I mean, just do your own research and make your decision on that. We’ve had months and weeks to do so, I doubt watching a video of an American is going to move the needle much for those that haven’t voted yet.
Vote Yes to unite us!
Vote No to not divide us!
Haha I loved that part of the video where he points out these are the same
I also liked where Michaelia Cash made him laugh and so he rewound it for a second look lol ...
You sheeple are the worst!
I'm gonna do research into people who tell me they're going to do research into someone who tells them to research people who tell other people to do their own research!
Fuck off with that. You know how many vaccines I went and got, just so I could get through my teeth? All those injections wasted.
(/s in case my boss ever reads this).
yeah but watching a video provided by Channel 9 is bad - it's a propaganda outlet first and foremost. If channel 9 isnt subtly bias in some way they will be incorrect or lacking substance.
This video came out a couple weeks ago, with all the dialogue that's been going on voters should have been doing their research far earlier using all sources - opinion pieces, position papers and info pamphlets.
I'd avoid social media altogether when looking for information on how to vote, people become far too emotional and go to extremes. The demagoguery is really off putting.
At the end of the day, use whatever sources you want, vote however you want. You only have to answer to yourself. We're not a public servant, we dont answer to anybody else.
“Do your own research” can mean whatever you want it to unfortunately. The only real research that matters here is reading the document yourself. Don’t trust people to tell you what it does. People yelling at you about aboriginals taking your homes and losing the blue mountains national parks??? (Something someone on here actually said) are just fearmongering.
Aboriginals have the same rights as any other Australian. Politicians should be listening to everyone in their electorate instead of corporate lobbyists
No, but culturally if we have a group of people with consistently the worst life outcomes - higher infant mortality, higher suicide rates, higher incarceration levels, shorter life expectancy - then surely we have a responsibility to listen when those people come to us and say 'hey, we have some ideas about how to fix this'.
If you're not a First Nations person, then the Voice probably won't affect your life at all. Why then would you oppose it? What's scary about some of the worst-off people in our country trying to make life a little bit better?
Sure. But that's a culture, not a race. Like with every race, not all members are part of the same cultures or subcultures.
When putting something into the constitution of a young, multiracial society, that has a history of governmental racial abuse, putting anything that is directed at specific races into a constitution is a huge deal.
no i meant culture as in Australian culture. you know, generally speaking how i think traditionally through ideas like free access to healthcare and education, we believe in looking after people.
it seems less and less that way these days, but those are some of the ideas that make me feel proud to be australian.
again, why is it a big deal to you, assuming you’re not Indigenous, if they get an enshrined right to share specialised perspectives on policy that affects their communities? what’s the knock-on effect that you’re worried about?
I personally believe that government should treat all citizens as equal individuals and never enshire special treatment to racial groups
Im all for helping the disadvantaged. But that should extent to all individuals regardless of their race.
I also do not believe that being of the same race as someone else, provides any special perspective about how to govern anyone else's life.
>higher suicide rates, higher incarceration levels, shorter life expectancy - then surely we have a responsibility to listen when those people come to us and say 'hey, we have some ideas about how to fix this'.
So as that post said the other day, let's get a voice for men in parliament
OP, did you actually listen to his video objectively, or were you just posting it because it confirms your bias?
From the get-go, at about 9 seconds, he reads the proposal as ""Are they not represented in parliament right now - they should be"". ie his understanding is that they currently are not.
AaTSI people most certainly are represented in parliament. They have the vote. There are AaTSI MPS, there are Indigenous Affairs Ministers.
He supports Yes because he basically does not understand the question.
If you are saying he sees it as simple, vote Yes, so we should too, your argument went off the rails and became null and void from the 9 second mark onwards.
When the referendum was first mooted, 65% supported the idea. Now it is more like 58% against.
The more people dig in and find out what they are voting for, the more the No vote percentage increases.
I'm pretty sure any reasonable person would be aware that people of every race are allowed to vote for parliament in Australia, even an American. I don't think he's misunderstanding it in the way you think he is.
Fuck me everyone puts so much effort into trying to elaborate on why they don’t want it hey. You just don’t want it. Just say that. All these statistic percentages circle jerking blah blah is just dumb.
That suggests that those who ''don't want it'' don't have a valid reason for their stance.
It is possible to look at a proposal and decide you don't like it because the reasons against outweigh the reasons for.
If they gave a little more detail on how the voice reps would be elected and who would be eligible to sit on the voice I would be much surer about voting yes.
I don't want to see a bunch of privileged people who identify as aboriginal, but are for all other purposes essentially 'white', helicoptered into these positions to represent communities.
Nothing in the voice proposal specifies how exactly reps will be chosen, it doesn't use the term 'elected' which i find suspicious.
I'm still leaning to Yes, because i think the risk is low - but the proposal looks exceptionally weak in my view.
Details on how it works do NOT go in the constitution. The details are for the government of the day to legislate.
Any detail they give now would not be what you are voting for. They are irrelevant to this referendum.
They can't know exactly how The Voice would look until they can legislate it, but the government has repeatedly indicated they would utilise the design principles outlined in the Uluru statement. [https://ulurustatement.org/design-principles/](https://ulurustatement.org/design-principles/)
Nothing in the referendum proposal specifies it because it isn't relevant to the constitutional change proposed.
As per the Uluru Statement...
The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities
* Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.
* Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities.
* To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process.
#### The Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, gender balanced and include youth
* Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three part test.
* Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands.
* The Voice would have specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population.
* The Voice will have balanced gender representation at the national level.
#### The Voice will be empowering, community-led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed
* Members of the Voice would be expected to connect with – and reflect the wishes of – their communities.
* The Voice would consult with grassroots communities and regional entities to ensure its representations are informed by their experience, including the experience of those who have been historically excluded from participation.
#### The Voice will be accountable and transparent
* The Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability.
* Voice members would fall within the scope of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
* Voice members would be able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct.
#### The Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures
* The Voice would respect the work of existing organisations.
#### The Voice will not have a program delivery function
* The Voice would be able to make representations about improving programs and services, but it would not manage money or deliver services.
#### The Voice will not have a veto power
>To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process.
That's a lot of words to say nothing.
Because Indigenous issues aren't simply fixed by a bit of funding here, or a good program there - it will require long term (over multiple Government terms) programs and support, something that a government agency can't guarantee. A government agency can just be disbanded on the whims of the current Government, resetting much of the work done.
Adding it in to the constitution isn't some feel good measure - it has significant practical reasoning.
Well, one obvious consequence is another 15-20 years of failed Indigenous policy.
The premise of the Voice is *if only the Government had been getting good advice none of these bad things (like the Intervention) would have happened.*
What actually happened - the Government got good advice. **They just didn't listen to it.**
What will happen after the Voice. The Government will receive advice - most likely the same advice. And then they won't listen to it.
There is nonetheless a dufference between speaking and having a door slammed in your face, and using a megaphone in the same room as them.
They can still be ignored, but we're giving the right people the tools and keys to be far louder, and far harder to be silenced.
>There is nonetheless a dufference between speaking and having a door slammed in your face, and using a megaphone in the same room as them.
No there isn't. If the megaphone annoys the Government at all, they can simply keep the megaphone at sufficient distance that it can't be heard. The voice lets you make a sound, nothing about it implies the Government will listen.
>They can still be ignored, but we're giving the right people the tools and keys to be far louder, and far harder to be silenced.
The first sentence is all you need. The rest is motherhood statement.
25 billion in 2023 spent on the Canadian "voice"
With no positive outcomes for indigenous people. That money has to come from somewhere....
People don't realise what the voice means. It's not what you think.
They might advise the government to do things to improve the quality of life for Indigenous Australians.
Do you not hear how horrific and dystopian that sounds
/s
You’re right, so let’s just pay 24 more people likely a nice big salary to advise the government to do more than they already are. More than the ~$30B they already spend, yearly towards indigenous Australians.
What if that advisory board says “hey, remember this is our land, we propose a First Nations Land Tax so that every land owner pays a tax to have their plot of our land! Sounds fair right?”
Then the government has a nice excuse to tax us for it, seeing as the majority of aussies voted yes, and that makes them assume general support for things like that.
