All this over an advisory board with no real power? How could that even be harmful?
Conservatives oppose it for the same reasons indigenous groups want it.
I'm voting yes, and i have tried to help people see why it's a good thing, but when people call me racist for saying I'm in the yes camo, i know that far too many are just morons who have no critical thinking, or ability to tell what is a good source of information.
Adding a new governmental body that is open to only one racial group is racist and it is also undemocratic.
Your vote is well intentioned its just poorly informed. You've been propagandised.
You idiots have the same repeated talking points and they are just plain wrong.
In late 2023, Australians will have their say in a referendum on whether to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia in the Constitution through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Not just one group, but two. And they are not racial you fuckwit, they are geographical and historical groupings.
Cultures have value and our First Nations are owed a debt. We live on their lands, we benefit from their experience. We owe them so much and this is just a vote for First Nations to be formally represented in parliament.
They're not racial groups? Are you fucking kidding me? You absolute Muppet.
They're not but you represent a bit racist group. And I love the Muppets, thanks wankstain.
I don't represent anything except the desire to maintain democracy and egalitarianism
No, what you represent is casual racism and selfishness draped in the auspices of egalitarianism which distorts the true nature of democracy.
You obsess over words like race because you're a racist. It's really that simple.
"You obsess over words like race because you're a racist. "
Its not me making the law here for one special separate group of people with their own distinct genetics
...casually failing to mention that the "one racial group" are the traditional land owners who lost their land and 50,000 year-old culture due to colonisation.
And what does that have to do with our modern (and future) Democratic nation?
None of us took anything from any others of us. Its a totally irrelevant point.
We can't go around changing g the fundamental nature of democracy because of historical tragedies or in 15 minutes we'll be back to fucking tribalism and feudal lords.
Colonisation took everything from First Nation people, but all you care about is that recognition might end up costing you something. Sound a lot like that tribalism you reckon you're want to avoid.
And what are you actually giving up?
There is no threat to democracy, The Voice is an advisory body. It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.
Referendums are described in the Constitution to allow Australians to change how it functions. So we explicitly can change how aspects of our democratic process works, and obviously should do so to reflect changes in Australian society since Federation 120+ years ago.
Well you've just erected a pretty nice strawman there but not much else.
"It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers."
Nobody has any fucking clue what powers it might have, its a blank check. Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this "advisory body" can and can't do, or shut the fuck up.
Sure, we can change it. But there has not been any fucking legitimate reason presented as to why we should. The arguments presented by the Yes campaign are certainly emotional, but not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.
Let's stick the the topic and avoid juvenile debate tactics.
Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this "advisory body" can and can't do, or shut the fuck up.
Here is exactly what the referendum entails, and note that it specifically limits the role of the Voice (in whatever form it takes) to "make representations" and also that it specifically highlights that parliament - and only parliament - "shall... Have the power to make laws".
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander by peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
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.
I repeat: the Voice Has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers, and you have no legitimate basis to imply otherwise. We are 100% not being asked to vote on a Constitutional change that undermines democratic principles. If you vote No on that basis then it is because you are ignorant of the proposed Constitutional change and have been conned by the right wing and media.
not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.
The Voice is part of modest recommendations proposed respectfully by First Nations people via the Uluru Statement from the heart. You need to be cynical and unrealistic to think that accepting and supporting their views - with no downsides to you personally or us as a country - really won't change anything. Are you really interested in the outcomes for First Nations people? If so, please explain how you expect to see change if the Voice is rejected?
Forgot to add - I haven't been conned by any media, either right wing or slightly less right wing. Don't own a TV and the only social media I'm on is this which is unsurprisingly light on Aus politics.
Its ain't me being conned here
Interesting. I'm curious why you aren't familiar with the details of constitutional amendment I linked to. You're clearly not basing your opinion on primary sources, so what secondary sources are you consuming?
What makes you think I'm unfamiliar with it? I know exactly what it says, regardless of whether I'm a shit debater
Maybe because you keep claiming information hasn't been made available when a simple google search proves you wrong?
"its composition, functions, powers and procedures"
There is literally no scope included - they'll decide after
They will decide after how to establish the advisory body that has no legislative, executive, or judicial power and can only advise parliament (who will then decide what actions are taken or even if any action is taken at all).
They cannot make decisions with respect to giving the Voice Constitutional powers to make or change legislative, executive, or judicial decisions unless there's another referendum. They can legislate powers, but they can already do that without the referendum.
What specifically do you object to about this?
Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around "powers"
And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.
Those specifically are what I object to
Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around "powers"
They can do that right now. Albo can legislate what you're describing and the next government can de-legilsate it. If the referendum passes it has no bearing on what powers are legislated.
The referendum does not give the powers you're describing and does not impact whether those kinds of powers are granted or revoked in the future.
You are misunderstanding what the Yes vote is. The referendum would only establish a voice in the Constitution that "may make representations" while specifically outlining that only "Parliament shall make laws".
