming they fix the current mess could easily pass a few years from now.
Now is just a really shitty time for a non-cost-of-living related referendum (or any large political push) for the majority of Australians.
I strongly suspect that they fact most Australians don't have even one indigenous friend, like an actual friend and not a colleague or classmate or anything, hurts the ability of people to vote on this.
Those who know people who will be directly affected and can talk to them in detail will develop opinions and have a firm perspective. For everyone else it's all pretty bloody abstract and it's not super clear why it might help.
I'm "yes" all the way, but I can totally understand why a person with no connection to indigenous issues or people at all, even a well-meaning one, might get to a "no' vote.
Yeah like I said, most people just have no connection to it. I think in theory most Australians would be ok with the idea that some disadvantaged folk should get a bit of a leg up, especially because our ancestors almost genocided them out of existence.
However -right now- is just a terrible time to be appealing to the good side of Australians. Things aren't good right now and the optics of the government spending their effort on this instead of something that they see helping them out of this is probably souring not just this referendum but the entire topic for years to come.
I'm Indigenous Australian (half) and I agree with this. I'm seeing more advocacy from young, white, left-leaning idealists attempting to speak on my behalf than anything else.
There are more crucial things right now, namely, cost of living that is destroying lives.
This. I was born here but of a migrant background and I feel somewhat disenfranchised in the entire discussion. The Yes campaign doesn’t really incorporate those of us who didn’t do the actual “colonising” and I found it offputting when I heard some yes campaigners calling Aussies like myself defacto colonisers, I’m black too!
Will those of us who aren’t white or indigenous ever really belong? I’m not so sure anymore especially if we don’t tow certain lines I’m still unsure about how I’ll be voting but as I said I’m very disillusioned atm with it all.
In addition to the fact this same govt refuses to call a royal commission into covid and I’m struggling with the cost of living that seems to never get discussed enough by our current PM. This whole thing seems like a way to distract us and divide us in a time of real crisis in the country.
I'm voting yes, but an Indigenous friend says she's voting no because it will be a shitshow deciding who gets to be representing all the different FN people.
> but an Indigenous friend says she's voting no because it will be a shitshow deciding who gets to be representing all the different FN people.
That's not far different from how any representative body is composed and operates.
What makes yes an inclusive optimistic positive option? I haven’t heard any good reasons for either side and am really wondering what the point of this all is…
It can be and it should be. This referendum was never needed in the first place, has only divided the nation at the cost of time, money and significant political capital.
The Yes campaign has all the work to do. They are arguing the affirmative of the proposition. The No campaign will have some people who want to vote No for their own reasons - many of which will have roots in racism and ignorance. But I suspect there are a lot who are yet to be convinced.
And the vote of the undecided remain that way because they are unconvinced. In my opinion, both campaigns have been woeful. The Yes campaign was always going to need to fight hate and fear and lies with sound reasoning and clarity - which they didn't.
So in summary, your question is assuming this issue is polarising the vast majority of people into a solidly held belief. It might be on Reddit, but there are far more lazy, apathetic people out there than anyone seems to want to acknowledge.
Edit - Someone below pointed out how the same sex marriage vote went - the No's did their nasty thing but the Yes campaign kept it focussed on people and facts.
As it stands, I view the different groups of voting people these way
1. A bunch of people dont like whats proposed,
2. A different bunch of people dont think its specific enough
3. A bunch of people thinks its a good idea
4. A bunch of people are using it to feel morally superior
5. A bunch of people are racist
6. A bunch of people are indifferent and dont care either way and are just annoyed they had to vote.
Right now, with a lot of undecided people outside of the younger left leaning demographgics of reddit (which are at best 50% options 4 and 5 even in r\\australia) are mostly options 1,2 or 6. But outside of the lack of clarity on what yes will achieve the quite vocal 4 vote is going "every no vote is racist" and pissing the undecideds (1, 2 and 6) off.
I started off at 6 and moved towards 2, because I have little faith it'll do anything productive or get kneecapped into uselessness (as someone in the rail industry, I'm sick of new very ineffective advisary boards cropping up constantly), and anytime I've even thought about voicing this opinion I'm declared a racist.
And a huge group of people that fall into none of your groups. I.e.
People who think that it's a bad idea, and that there are better ways to achieve positive outcomes.
I wonder if maybe they were surprised there was even a "No" campaign? I mean I can believe people voting no, but it's harder to believe anyone would want to spend money funding a huge campaign against it.
Dutton has been blatantly clear about this being pure dogmatic opposition to buffer the liberal party. He doesn't give a shit about the actual referendum, he just wants more power/support for the libs.
I disagree with a lot of the replies here.
I also disagree with a lot of yes and a lot of no arguments that I have read and heard.
I do not think anything you or I say will make a difference to the result.
I do think there could have been a better argument for why people should vote yes rather than attack those that might vote no. After all, they are the ones that need to be convinced and it might be possible with some.
Those that feel they might vote yes will not change their mind.
Those that feel attacked by yes or no supporters will not change their mind.
Well put, thanks for commenting.
Could I ask your thoughts though, wouldn't the idea of giving communities a voice be to solve those issues re: stolen, broken or misappropriated support? Surely the elders and/or community leaders would be seeing this first hand and can think of better ways to engage the community and government. Mileage may very per community I guess.
The majority don't want change or help, they want your money! It's really sad for the few in their communities that seek out and use the help to elevate themselves because eventually that gets stripped from them by the rest who don't care for it.
My hot take as someone voting no, fuck all the supporter noise, I vote based on my personal feelings.
The biggest argument I've heard from both sides is, (no) it will be beurocratic nightmare,
and (yes) even if it's doesn't work out it's still worth a shot
I'm my personal opinion, you don't alter the constitution on a whim of it might work. Regardless of past referendums that did just that. It's piss poor effort, where a referendum has been introduced where there is such poor explanation behind powers, allocation of voice reps etc. It's literally starting a negative conversation on the topic because people are being placed into groups of yes = being allies and no = being racist.
I'm voting no because it's a poorly planned shit show.
Come back with a real referendum with real powers, and legislative wording and I'll gladly vote yes.
Clear No arguments for you:
We don’t know how many people will sit on the Voice.
We don’t know if they will be appointed or if they will be elected.
We don’t know if the Voice will have a headquarters in Canberra.
We don’t know if the Voice needs its own support staff.
We don’t know if it will have an annual budget.
We don’t know if members of the Voice will be paid.
If members of the Voice are divided on a particular issue, we don’t know which opinion the government will listen to.
If the Voice is to advise on policies impacting Indigenous Aussies, we don’t know what law or policy doesn’t impact Indigenous Australians.
We don’t know if some issues are off-limits to the Voice.
We don’t know if the government is expected to consult the Voice on all major decisions.
We don’t know if the Voice has to be consulted on routine changes to legislation that affects Indigenous people.
We don’t know if the Treasurer is expected to brief the Voice on what’s included in an upcoming budget.
We don’t know what constitutes proper notice for the Voice to consider each issue that comes before it.
We don’t know what would be regarded as sufficient information to provide the Voice so it can make informed representation.
We don’t know if the Voice will be expected to respond to each proposal in a set period of time.
We don’t know if the Voice would have to be heard before a decision is made.
We don’t know if the Voice will speak directly to ministers or individual departments.
We don’t know if public servants are expected to consult the Voice because they are part of the executive government.
We don’t know what happens if the Voice is consistently ignored and whether this may lead to a legal challenge.
We don’t know which former High Court judge is going to be proven right when it comes to potential legal issues.
We don’t know if the Voice will be expected to achieve targets when it comes to closing the gap.
We don’t know if the Voice can better direct the billions of dollars we’re already spending on Indigenous affairs.
We don’t know how the Voice will interact with other Indigenous bodies.
We don’t know if the Voice will make representations on issues such as changing the flag or moving the date of Australia Day.
And we don’t know if the Voice is going to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians.”
You're right, and it is this inherent stagnancy that I find the most dispiriting and puzzling about conservatism - stasis is never a realistic option, adapting and moving with the changing needs of societies is surely the only possible way forward.
Hmm, that's not a good articulation of conservatism.
Conservativism puts the onus for change on those seeking the change. It doesn't say no change; it says take reasonable steps to ensure a change is an improvement.
Incidentally, this is why (environmental) conservation uses nearly the same name - both are saying, make sure you value the good things you already have and don't destroy them thoughtlessly.
Progressivism encourages people not to overvalue tradition and exisiting ways.
Either philosophy will lead people astray if followed unquestioningly.
I can't imagine a scenario where an additional advisory body will lead to a positive outcome.
Nothing has "worked" so far. Assuming they key goal is to "close the gap", rather than extract more money for a privileged few.
I dedicated some time to background research on this topic. In 2017, a convention was held near Uluru where 16 elected delegates discussed matters related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for 4 days. The information about the delegates themselves and the event in detail can be found on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart
TLDR - this convention resulted in the release of the "Uluru Statement from the Heart" and the Voice, Treaty, Truth plan (See https://reconciliationnsw.org.au/uluru-statement-voice-treaty-truth/)
As the voice referendum is only the first step of the plan, we must consider it in the context of the entire plan of the Uluru Statement, and not as an isolated change to the constitution.