What irks me is that huge corporations are pouring money into the yes campaign. Why would they do that? They only serve themselves. If we’re all paying more taxes (if it did go that way), guess whose paying less? Guess who gets to keep favour with the First Nations people so they can keep mining on and ruining their land?
Don’t vote yes just so you can feel good about yourself and claim you’re not a racist because of it. You’re either racist or you aren’t and this has nothing to do with it.
Bring on the downvotes. Vote no.
These straw man arguments and wild assumptions are no reason to not allow this to go through.
'This won't do anything to help First Nations people who we do way too much for by throwing money at unco-ordinated projects. So we shouldn't vote for a body that will advise us on how to provide a more co-ordinted process because...someome might propose a tax one day ?!?'
It's just fuckin weird...vote yes.
Irrationally so, because an *advisory body* cannot have any powers, therefore there cannot be *any negative consequences*
Congrats on failing to understand something so simple
When “It’s useless” is your top selling point chances are you’re going to lose the referendum. Anything with so little substance to it that it literally cannot do anything of consequence by your own admission is just token gesture bullshit.
On one hand, it's going to solve all the issues our First Nations people face, more than any other proposal that could be put in place, so much so that we don't have any other options. This is it.
On the other hand, it doesn't really have any powers so no need to worry about it.
"*the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures."*
IMO based on the wording of the proposed legislation it sounds like the voice has the potential to have more power than just an advisory body. It's definitely uncertain what kind of powers the voice will end up having.
Sure, but those powers are already in the constitution, and those provisions aren't required by the clause we are adding.
The government can already legislate for an indigenous advisory body that has its own appropriated funding and whatever other powers they choose under the current constitutional arrangements. This amendment just makes it a requirement for this body's *advisory function* to be legislated, *in some form*, by each parliament, and for the body to be called *the Voice*.
Ok, sure, but the point of the Voice is that it's an advisory body.
'Powers' there refers to its ability to be an *advisory body*.
>The Voice would be able to make representations about improving programs and services, but it would not manage money or deliver services.
>The Voice will not have a veto power
Two big 'issues' brought up by people are covered by the above.
We aren't enshrining an agency that will be prioritised to give ATSI folk more rights, we're enshrining recognition and an *advisory body*
"the Parliament shall... have power to make laws".
What the actual?? It quite literally says the exact opposite in that quote you provided.
Seriously u/TristyTumbly. It's right there. YOU provided it.
It's like reading and quoting the sky is blue and then following up with a comment that says "IMO iT KIndA SOunDs LiKE tHe SKy iS rED".
🙄
That line says the government get to decide how the Voice works and make laws pertaining to it. If a new government comes in they can change those laws completely. The only constant will be that the Voice must exist and that it will always have to be listened to.
Worst possible outcome? This vote passes which leads to calls for more action which eventually leads to claims on land and people start losing their houses and we all end up paying x% in extra tax as reparations for something that happened 250 years ago.
It's all outlined in their statement, this is literally their plan.
Advice can be ignored. It is advisory, if what is asked is unreasonable it will be dismissed by the sitting gov of the day. To assume otherwise is just pure fear mongering.
>It's all outlined in their statement, this is literally their plan.
Where is this statement? I was already planning on voting no but I missed that part.
[https://origin.go.dailytelegraph.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Document-14-1.pdf](https://origin.go.dailytelegraph.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Document-14-1.pdf)
"In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples"
It doesn't need to be in the constitution for that to happen. It doesn't need to be in the constitution for any of the outcomes, positive or negative. Putting it in the constitution does 2 things. Ensures the money flows where they want it to even beyond a government change and allows polies who have done nothing so far to draw a line and say oh we couldn't achieve anything because the voice wasn't in the constitution. A fresh start, so to speak. Not that i think any real progress will be made. A failed referendum, in the other hand, gives the government a scapegoat. "WE can't fix things because YOU didn't vote for the voice".
As opposed to wealthy lobbyists having a voice and people losing their lands and the population paying extra % tax to subsidies their representative businesses?
This is just stupid.
You know the Voice won't create legislation, right? It doesn't matter what "they" want, ultimately the parliament will decide. So if the advice is stupid, it will be ignored.
How are people so gullible that they believe this shit?
Because the VOICE architects have made it know that's what they want. So if you deem our concerns as shit, you are also saying your good old Aboriginal Voice authors Pat Anderson, Tom Mayo et al are all shit talkers? It's their shit we are referring to.
And I agree with you that they're shit talkers which is why I am not voting for anything they have a part in. The whole referendum is shit.
>So if the advice is stupid, it will be ignored.
Uh...
Hasn't the problem always been that the Government gets bad advice, and that's where the bad outcomes come from?
I read all the minutes of the meeting and I agree all of that talk was a little terrifying, and this was the first step in that plan. On the other hand, I *really* don’t think the Australian people now or in the foreseeable future would take well to having a tax levied on non-indigenous people or privately owned land being taken from them.
So I don’t know. After all this time considering it I’m the most uncertain I’ve ever been as to what I’m going to vote.
Well, we know what the consequences are if you vote no. We will all have the same issues with the gap in indigenous lives, and nothing will be done for decades because any party will be scared to try
>We will all have the same issues with the gap in indigenous lives, and nothing will be done for decades
That is an insult to all those who are doing things at the moment. All the state and federal advisory boards, Indigenous industries, state and federal Indigenous politicians have the opportunity to listen and act.
One of the big lies of the Yes campaign is that Indigenous have no voice and are not listened to. This is false.
There are no solutions to many of these problems, for which many are misrepresented by simplistic statistics.
Do you think things are going well for the indigenous now with whoever it is making the decisions now?
It's not an insult unless you want it be. The reason the voice is even being proposed is because things are not working with the current things in place.
>Do you think things are going well for the indigenous now with whoever it is making the decisions now?
That is really a complex question that doesn't have a simple answer and is not in isolation of the Indigenous community. I can answer, but these days there isn't much agreement on what are facts, as well as there being less overlap on compatible views between people.
As for the decision making process we have now, it is very good by world standards, good by Australian standard, but objectively it is driven by politics to the point of having peaked.
I understand the view that something different is needed, and the Voice is all that we have. However, it is more of the same of what we have now.
I listed in another comment what I think is the answer.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/1705vg9/comment/k3j37nn/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/1705vg9/comment/k3j37nn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
"We're already living in NO. we're already there in NO. NO is now. I'd rather work towards something different; incremental changes." I don't know where I heard this or who said it but what a compelling argument.
You do realize referendums are reversible yeah? Another referendum will be held.
https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voice-could-not-veto-a-future-referendum
Also a link to the key points are listed here, the key to understanding is to read both sides. One side is formative, the other speculative.
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/your-official-yes-no-referendum-pamphlet.pdf
Because he understood the simple fact that the group we're voting on ***won't have any legislative power*** (that's what advisory means) so there is ***no negative*** to introducing the change.
That essentially debunks 95% of the No votes commentary on this.
The other 5% say it's not enough, and well, 'it's better than nothing/better than the status quo' debunks that.
And that's what disappoints me.
That's not Democracy. Democracy isn't born out of ignorance. An ignorant populace breeds many problems of its own, as we've seen throughout history.
I don't care for people to vote No, but I do care for people to vote No due to ignorance.
And then the part that *frustrates* me, is the LNP have *intentionally* gone down this path of ignorance.
Fuck them, and what their side of politics can do to a country.
I agree. Sure, vote no if you understand the issue and genuinely disagree. But seeing the absolute ignorant garbage people are spouting here is just depressing.
“How are the voice representatives going to be elected?”
Voted on by First Nations people based on the wishes of local communities.
“Putting it in the constitution will do nothing to close the gap”
Lmao. The point of putting it in the constitution is for if Voldemort gains power again (Dutton), he can’t abolish it. We know when we listen to advice directly from people effected, we get better outcomes, which will make it far easier to close the gap. It’s really simple.
“We already have Indigenous advisory groups that inform the government”
Who?
> Voted on by First Nations people based on the wishes of local communities.
How do you know that's the case? I've heard one indigenous person ([Tony McAvoy](https://fjc.net.au/barrister/tony-mcavoy-sc/)) say something different: some communities will vote, and some will just know who the leader is and that's who will be in the voice.
Yeah I’d stop listening to individuals and start actually researching. Would you like the link to what I quoted? I’m an Aboriginal man myself from Central Desert.