And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.
Again, all of this is explained in the resources I linked to earlier, and the only reason you're ignorant to that fact is because you haven't bothered to do your research.
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 would be chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined
through the post-referendum process.
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 would have balanced gender representation at the national level.
So, again, what's your issue here?
None of that actually says anything. Its just wide open phrasing that allows for limitless scope. Can you not see that somehow?
All this is way out in the fucken weeds anyway man.
Why the fuck are people trying to create a less inclusive and egalitarian society instead of trying to find and implement actual solutions to solve the problems that exist. And why do people who apparently think of themselves as progressive and socialist think any of this is OK?
Use the mechanisms we have to push for positive long term structural change, using the huge moral and political advantage gained at the election. Build, change, organize, grow systems that actually help people who need it.
Everyone is just going along with this stupid pointless circus because they feel guilty about British crimes and think this will somehow help people who died 200 years ago.
Get a fucken grip and use your Democratic power to help, don't throw your weight behind people who are making the world less inclusive ffs
There is! The power is limited to "may make representations". It's written in stone, what more do you need than official, published documentation that clearly refutes what you claim is the position of the Yes campaign?
This is always an interesting one - who is "propagandising" us, and what do they have to gain from their significant investment in advancing this agenda?
Well I mean, have you researched the issue, analyzed it, and developed your own position based on evidence?
Or are you just listening to what comes out of the TV?
If you get your opinions from someone who hands them to you fully formed (like Voice good, no voice racist) then that is propaganda, not information.
As to your second question - a: politicians scoring points and winning elections; and b: a whole lot of people who get a hand in deciding laws and economic decisions for their own special group.
And before you bang out the line about lobby groups all having a say already - yes of course we should fuck those off as well because they too are undemocratic corruption
Ah yes - do your own research... The mating call of the conspiracist.
So it's the Labor party propagandising us to secure an election win that isn't an election (top-tier research, I see)? Seems like a big deal that carries a very real risk of a loss, with opportunity for marginal gain at best, which necessitates burning immense political capital. This doesn't smell of conspiracist bullshit to you?
The Labor Party have invested $9.5m into this, which has been spent on things like broad civics education and website upgrades. The yes campaign has also been set to lose for some time now - so my comment and the risk is already validated, and Labor get to tie themselves to an unpopular position, and lose. Genius.
Do you baselessly assume I get my information from TV because you don't own/watch TV, get your info from the likes of YouTube (or better, Rumble - where do you get your research?), and think you're an enlightened type because of it? I've looked at legislative review and the explanatory memorandum, cases from both campaigns, stats around indigenous outcomes, and the history of this country, but there was really no need - this is very simple. I personally don't think it's great to turn up, genocide the population, take their land, witness comparatively atrocious outcomes according to just about any metric you care to choose that persist 2 centuries after we turned up and shrug my shoulders because doing the bare minimum about that would be racist. The least we could do is give them a dismissable voice in matters that relate to them.
You can say you disagree with the existence of representative bodies like the business council, but the fact of the matter is that we have them. To now shut the gate on a marginalised group while the other bodies continue to exist only exacerbates the issue. Those bodies also have massive amounts of cash to throw around - the voice, on the other hand would get to make representions that can simply be ignored... What are you afraid of here? This is like me beating you up and taking your lunch money, then saying we can't do a thing about that because you're a different race/gender/sexuality/whatever, and that would be (pick)-ist.
I'll put it differently - is the massive disparity in outcomes for indigenous Australians a product of the systemic issues that have been thrust upon them, or inferior genetics? If it's systemic, why not get their input on addressing the issues that affect them? If it's genetic, we get to have a very different chat. Feel free to pick a deflection like culture, but it's all a product of genetics or systemic in the end.
No matter how many downvotes you get on Lemmy you still have the majority of your countrymen on your side so at the end of the day you still win.
Which is a damn shame too cos most tkof them are doing because they're just as uninformed as the yes side.
Its fucking brexit all over again.
Some discussion and informed decision making wouldn't go astray, but its a bit fucking late now
Except Brexit very predictably sent the country off the rails, while this establishes an advisory body that can simply be ignored.
The real reason it will fail is politics. The opposition party decided getting this voted down would strike a blow to the government.
So they’ve just blown racist dog whistles, racist trumpets, set of racists cannons and doubled down on ignorance: “If you don’t know vote No”
They have effectively weaponised division.
They created division by spreading lies, uncertainty and fear. Lies were repeated over and over, and became increasingly outrageous, despite being refuted again and again.
Then they pointed at the division they created and said "this is too divisive, we shouldn't do it."
What's even the point of having a democracy if the majority of the voter base is uninformed
Not just uninformed - deliberately misinformed.