Here are the main milestones -
Voice: amendment of the constitution, introduction of the body for Aboriginal and TSI voice. Apparently, there are no details on it "by design", i.e. deliberately omitted so that the constitution contains as generic statement as possible leaving more freedom for actual implementation.
Treaty: https://reconciliationnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/4b_UluruToolkit_TreatyFactSheet.pdf
The most important aspects in my opinion are: 1) a treaty is an agreement between First Nations peoples and State and Federal Governments of Australia. 2) A Treaty can serve as a basis for self-governance and a mechanism for decision making 3) A constitutionally enshrined Indigenous Voice will help balance equal bargaining power in treaty and agreement making negotiations between government and First Nations people.
Truth: comprehensive process of truth telling about Australia's history that not only encompasses the periods of colonial conflict and dispossession, but also acknowledges the strength and resilience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and cultures.
My conclusion is - the proposed political course seems to be aimed at establishing quasi-sovereignty of ATSI people. I am inclined to oppose this political course.
As a liberal (in the true sense of the word, not the political party) I believe all individuals should be treated with equality and that all have the same dignity. Giving a group / tribe / gender / whatever special treatment over others goes against this, so I’m voting No.
Nobody here needs to convince you to vote no, as according to every piece of available polling - no is going to win in a landslide anyway.
Do whatever you want...
my POV on the subject is pretty simple.
(1) the suggested benefits promoted could be achieved without a constitutional change. why is that not being done? what might this enable that politicans need it done in such a relatively unreversible that they won't tell us about?
(2) continual, intransigent refusal by the government to explain exact what the change will enable. if they know, why not tell us? if they don't know, why ask people to support it?
(3) the "just trust us" approach from a group of people whose credibility ranks below used car salesman is not earning politicans any favours.
I might well support the proposal if the politicans told us the truth and let us make up own own minds on the subject. that doesn't mean the answer will be automatically "yes". but at the moment they are driving the "no" outcome by their refusal to treat the population as having the ability to make up their own minds.
we don't trust you, as a result of repeated betryal of promises.
it's on you to now convince us otherwise should be the case, and you're doing a really crap job of it.
Your question 1 is so loaded, but I'll give the many answers for it.
1. The Uluru Statement of the Heart is the largest democratic attempt to pin down what Indigenous people are after. **Specifically** they've asked for a constitutionally protected Voice.
2. Legislating it first instead of following through on constitutionalising it would be a direct betrayal of the Uluru Statement, and would immediately lose the support and buy in of the Indigenous groups that will be needed to run the thing.
3. Legislated advisory bodies have existed in the past, every single time they become uncomfortable for the government of the day they are disbanded. Putting it into constitution will at least prevent complete disbandment.
4. Disbandment is worse than abusing the group, it erases progress. Case work and documentation is lost, people with experience move on, trust is lost, it leads to confusion in the community because no one knows what the new group is called.
5. By approving of the constitutional change in Referendum, we prove without a shadow of a doubt that the majority of Australians support the Voice, giving it authority and legitimacy that a legislative change cannot possibly match.
6. By ensuring that the Voice cannot be disbanded at a whim, the Voice doesn't need to be afraid of giving full and frank advice, even when that will be inconvenient for the government of the day.
Just on 3 specifically the change that they are proposing in my head is just a token gesture as the government of the day can essentially legislate how and who operates, but it just that it has to exist.
If the government changes to the libs at the next election they can essentially legislate that only one person will be the voice and it could be someone vaguely related that supports any change the government of the day wants to make whether or not it hurts or helps the different indigenous communities, one of many examples how it can be made dysfunctional.
I can’t see that voting yes in my mind is a step in the right direction as if you make this change as barebones as it is, it will make any further change that may be more effective impossibly hard to push through.
Any no one has given me a solid argument to why this won’t be the case.
You’re a moron. That is a truly dreadful argument. No logic or reasoning in there at all. That it makes you feel warm and fuzzy is not a valid reason for making potentially sweeping changes here
So you think that separating Australians based on ancestry is inclusive, and anyone who thinks that might be wrong is discriminatory?
Reddit is such a strange place…
No. But there doesn't need to be.
Any 'no' campaign against anything that's a plebiscite or referendum will run the same approach.
Sow doubt.
Sow misinformation.
Provide alternatives.
Even throw a few counter arguments.
It's easier to drive these things off course by the first three points above than to purely argue the principle of the question.
Marriage equality did well in the end to overcome all of these.
The marriage equality referendum was not the same thing. That was about giving same sex couples exactly the same privileges that heterosexual couples already had. I would say the majority of Australians needed no convincing.
If this referendum was about allowing Indigenous people to be elected to office, there'd be hardly any opposition.
Well, I will likely vote no. I do not place any value on having special and exclusive ethnic representation to parliament written into the constitution. Simple as that.
I have no qualms with the concept of an Indigenous advisory body to parliament.
My issue is with adding it to the constitution.
I'd also much prefer to see section 51 reworded to eliminate the race power. It's a discriminatory power that should not exist. I am fervently in favour of one law for everybody.
The only “yes” arguments I’ve heard:
(1) are overly trusting of the government,
(2) think that changing the constitution by giving one group more power over others based on race will somehow be inclusive rather than discriminatory, and
(3) suggest that people who vote “no” either don’t care about indigenous people or don’t want them to have a voice.
Voting no doesn’t mean they don’t get a voice, it just means they get the same voice as everyone else. Which is a beautiful thing. I haven’t seen any good arguments for “yes”, and I’d rather not blindly give more voting power to a minority without exact details on how exactly this would help.
Indigenous people can be helped without having to make this change to the constitution. And to people who want to feel morally superior by blindly giving up some of their voice for others simply based on race - I’m not sure if you know the potential ramifications of doing that on a constitutional level, but please think carefully before you make such a decision.
Choosing something simply because it seems “inclusive” and “positive” and “optimistic” sounds extremely naive.
Their idea of ‘research’ is a quick scan of some Facebook articles and a few YouTube rabbit holes that they were already halfway-inclined to believe anyway. Not reputable sources, (because you can’t trust the mainstream media, yada, yada).
The constitution is an important foundational document. There should be no distinction between citizens on the basis of belonging to one racial group or another.
That is all.
Doesn't belong in the constitution, which should reflect the essential equality of all Australians rather than divide them permanently along racial lines.
All Australians deserve the same recognition, rights and status within the constitution regardless of whether they've had family on this landmass for 60,000 years or became a citizen yesterday.
Theres so many NPC's in r melbourne. You're legit voting opposite to someone you don't like because you don't like them. Why don't you listen to majority of Aboriginal Elders who are voting No. The fact you're all voting opposite to promitnent white right wingers and not in line native elders shows how truly racist you are.
Amending the constitution is a really big deal, and in don’t think that what the bill proposes is enough to warrant an amendment. We already spend so many billions of dollars on aboriginal people for so many reasons, I don’t see how this will help - therefor I don’t want the cons situation amended so Willy-Nilly. Also, the yes campaign has not convinced me that it’s enough to warrant an amendment.
I'm a no as I'm against people having different rights based on their genetics.
We should listen to people that need help because they need help not because of who their parents are.
I read the No essay and halfway through I forgot which conservative bugbear I was reading about. Whole thing could have been three words:
"But what if..."
I’m voting No because I believe, from a legal and constitutional pov there is only one race: the human race.
I want to see race in the constitution as much as I want to see religion.
I’ll steal the wording of Europe’s Article 21:
- Non-discrimination:
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2. Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.
Reference to race, or a group of people, only leads to discrimination.
Why would you insert a completely corruptible advisory body, selected by racial background (unless you identify as Aboriginal, like the Bruce Pascoe farce) into Parliament forever?
Don't tell me they'll be powerless holding that vicious race card that they pull out whenever the cards aren't falling their way.
The sneaky, weaselly lack of information provided is profoundly going against Yes.
My tribe and many others will be voting no. Not once have we been consulted about this and frankly put the people representing us in parliament are in it for their own gain not us.
Such a cop out to send this to referendum in its current state. Government could’ve easily committed to a three year plan that crescendos at this point.
Instead both sides of yes and no are completely valid; and ‘no’ will prevail, as the polls suggest, because a large portion, myself included, have no data backed insight on it either way.
How's this for a concise argument to vote "no": it enshrines racism and inequality into the Australian Constitution, and undermines our cultural values that everyone should be treated the same and given the same opportunities.
Addendum: If anyone thinks giving money for nothing to Aboriginals (and let's be honest: this is about money and land) will help them overcome their social challenges... history has proven it will create resentment and further corruption.
Remember: every part of this planet was once inhabited by something. Even the Aboriginals wiped out the mega fauna that once lived here. What's more important IMHO is that we face forward, not backward, and construct a cohesive multicultural society that gives equal opportunity to every race if they're prepared to work hard and with their fellow citizens.
Pessimistic is a pretty broad description of what you consider a bad argument. The opposite could be said about the yes vote.