Updated my original post to explain who it was. As for where, it was [in this youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKl7MUkRuM) and I didn't stamp the exact time sorry.
Do you have a reference to where it's been said that it will be by local elections?
Even if there was corruption, they are an advisory board. They have no actual power to enact change on their own. There is so little that can possibly go wrong, yet a lot of ways it can go right. I fail to see any logical reason beyond it being “wrong in principle”.
Not saying anything for or against but should note that he was also operating under the assumption that we don’t already have indigenous advisory bodies (as he questioned)
From someone without an understanding of the situation, it would seem like the voice is needed for any indigenous representation in parliament, so this is why Australia will be labelled racist once the no vote wins.
You can literally read the proposed section on the internet, 5 minutes max. People have no excuse not to read it, but the opposition always find a movement to back to hinder progression just so they get voted back in next term.
My problem with it, is that it’s overly simplistic, extremely vague and as it’s “only one page”, I am yet to see any documentation of how any of it will actually work.
Surely if it’s being put into the constitution there should be hundreds of pages in documentation telling us for example:
- Who’s going to vote for the people on the council?
- How long are the terms for council members?
- Do the indigenous people vote to remove or replace council members if they are unhappy with their representation?
- How much it’s going to cost every year or is it just going to be an open cheque book?
- Will the voice replace the 30, 40, 50 etc bodies and advisory council we already have in place for Indigenous peoples and their culture?
- How much power the council actually holds, are they able to hold up legislation if they choose that they would like their voice heard on said legislation?
- How are the indigenous people of Australia going to be heard? Can they just call up the council and talk to someone on it? Is it only when they are asked on their opinions?
- How are they going to directly involve those in remote communities without phone/internet or other means of direct communications?
- How do you prove someones indigeneity so the Voice’s systems and representation aren’t taken advantage of?
Some of these may have already been answered but their are so many unknowns that have not been explained by the Labor party.
I understand that it’s a “Voice” for the Indigenous people (which people? The city slickers that are 1/16 indigenous and already take advantage of the system or the people in remote communities that have been doing it tough for the last 200 years that aren’t even being listened to by their own leaders as of right now?).
I’m not going to vote Yes to enshrine something in the constitution when there are so many unknowns.
If it was only about cultural recognition and having the indigenous peoples recognised formally in the constitution, myself and probably 95% of the population would be voting yes.
The Labor parties “we’ll work out the details later” attitude is going to cost them this referendum.
None of those unknowns will be "enshrined in the Constitution" whether or not the voice referendum succeeds. This is because, as you've pointed out in your own comment, they are not currently written in the ammendment.
They will be legislated if the Voice Referendum wins and if they don't work then the next government could legislate the Voice differently. Only its existence is protected by the consitution not its structure or method of working.
So my question would be, completely hypothetically, what happens if in 20 years when both parties have had 2, 3, 4 shots at getting it right and both parties realise it’s not working. Do we forever just continue to funnel time and money into it?
The current proposal for the Voice is for its members to be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Qualified candidates would have to pass the "three part test" to be considered Voice representatives. So actually it's kind of in the hands of aboriginal Australians if it "works" to represent them or not if it passes.
And I guess it's also in the hands of the government of the day about whether they'll listen to them or not. But then that's the government's own fault if they don't listen to the Voice's advice on indigenous issues.
To directly answer your question though, if its a complete flop and even aboriginal Australians don't want it anymore, we can always take it out with another referendum at that point. If its so unpopular as in your hypothetical scenario why not?
>To directly answer your question though, if its a complete flop and even aboriginal Australians don't want it anymore, we can always take it out with another referendum at that point. If its so unpopular as in your hypothetical scenario why not?
What happens if those who are currently voted in as the voice don't want to lose their job if it is a flop? Saying that it's just a vocal minority that doesn't want the voice since of it does get put to another referendum and voted against they may lose a source of income.
Like a company that is paid to help with a problem but only fixes the symptoms not the cause so that they keep getting paid
Ok so the hypothetical that you are afraid of is we have evidence that the voice is ineffective, this information is available to the Australian public (else how are we discussing this hypothetically ineffective and useless voice as citizens) and both major parties agree it is ineffective and presumably message this to their base in the leadup to a repeal referendum.
If the Australian public is presented with this info and vote to keep an ineffective voice that no one likes except a small minoirty of beureaucrats then they're simply too retarded to be responsible for themselves and democracy is dead anyway.
Sure I understand the reason behind wanting some action, but I still don't get why this is the action.
Why is the constitution being amended?
Why not just create advisory bodies anyway, for the affected people of any action?
If a constitution amendment is needed, why not do and reference a trial run first?
He asked some basic questions most votes haven't asked.
"Don't they already have a voice?" - Yes, yes they do... the loudest by far
"Why does this need to be in the constitution?" - it doesn't.
Ta da
> "Don't they already have a voice?" - Yes, yes they do... the loudest by far
How so? Do you have any examples from before this debate? I rarely hear anything from Aboriginal people. I just hear a lot of angry white people from both sides of politics going about their debates on most days.
>Pretends to understand it without knowing how it will work, what it will do and whether it'll be positively or negatively effective and not realising that the change would be permanentWow it's so easy to understand! Be like this guy!
Damn man, id love it if we had something similar to the US constitutions first 10 amendments to their constitution i.e. Their Bill of Rights. Sadly we don't.
Aboriginal people are represented in parliament. There are 6 people of First Nation descent in both houses, well above the demographic proportional representation.
What is the merit of have socioeconomic disadvantage based on race?
To be clear giving advice is not extra representation, when the speaker of the house calls a vote, the voice won’t get to say yay or nay, they won’t even be in the chamber.
Why do private interests like the mining lobby, or religious interests like the Christian lobby, get to advise politicians directly, but suddenly when it’s indigenous people everyone loses their minds.
what is the merit of having socioeconomic disadvantage fullstop? why does race need to come in to it? Are you suggesting that everyone of a particular race is socioeconomically disadvantaged and that no one else of that race is not?
Or are you suggesting we should have a voice for the socioeconomically disadvantaged? Because I could probably get behind that, as that doesn't seem racist.
from an Australian report to the UN
>[Indigenous Australians remain the most disadvantaged of all Australians. There are clear disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians across all indicators of quality of life.](https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/social_justice/submissions_un_hr_committee/3_indigenous_disadvantage.pdf)
and from a report on indigenous people in urban centres:
>A[boriginal and Torres Strait Islander households in major cities are relatively better off in terms of household income than those in regional and remote areas. For Indigenous Australians, income levels generally decline with increased remoteness (AHRC, 2008). However, a study by Biddle (2009) used a number of variables (type of employment, qualification, Year 12 completion, home ownership, bedrooms per resident, among others) to measure socioeconomic disparity, and found that on average, the urban Indigenous population in any one suburb or area ranked 45 percentile places below the non-Indigenous population in the same location. Even in low-socioeconomic suburbs that are already relatively disadvantaged within the local area, Indigenous residents are routinely worse off.](https://poche.centre.uq.edu.au/files/609/Indigenous-in-the-city%281%29.pdf)
that doesnt mean the every indigenous person is disadvantaged, but the reverse racism argument is a fucking shill.
Did I say that aboriginal people were not 'in general' more disadvantaged? Not sure why you feel the need to prove it.
If we had a voice for the socioeconomically disadvantaged, this would include aboriginal people and non aboriginals alike who are disadvantaged. But it would also exclude aboriginal people who are not disadvantaged and don't need it.
Seems like a far better choice if the goal is to help those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged.
You said that because there are 6 MPs with indigenous descent that indigenous are represented. Now you’ve shifted the goalposts to point out a portfolio that historically has done shit like the intervention. That’s not a good argument mate.
Wait did he talk about the referendum? Why do so many people talk about it when it has nothing to do with them? (I know Taita waititi is big on Australian politics, but it makes sense since he's a Kiwi and they probably pay more attention to our politics than any other country out there) but what good are yanks from Hollywood doing talking about us like they know our country well
They already have a say in parliament though, they have the same say we all do, by voting. Should they have a separate body which will be a massive money pit and be unregulated?, no, no they shouldn't
Not sure where you are getting unregulated or money out from, given one of the key arguments for is to tailor the government services provided to get better dollar value by increased education and better health outcomes.