Colonialism intensifies
Voting on yes or no was made very easy when I saw that neo nazis, flat earthers, anti vaxxers and a multitude of other whack jobs are voting no. You are the company you keep in my book.
Well that's disappointing.
What a bunch of cunts
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Australians look set to reject a referendum proposal to recognise Indigenous people in the constitution by creating a body to advise parliament, with polls showing a clear majority for no in almost all states before Saturday’s vote.
The yes campaign has also been battered by the Blak sovereignty movement, which has led the progressive no case, arguing the voice would be powerless while pushing for truth and treaty to come ahead of constitutional recognition.
The no campaign has leaned heavily on the slogan “If you don’t know, vote no”, which former high court justice Robert French described as an invitation to “resentful, uninquiring passivity”.
The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, spent part of the final campaigning week in the nation’s centre, Uluru, where the proposal for the voice was first formally presented in 2017.
Sitting with senior traditional owners in central Australia, Albanese said Australians had an opportunity to “lift the burden of history” and move forward with a positive vote on Saturday.
“Many Indigenous Australians who are on the frontlines of dealing with these problems in towns and cities and communities and outstations and home lands are very worried about the prospect of losing the voice because they already have little say, and a loss will mean that they have even less.”
The original article contains 827 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
fucking national disgrace....
'cos Aussies love racism
Keep it classy, Australia.
Not a good look. Very disappointed.
Literally nothing stops the government making "the voice" without changing the constitution. The only reason they want it in the constitution is so future governments can't change the function of the body.
The whole thing is an organised circus for political gain and dividing the population.
In the past, the government had a "voice" for the indigenous for like 10 years. Just bring it back, no constitutional change needed.
If you're going to try put an aboriginal rights group in the constitution, just make it basic human rights group with representation for everyone. Basic human rights that are severely lacking in Australia. Freedom of speech? We don't even have that.
Isn't the fact that it was taken away before a justification for enshrining it in the constitution?
Like every other advisory body, it's the role of the elected government to manage (as it would continue to be if added to the constitution, they could just reduce it to one underfunded person instead of disbandening it, or create a new group).
Just vote for the party you want to represent you. The current government doesn't have a "voice" for the indigenous despite proposing this constitutional change.
It's like complaining about others possibly hampering your climate change efforts so you instead make none at all
Who is preventing your speech?
Let me guess, ‘woke green loonies who use cancel culture’.
I've voted Yes, albeit with a bit of hesitancy.
As far as I am concerned, the role and functioning of the Voice is clearly defined in the proposal so this was never an issue for me. Where I feel people are generally stuck on is whether or not having an advisory body for just one demographic of people is naturally divisive. The argument becomes almost a bit of a slippery slope; if we have one body for indigenous people, why don't we have one for other ethnic groups?
At face value, I understand why this can be perceived as racist and divisive, however, I think we have to also agree there is a slight nuance to this issue. The fact of the matter is that our government has been creating laws surrounding indigenous people for ages and it is because they are unfortunately the most disadvantaged group within Australia. This has been long going now before even having a Voice and we haven't been calling the government racist or divisive up until now (well most of us at least). Clearly what is in place now doesn't work and we have a history of failed Voice to parliament's because we have change hands so frequently that no one bothers to continue with taking those issues with the seriousness it deserves.
Establishing a Voice does 2 things in my book. It provides the indigenous community with a level of autonomy to fix their own issues. Secondly, changing hands down the line cannot remove them. The proposal here also means that their level of influence will change as their needs are met. If at one point in time a Voice is no longer needed, it can be pulled back as needed.
I hope people don't buy into the catch phrases and simple minded thinking. Please make an informed decision and vote with how you feel best. Being open minded is all I really hope people can be when deciding how to vote.
'
The argument becomes almost a bit of a slippery slope; if we have one body for indigenous people, why don't we have one for other ethnic groups?'
idk I'll take a wild stab and guess maybe becuse all other ethical groups in Australia didn't live here for 60 000 plus years, have their land forcably removed, experienced mass genocide and an ongoing attempt to breed their ethnicity out of existence?
that said, I'm glad you voted yes.
but this is a dumb thing to say.
Huh, TIL that humans showed up in Australia 60,000 years ago. I thought for sure it would be less than 20,000 years until I looked it up.
As for the slippery slope, nah, it's a natural thing to ask. That being said, I think you have a good answer to it.
I'll add that most ethnic groups don't/shouldn't need a Voice (ombudsman?) type function in a functioning democracy. However, we frequently see that the rules as written don't actually apply equally. We see this a lot in the U.S. (where I'm from). It sounds like you have a similar effect in Australia.
At face value, I understand why this can be perceived as racist and divisive
I appreciate that you're not working to promote the talking point where if a profoundly disadvantaged racial group is given representation it's "racist against white people", but I live in a country where white people routinely argue that any amount of civil rights protections is "racist against white people" and it gives me a headache processing that level of stupid.