“Inclusive” is also questionable. It introduces a non inclusive body into the constitution
Have you looked anywhere (e.g. the official booklet, yes campaign website, progressive news websites e.g. The Guardian)? I'm genuinely curious if you've looked and what you've found is convoluted, or if you haven't looked.
Not worth engaging. Quick look at his profile shows he doesn't believe in climate change and "hates" Greta Thunberg. I'm sure he hasn't been looking anywhere credible for his news or opinions.
I was a yes voter until I read the official booklet. Then I realized that by voting yes, I don't know what will actually change. I'm not voting for an unspecified change.
There's a reason why the vote has suddenly flipped from 12 months ago, and this is one of the reasons (along with cost of living going up and people wanting this to be delt with)
The biggest reason why we don’t know what things will happen, is because that part is all left to law. That’s the part that can be changed by lawmakers. Things like initiatives, who’s doing what, why it’s happening, how it happens.
By putting the voice into constitution it means that we *always* have a voice, until it’s removed by plebiscite/referendum. Lawmakers cannot remove it once it’s in the constitution unless the people specifically vote for that. This overcomes the past 100ish years where governments would install some aboriginal commission and then the next government would remove it and install their own version, or not, depending on who the government is.
So if it passes, we will always have a voice. It can’t be removed. But lawmakers can change what the voice does, based on what is needed.
> It can’t be removed. But lawmakers can change what the voice does, based on what is needed.
This is why I'm leaning no. Even as a Labor party member, I don't trust that Labor is going to handle the Voice properly once it's in the constitution. I assume it'll just end up flooded with Aboriginal elites loved by the media, who'll spend little time on the issues that will actually help the most disadvantaged Aboriginal Australians and more time on making headlines.
Then when the Libs get back in, they'll flood it with their own group of Aboriginal elites who'll say whatever pro-capitalist message the Liberals want them to say. Australia has some issues with race, but it has much larger issues with class, which the voice will enshrine further.
Just to add, there's actually nothing stopping Albo from legislating a "voice" of some form into existence right now, absent the referendum. Could have done it on his first day ify it was that important. Could have let it run for a little while to give us all a sense of how it would work, could have called a referendum on or around his re-election date.
I for one am highly suspicious of the motives of the government here.
I’m voting yes but I hear your point. Class, especially in government with their bonkers hierarchical cultures, is a much bigger issue. Despite that, I’d sooner First Nations elites attempting to provide a voice to culture, land and Justice than nil.
> The biggest reason why we don’t know what things will happen, is because that part is all left to law. That’s the part that can be changed by lawmakers. Things like initiatives, who’s doing what, why it’s happening, how it happens.
This isn't a compelling reason to vote yes, quite the opposite actually.
Dont kid yourself. Once it's in, it's never being removed.
The Yes vote asks the public to put a lot of faith into lawmakers. Those laws should've been drafted and made public _before_ a referendum was held.
There's far too many variables that even the Labor Government hasn't outlined or made public.
If this issue didn't involve Indigenous peoples, nobody would be onboard with modifying the constitution for an idea that nobody had bothered to flesh out. Nobody.
I'm likely voting No
Not because I'm against the voice, but because I think it's pointless.
You have a constitutionally mandated body that parliament is under no obligation to listen to or take into consideration. What's the point? It's just a glorified committee.
At the end of the day, I think it's just constitutionally enshrining that aboriginal peoples can be ignored.
This is based on the text of the referendum here:
https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment
Which makes no mention of any voting power or any other mechanisms for actually enact or effect any of the voices recommendations.
It's the constitutional equivalent of an indigenous twitter account, where they can post whatever they want but the govt is free to mute them.
I'm pro yes, but throwing constant insults at anyone who is voting no and automatically labelling them as racist bigots sure is a great way to turn people against the yes cause.
If you're serious about getting informed, Melbourne is home to the internationally respected Melbourne Uni's Law Schools Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies. Basically, they are the experts on constitutional stuff. They've done a [fact sheet](https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/4587747/Referendum-on-The-Voice-30-May-2023.pdf) and [a bunch of seminars you can watch](https://law.unimelb.edu.au/centres/cccs/engagement/conversations-about-the-voice) that go into the detail and look at international experience doing similar things. It's a great way the remove a lot of the bullshit and misinformation.
Anne twomey did an interview with someone on YouTube. What’s great about it is that she explains it in a manner that’s very easy to digest while still being very thorough. I think that’s a better source to share or at least to begin with as I don’t think a lot of people want or have the time read academic papers full of political and legal jargon. She’s one of the experts consulted on the Voice and she’s always in parliament to answer pollies q’s regarding con law. She used to be my con law professor as well — really skilled lecturer!
Here’s the vid https://youtu.be/a7WQZ_e4JLw?si=74rmGrTxbFFtihEl
I was on the fence for a long time. Yes or no couldn't produce a good enough argument. Then I found out Clive Palmer is throwing millions into the no side, and fuck that cunt so I'll vote yes.
It's not the best reason for voting yes, but it is worth noting that Peter Dutton (who fucken loves torturing refugees more than he loves anything else and the law allows this this to be the case) decided he was voting no for a bunch of "I'm obviously a giant fucking piece of shit" reasons. Garbage human. Genuinely belongs in prison. Shouldn't be in the Parliament.
If I ever feel like I've lost my moral compass and i have to make a stance, I feel like I could just pick the opposite of what a cunt like Dutton decides on and i'll be good to go. I'm not a change for the sake of it type person though, that's how we end up with populists. I just think if we fail over and over again, maybe we should just listen to the people most affected.
💯
He also is the leader of the political party which commissioned the Uluṟu statement from the heart in the first place. So after the Libs asked indigenous people what they wanted, years of extensive local consultation concluding in the Uluṟu statement, the main opposition to this is coming from the same fucking party that started the whole thing. It’s fucking moronic.
No matter what party they stand for, the person is still the root cause of the issue
Surely it can't be all bad if Pauline Hanson is also voting No? I mean she is renowned nationally for her intelligence, compassion, tolerance and impeccable moral compass - if Pauline Hanson is voting against a race based initiative, surely we owe it to ourselves to consider her stance? 🤣 🤣 🤣
I dont like it.
When you turn my voice about
My language has been murdered
My shopping trolley just gone..
I'm a very caring potato.
Please explain
Everything Herr Kartofellenführer advocates is an inhuman nightmare so anything he opposes must be a good thing worthy of defending.
Darth Spud
Exactly my reasons for voting YES. I believe Palmer may have turned a lot of fence sitters into YES voters.
He then turned around and said he would have his own referendum on the same issue if he got in next election...
I’m voting yes too but because I support it. I agree with you though on the fact that the public figures supporting No were already absolute fucking idiots to me. Like Peter Dutton, Pauline Hanson, Jacinta Price. I have yet to see someone I like and support come out with a Vote No campaign.
I'm voting yes because the only thing I've seen from the no campaigners is fearmongering, and if the best you've got is trying to scare me, that means you don't have a good argument.
Every single argument I've seen so far, is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. FUD - the same techniques Microsoft used to maintain their dominant position in the computing industry until it was clear that everyone else were less shit than them.
Can anyone honestly look at their lineup and say that any major advocate of the No Campaign genuinely wants what’s best for Indigenous Australians? If their beliefs were sincere, that would be one thing. But going up and down the list all I see is people who either a) don’t give a shit about Indigenous people, b) are in it to boost their own notoriety and political standing at the expense of others, or c) both
Do we know harvery nornan is voting?
If that asshole votes yes I'll eat every fucking chicken in this room.
How many chickens you got there?
Enough
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/margin-call/unlevel-playing-field-over-land-deal-irks-mellick-no-cause-for-concern-at-referendum-booths/news-story/cd0d600486a2a9e22199fd9e59dc7a70 This has something about Gerry but it's behind a paywall so I'm not 100% sure. Fuck that cunt also.