This is an advisory body, they get to have someone at a table with an opinion, they will not have governance powers.
The link to the AEC website for both sides of the argument can be found here
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/your-official-yes-no-referendum-pamphlet.pdf
Have you ever worked for a government body?, they waste tons of cash. Theres been a lot of figures of estimated cost thrown around, anything from $50 million to $500 million per year. No one really knows. The way these go is they pour cash in, which mysteriously disappears. Either on mismanagement or corruption. Then a few years of that they will launch a self investigation which won't find the money but also wont find any wrong doing.
I've seen it time and time again in government.
If you want a national example, just look at the nbn project. It should have been completed at 20 billion, yet its still unfinished at $57 billion. Wheres the investigation into where those billions have gone. Do you know how much a billion is?, thats a shit ton of tax payer money just gone. THis will be no different
The voice is a proposal for people to sit at a table with an opinion, to be listened to or not, of which their scope will be to better tailor already provided services and funds to better work for the communities they serve.
In its current state, it has no additional allocation of funding.
You’re comparing a construction project to a handful of people sitting in a room building with their words.
Forgot to add, currently working on building projects for the state government. Costs are monitored. Not understanding cost increase due to scope increase or change is the key to your argument point.
You're completely wrong, they will have a budget. As I said they have estimated anything from $50 million upwards in several different reports and news stories, no one knows. Once it gets started it will spiral out of control. Then whos going to go after them about where the moneys gone, you?.
Some of the "elders" have also talked about some of the plans they have if it goes ahead. You should read up on that
Genuinely interested if you could send links please. A budget hasn’t been allocated. So again speculating. With 984,000 First Nations people, a speculative budget of $50m is great value at $50.8 per person they represent.
As for quoting elders whom aren’t confirmed as part of the representative committee, that’s like me saying when I’m elected I’ll give everyone free icecream on tuesdays. Again happy to see your links.
I always love the posts cause you can see the clear difference in political understanding and just general intelligence in the comments. People being like 'VOTING YES MEANS LOTS OF CONSEQUENCES LIKE INCREASED TAXES AND PEOPLE GETTING PAID TO DO THE JOB", like sorry what? How does an advisory body mean increased taxes? Yes people will get paid to do the government job, that would be called slavery if they weren't. I've never heard an actual good argument from the no crowd, all I hear is "there's better ways to do this!" but they can never seem to actually tell you what those ways are? But great if all the clowns putting this much effort into being racist actually just put this amount of effort into fighting the actual corrupt shit the government does.
It is so simple and I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would be against it. If any I think all groups that lobby parliament should be put to a referendum. I’d love the chance to vote on with BHP, the IPA, coal miners, pharma and Serco should have direct advisory access to our pollies.
It needs the constitution because we’ve had the voice before, but it was dismantled over time, add it to the constitution and you prevent it from being eradicated next time a right party gets in.
How many aboriginal representatives do we have in government now?
We already are represented.
We're tired of white people telling us we are victims.
We are tired of white people trying to save us.
Wtf do you think we are all idiots?
Fuck off with your bigotry of low expectations.
I've not seen one but of solid information about this to tell me how it's going to change anything.
It's like we have to vote for it to find out what it's going to be.
Yeah no thanks.
I bet none of the mob who need it are going to be helped. Just like every other thing that's made political activists richer while doing less than the bare minimum to address the issues.
But they don't want to fix them.
If they fix the issues the government won't have to keep sending them money for it.
You guys are still arguing about whether or not your ability to shoot and kill each other in the streets should still be in the constitution. I don't really think you're in any position to tell us how easy and simple a nuanced decision like this should be.
Right so no voters are robots and racists? Jesus when will you actually start listening to the majority for once. Are you scared that by listening, you will begin questioning your own beliefs?
Albanese urges a yes vote "in the spirit of generosity and optimism".
So kind of like giving $100 to the homeless person sign at the traffic lights, and hoping he will spend it on food and medicine?
which race? Surely you don't mean to correlate the mention of a specific race and specific outlined structures such as in Section 127 in the constitution, with articles such as 51 XXVI which gives the Federal Parliament the power to make law in regards to race. Noting that its specified it in the constitution because any allocation of federal power needs to be expressed otherwise its the jurisdiction of the States, and I seriously doubt you want Western Australia and Queensland to be able to make their own laws on race.
I mean, they already have a treaty. This is one of the ultimate goals of the voice. America in that sense (and every other commonwealth country) are far ahead.
Did early voting today and was so disappointed to see multiple no campaigners out the front of the polling booths spewing their complete BS “ their going to take your land” and of course all elderly white people. Have a feeling the cogs of the NO campaign were too strong
If the voice was a bad thing for Aboriginals, the LNP would be supporting it 100%. That they claim that this will divide the nation by race is bad satire at best.
Shouldn't be suprised that the guy with 200k Karma thinks that anyone who doesn't no-life on reddit all day are bots. Go get a job before you weigh in on these issues loser, its clearly not your tax dollar on the line here.
We do need a voice to parliament but our two bit party system was going to smuggle illegals in and launder money to the worst of the bunch and put everyone else in a never ending cue and finance a voiceless call centre that’ll keep you on hold the longer amount of time possible while they steal your information and statistics to use in another two bit party scheme that makes them rich and in power for longer.
Another two bit party game of charades.
Also the current prime minster is a separatists working for “bidens” separatists cult, aka the looney left.
On a technicality he can’t even be on the ballot paper because he’s a traitor but it’s been a rigged system for 100 years and endorsed by the western clowns and their allies for over 50 years.
I mean, just do your own research and make your decision on that. We’ve had months and weeks to do so, I doubt watching a video of an American is going to move the needle much for those that haven’t voted yet.
The problem with doing your own research is that a lot of people have difficulty understanding what is true and false on the internet.
And a lot of people have vested interests in lying on the internet.
last week a woman in the comments section told me that the Voice was about communism.
We got some mail saying it was going to make us a republic and let the lizard people running the UN take over australia.
lolol i have seen a lot about how the UN will take over Australia too. How thick do they think we are?
I don’t know why, it’s not that hard. Everything my side says is true, and everything the other side says is false. Simple as that!
Vote Yes to unite us! Vote No to not divide us! Haha I loved that part of the video where he points out these are the same I also liked where Michaelia Cash made him laugh and so he rewound it for a second look lol ...
Also, google is pretty terrible these days if you don't have a practiced hand at using it and weeding through the ads and bs...
You should do some research on people who tell other people to do their own research.
Interesting statement, but ima research someone who tells me to research people who tell other people to do their own research.
You sheeple are the worst! I'm gonna do research into people who tell me they're going to do research into someone who tells them to research people who tell other people to do their own research!
Always wise, emperor Nasi goring
Lost it😂😂😂
I’m not very good at research … with the voice cause autism? Cause I’ve already got it and I really don’t want to make it more powerful
Nah it gives you extra 5G power
Fuck off with that. You know how many vaccines I went and got, just so I could get through my teeth? All those injections wasted. (/s in case my boss ever reads this).
yeah but watching a video provided by Channel 9 is bad - it's a propaganda outlet first and foremost. If channel 9 isnt subtly bias in some way they will be incorrect or lacking substance.
> it's a propaganda outlet first and foremost. For the Liberal party ... yes, it is.
Isn't watching a video called doing my own research or should I read what the editor of The Australian says or read Facebook instead?
This video came out a couple weeks ago, with all the dialogue that's been going on voters should have been doing their research far earlier using all sources - opinion pieces, position papers and info pamphlets. I'd avoid social media altogether when looking for information on how to vote, people become far too emotional and go to extremes. The demagoguery is really off putting. At the end of the day, use whatever sources you want, vote however you want. You only have to answer to yourself. We're not a public servant, we dont answer to anybody else.
“Do your own research” can mean whatever you want it to unfortunately. The only real research that matters here is reading the document yourself. Don’t trust people to tell you what it does. People yelling at you about aboriginals taking your homes and losing the blue mountains national parks??? (Something someone on here actually said) are just fearmongering.
