• Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I still honestly don’t know which way to vote. Most of my indigenous friends have been posting on socials saying to vote no, so I’ll probably go that way, but part of me just thinks no matter how tokenistic and kinda “us white men good, help black fella have say” it comes across, surely having it would have to be better than not having it?

    Why couldn’t this just be like gay marriage where the only reason you’d vote no is because you’re a religious nut or a bigot? (unfortunately, it seems 40% of our population fit into those categories)

    The “yes” brochure arguments really sound like a lot of political fluff. “Recognition”…cool, but what does that get them? What does “being recognized in the constitution” mean? “Listening”…ok but are you actually going to do anything? Who are you listening to out of the hundreds/thousands(?) of indigenous tribes around the country? “Better Results”…so got any actual plans for those things? How does the voice help achieve those results?

    Having now looked at the “no” brochure, they basically echo what I just asked above haha. The Government literally won’t divulge the details of what the Voice actually entails. That seems super dodgy.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        With zero answers for the main things people want to know, like how many parole are appointed, how they’re appointed, how long they’re appointed for, what powers they have, etc.

        • sil@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          As a result of this, and through careful deliberation, the final proposal for a National Voice is a 24-member model including 5 members representing remote regions, and one member representing the significant number of Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland. (p. 12)

          Members of the Local & Regional Voices within each state and territory would collectively determine National Voice members from their respective jurisdictions. (p. 12)

          Members would serve 4-year terms. These terms would be staggered, with half the membership determined every 2 years to ensure continuity. There would be a limit of 2 consecutive terms per member. (p. 108)

          • The National Voice would be an advisory body to the Australian Parliament and Government. These relationships would be two-way interactions, with either party able to initiate advice or commence discussion around relevant policy matters… The National Voice would have no power to veto laws made by the Parliament or decisions made by the Australian Government. (p. 109)

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Government literally won’t divulge the details of what the Voice actually entails.

      That is miss-information propagated by the “No” campaign. The governemnt absoltuely has divulged what The Voice entails, and it’s really simple. These words will be added to the constitution:

      In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

      i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

      ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

      iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

      Let me make it even simpler:

      There will be a group of people authorised to give a small speech on indigenous issues when parliament is in session and occasionally have meetings with relevant politicians/government workers.

      The government will do their normal job (passing laws, etc) after taking into consideration what was said.

      It’s not complex. There is no risk. We’re not giving Indigenous Australians some kind of exclusive right. The reality is anyone can write a letter to a politician, and if the letter has any merit at all a staff member will ensure the politician reads it. If the contents of your letter are actually important the politician will even meet with you in person.

      The only thing that this changes is The Voice won’t need to have their message approved by the staff member. I suppose in theory, that could result in wasting a few minutes of our politicians time… but I doubt that will happen. The reality is sensible people will given the power to speak for all indigenous peoples, and they will only talk about the most important issues affecting indigenous people. They will have an endlessly long list of points to bring up, and they’ll pick the most important ones - which will never be a waste of time to bring up in Parliament.

      At the end of the day it’s a matter of respect. It’s a formal process to do what is already being done informally. Indigenous issues won’t need to be raised via back channels anymore.

      A few details, like how many people will be on The Voice and how long they can speak in Parliament for, etc are still to be decided on, but none of those really matter. Does it matter if there’s ten people or fifty in The Voice? Only one of them will be allowed to speak in any given parliament session. There’s generally a 15-20 minute time restriction on anything raised in parliament, and I’d expect the same limit will be applied to The Voice. But if they allow 60 minutes instead… honestly who cares. By not putting it in the constitution the government is allowing those decisions to be changed without going back and doing an entire referendum all over again.

      • Fangslash@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m having some serious problem with how this is worded:

        the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

        Since the First Peoples already have representation as a part of their Australian citizenship, the way this is worded presumably gives them extra representation compare to a non-indigenous citizen. If this “representations” is purely advisory, then I don’t have a problem. Having it explicitly written into the constitution is a huge can of worm I’m not sure if I’m willing to touch.

        before anyone starts, I’m a first-gen immigrant with no skin in this game, and I haven’t read any arguement from either sides outside of this post.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s still not really giving any specifics. How many people? How are they selected? Do they have any power? How long is their term?

        That’s just more waffle about “giving them a seat at the table”.

        These questions are not just trivial details that don’t matter. What if it’s a single person with a lifetime appointment?

        • c15co@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The government has rightly said that what the voice exactly looks like will be decided after the vote, because there’s no point putting the investment in (both in time and funding) to flesh this out, if the public doesn’t back it.

          The specifics to the level you’re asking, in my opinion, make no difference to how you vote, with the exception of “Will they have power”, and that has been answered - the voice is to be consulted and their feedback collected, they have no power to enforce anything, but consulting them really is the least the government should do.

        • Selmafudd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          What if I told you it was going to be set up like the NAC or the NACC or the ATSIC or the NIC or the NCAFP??

          And if you don’t know or weren’t concerned how any of these were structured or operated why are you concerned about the next version of an advisory body?

          How much do you know about the structure and functions of other advisory bodies?

          • Almighty Olive 🫒@aus.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not op, and I agree with you…

            My issue is that the libs get in and then we get the watered down mixed NBN that’s worse every way compared to the original NBN.