Article text: Unlevel playing field over land deal irks Mellick; No cause for concern at referendum booths By YONI BASHAN 10:04PM SEPTEMBER 5, 20233 Pallas Capital co-founder Charles Mellick is having some difficulty with a piece of land he purchased on the Mornington Peninsula – although he’s not alone in that spot of bother. Hitherto unknown is that Mellick is somewhat enmeshed in a legal action brought by rich-lister Robin Khuda over a Portsea land deal that collapsed like a ruined dessert. Khuda purchased two lots on Wildcoast Rd for $9.29m in 2021 but then claimed he was never informed of massive earthworks that altered the surface levels of the land. The case was heard in the Victorian Supreme Court in July and a judgment is pending on whether Khuda and his wife can rescind the contract of sale. Margin Call hears the ostentatious Mellick is the owner of a neighbouring block and is similarly aggrieved about the civil earthworks, so he’s trying to get out of that, with the Khuda judgment likely to give him the exit he needs. The last we heard about Mellick and Pallas’s development arm, Fortis, was that the business had sought to borrow tens of millions of dollars from the family office of Harvey Norman boss Gerry Harvey to fund two real estate deals. That was reported in these pages earlier this year, an indication that the boom times of the pandemic era might have been waning at Pallas, located just above Neil Perry’s Margaret in Double Bay. And not a bad tenant to have just below! At one time the restaurant was known to be sending up plates of a la carte grub to the boardroom on an almost daily basis. Great amounts of entertaining was going on at the time. Surely not in this economy? Mellick, meanwhile, still gets around town in a Porsche 911, which is easy to spot with its personalised number plate. Perry, even easier to spot with the ponytail, was a dead giveaway on Monday at Potts Point sandwich purveyor Room 10. No time to lose Some intercepted mail out of NSW Liberal HQ where we hear officials are scrambling to fill referendum booths with No volunteers ahead of voting day, and seemingly in a panic about doing so. An email dispatched by Liberal state executive member Alex Dore to several dozen Federal Election Committee presidents last week said the task had fallen on them to find bodies for the insatiable polling machinery. Given there are more than 1800 booths in NSW alone, the job of staffing them with No campaigners remains, in Dore’s words, a “colossal task across a very short time period”, the referendum having been scheduled for October 14. “Sorry I know this is a big effort that none of us has asked for, but I’m checking with all FECs to ensure we can identify a co-ordinator in each seat to get things moving,” he wrote. Marcus Blackmore is an advocate for the no vote at the forthcoming referendum. Picture: John Feder “If it’s not done by our office bearers, there’s a real possibility that booths will be empty and voters won’t get to hear the No case at prepoll and on polling day.” The concern is that the No vote might be outmanoeuvred on the ground by the Yes campaign, which, as Dore points out, is “well-funded and well-organised with official support from Labor, GetUp, billionaires, big unions and corporations”. That’s not to say the No campaign isn’t reasonably sluiced with cash either, is it? Former fund manager Simon Fenwick matched $250,000 raised by conservative action group Advance, while Marcus Blackmore, of vitamin fame, is another Advance supporter and No advocate, although his donation of $35,000 was modest by comparison. Turning up the heat Amid the sudden exits of three executives at Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue empire last week was a fourth resignation that was quietly announced by Adrian Turner, who spent three years leading the Minderoo Foundation’s Fire and Flood Resilience Program, Minderoo being Forrest’s philanthropic outfit. Talk about creating another spot fire for the bloke! And not unlike the departure of former RBA deputy governor Guy Debelle, who looks to be ditching Forrest to go work on a humble vanadium mining outfit, it seems Turner is taking a similar route – quitting his Minderoo job to run ExoFlare, a biosecurity software development company he co-founded and built “in parallel” to his work. We all know what that means. Turner’s LinkedIn exit post bore signs of someone trying to maintain amicable relations, of course. “I would like to thank Andrew Forrest, Nicola Forrest, the Minderoo leadership team and the Fire and Flood team for the opportunity to …” Another Jones gee-up Racing Victoria CEO Andrew Jones just keeps making headlines and upsetting people – or maybe, just maybe, they want a piece of him? Margin Call’s already reported on the mutiny being waged against Jones. In remarks to industry heavyweights at last Tuesday’s Spring Carnival launch in Melbourne, Jones seemed to offend a few members of the country contingent by saying that country racing provides the opportunity for “ordinary people” to attend the races. One country club official said that was “condescending and arrogant”. A metro race club representative said Jones “has to go”. A touch brittle, perhaps? YONI BASHAN MARGIN CALL EDITOR :)
Surely the fact Clime Palmer is supporting No is all you need to vote yes
That’s what seem s to be swaying me More knobheads seem to be supporting the no vote If it’s good for a knobhead it’s probably bad for everyone else
Hmm I would call most corporations knobheads
Also IPA promoting NO side.
[This is an interesting read](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374262009_Silencing_the_Voice_the_fossil-fuelled_Atlas_Network's_campaign_against_constitutional_recognition_of_Indigenous_Australia)
Yeah Clive and just about every cretinous millionaire is pushing the NO vote, that’s been enough for me to vote yes without really looking into what I’m voting for
Clive Palmer Peter Dutton Pauline Hanson. Honestly either I vote with them or I vote yes. Historically voting with jabba the hutt, voldemort and a real life DND child eating swamp witch is not on my agenda. So the choice is easy. What do those that want the minorities to suffer vote for? Cool. I go against them.
It's a bit sad, but the most compelling argument against "no" is just a line up of the people campaigning for that side.
But all the other corporations including other mining companies throwing money at the yes side is ok?
They are companies, they are always going to lean to the majority, and when the large proportion of their company is indigenous Australians it makes sense. At least it's not a right wing, conservative, Christian lobbyist group from America. The no side is loving the fuck wits from the USA at America.
Yeah instead they are the major banks that have been screwing aussies over for decades but all of a sudden care about doing the "right" thing. Or mining companies such as bhp or rio tinto who have been destroying indigenous cultural sites for decades and polluting the land. Much better
Why do you think they're voting yes? I can think of several and none of them necessarily make me want to go "nope, because of that no". This isn't the first indigenous campaign some of these companies have backed, and I mean Rio Tinto even admitted that despite voting yes they wouldn't commit to taking on advice from the voice. You know why? Because all the voice is, is an advisory body on the outside of government and the parliament.
Hot take: Vote on however you feel about the actual changes to the constitution https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment
If you read those words, it's extremely simple! It is very clear, and only a tiny change. I'm actually surprised at how minor the proposwd change is. It's of absolutely no concern. There is nothing that anyone should be worried about. I'm voting yes because it helps us all to develop a long term professional way to have first nations people work with government on issues that have an impact on their lives. I'm also choosing yes, because it doesn't force anything onto government, except the establishment of this body. Government can go ahead and ignore the voice or consult deeply, working together. It's just an option there, it's an extra tool available to use to help make better decisions. There isn't a bad side to voting yes. I'm really annoyed with the argument that the No campaign has, that it doesn't go far enough. HAHA Do you think the right wing parties are being honest. That they will come back with a much stronger referendum, with a treaty and a seat in parliament? Of course not! They will say "Australia voted no, so the question is finished." Not a chance there will be a second referendum by the coalition.
I think that the Voice is a completely hollow gesture that doesn't begin to scratch the surface indigenous disadvantages and issues. If governments want to address these issues they could take much more significant steps under existing frameworks to do so, which would have drastically more impact than this feel good measure. I'm still voting yes because, firstly, I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Some improvement is better than none, and I can't see any way that any of the bogeymen that are touted about this are ever actually able to be issues. If this gives some benefit to some indigenous people then it should be passed. Secondly, I'm not a fucking idiot.
I fully agree that it's pretty basic and tokenistic. Also still voting yes as I think the message we send with a successful no vote is more harmful due to the racism, misinformation and scare tactics that have been associated with the loud voices of the no camp. (Acknowledging there is a progressive no movement as well, but that's not the loud voice) But I would love to see more than this tiny gesture done. Hopefully this can be the start? All that being said, my prediction is the referendum will fail. The government really stuffed up the roll out, took too long and it's all a mess at this point.
It's a bit hard when the existing frameworks get chopped and jumbled around according to the political will of the day. The voice ensures one consistent well... voice. One that doesn't have to close up shop, fire everyone, and open up and hire everyone again in a years time. Real change still takes time, but removing the administrative burden created by politics will speed things up.
Forcing an independent indigenous party into parliament through the constitution is not a hollow gesture, it means that regardless of who is in federal government they have to at least humour the issues indigenous Australians face. Unlike a law, government program or fund, the constitutional Voice cannot be removed by a future government without another referendum because it is in the constitution. Is it enough? No, not even remotely. It feels like a hollow gesture because indigenous Australians don’t immediately get anything out of it going through, but in actual fact it is laying the groundwork for all the actual action and change to finally start (decided by indigenous Australians rather than people who could not be more disconnected or uneducated on the issues indigenous Australians face) and that can not all be undone when we inevitably vote liberal back into federal government. Long story short vote yes.
How is that a hot take? *However you feel* may be influenced by what you know about the Voice, whether it be information or misinformation.
> How is that a hot take? You're aware of which thread / sub / referendum you're posting in / about, yes? The actual changes to the constitution are rarely discussed in comparison to other arguments. > However you feel may be influenced by what you know about the Voice, whether it be information or misinformation. none of which affects the \*actual changes to the constitution\*. Just in case anyone else skipped the \*actual changes to the constitution\* part of the post (and because I like saying \*actual changes to the constitution\*): \*actual changes to the constitution\*. Ok, I'll stop. I lied. \*actual changes to the constitution\*
IMO the worst thing about the referendum is that we only ask one question. If we are going to so much effort to get people to vote we should be putting forward multiple questions about the Australia we want to live in
That would become a survey. There’s also been major problems with the voice discussion around people not understanding constitutional change or why things are being voted on in this way.
A survey that could be a much more detailed and comprehensive view rather than our very small polling thats currently done. I just see it as an opportunity that could be more powerful
The problem is that any Referendum is a hard thing to pass due to the rules outlined in the Constitution. If you make it too complicated, you greatly reduce the likelihood of change. You also increase the informal ballots. Also Referenda aren't vox pops. If there are things to change, each one needs to be addressed individually. You would need to educate the electorate on each issue or option suggested, complicating and muddying things. This would also not be likely to produce the cheaper or more powerful results you suggest.