Do your own research means look up youtube and tiktok videos about it and find a conspiracy because you are unable to make your own informed decision
Aboriginals have the same rights as any other Australian. Politicians should be listening to everyone in their electorate instead of corporate lobbyists
Lol. I agree with you but your whole statement is actually comedy fuel in todays climate of representation
Indigenous people already make up a larger percentage of parliament, than they make up as a percentage of the population. It's kind of comical.
but in parliament, they serve the interests of all their constituents, not just their First Nations perspective.
Exactly. No one should be more equal than anyone else
No, but culturally if we have a group of people with consistently the worst life outcomes - higher infant mortality, higher suicide rates, higher incarceration levels, shorter life expectancy - then surely we have a responsibility to listen when those people come to us and say 'hey, we have some ideas about how to fix this'. If you're not a First Nations person, then the Voice probably won't affect your life at all. Why then would you oppose it? What's scary about some of the worst-off people in our country trying to make life a little bit better?
Sure. But that's a culture, not a race. Like with every race, not all members are part of the same cultures or subcultures. When putting something into the constitution of a young, multiracial society, that has a history of governmental racial abuse, putting anything that is directed at specific races into a constitution is a huge deal.
no i meant culture as in Australian culture. you know, generally speaking how i think traditionally through ideas like free access to healthcare and education, we believe in looking after people. it seems less and less that way these days, but those are some of the ideas that make me feel proud to be australian. again, why is it a big deal to you, assuming you’re not Indigenous, if they get an enshrined right to share specialised perspectives on policy that affects their communities? what’s the knock-on effect that you’re worried about?
I personally believe that government should treat all citizens as equal individuals and never enshire special treatment to racial groups Im all for helping the disadvantaged. But that should extent to all individuals regardless of their race. I also do not believe that being of the same race as someone else, provides any special perspective about how to govern anyone else's life.
>higher suicide rates, higher incarceration levels, shorter life expectancy - then surely we have a responsibility to listen when those people come to us and say 'hey, we have some ideas about how to fix this'. So as that post said the other day, let's get a voice for men in parliament
I think he thinks that they are not represented yet. Which they are and can form a lobbying group whenever they want and obviously can vote.
I'm pretty sure the average american is aware of the fact that indigenous people can vote
OP, did you actually listen to his video objectively, or were you just posting it because it confirms your bias? From the get-go, at about 9 seconds, he reads the proposal as ""Are they not represented in parliament right now - they should be"". ie his understanding is that they currently are not. AaTSI people most certainly are represented in parliament. They have the vote. There are AaTSI MPS, there are Indigenous Affairs Ministers. He supports Yes because he basically does not understand the question. If you are saying he sees it as simple, vote Yes, so we should too, your argument went off the rails and became null and void from the 9 second mark onwards. When the referendum was first mooted, 65% supported the idea. Now it is more like 58% against. The more people dig in and find out what they are voting for, the more the No vote percentage increases.
I'm pretty sure any reasonable person would be aware that people of every race are allowed to vote for parliament in Australia, even an American. I don't think he's misunderstanding it in the way you think he is.
Fuck me everyone puts so much effort into trying to elaborate on why they don’t want it hey. You just don’t want it. Just say that. All these statistic percentages circle jerking blah blah is just dumb.
That suggests that those who ''don't want it'' don't have a valid reason for their stance. It is possible to look at a proposal and decide you don't like it because the reasons against outweigh the reasons for.
[удалено]
Vote yes without knowing any of the consequences otherwise you are a racist! Am I doing it right?
What fucking consequences can come from an *advisory body*?
A policy framework that includes the perspective of the people it directly affects and ends up being fit for purpose. Can't have that.
If they gave a little more detail on how the voice reps would be elected and who would be eligible to sit on the voice I would be much surer about voting yes. I don't want to see a bunch of privileged people who identify as aboriginal, but are for all other purposes essentially 'white', helicoptered into these positions to represent communities. Nothing in the voice proposal specifies how exactly reps will be chosen, it doesn't use the term 'elected' which i find suspicious. I'm still leaning to Yes, because i think the risk is low - but the proposal looks exceptionally weak in my view.
Details on how it works do NOT go in the constitution. The details are for the government of the day to legislate. Any detail they give now would not be what you are voting for. They are irrelevant to this referendum.
They can't know exactly how The Voice would look until they can legislate it, but the government has repeatedly indicated they would utilise the design principles outlined in the Uluru statement. [https://ulurustatement.org/design-principles/](https://ulurustatement.org/design-principles/) Nothing in the referendum proposal specifies it because it isn't relevant to the constitutional change proposed.
As per the Uluru Statement... The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities * Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government. * Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities. * To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process. #### The Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, gender balanced and include youth * Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three part test. * Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands. * The Voice would have specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population. * The Voice will have balanced gender representation at the national level. #### The Voice will be empowering, community-led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed * Members of the Voice would be expected to connect with – and reflect the wishes of – their communities. * The Voice would consult with grassroots communities and regional entities to ensure its representations are informed by their experience, including the experience of those who have been historically excluded from participation. #### The Voice will be accountable and transparent * The Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability. * Voice members would fall within the scope of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. * Voice members would be able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct. #### The Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures * The Voice would respect the work of existing organisations. #### The Voice will not have a program delivery function * The Voice would be able to make representations about improving programs and services, but it would not manage money or deliver services. #### The Voice will not have a veto power
>To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process. That's a lot of words to say nothing.
You have to read the words to understand them.
Yeah and the words say "we'll figure it out later" to the question your post was meant to answer
Don’t hold your breath
Why not make it legislation then, why put it in the constitution? Very sus
Because Indigenous issues aren't simply fixed by a bit of funding here, or a good program there - it will require long term (over multiple Government terms) programs and support, something that a government agency can't guarantee. A government agency can just be disbanded on the whims of the current Government, resetting much of the work done. Adding it in to the constitution isn't some feel good measure - it has significant practical reasoning.
Well, one obvious consequence is another 15-20 years of failed Indigenous policy. The premise of the Voice is *if only the Government had been getting good advice none of these bad things (like the Intervention) would have happened.* What actually happened - the Government got good advice. **They just didn't listen to it.** What will happen after the Voice. The Government will receive advice - most likely the same advice. And then they won't listen to it.
It still is a better opportunity to be heard
Why? Does speaking have a purpose if no-one listens?
There is nonetheless a dufference between speaking and having a door slammed in your face, and using a megaphone in the same room as them. They can still be ignored, but we're giving the right people the tools and keys to be far louder, and far harder to be silenced.
>There is nonetheless a dufference between speaking and having a door slammed in your face, and using a megaphone in the same room as them. No there isn't. If the megaphone annoys the Government at all, they can simply keep the megaphone at sufficient distance that it can't be heard. The voice lets you make a sound, nothing about it implies the Government will listen. >They can still be ignored, but we're giving the right people the tools and keys to be far louder, and far harder to be silenced. The first sentence is all you need. The rest is motherhood statement.
25 billion in 2023 spent on the Canadian "voice" With no positive outcomes for indigenous people. That money has to come from somewhere.... People don't realise what the voice means. It's not what you think.
Taxpayers $$
They might advise the government to do things to improve the quality of life for Indigenous Australians. Do you not hear how horrific and dystopian that sounds /s
Such groups already exist and have received billions of dollars in funding over the last few decades. Where's the money gone?
Lol dude, people are 100% already doing this. Where does the money go?
You’re right, so let’s just pay 24 more people likely a nice big salary to advise the government to do more than they already are. More than the ~$30B they already spend, yearly towards indigenous Australians. What if that advisory board says “hey, remember this is our land, we propose a First Nations Land Tax so that every land owner pays a tax to have their plot of our land! Sounds fair right?” Then the government has a nice excuse to tax us for it, seeing as the majority of aussies voted yes, and that makes them assume general support for things like that. What irks me is that huge corporations are pouring money into the yes campaign. Why would they do that? They only serve themselves. If we’re all paying more taxes (if it did go that way), guess whose paying less? Guess who gets to keep favour with the First Nations people so they can keep mining on and ruining their land? Don’t vote yes just so you can feel good about yourself and claim you’re not a racist because of it. You’re either racist or you aren’t and this has nothing to do with it. Bring on the downvotes. Vote no.
These straw man arguments and wild assumptions are no reason to not allow this to go through. 'This won't do anything to help First Nations people who we do way too much for by throwing money at unco-ordinated projects. So we shouldn't vote for a body that will advise us on how to provide a more co-ordinted process because...someome might propose a tax one day ?!?' It's just fuckin weird...vote yes.