            Basically, with no safeguards any government will shape the body as they see fit.

            Still voting yes

    • Ilandar@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t think about whether or not it will actually be useful - there is no way to predict this. Just focus on this one thought:

      If Australia votes No, it will kill all political momentum behind the ongoing fight for Indigenous rights to governance and sovereignty. This will be perceived as a damaging failure by Labor and neither they, nor the Liberals, will go anywhere reforms of this scale for a long time.

      I understand and support those who are voting No based on their lived experiences, but the rest of us have an obligation to vote Yes as far as I’m concerned. This referendum is the culmination of decades of work by Indigenous Australians and voting against it would be a morally reprehensible act.

    • MortyMcFry 🇦🇺@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m still seeing too many ‘No’ people wanting more than a voice, like treaty. Why can’t we have both? A no on this one is going to push treaty back further.

      • shermozle@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        These are wreckers. They didn’t engage with the extensive, inclusive process that came up with the path forward.

        Voice. Treaty. Truth.

        In that order. “More” is explicitly required and this is the first step.

        Please, please, please read the Uluru Statement From The Heart. It’s one page.

        • MortyMcFry 🇦🇺@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This dialogue needs to be in the media more. Shame it’s just all about “polls” increasing the no vote.

          Politics before people every time.

          Vote yes is the only true choice

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess it can go both ways - it can either put it back further because people rejected it, or it could lead to further discussions around a better solution (with hopefully more details given before being asked to vote).

        At the moment it seems we’re voting yes or no on a title of “the voice” while being told we don’t need to know what the voice can actually do.

        • c15co@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is exactly what happened with the Republic referendum. People didn’t like the model, so they voted no. It’s been 24 years since that referendum and in that time there has never been a conversation around a different model.

          The public said no, so no politician wants to touch it.

          If you vote no, treaty will never happen.

          • billytheid@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            No it’s not. In fact it’s not specifically because of the Republic referendum. People just won’t take responsibility for their laziness or inability to read a simple document.

            The simple truth is that Australians are mostly racist.

            • c15co@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Im not sure I understand your reply.

              My point about the republic was that if people say no to the Voice because it doesn’t go far enough, will end up killing the conversation that could become treaty. Just like the republic conversation died with the 1999 referendum

              • billytheid@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                My point is that the people who vote no because they’re gormless bigots vastly outweighs those who do do over structural concerns.

    • billytheid@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bullshit. If you worked, or where at all involved with, in indigenous communities you’d know the overwhelming sentiment is a yes vote and that those opposed are considered cookers.

      You post a lot of well rehearsed nonsense

    • maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ll be voting Yes. If over the coming months we were to find out that somehow the Voice to Parliament will have a negative impact on demands for Treaties, truth telling, sovereignty among other things then I might change my mind but I find that unlikely. Who knows.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The big problem for me after seeing these is that it seems the government is refusing to give us actual details on what the Voice to Parliament entails. Why are they being so secretive about it and asking us to vote on something that they won’t tell us what it is?

        • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just pointing out that this claim has been debunked many times before.

          The entire proposed amendment has been published - that is what we are voting on. This Government Resource may be useful

          The implementation of the amendment is subject to Parliament and it can be changed by successive governments to suit the needs of their constituents. This article from The Conversation was posted here recently and helped a few people to better understand the amendment

          I hope this clears it up a little bit for you. I’m not going to tell you to vote yes or no - just want to make sure you have the facts straight.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Cheers for the Conversation article. Even though it’s clearly a “Vote Yes” PR article, it has good information in it.

            The issues that I still have with it are that basically we could all vote Yes, have a voice put in the constitution, but then the government at any time can just completely change what the Voice actually entails and how it’s used. With so much handling of it left to the government of the time, it’s very hard to see how it’s not just going to be essentially ignored/reduced every time the LNP get in power for example.

            I guess a “Yes” vote is really a vote for “It’s something at least, it’s a start”, which can definitely be a good thing.

        • morry040@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It would be so much easier if they just said that the Voice was going to adopt the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) or even just blatantly copy their documents.

          Here’s the corporate plan, with its vision statements, purpose, performance measures, timelines, and deliverables.
          Here’s the annual report on it’s performance so far.
          Here’s the reconciliation action plan.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Very possible unfortunately. Not having an answer for basic questions like how many people are appointed, how they’re appointed, and for how long is pathetic.

            The cynic in me goes straight to that there’s a reason why they’re not divulging these things and it’s because the yes voters wouldn’t like the answers.

            • billytheid@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              More billshit, that assertion has already been directly disproven earlier in this thread. Why are you so committed to posting misinformation?

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It was not disproven. If it is then you should be able to answer my questions in the comment you replied to then, right?

                How many people are appointed?

                How are they appointed?

                How long are the terms of appointment?

                • Ilandar@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Someone already answered this for you here. I have engaged with you in good faith previously, but it’s becoming increasingly clear you are completely full of shit and are simply attempting to spread doubt and fear.

                  • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not “attemping to spread” anything. I’m undecided on how I’m going to vote and I’m trying to decide.

                    Why do some of you guys just attribute everything you don’t like to malice?

                • billytheid@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Read the responses others have already posted; you’ll find that your asinine bullshit has already been roundly disproved. You’re constantly posting content you know is false. Why?