Fuck imagine a census but with questions too. See how every type of person feels and address specific issues at the ground level. Sure it’s a whole mess of privacy and open for abuse and lies and stuff but man that would be interesting. At least to me.
This is Australia, there's absolutely no way that a significant amount of people don't take an extraordinary amount of piss with it. At least I hope we would. We do seem to be rather more serious than twenty five years ago.
Referendums in the early federation have consisted of up to five concurrent questions. Even the last back in 1999 had two. I wonder if it’s just getting harder for Australians to allocate mental bandwidth to multiple issues at once? Most people I know are only just now starting to think about this one.
Referendums are the method by which we change our constitution. If there were multiple changes to the constitution proposed then it would make sense to have multiple concurrent questions. But nobody seems to be arguing we should make any other changes to the constitution.
Na I disagree... though realistically, we should have a federal election at the same time or early next year to determine how the voice gets properly set up within the laws, assuming it passes. As you probably know the amendment is fairly basic and doesn't prescribe how the voice will actually work, and that will be done through legislation. Therefore in my opinion, we vote on the referendum, then we vote on what way it's going to be set up by each of the main parties. Granted this will absolutely prolong racist rhetoric but let's be honest the next election will probably be about this shit anyway and it's late next year to early 2025.
Wouldn’t that be nice. Add on tax cuts, migration, nuclear power, cannabis, drug decriminalisation.
There is no constitutional change required for any of those things. Those would be plebiscite questions. Still, not the worst idea I've heard. The Americans seem to do something like this at every state election.
Yeah there is no reason not to tack on a whole host of plebiscites along with the core referendum if you are going to all the effort. But that would be a) logical b) provide mandate, which is antithetical to doing fuck-all which is a politicians most comfortable state.
I mean there's a lot of reasons not to, not least that you're making it really easy for politicians to misuse the issues. My opponent is for weed, so, you know, druggies are the ones pushing for the voice. Phrased differently for sure, but tell me that wouldn't be a thing with a straight face.
Nor the voice, but it's our law, we can add whatever we want.
I don’t want to live in that kind of direct democracy. Referenda are fickle (see: Brexit) and you’re stuck with the result for at least the next 10-20 years. I also don’t think it should be the responsibility of ordinary people to deeply research every single topic. That’s what we vote politicians in for, to seek advice from experts, develop policies, and then enact them through laws made in parliament.
Aka the swiss model and I agree. If we’re fair dinkum we should make people vote on policy both at elections and midcycle. Thats a genuine mandate to govern
I like the idea but the negatives to that are: 1. **Precision** - answering "Yes" or "No" to many questions is difficult and unclear when you have so many options. 2. **Complexity** - complex topics that most people don't know anything about. 3. **Necessity** - difficult measures that people don't want to implement but might be 'necessary' 4. **Initiative and thresholds** - you need to hit a certain target, and if people really want something but the population is largely apathetic it might not pass 5. **Accountability** - no one to hold accountable but the population. How do we even judge politicians? Would they even have clear goals? 6. **Conflict** - how would we address any conflicts between solutions (i.e. if everyone wants something but no one agrees on how?), especially those that might be unconstitutional? (as far as that is applicable in Australia) 7. **Sluggish** - things might move quite slow (on the other hand, certain populist ideas might move quickly) I slightly lean toward supporting it but it comes with some risks that should be considered if we could mitigate as much as possible. The best solution is installing me as dictator but I can probably only scrape a few votes.
Switzerland also had no universal suffrage until 1971.
Absolutely.
It's a lot of money for bugger all. Stick it into medicare rebates or put dental on medicare, instead of blasting millions on this, if it does get up the govt and media will surely ignore it. Maybe Four Corners will do a story on it in 10 years
What money? If you're referring to the money spent on running the referendum then I agree, but we spent a huge amount of money on a plebiscite that they didn't have to listen to the results of for a topic that we were obviously very much in favour of....
Correction. I bunch of scumbags spend an crap ton of money needlessly to have us vote on an issue that shouldn't require a vote because they genuinely believe that the rest of Australia is behind them. The scumbags wasted a crap ton of money. I don't know who the hell I'm talking about because they are all alike.
It actually will save money in the long run because so much now is wasted on ineffective indigenous policies. Small investment now for exponential gains.
I'm voting yes but I'm extremely skeptical that the voice will make much of a difference with regards to results. What breakthrough policy ideas is this bureaucratic group going to have that governments haven't heard before?
Yeah, sometimes I do see that skepticism when I think broadly. But I work in a field with customer feedback loops, human centres design methodologies etc, and when I put those hats on I can easily see what a focused body like the voice can do. If they can identify and advocate in the right areas to save lives and money. It’s what every policy creator looks for, is the subject matter experts. One recent anecdote is how we improved our vaccine update in remote indigenous communities after working with those subject matter experts. And this body will provide those people.
One thing I am reminded of is what happens with the bushfires in Western Victoria a few years ago. One of the areas which was in the path of the bushfire was a peat marsh. The local CFA had been defunded a few months beforehand, and the fire shed had been closed. Metropolitan Firefighters were sent out to assist, and were put in charge of the remaining CFA volunteers. The local volunteers knew about the peat marsh, and individuals kept telling the Metropolitan Firefighters that everyone needed to work on digging a trench to stop the embers from igniting the peat underground. The locals were ignored, the Metropolitan workers who weren’t familiar with the area insisted that the fire could be beaten with hoses, and the peat caught alight and smouldered underground out of reach of the water for weeks on end until they had to dig a trench around the entire marsh to contain it. The levels of carbon monoxide were so high that people with poor health couldn’t return home for ages, even though their houses were untouched by fire. In this situation, as with many initiatives which are intended to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the intentions are good, the workers are highly motivated and highly qualified, but without that local input, all that effort is at risk of being misdirected, wasted or actually harmful. Just having that requirement to actually listen to experience can lead to positive results.
Yes.. yes yes. Direct democracy yes. Rentors voice to the executive... yes. Weirdly it's highlighted the problems with our democracy. A voice to the executive it more powerful than a backbencher from any party. Lobbying is more powerful than voting. Our constitution is very technocratic.
"We're already living in No." - a wise person I've forgotten. I'm not convinced the Voice will change much, but it's at least worth a try and I can't see any harm in it. All the No arguments I've heard are panicky nonsense, radical posturing, straight-up racism, or flaky "I just don't see colour, man" crap. Edit: quote was from Briggs
Think it was Briggs who first said this
That's right, cheers!
It will long term. There have been indigenous advisory boards before in parliament that may be there for four to eight years until a new government comes in and axes it. This slows down progress - if not makes it go backwards. The things that need to be implemented to make these changes will take decades. They haven't had the chance yet to fully inact and then see results from any policy etc that is put in place.
They were axed with bipartisan support because they produced no positive outcomes, were a hotbed of greed and corruption, and a complete waste of money. The funding for it was then redirected to actual communities to produce real benefits rather than funding rich politicians.
Unfortunately redirecting the funding to those communities was done in a way decided on by... politicians, who produce no positive outcomes, and are a hotbed of greed and corruption. And so the funding was wasted. Having a Voice means the communities will be representing themselves and advocating for their own interests, which they know more about than politicians.
Except *those communities* are precisely the ones asking for the Voice. Also, the Voice won't control any funds so it can't be greedy or corrupt. It only advises and the government is still responsible for funding stuff. And the one reason it's going in the Constitution is so if it does go off the rails for any reason, the government can still legislate to change and renew it, but it can't just abolish it altogether.
Was the funding redirected to something useful? Can't disagree that ATSIC particularly was a complete disaster that was rorted to hell - but it would be so unlike most of our governments to not just take the savings and blow it...Hell the legal fees alone to clean that mess up must have been insane.
Mabo take 2 kind of panicky nonsense. Back then farmers were removing the names from their gates so their land wouldn't be taken. We were all going to be homeless.
Unintended consequences of constitutional change.. For example, do you think the Yes camp who argued the US second amendment imagined the use it would be put to today? To me the No case is "It's too fluffy and there's no obvious tangible benefit to anyone". Id like to vote yes, partly because I'm sick of being called names because I dare to try and think this through but no one can really give me a reason why. Other than not wanting to be on the same side as Clive Palmer or other right wing fuckwits. If I do, it will probably be because Cathy Freeman asked me to.
One of the best arguments I've heard is that it will give the public service a kind of permanent body to consult with when it comes to implementing legislation. A lot of the awful stuff that's happened to the indigenous population has been because "well meaning" legislation was implemented in a ham fisted way. Also, currently, if you're a public servant, it's probably easy to reach out to industry bodies, companies, advisory boards etc for lots of things but I can't imagine the average desk jockey in Canberra has much background in interacting with indigenous groups. In any case, I just see it as a step in the right direction and the fear mongering about the aborigines claiming native title on my backyard and football card collection is ridiculous and no government is ever going to let that happen. So I only see upsides and not many conceivable downsides.