Yep, in my country it's regular fare to hear GOP politicians bleat "you're being divisive!" (as if our failure to submit to their rule is a fault)- it takes two to be on opposing sides of a divide, and it's morally dishonest to pretend that only the other side of a disagreement is at fault for honest disagreement. Don't let them work the 'you're being divisive' angle, you'll never hear the end of it.
Referendums are always such a spineless way out of doing the right thing.
Looks like NSW and Tasmania are already no. One more state to vote no and it’s over
Breaking Indigenous
Lol why is it still surprising that Europeans don’t give a shit about the atrocities they’ve committed, or the land they’ve stolen? Come on y’all, they’ve been at it for like 600 years. It’s like expecting the methhead to stop doing meth.
All the non european migrants i work with are voting no. They see the voice as racist and, like you, view indigenous issues as the fault of white people and therefore not their problem.
I have the exact same experience. Most of the people with an anglo saxon background are voting yes, most of the people from other backgrounds are voting no. Some of the reasons given is because they think it will privilege one group over another, they don't like the idea of one group being identified for "special treatment", etc.
And yet when I say it suddenly I'm the racist, because of my skin color, despite being from a refugee family. Its stunning
Europeans? Do you call Americans Europeans too? How long ago must a nation be established before they become their own entity to you? You might as well call us all Pangeans!
Well I’m not gonna call you Native Australians. You’re European Australians. Or if you want me to put it differently, people that look like Europeans are from Europe, doesn’t matter if your mom birthed you elsewhere, you’re still European.
Hey keep Europeans out of it, stop the generalization. Specifically it was britishers so
fuck the british
Fair. My bad homie.
Specific groups and races have no place in Australia's constitution. Find another way.
You say this as someone who has at least skimmed the constitution, right? I ask because here's the first couple of paragraphs of our constitution - the bolding is mine...
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:
And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
But yeah - if you put aside the huge chunk of the text calling out specific individuals and groups throughout the entire document, you're right.
I’m voting ‘no’.
If you want a job in politics with a $200K salary, earn it. I don’t care what colour your skin is.
Why is the assumption that the individuals who will receive these jobs won’t be qualified for them?
He's just repackaging the usual "hiring quotas" idiocy where they pretend that there's people in board rooms saying "well this man has every degree that Harvard offers but unfortunately we need to hire a woman so we're giving the job to this high school drop out that was visibly drunk in the interview".
The reality is that any job opening ends up with a pool of candidates, all of which are qualified for the job and it won't be any different here.
But they can't say the truth, so they say shit like this instead.
I don’t care what colour your skin is.
A very popular saying among racists.
Methinks somehow they do care what colour their skin is...
Surely this is more like adding a couple extra constituencies that are a bit geographically splintered? I know the powers and structure aren't identical to MPs, but it's not like you're voting to just give three specific guys jobs for life
It’s likely 100s of jobs for life, with government pension added at retirement. Math that out over 25 years and it’s somewhere around $500 million dollars.
If my tax dollars are contributing to $500M in my lifetime, I want it going to people with degrees and a fuckton of experience.
The last time we let someone into politics with no experience and no degree, we got Pauline Hanson. I’m not voting yes to 100 more Pauline Hansons.
About a quarter of the MPs in parliament haven't got degrees. Plenty of their staff won't have either.
$500,000,000 over 25 years is less than a dollar per person per year. Let's not pretend that the number you've come up with there is some bank-breaking extravagance for a large economy over the course of decades.
So why do you believe non-white people couldn't possibly have "degrees and a fuckton of experience?"
Because the people put into these Voice positions will be Elders of Indigenous communities.
And since I personally worked on the 2013-16, $10M Indigenous communities research project for utilities connection and communication strategy, I know that 11% of the people in those communities are literate and the data point for tertiary-level education was so low it was rounded to 0.
To communicate the process of utilities connection, it was determined to best use pictures, which is still the strategy today.
Any more questions, hero?
Ah, so it's not that you're racist because you believe indigenous people are inherently less capable, but instead that you're racist because you see nothing wrong with perpetuating institutional racism. "Disadvantage must be maintained!" is your credo.
You got me.
Now don’t forget to downvote me (you can keep your upvote).
Good to know. I've tagged you as "Racist Aussie" so I don't forget in the future
Just FYI those of us on kbin can see if you actually upvoted someone or not.
”Those of us on KBIN are…” Haha, shut the fuck up.
You get an auto upvote when you post. I didn’t downvote him. Think before you speak, you Magic the Gathering-playing dickhead.
lol. Not sure where the M:TG comment is coming from, but I assume you scoured this guy's profile or something. The shit you're into is just as nerdy (given a cursory look at your own profile) so you can fuck right off with that criticism. Please, go find a racist echo chamber where you can be praised for your ignorant vitriol, you sad, sad troll
Ooh, look at you all brave and shit. You looking in the mirror while you write this?
How do we sleep while our beds are burning?