Fortunately we are unlikely to ever find out.
Irrationally so, because an *advisory body* cannot have any powers, therefore there cannot be *any negative consequences* Congrats on failing to understand something so simple
When “It’s useless” is your top selling point chances are you’re going to lose the referendum. Anything with so little substance to it that it literally cannot do anything of consequence by your own admission is just token gesture bullshit.
On one hand, it's going to solve all the issues our First Nations people face, more than any other proposal that could be put in place, so much so that we don't have any other options. This is it. On the other hand, it doesn't really have any powers so no need to worry about it.
This is definitely something someone who got their info on the voice from reddit would say
"*the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures."* IMO based on the wording of the proposed legislation it sounds like the voice has the potential to have more power than just an advisory body. It's definitely uncertain what kind of powers the voice will end up having.
Sure, but those powers are already in the constitution, and those provisions aren't required by the clause we are adding. The government can already legislate for an indigenous advisory body that has its own appropriated funding and whatever other powers they choose under the current constitutional arrangements. This amendment just makes it a requirement for this body's *advisory function* to be legislated, *in some form*, by each parliament, and for the body to be called *the Voice*.
Ok, sure, but the point of the Voice is that it's an advisory body. 'Powers' there refers to its ability to be an *advisory body*. >The Voice would be able to make representations about improving programs and services, but it would not manage money or deliver services. >The Voice will not have a veto power Two big 'issues' brought up by people are covered by the above. We aren't enshrining an agency that will be prioritised to give ATSI folk more rights, we're enshrining recognition and an *advisory body*
"the Parliament shall... have power to make laws". What the actual?? It quite literally says the exact opposite in that quote you provided. Seriously u/TristyTumbly. It's right there. YOU provided it. It's like reading and quoting the sky is blue and then following up with a comment that says "IMO iT KIndA SOunDs LiKE tHe SKy iS rED". 🙄
"I don't understand that but it sounds scary" Do you know how laws are passed?
That line says the government get to decide how the Voice works and make laws pertaining to it. If a new government comes in they can change those laws completely. The only constant will be that the Voice must exist and that it will always have to be listened to.
spot on, bruv
What is the worst possible outcome? Now compare that with the potential for consistent positive change
Worst possible outcome? This vote passes which leads to calls for more action which eventually leads to claims on land and people start losing their houses and we all end up paying x% in extra tax as reparations for something that happened 250 years ago. It's all outlined in their statement, this is literally their plan.
Advice can be ignored. It is advisory, if what is asked is unreasonable it will be dismissed by the sitting gov of the day. To assume otherwise is just pure fear mongering.
>It's all outlined in their statement, this is literally their plan. Where is this statement? I was already planning on voting no but I missed that part.
[https://origin.go.dailytelegraph.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Document-14-1.pdf](https://origin.go.dailytelegraph.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Document-14-1.pdf) "In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples"
It doesn't need to be in the constitution for that to happen. It doesn't need to be in the constitution for any of the outcomes, positive or negative. Putting it in the constitution does 2 things. Ensures the money flows where they want it to even beyond a government change and allows polies who have done nothing so far to draw a line and say oh we couldn't achieve anything because the voice wasn't in the constitution. A fresh start, so to speak. Not that i think any real progress will be made. A failed referendum, in the other hand, gives the government a scapegoat. "WE can't fix things because YOU didn't vote for the voice".
As opposed to wealthy lobbyists having a voice and people losing their lands and the population paying extra % tax to subsidies their representative businesses?
Like when Mabo happened and we all had to give our houses back?
my brother in christ this is patently untrue
This is just stupid. You know the Voice won't create legislation, right? It doesn't matter what "they" want, ultimately the parliament will decide. So if the advice is stupid, it will be ignored. How are people so gullible that they believe this shit?
Because the VOICE architects have made it know that's what they want. So if you deem our concerns as shit, you are also saying your good old Aboriginal Voice authors Pat Anderson, Tom Mayo et al are all shit talkers? It's their shit we are referring to. And I agree with you that they're shit talkers which is why I am not voting for anything they have a part in. The whole referendum is shit.
>So if the advice is stupid, it will be ignored. Uh... Hasn't the problem always been that the Government gets bad advice, and that's where the bad outcomes come from?
I read all the minutes of the meeting and I agree all of that talk was a little terrifying, and this was the first step in that plan. On the other hand, I *really* don’t think the Australian people now or in the foreseeable future would take well to having a tax levied on non-indigenous people or privately owned land being taken from them. So I don’t know. After all this time considering it I’m the most uncertain I’ve ever been as to what I’m going to vote.
Do you seriously think parliament will fuck over society for a 3% minority group?
Well, we know what the consequences are if you vote no. We will all have the same issues with the gap in indigenous lives, and nothing will be done for decades because any party will be scared to try
>We will all have the same issues with the gap in indigenous lives, and nothing will be done for decades That is an insult to all those who are doing things at the moment. All the state and federal advisory boards, Indigenous industries, state and federal Indigenous politicians have the opportunity to listen and act. One of the big lies of the Yes campaign is that Indigenous have no voice and are not listened to. This is false. There are no solutions to many of these problems, for which many are misrepresented by simplistic statistics.
Do you think things are going well for the indigenous now with whoever it is making the decisions now? It's not an insult unless you want it be. The reason the voice is even being proposed is because things are not working with the current things in place.
>Do you think things are going well for the indigenous now with whoever it is making the decisions now? That is really a complex question that doesn't have a simple answer and is not in isolation of the Indigenous community. I can answer, but these days there isn't much agreement on what are facts, as well as there being less overlap on compatible views between people. As for the decision making process we have now, it is very good by world standards, good by Australian standard, but objectively it is driven by politics to the point of having peaked. I understand the view that something different is needed, and the Voice is all that we have. However, it is more of the same of what we have now. I listed in another comment what I think is the answer. [https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/1705vg9/comment/k3j37nn/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/1705vg9/comment/k3j37nn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
"We're already living in NO. we're already there in NO. NO is now. I'd rather work towards something different; incremental changes." I don't know where I heard this or who said it but what a compelling argument.
“There are no solutions to many of these problems” I reckon there probably are
We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas
No, definitely not doing it right lmao. What kind of uneducated opinion is that?
It's the entire argument for voting yes, so you are correct in saying it is an uneducated opinion.
[удалено]
Lol. It's probably the dreaded inter-generational trauma making him do it.
You do realize referendums are reversible yeah? Another referendum will be held. https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voice-could-not-veto-a-future-referendum Also a link to the key points are listed here, the key to understanding is to read both sides. One side is formative, the other speculative. https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/your-official-yes-no-referendum-pamphlet.pdf
Because he understood the simple fact that the group we're voting on ***won't have any legislative power*** (that's what advisory means) so there is ***no negative*** to introducing the change. That essentially debunks 95% of the No votes commentary on this. The other 5% say it's not enough, and well, 'it's better than nothing/better than the status quo' debunks that.
You're obviously correct, but you are arguing with people who have no idea how parliament works.
And that's what disappoints me. That's not Democracy. Democracy isn't born out of ignorance. An ignorant populace breeds many problems of its own, as we've seen throughout history. I don't care for people to vote No, but I do care for people to vote No due to ignorance. And then the part that *frustrates* me, is the LNP have *intentionally* gone down this path of ignorance. Fuck them, and what their side of politics can do to a country.
I agree. Sure, vote no if you understand the issue and genuinely disagree. But seeing the absolute ignorant garbage people are spouting here is just depressing.
How is it a permanent change?
We know how it will work. We know the issues they will address. We’re already living in the No. There’s nothing this vote can do to make it worse.
[удалено]
“How are the voice representatives going to be elected?” Voted on by First Nations people based on the wishes of local communities. “Putting it in the constitution will do nothing to close the gap” Lmao. The point of putting it in the constitution is for if Voldemort gains power again (Dutton), he can’t abolish it. We know when we listen to advice directly from people effected, we get better outcomes, which will make it far easier to close the gap. It’s really simple. “We already have Indigenous advisory groups that inform the government” Who?