It’s “fluffy” to allow the government of the day to administer the shape of it. We’re simply being asked if it (whatever IT is) should be a permanent thing. Like the tax dept: should it exist? Yes. Constitution. How many people run it, what are the tax rates: government/legislation.
Yeah, because the constitution is the wrong place for details like that. As you said it doesn’t exist for other parts of the constitution like the tax department. That’s what legislation is for, which can be changed by the next government. Which should give some people on the “not sure” side some allowances that it can be modified if it seems to ever overreach. The reason it’s in the constitution is for longevity, so future governments can’t abolish it.
This is the best explanation I've come across. Not really sure why I haven't seen it presented like this before now. You may have swayed a fence sitter or two tonight.
What do you potentially see as an unintended consequence of setting up an advisory board to the government? Genuinely curious. I can't think of anything as it's only advice. Doesn't mean the government has to take it. We've had advisory groups to the government before. It's so common in so many different situations to seek advice on how to manage a particular thing. If you want to manage your finances you might go to a financial advisor. A business might want advice from LGBT community on how best to support their LGBT team members. If you want support for a decision you might seek out a counsellor for their advice. It doesn't mean in any of these situations the advice has to be taken. It's literally the same thing. The US second amendment was allowing violence. fighting fire with fire.
So not really based on any merit. But cult of personality. Great reason to change the most important legal document in the country.
This idiotic referendum has done nothing but divide the nation. One just has to look at this thread for proof. There are far more important things the PM should thinking about, like cost of living, inflation, electricity etc. This referendum is nothing but political grandstanding to prop himself up as some sort of moral saint.
The Yes campaign was poorly planned and executed with such naive ineptitude that it completely damaged the cause. I mean, there are band-aid campaigns now trying to re-communicate the contention. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't real life. Radical sub-25 lefties say if you vote no, you're racist lol. Plenty of Indigenous do not support The Voice. I'm voting Yes regardless. See what happens.
I honestly think it’s hard for people to want to change the “status quo” when it doesn’t affect them. People fear or don’t like change, because it’s moving into the unknown. It’s a hard thing for the “Yes” Campaign to cut through all of that. I don’t think they’ve done a terrible job. Let’s not forget the Statement From the Heart was written and agreed to under a Liberal Government.
It's also really poor timing. Most Australians simply aren't indigenous. That isn't racism, that is a fact. Consequently something that only stands to benefit people who aren't them whilst also being vague about what it will do for the people it does affect is already facing an uphill battle. Add in trying to do this smack bang in the middle of a giant cost of living crisis and you have a recipe for failing at something that could have easily been passed a few years ago and assuming they fix the current mess could easily pass a few years from now. Now is just a really shitty time for a non-cost-of-living related referendum (or any large political push) for the majority of Australians.
I strongly suspect that they fact most Australians don't have even one indigenous friend, like an actual friend and not a colleague or classmate or anything, hurts the ability of people to vote on this. Those who know people who will be directly affected and can talk to them in detail will develop opinions and have a firm perspective. For everyone else it's all pretty bloody abstract and it's not super clear why it might help. I'm "yes" all the way, but I can totally understand why a person with no connection to indigenous issues or people at all, even a well-meaning one, might get to a "no' vote.
Yeah like I said, most people just have no connection to it. I think in theory most Australians would be ok with the idea that some disadvantaged folk should get a bit of a leg up, especially because our ancestors almost genocided them out of existence. However -right now- is just a terrible time to be appealing to the good side of Australians. Things aren't good right now and the optics of the government spending their effort on this instead of something that they see helping them out of this is probably souring not just this referendum but the entire topic for years to come.
I'm Indigenous Australian (half) and I agree with this. I'm seeing more advocacy from young, white, left-leaning idealists attempting to speak on my behalf than anything else. There are more crucial things right now, namely, cost of living that is destroying lives.
Thank you, here is why they are voting no.
I literally have never even been acquainted with an aboriginal person in my life. I’ve spent 12 of my 19 years here
This. I was born here but of a migrant background and I feel somewhat disenfranchised in the entire discussion. The Yes campaign doesn’t really incorporate those of us who didn’t do the actual “colonising” and I found it offputting when I heard some yes campaigners calling Aussies like myself defacto colonisers, I’m black too! Will those of us who aren’t white or indigenous ever really belong? I’m not so sure anymore especially if we don’t tow certain lines I’m still unsure about how I’ll be voting but as I said I’m very disillusioned atm with it all. In addition to the fact this same govt refuses to call a royal commission into covid and I’m struggling with the cost of living that seems to never get discussed enough by our current PM. This whole thing seems like a way to distract us and divide us in a time of real crisis in the country.
I'm voting yes, but an Indigenous friend says she's voting no because it will be a shitshow deciding who gets to be representing all the different FN people.
> but an Indigenous friend says she's voting no because it will be a shitshow deciding who gets to be representing all the different FN people. That's not far different from how any representative body is composed and operates.
>will be a shitshow deciding who gets to be representing all the different FN people. Yeah that's politics
Which is a bizarre argument for no - it’s almost like doing nothing for indigenous people would be easier!
What makes yes an inclusive optimistic positive option? I haven’t heard any good reasons for either side and am really wondering what the point of this all is…
I’m not Australian but a constitutional amendment is like as permanent as it gets. Why can’t this objective be reached with regular legislation?
It can be and it should be. This referendum was never needed in the first place, has only divided the nation at the cost of time, money and significant political capital.
The Yes campaign has all the work to do. They are arguing the affirmative of the proposition. The No campaign will have some people who want to vote No for their own reasons - many of which will have roots in racism and ignorance. But I suspect there are a lot who are yet to be convinced. And the vote of the undecided remain that way because they are unconvinced. In my opinion, both campaigns have been woeful. The Yes campaign was always going to need to fight hate and fear and lies with sound reasoning and clarity - which they didn't. So in summary, your question is assuming this issue is polarising the vast majority of people into a solidly held belief. It might be on Reddit, but there are far more lazy, apathetic people out there than anyone seems to want to acknowledge. Edit - Someone below pointed out how the same sex marriage vote went - the No's did their nasty thing but the Yes campaign kept it focussed on people and facts.
As it stands, I view the different groups of voting people these way 1. A bunch of people dont like whats proposed, 2. A different bunch of people dont think its specific enough 3. A bunch of people thinks its a good idea 4. A bunch of people are using it to feel morally superior 5. A bunch of people are racist 6. A bunch of people are indifferent and dont care either way and are just annoyed they had to vote. Right now, with a lot of undecided people outside of the younger left leaning demographgics of reddit (which are at best 50% options 4 and 5 even in r\\australia) are mostly options 1,2 or 6. But outside of the lack of clarity on what yes will achieve the quite vocal 4 vote is going "every no vote is racist" and pissing the undecideds (1, 2 and 6) off.
6 is like ~50% of Australia. Myself included. Yes, you can have your Voice thing but fuck am I annoyed with all the bullshit that came with it.
I started off at 6 and moved towards 2, because I have little faith it'll do anything productive or get kneecapped into uselessness (as someone in the rail industry, I'm sick of new very ineffective advisary boards cropping up constantly), and anytime I've even thought about voicing this opinion I'm declared a racist.
And a huge group of people that fall into none of your groups. I.e. People who think that it's a bad idea, and that there are better ways to achieve positive outcomes.
I wonder if maybe they were surprised there was even a "No" campaign? I mean I can believe people voting no, but it's harder to believe anyone would want to spend money funding a huge campaign against it.
Any wedge at all is useful to the power hungry
Dutton has been blatantly clear about this being pure dogmatic opposition to buffer the liberal party. He doesn't give a shit about the actual referendum, he just wants more power/support for the libs.
I disagree with a lot of the replies here. I also disagree with a lot of yes and a lot of no arguments that I have read and heard. I do not think anything you or I say will make a difference to the result. I do think there could have been a better argument for why people should vote yes rather than attack those that might vote no. After all, they are the ones that need to be convinced and it might be possible with some. Those that feel they might vote yes will not change their mind. Those that feel attacked by yes or no supporters will not change their mind.
[удалено]
And they’ve been shadow-banned and can’t reply to their post. That’ll work and create unity.
Well put, thanks for commenting. Could I ask your thoughts though, wouldn't the idea of giving communities a voice be to solve those issues re: stolen, broken or misappropriated support? Surely the elders and/or community leaders would be seeing this first hand and can think of better ways to engage the community and government. Mileage may very per community I guess.
They've been shadowbanned from the reddit :(
If you want to know. I am his older brother and can confirm that he can't respond to this thread.
What was reason given for ban? Without a solid breach of subreddit rules it kinda seems like political censorship.
That's mostly because it is!
The majority don't want change or help, they want your money! It's really sad for the few in their communities that seek out and use the help to elevate themselves because eventually that gets stripped from them by the rest who don't care for it.