I love this song, it's still in my playlist
There is a recent cover version by AWOL Nation & Rise Against (or maybe just Tim McIlrath, not 100% sure).
What is the song name?
Beds are Burning by Midnight Oil
The entire Diesels and Dust album is worth a listen.
https://youtu.be/ejorQVy3m8E
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/ejorQVy3m8E
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
All this over an advisory board with no real power? How could that even be harmful?
Conservatives oppose it for the same reasons indigenous groups want it.
I'm voting yes, and i have tried to help people see why it's a good thing, but when people call me racist for saying I'm in the yes camo, i know that far too many are just morons who have no critical thinking, or ability to tell what is a good source of information.
Adding a new governmental body that is open to only one racial group is racist and it is also undemocratic.
Your vote is well intentioned its just poorly informed. You've been propagandised.
You idiots have the same repeated talking points and they are just plain wrong.
Not just one group, but two. And they are not racial you fuckwit, they are geographical and historical groupings.
Cultures have value and our First Nations are owed a debt. We live on their lands, we benefit from their experience. We owe them so much and this is just a vote for First Nations to be formally represented in parliament.
They're not racial groups? Are you fucking kidding me? You absolute Muppet.
They're not but you represent a bit racist group. And I love the Muppets, thanks wankstain.
I don't represent anything except the desire to maintain democracy and egalitarianism
No, what you represent is casual racism and selfishness draped in the auspices of egalitarianism which distorts the true nature of democracy.
You obsess over words like race because you're a racist. It's really that simple.
"You obsess over words like race because you're a racist. "
Its not me making the law here for one special separate group of people with their own distinct genetics
...casually failing to mention that the "one racial group" are the traditional land owners who lost their land and 50,000 year-old culture due to colonisation.
And what does that have to do with our modern (and future) Democratic nation?
None of us took anything from any others of us. Its a totally irrelevant point.
We can't go around changing g the fundamental nature of democracy because of historical tragedies or in 15 minutes we'll be back to fucking tribalism and feudal lords.
Colonisation took everything from First Nation people, but all you care about is that recognition might end up costing you something. Sound a lot like that tribalism you reckon you're want to avoid.
And what are you actually giving up?
There is no threat to democracy, The Voice is an advisory body. It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.
Referendums are described in the Constitution to allow Australians to change how it functions. So we explicitly can change how aspects of our democratic process works, and obviously should do so to reflect changes in Australian society since Federation 120+ years ago.
Well you've just erected a pretty nice strawman there but not much else.
"It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers."
Nobody has any fucking clue what powers it might have, its a blank check. Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this "advisory body" can and can't do, or shut the fuck up.
Sure, we can change it. But there has not been any fucking legitimate reason presented as to why we should. The arguments presented by the Yes campaign are certainly emotional, but not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.
Let's stick the the topic and avoid juvenile debate tactics.
Here is exactly what the referendum entails, and note that it specifically limits the role of the Voice (in whatever form it takes) to "make representations" and also that it specifically highlights that parliament - and only parliament - "shall... Have the power to make laws".
I repeat: the Voice Has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers, and you have no legitimate basis to imply otherwise. We are 100% not being asked to vote on a Constitutional change that undermines democratic principles. If you vote No on that basis then it is because you are ignorant of the proposed Constitutional change and have been conned by the right wing and media.
The Voice is part of modest recommendations proposed respectfully by First Nations people via the Uluru Statement from the heart. You need to be cynical and unrealistic to think that accepting and supporting their views - with no downsides to you personally or us as a country - really won't change anything. Are you really interested in the outcomes for First Nations people? If so, please explain how you expect to see change if the Voice is rejected?
Forgot to add - I haven't been conned by any media, either right wing or slightly less right wing. Don't own a TV and the only social media I'm on is this which is unsurprisingly light on Aus politics.
Its ain't me being conned here
Interesting. I'm curious why you aren't familiar with the details of constitutional amendment I linked to. You're clearly not basing your opinion on primary sources, so what secondary sources are you consuming?
What makes you think I'm unfamiliar with it? I know exactly what it says, regardless of whether I'm a shit debater
Maybe because you keep claiming information hasn't been made available when a simple google search proves you wrong?
I never said that
Right here:
"its composition, functions, powers and procedures"
There is literally no scope included - they'll decide after
They will decide after how to establish the advisory body that has no legislative, executive, or judicial power and can only advise parliament (who will then decide what actions are taken or even if any action is taken at all).
They cannot make decisions with respect to giving the Voice Constitutional powers to make or change legislative, executive, or judicial decisions unless there's another referendum. They can legislate powers, but they can already do that without the referendum.
What specifically do you object to about this?
Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around "powers"
And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.
Those specifically are what I object to
They can do that right now. Albo can legislate what you're describing and the next government can de-legilsate it. If the referendum passes it has no bearing on what powers are legislated.