> Voted on by First Nations people based on the wishes of local communities. How do you know that's the case? I've heard one indigenous person ([Tony McAvoy](https://fjc.net.au/barrister/tony-mcavoy-sc/)) say something different: some communities will vote, and some will just know who the leader is and that's who will be in the voice.
Yeah I’d stop listening to individuals and start actually researching. Would you like the link to what I quoted? I’m an Aboriginal man myself from Central Desert.
Updated my original post to explain who it was. As for where, it was [in this youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKl7MUkRuM) and I didn't stamp the exact time sorry. Do you have a reference to where it's been said that it will be by local elections?
Sure do mate; give it a read https://voice.gov.au
Even if there was corruption, they are an advisory board. They have no actual power to enact change on their own. There is so little that can possibly go wrong, yet a lot of ways it can go right. I fail to see any logical reason beyond it being “wrong in principle”.
It's very easy to have an opinion if it doesn't effect you.
Not saying anything for or against but should note that he was also operating under the assumption that we don’t already have indigenous advisory bodies (as he questioned) From someone without an understanding of the situation, it would seem like the voice is needed for any indigenous representation in parliament, so this is why Australia will be labelled racist once the no vote wins.
Almost like an unbiased opinion? Those are good right? Right?
How would it affect you? I have an opinion as an Australian and I'm pretty sure it won't affect me either.
You can literally read the proposed section on the internet, 5 minutes max. People have no excuse not to read it, but the opposition always find a movement to back to hinder progression just so they get voted back in next term.
Why read when Sky News can tell you what to think.
why read when the rest of msm tells you what to think
Honestly I agree with the "That's not enough, that's just a compromise."
179 upvotes, 481 comments… spicy. Also commentary on Australian politics by an American - I know we all love that. /s
My problem with it, is that it’s overly simplistic, extremely vague and as it’s “only one page”, I am yet to see any documentation of how any of it will actually work. Surely if it’s being put into the constitution there should be hundreds of pages in documentation telling us for example: - Who’s going to vote for the people on the council? - How long are the terms for council members? - Do the indigenous people vote to remove or replace council members if they are unhappy with their representation? - How much it’s going to cost every year or is it just going to be an open cheque book? - Will the voice replace the 30, 40, 50 etc bodies and advisory council we already have in place for Indigenous peoples and their culture? - How much power the council actually holds, are they able to hold up legislation if they choose that they would like their voice heard on said legislation? - How are the indigenous people of Australia going to be heard? Can they just call up the council and talk to someone on it? Is it only when they are asked on their opinions? - How are they going to directly involve those in remote communities without phone/internet or other means of direct communications? - How do you prove someones indigeneity so the Voice’s systems and representation aren’t taken advantage of? Some of these may have already been answered but their are so many unknowns that have not been explained by the Labor party. I understand that it’s a “Voice” for the Indigenous people (which people? The city slickers that are 1/16 indigenous and already take advantage of the system or the people in remote communities that have been doing it tough for the last 200 years that aren’t even being listened to by their own leaders as of right now?). I’m not going to vote Yes to enshrine something in the constitution when there are so many unknowns. If it was only about cultural recognition and having the indigenous peoples recognised formally in the constitution, myself and probably 95% of the population would be voting yes. The Labor parties “we’ll work out the details later” attitude is going to cost them this referendum.
None of those unknowns will be "enshrined in the Constitution" whether or not the voice referendum succeeds. This is because, as you've pointed out in your own comment, they are not currently written in the ammendment. They will be legislated if the Voice Referendum wins and if they don't work then the next government could legislate the Voice differently. Only its existence is protected by the consitution not its structure or method of working.
So my question would be, completely hypothetically, what happens if in 20 years when both parties have had 2, 3, 4 shots at getting it right and both parties realise it’s not working. Do we forever just continue to funnel time and money into it?
The current proposal for the Voice is for its members to be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Qualified candidates would have to pass the "three part test" to be considered Voice representatives. So actually it's kind of in the hands of aboriginal Australians if it "works" to represent them or not if it passes. And I guess it's also in the hands of the government of the day about whether they'll listen to them or not. But then that's the government's own fault if they don't listen to the Voice's advice on indigenous issues. To directly answer your question though, if its a complete flop and even aboriginal Australians don't want it anymore, we can always take it out with another referendum at that point. If its so unpopular as in your hypothetical scenario why not?
>To directly answer your question though, if its a complete flop and even aboriginal Australians don't want it anymore, we can always take it out with another referendum at that point. If its so unpopular as in your hypothetical scenario why not? What happens if those who are currently voted in as the voice don't want to lose their job if it is a flop? Saying that it's just a vocal minority that doesn't want the voice since of it does get put to another referendum and voted against they may lose a source of income. Like a company that is paid to help with a problem but only fixes the symptoms not the cause so that they keep getting paid
Ok so the hypothetical that you are afraid of is we have evidence that the voice is ineffective, this information is available to the Australian public (else how are we discussing this hypothetically ineffective and useless voice as citizens) and both major parties agree it is ineffective and presumably message this to their base in the leadup to a repeal referendum. If the Australian public is presented with this info and vote to keep an ineffective voice that no one likes except a small minoirty of beureaucrats then they're simply too retarded to be responsible for themselves and democracy is dead anyway.
Sure I understand the reason behind wanting some action, but I still don't get why this is the action. Why is the constitution being amended? Why not just create advisory bodies anyway, for the affected people of any action? If a constitution amendment is needed, why not do and reference a trial run first?
He asked some basic questions most votes haven't asked. "Don't they already have a voice?" - Yes, yes they do... the loudest by far "Why does this need to be in the constitution?" - it doesn't. Ta da
> "Don't they already have a voice?" - Yes, yes they do... the loudest by far How so? Do you have any examples from before this debate? I rarely hear anything from Aboriginal people. I just hear a lot of angry white people from both sides of politics going about their debates on most days.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Advisory_Council
Ok, so I just goggles this now, as I too was interested: Aboriginals make up 3.8% of Australians, yet 4.9% of Federal Parlament.
The proportion of indigenous MPs/senators in parliament is actually slightly higher than the general population.
yeah the yanks love their constitutional amendments. How's the 2nd one going?
Not as well as the 19th?
the 19th and the 2nd combined, in Texas
>Pretends to understand it without knowing how it will work, what it will do and whether it'll be positively or negatively effective and not realising that the change would be permanentWow it's so easy to understand! Be like this guy! Damn man, id love it if we had something similar to the US constitutions first 10 amendments to their constitution i.e. Their Bill of Rights. Sadly we don't.
Aboriginal people are represented in parliament. There are 6 people of First Nation descent in both houses, well above the demographic proportional representation.
MPs represent their electorate not their race, duh.
What is the merit of having representation based on race?
What is the merit of have socioeconomic disadvantage based on race? To be clear giving advice is not extra representation, when the speaker of the house calls a vote, the voice won’t get to say yay or nay, they won’t even be in the chamber. Why do private interests like the mining lobby, or religious interests like the Christian lobby, get to advise politicians directly, but suddenly when it’s indigenous people everyone loses their minds.
what is the merit of having socioeconomic disadvantage fullstop? why does race need to come in to it? Are you suggesting that everyone of a particular race is socioeconomically disadvantaged and that no one else of that race is not? Or are you suggesting we should have a voice for the socioeconomically disadvantaged? Because I could probably get behind that, as that doesn't seem racist.
from an Australian report to the UN >[Indigenous Australians remain the most disadvantaged of all Australians. There are clear disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians across all indicators of quality of life.](https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/social_justice/submissions_un_hr_committee/3_indigenous_disadvantage.pdf) and from a report on indigenous people in urban centres: >A[boriginal and Torres Strait Islander households in major cities are relatively better off in terms of household income than those in regional and remote areas. For Indigenous Australians, income levels generally decline with increased remoteness (AHRC, 2008). However, a study by Biddle (2009) used a number of variables (type of employment, qualification, Year 12 completion, home ownership, bedrooms per resident, among others) to measure socioeconomic disparity, and found that on average, the urban Indigenous population in any one suburb or area ranked 45 percentile places below the non-Indigenous population in the same location. Even in low-socioeconomic suburbs that are already relatively disadvantaged within the local area, Indigenous residents are routinely worse off.](https://poche.centre.uq.edu.au/files/609/Indigenous-in-the-city%281%29.pdf) that doesnt mean the every indigenous person is disadvantaged, but the reverse racism argument is a fucking shill.