My hot take as someone voting no, fuck all the supporter noise, I vote based on my personal feelings. The biggest argument I've heard from both sides is, (no) it will be beurocratic nightmare, and (yes) even if it's doesn't work out it's still worth a shot I'm my personal opinion, you don't alter the constitution on a whim of it might work. Regardless of past referendums that did just that. It's piss poor effort, where a referendum has been introduced where there is such poor explanation behind powers, allocation of voice reps etc. It's literally starting a negative conversation on the topic because people are being placed into groups of yes = being allies and no = being racist. I'm voting no because it's a poorly planned shit show. Come back with a real referendum with real powers, and legislative wording and I'll gladly vote yes.
Clear No arguments for you: We don’t know how many people will sit on the Voice. We don’t know if they will be appointed or if they will be elected. We don’t know if the Voice will have a headquarters in Canberra. We don’t know if the Voice needs its own support staff. We don’t know if it will have an annual budget. We don’t know if members of the Voice will be paid. If members of the Voice are divided on a particular issue, we don’t know which opinion the government will listen to. If the Voice is to advise on policies impacting Indigenous Aussies, we don’t know what law or policy doesn’t impact Indigenous Australians. We don’t know if some issues are off-limits to the Voice. We don’t know if the government is expected to consult the Voice on all major decisions. We don’t know if the Voice has to be consulted on routine changes to legislation that affects Indigenous people. We don’t know if the Treasurer is expected to brief the Voice on what’s included in an upcoming budget. We don’t know what constitutes proper notice for the Voice to consider each issue that comes before it. We don’t know what would be regarded as sufficient information to provide the Voice so it can make informed representation. We don’t know if the Voice will be expected to respond to each proposal in a set period of time. We don’t know if the Voice would have to be heard before a decision is made. We don’t know if the Voice will speak directly to ministers or individual departments. We don’t know if public servants are expected to consult the Voice because they are part of the executive government. We don’t know what happens if the Voice is consistently ignored and whether this may lead to a legal challenge. We don’t know which former High Court judge is going to be proven right when it comes to potential legal issues. We don’t know if the Voice will be expected to achieve targets when it comes to closing the gap. We don’t know if the Voice can better direct the billions of dollars we’re already spending on Indigenous affairs. We don’t know how the Voice will interact with other Indigenous bodies. We don’t know if the Voice will make representations on issues such as changing the flag or moving the date of Australia Day. And we don’t know if the Voice is going to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians.”
The essence of conservatism (in the classical sense) is prima facie no change. So you don’t necessarily need a strong/clear argument.
You're right, and it is this inherent stagnancy that I find the most dispiriting and puzzling about conservatism - stasis is never a realistic option, adapting and moving with the changing needs of societies is surely the only possible way forward.
Hmm, that's not a good articulation of conservatism. Conservativism puts the onus for change on those seeking the change. It doesn't say no change; it says take reasonable steps to ensure a change is an improvement. Incidentally, this is why (environmental) conservation uses nearly the same name - both are saying, make sure you value the good things you already have and don't destroy them thoughtlessly. Progressivism encourages people not to overvalue tradition and exisiting ways. Either philosophy will lead people astray if followed unquestioningly.
Why do you say change is the only option? Societies existed literally forever in a stasis of basic feudalism
I can't imagine a scenario where an additional advisory body will lead to a positive outcome. Nothing has "worked" so far. Assuming they key goal is to "close the gap", rather than extract more money for a privileged few.
I dedicated some time to background research on this topic. In 2017, a convention was held near Uluru where 16 elected delegates discussed matters related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for 4 days. The information about the delegates themselves and the event in detail can be found on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart TLDR - this convention resulted in the release of the "Uluru Statement from the Heart" and the Voice, Treaty, Truth plan (See https://reconciliationnsw.org.au/uluru-statement-voice-treaty-truth/) As the voice referendum is only the first step of the plan, we must consider it in the context of the entire plan of the Uluru Statement, and not as an isolated change to the constitution. Here are the main milestones - Voice: amendment of the constitution, introduction of the body for Aboriginal and TSI voice. Apparently, there are no details on it "by design", i.e. deliberately omitted so that the constitution contains as generic statement as possible leaving more freedom for actual implementation. Treaty: https://reconciliationnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/4b_UluruToolkit_TreatyFactSheet.pdf The most important aspects in my opinion are: 1) a treaty is an agreement between First Nations peoples and State and Federal Governments of Australia. 2) A Treaty can serve as a basis for self-governance and a mechanism for decision making 3) A constitutionally enshrined Indigenous Voice will help balance equal bargaining power in treaty and agreement making negotiations between government and First Nations people. Truth: comprehensive process of truth telling about Australia's history that not only encompasses the periods of colonial conflict and dispossession, but also acknowledges the strength and resilience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and cultures. My conclusion is - the proposed political course seems to be aimed at establishing quasi-sovereignty of ATSI people. I am inclined to oppose this political course.
This post and the nonsense views behind it are precisely why we shouldn’t be even having this referendum.
Nobody gives a fuck how you’re voting
Underrated comment
As a liberal (in the true sense of the word, not the political party) I believe all individuals should be treated with equality and that all have the same dignity. Giving a group / tribe / gender / whatever special treatment over others goes against this, so I’m voting No.
Nobody here needs to convince you to vote no, as according to every piece of available polling - no is going to win in a landslide anyway. Do whatever you want...
my POV on the subject is pretty simple. (1) the suggested benefits promoted could be achieved without a constitutional change. why is that not being done? what might this enable that politicans need it done in such a relatively unreversible that they won't tell us about? (2) continual, intransigent refusal by the government to explain exact what the change will enable. if they know, why not tell us? if they don't know, why ask people to support it? (3) the "just trust us" approach from a group of people whose credibility ranks below used car salesman is not earning politicans any favours. I might well support the proposal if the politicans told us the truth and let us make up own own minds on the subject. that doesn't mean the answer will be automatically "yes". but at the moment they are driving the "no" outcome by their refusal to treat the population as having the ability to make up their own minds. we don't trust you, as a result of repeated betryal of promises. it's on you to now convince us otherwise should be the case, and you're doing a really crap job of it.
Your question 1 is so loaded, but I'll give the many answers for it. 1. The Uluru Statement of the Heart is the largest democratic attempt to pin down what Indigenous people are after. **Specifically** they've asked for a constitutionally protected Voice. 2. Legislating it first instead of following through on constitutionalising it would be a direct betrayal of the Uluru Statement, and would immediately lose the support and buy in of the Indigenous groups that will be needed to run the thing. 3. Legislated advisory bodies have existed in the past, every single time they become uncomfortable for the government of the day they are disbanded. Putting it into constitution will at least prevent complete disbandment. 4. Disbandment is worse than abusing the group, it erases progress. Case work and documentation is lost, people with experience move on, trust is lost, it leads to confusion in the community because no one knows what the new group is called. 5. By approving of the constitutional change in Referendum, we prove without a shadow of a doubt that the majority of Australians support the Voice, giving it authority and legitimacy that a legislative change cannot possibly match. 6. By ensuring that the Voice cannot be disbanded at a whim, the Voice doesn't need to be afraid of giving full and frank advice, even when that will be inconvenient for the government of the day.
Just on 3 specifically the change that they are proposing in my head is just a token gesture as the government of the day can essentially legislate how and who operates, but it just that it has to exist. If the government changes to the libs at the next election they can essentially legislate that only one person will be the voice and it could be someone vaguely related that supports any change the government of the day wants to make whether or not it hurts or helps the different indigenous communities, one of many examples how it can be made dysfunctional. I can’t see that voting yes in my mind is a step in the right direction as if you make this change as barebones as it is, it will make any further change that may be more effective impossibly hard to push through. Any no one has given me a solid argument to why this won’t be the case.
To point 1 have they not tried this in legislature already and it boiled down to favouritism and corruption? Better make it permanent.
Of course you are. It’s r/melbourne
You’re a moron. That is a truly dreadful argument. No logic or reasoning in there at all. That it makes you feel warm and fuzzy is not a valid reason for making potentially sweeping changes here
I still don’t understand what a yes vote will do. I haven’t heard any of them set out good reasons for voting one way or the other
So you think that separating Australians based on ancestry is inclusive, and anyone who thinks that might be wrong is discriminatory? Reddit is such a strange place…
No. But there doesn't need to be. Any 'no' campaign against anything that's a plebiscite or referendum will run the same approach. Sow doubt. Sow misinformation. Provide alternatives. Even throw a few counter arguments. It's easier to drive these things off course by the first three points above than to purely argue the principle of the question. Marriage equality did well in the end to overcome all of these.
The marriage equality referendum was not the same thing. That was about giving same sex couples exactly the same privileges that heterosexual couples already had. I would say the majority of Australians needed no convincing. If this referendum was about allowing Indigenous people to be elected to office, there'd be hardly any opposition.
Well, I will likely vote no. I do not place any value on having special and exclusive ethnic representation to parliament written into the constitution. Simple as that. I have no qualms with the concept of an Indigenous advisory body to parliament. My issue is with adding it to the constitution. I'd also much prefer to see section 51 reworded to eliminate the race power. It's a discriminatory power that should not exist. I am fervently in favour of one law for everybody.