The referendum does not give the powers you're describing and does not impact whether those kinds of powers are granted or revoked in the future.
You are misunderstanding what the Yes vote is. The referendum would only establish a voice in the Constitution that "may make representations" while specifically outlining that only "Parliament shall make laws".
Again, all of this is explained in the resources I linked to earlier, and the only reason you're ignorant to that fact is because you haven't bothered to do your research.
So, again, what's your issue here?
None of that actually says anything. Its just wide open phrasing that allows for limitless scope. Can you not see that somehow?
All this is way out in the fucken weeds anyway man.
Why the fuck are people trying to create a less inclusive and egalitarian society instead of trying to find and implement actual solutions to solve the problems that exist. And why do people who apparently think of themselves as progressive and socialist think any of this is OK?
Use the mechanisms we have to push for positive long term structural change, using the huge moral and political advantage gained at the election. Build, change, organize, grow systems that actually help people who need it.
Everyone is just going along with this stupid pointless circus because they feel guilty about British crimes and think this will somehow help people who died 200 years ago.
Get a fucken grip and use your Democratic power to help, don't throw your weight behind people who are making the world less inclusive ffs
There is! The power is limited to "may make representations". It's written in stone, what more do you need than official, published documentation that clearly refutes what you claim is the position of the Yes campaign?
This is always an interesting one - who is "propagandising" us, and what do they have to gain from their significant investment in advancing this agenda?
Well I mean, have you researched the issue, analyzed it, and developed your own position based on evidence?
Or are you just listening to what comes out of the TV?
If you get your opinions from someone who hands them to you fully formed (like Voice good, no voice racist) then that is propaganda, not information.
As to your second question - a: politicians scoring points and winning elections; and b: a whole lot of people who get a hand in deciding laws and economic decisions for their own special group.
And before you bang out the line about lobby groups all having a say already - yes of course we should fuck those off as well because they too are undemocratic corruption
Ah yes - do your own research... The mating call of the conspiracist.
So it's the Labor party propagandising us to secure an election win that isn't an election (top-tier research, I see)? Seems like a big deal that carries a very real risk of a loss, with opportunity for marginal gain at best, which necessitates burning immense political capital. This doesn't smell of conspiracist bullshit to you?
The Labor Party have invested $9.5m into this, which has been spent on things like broad civics education and website upgrades. The yes campaign has also been set to lose for some time now - so my comment and the risk is already validated, and Labor get to tie themselves to an unpopular position, and lose. Genius.
Do you baselessly assume I get my information from TV because you don't own/watch TV, get your info from the likes of YouTube (or better, Rumble - where do you get your research?), and think you're an enlightened type because of it? I've looked at legislative review and the explanatory memorandum, cases from both campaigns, stats around indigenous outcomes, and the history of this country, but there was really no need - this is very simple. I personally don't think it's great to turn up, genocide the population, take their land, witness comparatively atrocious outcomes according to just about any metric you care to choose that persist 2 centuries after we turned up and shrug my shoulders because doing the bare minimum about that would be racist. The least we could do is give them a dismissable voice in matters that relate to them.
You can say you disagree with the existence of representative bodies like the business council, but the fact of the matter is that we have them. To now shut the gate on a marginalised group while the other bodies continue to exist only exacerbates the issue. Those bodies also have massive amounts of cash to throw around - the voice, on the other hand would get to make representions that can simply be ignored... What are you afraid of here? This is like me beating you up and taking your lunch money, then saying we can't do a thing about that because you're a different race/gender/sexuality/whatever, and that would be (pick)-ist.
I'll put it differently - is the massive disparity in outcomes for indigenous Australians a product of the systemic issues that have been thrust upon them, or inferior genetics? If it's systemic, why not get their input on addressing the issues that affect them? If it's genetic, we get to have a very different chat. Feel free to pick a deflection like culture, but it's all a product of genetics or systemic in the end.
No matter how many downvotes you get on Lemmy you still have the majority of your countrymen on your side so at the end of the day you still win.
Which is a damn shame too cos most tkof them are doing because they're just as uninformed as the yes side.
Its fucking brexit all over again.
Some discussion and informed decision making wouldn't go astray, but its a bit fucking late now
Except Brexit very predictably sent the country off the rails, while this establishes an advisory body that can simply be ignored.
The real reason it will fail is politics. The opposition party decided getting this voted down would strike a blow to the government.
So they’ve just blown racist dog whistles, racist trumpets, set of racists cannons and doubled down on ignorance: “If you don’t know vote No”
They have effectively weaponised division.
They created division by spreading lies, uncertainty and fear. Lies were repeated over and over, and became increasingly outrageous, despite being refuted again and again.
Then they pointed at the division they created and said "this is too divisive, we shouldn't do it."
What's even the point of having a democracy if the majority of the voter base is uninformed
Not just uninformed - deliberately misinformed.