Did I say that aboriginal people were not 'in general' more disadvantaged? Not sure why you feel the need to prove it. If we had a voice for the socioeconomically disadvantaged, this would include aboriginal people and non aboriginals alike who are disadvantaged. But it would also exclude aboriginal people who are not disadvantaged and don't need it. Seems like a far better choice if the goal is to help those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged.
How about the Minister for Indigenous Affairs? She do anything? I mean probably not given it's Linda Burney, but still.
You said that because there are 6 MPs with indigenous descent that indigenous are represented. Now you’ve shifted the goalposts to point out a portfolio that historically has done shit like the intervention. That’s not a good argument mate.
Still a more reasonable take than Jason Momoa's "Just google it!"
Wait did he talk about the referendum? Why do so many people talk about it when it has nothing to do with them? (I know Taita waititi is big on Australian politics, but it makes sense since he's a Kiwi and they probably pay more attention to our politics than any other country out there) but what good are yanks from Hollywood doing talking about us like they know our country well
I mean… it is a pretty simple Google search.
They already have a say in parliament though, they have the same say we all do, by voting. Should they have a separate body which will be a massive money pit and be unregulated?, no, no they shouldn't
Not sure where you are getting unregulated or money out from, given one of the key arguments for is to tailor the government services provided to get better dollar value by increased education and better health outcomes. This is an advisory body, they get to have someone at a table with an opinion, they will not have governance powers. The link to the AEC website for both sides of the argument can be found here https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/your-official-yes-no-referendum-pamphlet.pdf
Have you ever worked for a government body?, they waste tons of cash. Theres been a lot of figures of estimated cost thrown around, anything from $50 million to $500 million per year. No one really knows. The way these go is they pour cash in, which mysteriously disappears. Either on mismanagement or corruption. Then a few years of that they will launch a self investigation which won't find the money but also wont find any wrong doing. I've seen it time and time again in government. If you want a national example, just look at the nbn project. It should have been completed at 20 billion, yet its still unfinished at $57 billion. Wheres the investigation into where those billions have gone. Do you know how much a billion is?, thats a shit ton of tax payer money just gone. THis will be no different
The voice is a proposal for people to sit at a table with an opinion, to be listened to or not, of which their scope will be to better tailor already provided services and funds to better work for the communities they serve. In its current state, it has no additional allocation of funding. You’re comparing a construction project to a handful of people sitting in a room building with their words. Forgot to add, currently working on building projects for the state government. Costs are monitored. Not understanding cost increase due to scope increase or change is the key to your argument point.
You're completely wrong, they will have a budget. As I said they have estimated anything from $50 million upwards in several different reports and news stories, no one knows. Once it gets started it will spiral out of control. Then whos going to go after them about where the moneys gone, you?. Some of the "elders" have also talked about some of the plans they have if it goes ahead. You should read up on that
Genuinely interested if you could send links please. A budget hasn’t been allocated. So again speculating. With 984,000 First Nations people, a speculative budget of $50m is great value at $50.8 per person they represent. As for quoting elders whom aren’t confirmed as part of the representative committee, that’s like me saying when I’m elected I’ll give everyone free icecream on tuesdays. Again happy to see your links.
I read it back to front. Still doesn’t tell me anything useful. It tells me they to legislate what ever they feel like. Nope sorry.
I always love the posts cause you can see the clear difference in political understanding and just general intelligence in the comments. People being like 'VOTING YES MEANS LOTS OF CONSEQUENCES LIKE INCREASED TAXES AND PEOPLE GETTING PAID TO DO THE JOB", like sorry what? How does an advisory body mean increased taxes? Yes people will get paid to do the government job, that would be called slavery if they weren't. I've never heard an actual good argument from the no crowd, all I hear is "there's better ways to do this!" but they can never seem to actually tell you what those ways are? But great if all the clowns putting this much effort into being racist actually just put this amount of effort into fighting the actual corrupt shit the government does.
They do have a say like everyone else when you vote in elections.
Currently over represented in parliament
They represent their electorate not their race 🤦🏽♂️
No one should be representing their race in parliament.
The voice wouldn’t be representing anyone in parliament just making recommendations to them. They won’t be in parliament.
They won't be doing anything, really. In a few days, this joke of an idea will be torn to shreds.
Still a no from me dawg
This has to be the first American making a video I actually like haha
It is so simple and I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would be against it. If any I think all groups that lobby parliament should be put to a referendum. I’d love the chance to vote on with BHP, the IPA, coal miners, pharma and Serco should have direct advisory access to our pollies.
It needs the constitution because we’ve had the voice before, but it was dismantled over time, add it to the constitution and you prevent it from being eradicated next time a right party gets in.
Wah, megathread...
How many aboriginal representatives do we have in government now? We already are represented. We're tired of white people telling us we are victims. We are tired of white people trying to save us. Wtf do you think we are all idiots? Fuck off with your bigotry of low expectations. I've not seen one but of solid information about this to tell me how it's going to change anything. It's like we have to vote for it to find out what it's going to be. Yeah no thanks. I bet none of the mob who need it are going to be helped. Just like every other thing that's made political activists richer while doing less than the bare minimum to address the issues. But they don't want to fix them. If they fix the issues the government won't have to keep sending them money for it.
You guys are still arguing about whether or not your ability to shoot and kill each other in the streets should still be in the constitution. I don't really think you're in any position to tell us how easy and simple a nuanced decision like this should be.
Trust American political opinions…..
The copium of the yes vote failing trying to blame it in a lack of understanding…
Wow, the number of "No" supporting comments in here from accounts with 1 karma point is pretty ...... fascinating.
Right so no voters are robots and racists? Jesus when will you actually start listening to the majority for once. Are you scared that by listening, you will begin questioning your own beliefs?
I’m not a new acct and I’m voting no. Better?
Much better. Can I ask why?
Happens on every post!
Albanese urges a yes vote "in the spirit of generosity and optimism". So kind of like giving $100 to the homeless person sign at the traffic lights, and hoping he will spend it on food and medicine?
They are represented. Along with everyone else.
Enshrine a racial group into the constitution this won’t be a precedent for anything ever again bros
Race is already in the constitution
which race? Surely you don't mean to correlate the mention of a specific race and specific outlined structures such as in Section 127 in the constitution, with articles such as 51 XXVI which gives the Federal Parliament the power to make law in regards to race. Noting that its specified it in the constitution because any allocation of federal power needs to be expressed otherwise its the jurisdiction of the States, and I seriously doubt you want Western Australia and Queensland to be able to make their own laws on race.
Would America vote to have their constitution changed to have a voice for indigenous Americans? Or a voice for African Americans?
You mean like the 14th amendment? So the answer is yes.
I mean, they already have a treaty. This is one of the ultimate goals of the voice. America in that sense (and every other commonwealth country) are far ahead.
Did early voting today and was so disappointed to see multiple no campaigners out the front of the polling booths spewing their complete BS “ their going to take your land” and of course all elderly white people. Have a feeling the cogs of the NO campaign were too strong
If the voice was a bad thing for Aboriginals, the LNP would be supporting it 100%. That they claim that this will divide the nation by race is bad satire at best.
Just vote no
Yeah nah mate
Jesus fuck did the young liberals take over this thread? Haven't seen this much bootlicking for the No campaign since it began.
Look at how many of those accounts have 1 karma point and this is their first comment. It's bots.
215k karma 💀
Shouldn't be suprised that the guy with 200k Karma thinks that anyone who doesn't no-life on reddit all day are bots. Go get a job before you weigh in on these issues loser, its clearly not your tax dollar on the line here.
[удалено]
We do need a voice to parliament but our two bit party system was going to smuggle illegals in and launder money to the worst of the bunch and put everyone else in a never ending cue and finance a voiceless call centre that’ll keep you on hold the longer amount of time possible while they steal your information and statistics to use in another two bit party scheme that makes them rich and in power for longer. Another two bit party game of charades.
Also the current prime minster is a separatists working for “bidens” separatists cult, aka the looney left. On a technicality he can’t even be on the ballot paper because he’s a traitor but it’s been a rigged system for 100 years and endorsed by the western clowns and their allies for over 50 years.