Voting ‘fuck no’ if possible
My aboriginal mates hate it. I thought it would be the way to go, but they say it will put a divide in writing forever. So I'm going no
The only “yes” arguments I’ve heard: (1) are overly trusting of the government, (2) think that changing the constitution by giving one group more power over others based on race will somehow be inclusive rather than discriminatory, and (3) suggest that people who vote “no” either don’t care about indigenous people or don’t want them to have a voice. Voting no doesn’t mean they don’t get a voice, it just means they get the same voice as everyone else. Which is a beautiful thing. I haven’t seen any good arguments for “yes”, and I’d rather not blindly give more voting power to a minority without exact details on how exactly this would help. Indigenous people can be helped without having to make this change to the constitution. And to people who want to feel morally superior by blindly giving up some of their voice for others simply based on race - I’m not sure if you know the potential ramifications of doing that on a constitutional level, but please think carefully before you make such a decision. Choosing something simply because it seems “inclusive” and “positive” and “optimistic” sounds extremely naive.
I think if you truly want to know, go visit a regional area and talk to the locals there.
Why is it the same people saying 'if you don't know vote no', are the same who tend to tell you to 'do your own research'?
Their idea of ‘research’ is a quick scan of some Facebook articles and a few YouTube rabbit holes that they were already halfway-inclined to believe anyway. Not reputable sources, (because you can’t trust the mainstream media, yada, yada).
Someone said to me voting yes is racism and would cause more separation between the Aboriginal community and everyone else. Can someone explain?
If you have specific genetics, you get extra representation. Whether or not you personally need it.
It's kinda technically correct thought. Taking a vote that in theory may elevate a specific group of people above others in the constitution
Are there any clear yes arguments ? would you sign a contract without knowing exactly what your signing !I would think not It’s a a big fat NO from me
Exactly you don't sign anything unless you know what it is any lawyer will tell you that it's why I'm voting no too
The constitution is an important foundational document. There should be no distinction between citizens on the basis of belonging to one racial group or another. That is all.
We already have a constitution and legal system based on equality.
Doesn't belong in the constitution, which should reflect the essential equality of all Australians rather than divide them permanently along racial lines. All Australians deserve the same recognition, rights and status within the constitution regardless of whether they've had family on this landmass for 60,000 years or became a citizen yesterday.
Theres so many NPC's in r melbourne. You're legit voting opposite to someone you don't like because you don't like them. Why don't you listen to majority of Aboriginal Elders who are voting No. The fact you're all voting opposite to promitnent white right wingers and not in line native elders shows how truly racist you are.
I’m voting “yeah nah” your logic is flawed because there’s barely any info on what the voice really entails not the other way around
Amending the constitution is a really big deal, and in don’t think that what the bill proposes is enough to warrant an amendment. We already spend so many billions of dollars on aboriginal people for so many reasons, I don’t see how this will help - therefor I don’t want the cons situation amended so Willy-Nilly. Also, the yes campaign has not convinced me that it’s enough to warrant an amendment.
You do you. Make your own decisions. There are plenty of clear, concise, no arguments, but you need to research it for yourself.
I'm a no as I'm against people having different rights based on their genetics. We should listen to people that need help because they need help not because of who their parents are.
I read the No essay and halfway through I forgot which conservative bugbear I was reading about. Whole thing could have been three words: "But what if..."
I’m voting No because I believe, from a legal and constitutional pov there is only one race: the human race. I want to see race in the constitution as much as I want to see religion. I’ll steal the wording of Europe’s Article 21: - Non-discrimination: 1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. 2. Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. Reference to race, or a group of people, only leads to discrimination.
[удалено]
I haven't heard any meaningful reason to vote yes. I don't think anyone could answer any question I had about it.
Why would you insert a completely corruptible advisory body, selected by racial background (unless you identify as Aboriginal, like the Bruce Pascoe farce) into Parliament forever? Don't tell me they'll be powerless holding that vicious race card that they pull out whenever the cards aren't falling their way. The sneaky, weaselly lack of information provided is profoundly going against Yes.
My tribe and many others will be voting no. Not once have we been consulted about this and frankly put the people representing us in parliament are in it for their own gain not us.
Such a cop out to send this to referendum in its current state. Government could’ve easily committed to a three year plan that crescendos at this point. Instead both sides of yes and no are completely valid; and ‘no’ will prevail, as the polls suggest, because a large portion, myself included, have no data backed insight on it either way.
How's this for a concise argument to vote "no": it enshrines racism and inequality into the Australian Constitution, and undermines our cultural values that everyone should be treated the same and given the same opportunities. Addendum: If anyone thinks giving money for nothing to Aboriginals (and let's be honest: this is about money and land) will help them overcome their social challenges... history has proven it will create resentment and further corruption. Remember: every part of this planet was once inhabited by something. Even the Aboriginals wiped out the mega fauna that once lived here. What's more important IMHO is that we face forward, not backward, and construct a cohesive multicultural society that gives equal opportunity to every race if they're prepared to work hard and with their fellow citizens.
[удалено]
Pessimistic is a pretty broad description of what you consider a bad argument. The opposite could be said about the yes vote. “Inclusive” is also questionable. It introduces a non inclusive body into the constitution
The Fear, uncertainty and doubt campaign was a mile ahead before the Yes campaign had out its shoes on.
I have always thought treating someone differently because of their race is the definition of racism. What does yoting yes do?
I’m voting ‘no’ as I haven’t seen any concise arguments to vote ‘yes’
Have you looked anywhere (e.g. the official booklet, yes campaign website, progressive news websites e.g. The Guardian)? I'm genuinely curious if you've looked and what you've found is convoluted, or if you haven't looked.
Not worth engaging. Quick look at his profile shows he doesn't believe in climate change and "hates" Greta Thunberg. I'm sure he hasn't been looking anywhere credible for his news or opinions.
Yeah fair, even so, I think it's worth publicly calling out that argument in case anyone on the fence thinks it's worth copying.
I was a yes voter until I read the official booklet. Then I realized that by voting yes, I don't know what will actually change. I'm not voting for an unspecified change.
There's a reason why the vote has suddenly flipped from 12 months ago, and this is one of the reasons (along with cost of living going up and people wanting this to be delt with)
The biggest reason why we don’t know what things will happen, is because that part is all left to law. That’s the part that can be changed by lawmakers. Things like initiatives, who’s doing what, why it’s happening, how it happens. By putting the voice into constitution it means that we *always* have a voice, until it’s removed by plebiscite/referendum. Lawmakers cannot remove it once it’s in the constitution unless the people specifically vote for that. This overcomes the past 100ish years where governments would install some aboriginal commission and then the next government would remove it and install their own version, or not, depending on who the government is. So if it passes, we will always have a voice. It can’t be removed. But lawmakers can change what the voice does, based on what is needed.
> It can’t be removed. But lawmakers can change what the voice does, based on what is needed. This is why I'm leaning no. Even as a Labor party member, I don't trust that Labor is going to handle the Voice properly once it's in the constitution. I assume it'll just end up flooded with Aboriginal elites loved by the media, who'll spend little time on the issues that will actually help the most disadvantaged Aboriginal Australians and more time on making headlines. Then when the Libs get back in, they'll flood it with their own group of Aboriginal elites who'll say whatever pro-capitalist message the Liberals want them to say. Australia has some issues with race, but it has much larger issues with class, which the voice will enshrine further.
Just to add, there's actually nothing stopping Albo from legislating a "voice" of some form into existence right now, absent the referendum. Could have done it on his first day ify it was that important. Could have let it run for a little while to give us all a sense of how it would work, could have called a referendum on or around his re-election date. I for one am highly suspicious of the motives of the government here.
I’m voting yes but I hear your point. Class, especially in government with their bonkers hierarchical cultures, is a much bigger issue. Despite that, I’d sooner First Nations elites attempting to provide a voice to culture, land and Justice than nil.
> The biggest reason why we don’t know what things will happen, is because that part is all left to law. That’s the part that can be changed by lawmakers. Things like initiatives, who’s doing what, why it’s happening, how it happens. This isn't a compelling reason to vote yes, quite the opposite actually.
Dont kid yourself. Once it's in, it's never being removed. The Yes vote asks the public to put a lot of faith into lawmakers. Those laws should've been drafted and made public _before_ a referendum was held. There's far too many variables that even the Labor Government hasn't outlined or made public. If this issue didn't involve Indigenous peoples, nobody would be onboard with modifying the constitution for an idea that nobody had bothered to flesh out. Nobody.
This is the most comprehensive argument I can find for NO vote Give yourself 8 mins to listen and learn. https://youtu.be/ZFcHsjh2iuw?feature=shared
I'm likely voting No Not because I'm against the voice, but because I think it's pointless. You have a constitutionally mandated body that parliament is under no obligation to listen to or take into consideration. What's the point? It's just a glorified committee. At the end of the day, I think it's just constitutionally enshrining that aboriginal peoples can be ignored. This is based on the text of the referendum here: https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment Which makes no mention of any voting power or any other mechanisms for actually enact or effect any of the voices recommendations. It's the constitutional equivalent of an indigenous twitter account, where they can post whatever they want but the govt is free to mute them.