Colonialism intensifies
Voting on yes or no was made very easy when I saw that neo nazis, flat earthers, anti vaxxers and a multitude of other whack jobs are voting no. You are the company you keep in my book.
Well that's disappointing.
What a bunch of cunts
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Australians look set to reject a referendum proposal to recognise Indigenous people in the constitution by creating a body to advise parliament, with polls showing a clear majority for no in almost all states before Saturday’s vote.
The yes campaign has also been battered by the Blak sovereignty movement, which has led the progressive no case, arguing the voice would be powerless while pushing for truth and treaty to come ahead of constitutional recognition.
The no campaign has leaned heavily on the slogan “If you don’t know, vote no”, which former high court justice Robert French described as an invitation to “resentful, uninquiring passivity”.
The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, spent part of the final campaigning week in the nation’s centre, Uluru, where the proposal for the voice was first formally presented in 2017.
Sitting with senior traditional owners in central Australia, Albanese said Australians had an opportunity to “lift the burden of history” and move forward with a positive vote on Saturday.
“Many Indigenous Australians who are on the frontlines of dealing with these problems in towns and cities and communities and outstations and home lands are very worried about the prospect of losing the voice because they already have little say, and a loss will mean that they have even less.”
The original article contains 827 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
fucking national disgrace....
'cos Aussies love racism
Keep it classy, Australia.
Not a good look. Very disappointed.
Literally nothing stops the government making "the voice" without changing the constitution. The only reason they want it in the constitution is so future governments can't change the function of the body.
The whole thing is an organised circus for political gain and dividing the population.
In the past, the government had a "voice" for the indigenous for like 10 years. Just bring it back, no constitutional change needed.
If you're going to try put an aboriginal rights group in the constitution, just make it basic human rights group with representation for everyone. Basic human rights that are severely lacking in Australia. Freedom of speech? We don't even have that.
Isn't the fact that it was taken away before a justification for enshrining it in the constitution?
Like every other advisory body, it's the role of the elected government to manage (as it would continue to be if added to the constitution, they could just reduce it to one underfunded person instead of disbandening it, or create a new group).
Just vote for the party you want to represent you. The current government doesn't have a "voice" for the indigenous despite proposing this constitutional change.
It's like complaining about others possibly hampering your climate change efforts so you instead make none at all
Who is preventing your speech?
Let me guess, ‘woke green loonies who use cancel culture’.
I've voted Yes, albeit with a bit of hesitancy.
As far as I am concerned, the role and functioning of the Voice is clearly defined in the proposal so this was never an issue for me. Where I feel people are generally stuck on is whether or not having an advisory body for just one demographic of people is naturally divisive. The argument becomes almost a bit of a slippery slope; if we have one body for indigenous people, why don't we have one for other ethnic groups?
At face value, I understand why this can be perceived as racist and divisive, however, I think we have to also agree there is a slight nuance to this issue. The fact of the matter is that our government has been creating laws surrounding indigenous people for ages and it is because they are unfortunately the most disadvantaged group within Australia. This has been long going now before even having a Voice and we haven't been calling the government racist or divisive up until now (well most of us at least). Clearly what is in place now doesn't work and we have a history of failed Voice to parliament's because we have change hands so frequently that no one bothers to continue with taking those issues with the seriousness it deserves.
Establishing a Voice does 2 things in my book. It provides the indigenous community with a level of autonomy to fix their own issues. Secondly, changing hands down the line cannot remove them. The proposal here also means that their level of influence will change as their needs are met. If at one point in time a Voice is no longer needed, it can be pulled back as needed.
I hope people don't buy into the catch phrases and simple minded thinking. Please make an informed decision and vote with how you feel best. Being open minded is all I really hope people can be when deciding how to vote.
' The argument becomes almost a bit of a slippery slope; if we have one body for indigenous people, why don't we have one for other ethnic groups?'
idk I'll take a wild stab and guess maybe becuse all other ethical groups in Australia didn't live here for 60 000 plus years, have their land forcably removed, experienced mass genocide and an ongoing attempt to breed their ethnicity out of existence?
that said, I'm glad you voted yes.
but this is a dumb thing to say.
Huh, TIL that humans showed up in Australia 60,000 years ago. I thought for sure it would be less than 20,000 years until I looked it up.
As for the slippery slope, nah, it's a natural thing to ask. That being said, I think you have a good answer to it.
I'll add that most ethnic groups don't/shouldn't need a Voice (ombudsman?) type function in a functioning democracy. However, we frequently see that the rules as written don't actually apply equally. We see this a lot in the U.S. (where I'm from). It sounds like you have a similar effect in Australia.
I appreciate that you're not working to promote the talking point where if a profoundly disadvantaged racial group is given representation it's "racist against white people", but I live in a country where white people routinely argue that any amount of civil rights protections is "racist against white people" and it gives me a headache processing that level of stupid.
Yep, in my country it's regular fare to hear GOP politicians bleat "you're being divisive!" (as if our failure to submit to their rule is a fault)- it takes two to be on opposing sides of a divide, and it's morally dishonest to pretend that only the other side of a disagreement is at fault for honest disagreement. Don't let them work the 'you're being divisive' angle, you'll never hear the end of it.
Referendums are always such a spineless way out of doing the right thing.
Looks like NSW and Tasmania are already no. One more state to vote no and it’s over
Breaking Indigenous
Lol why is it still surprising that Europeans don’t give a shit about the atrocities they’ve committed, or the land they’ve stolen? Come on y’all, they’ve been at it for like 600 years. It’s like expecting the methhead to stop doing meth.
All the non european migrants i work with are voting no. They see the voice as racist and, like you, view indigenous issues as the fault of white people and therefore not their problem.
I have the exact same experience. Most of the people with an anglo saxon background are voting yes, most of the people from other backgrounds are voting no. Some of the reasons given is because they think it will privilege one group over another, they don't like the idea of one group being identified for "special treatment", etc.
And yet when I say it suddenly I'm the racist, because of my skin color, despite being from a refugee family. Its stunning
Europeans? Do you call Americans Europeans too? How long ago must a nation be established before they become their own entity to you? You might as well call us all Pangeans!
Well I’m not gonna call you Native Australians. You’re European Australians. Or if you want me to put it differently, people that look like Europeans are from Europe, doesn’t matter if your mom birthed you elsewhere, you’re still European.
Hey keep Europeans out of it, stop the generalization. Specifically it was britishers so
fuck the british
Fair. My bad homie.
Specific groups and races have no place in Australia's constitution. Find another way.
You say this as someone who has at least skimmed the constitution, right? I ask because here's the first couple of paragraphs of our constitution - the bolding is mine...
But yeah - if you put aside the huge chunk of the text calling out specific individuals and groups throughout the entire document, you're right.
I’m voting ‘no’.
If you want a job in politics with a $200K salary, earn it. I don’t care what colour your skin is.
Why is the assumption that the individuals who will receive these jobs won’t be qualified for them?
He's just repackaging the usual "hiring quotas" idiocy where they pretend that there's people in board rooms saying "well this man has every degree that Harvard offers but unfortunately we need to hire a woman so we're giving the job to this high school drop out that was visibly drunk in the interview".
The reality is that any job opening ends up with a pool of candidates, all of which are qualified for the job and it won't be any different here.
But they can't say the truth, so they say shit like this instead.
A very popular saying among racists.
Methinks somehow they do care what colour their skin is...
Surely this is more like adding a couple extra constituencies that are a bit geographically splintered? I know the powers and structure aren't identical to MPs, but it's not like you're voting to just give three specific guys jobs for life
It’s likely 100s of jobs for life, with government pension added at retirement. Math that out over 25 years and it’s somewhere around $500 million dollars.
If my tax dollars are contributing to $500M in my lifetime, I want it going to people with degrees and a fuckton of experience.
The last time we let someone into politics with no experience and no degree, we got Pauline Hanson. I’m not voting yes to 100 more Pauline Hansons.
About a quarter of the MPs in parliament haven't got degrees. Plenty of their staff won't have either.
$500,000,000 over 25 years is less than a dollar per person per year. Let's not pretend that the number you've come up with there is some bank-breaking extravagance for a large economy over the course of decades.
So why do you believe non-white people couldn't possibly have "degrees and a fuckton of experience?"
Because the people put into these Voice positions will be Elders of Indigenous communities.
And since I personally worked on the 2013-16, $10M Indigenous communities research project for utilities connection and communication strategy, I know that 11% of the people in those communities are literate and the data point for tertiary-level education was so low it was rounded to 0.
To communicate the process of utilities connection, it was determined to best use pictures, which is still the strategy today.
Any more questions, hero?
Ah, so it's not that you're racist because you believe indigenous people are inherently less capable, but instead that you're racist because you see nothing wrong with perpetuating institutional racism. "Disadvantage must be maintained!" is your credo.
You got me.
Now don’t forget to downvote me (you can keep your upvote).
Good to know. I've tagged you as "Racist Aussie" so I don't forget in the future
The terminology we might use down under is wanker
@Art3sian
Just FYI those of us on kbin can see if you actually upvoted someone or not.
”Those of us on KBIN are…” Haha, shut the fuck up.
You get an auto upvote when you post. I didn’t downvote him. Think before you speak, you Magic the Gathering-playing dickhead.
lol. Not sure where the M:TG comment is coming from, but I assume you scoured this guy's profile or something. The shit you're into is just as nerdy (given a cursory look at your own profile) so you can fuck right off with that criticism. Please, go find a racist echo chamber where you can be praised for your ignorant vitriol, you sad, sad troll
Ooh, look at you all brave and shit. You looking in the mirror while you write this?