One of the major issues that seem to have captivated Australian politics is a voice to parliament. Debate has started in the social media scene of yes vote and no vote and who should talk for whom. Statements are made of what a referendum means for the issue and how it should be conducted. I just don’t understand how again these politicians continue to play politics with people’s lives with the full bravado of the supporters. I am positive most don’t understand what the referendum actually means as it is unnecessary for the purpose proclaimed. In fact a voice to parliament could be in action by the mid to latter part of next year which could actually show what it would mean for the purpose of the referendum. But the government (and the previous government) wish to leave the people ignorance of the truth. THIS is one reason a referendum on this subject could fail. Any thoughts???
Indigenous people are already overrepresented in parliament compared to their share of the population. They already have an outsized voice. I will be voting no. We shouldn't be creating racial advisory boards, and they certainly shouldn't be embedded in the constitution. I do however fully expect it to pass, probably with flying colours.
Good to hear honest reply, but I don't think it will pass as the requirements are so high. I do believe the result will rest entirely on the shoulders of this current government as they have ineptly handled the process while trying to make political mileage. But you need to understand that the referendum is not about creating a voice to parliament but protecting a voice from corruption of the government. When you sit a think about it a voice to parliament is simply another lobby group to lobby the government. The difference is that the government will create the system of creation, size and fund the system to bring a central voice rather than the fractured system Australia has today. Basically, I to agree that there should be no division entered to the constitution. But it is not about creating a voice in the constitution but protecting it. Personally, at present, I too will be voting no, as the exact change being proposed is something of a figment at present that only a select few are aware of and I don't they even know who they are.
The 2 choices are deeper than simply Yes and No lol. * Vote No to continue with pollies and crats dictating where money is spend on the affairs of aborigines. If you vote “No” then don’t blame aborigines for the wasted tax payer dollars, make sure you blame these pollies and crats because they are the decision makers. * Vote Yes to ensure aborigines get a say on the directions of their communities. At this stage they work within the framework that is made available to them in attempting to address generational disadvantage as a consequence of governments. Nova wants an end to this commodity on Aboriginal misery. The Aboriginal industry is full of jobs for the mates. Again Vote No if you want aborigines to remain on the current trajectory or Vote Yes if you want them to have their say about what will be good for them. I recall years ago Aboriginal leaders asking for a hand up, not a hand out. A NO vote will continue with hand outs and aborigines having to live off the teat of government funding.
Yes it has been badly sold and there is one heck of a lot of confusion, misinformation and plain old scepticism out there.
I have a simpler reason for voting yea - I want to support our indigenous people who have suffered and are still suffering - this may not work but at least we will have tried
Well that too. But for the minds of the ignorant or blissfully ignorant the song doesn’t mean much unfortunately. The issue for most Australians is simply not knowing.
And racism in its ugliest American form is rising its head here. The “ they get everything given to them meme” has started to circulate.
There seems to be a strong sense that Aboriginal people aren’t supporting the Yes vote?? It’s a sovereignty issue. I’m only trying to piece this together in my own mind but the Mabo decision which overturned the doctrine of Terra Nullius essentially acknowledged the sovereignty of Aboriginal peoples. The land wasn’t claimed under conquest nor treaty being the only remaining international laws of the time, which leaves only treaty as the logical next step. Some Aboriginal people believe that adding them into the constitution cedes their sovereign and lawful right to press for a treaty. My thoughts are that the constitutional recognition is purely a recognition of Aboriginal peoples by the Crowns subjects being the citizens of Australia. If Aboriginal people were asked to vote alone then I see an issue with sovereignty rights. Have you or anybody else have an expert thought on this?
No expert thoughts unfortunately. This is a tangled web and I think the treaty boat has sailed. I would settle for improved lifestyle and health outcomes but that also means looking closer at WHY health is so poor. But over riding that a ****ing great decrease in racism. I loathe hate and revile racism and I truly would like to see it buried for all time but I do not see that happening in my life time BTW if you haven’t caught any of Akala’s talks on “black history” and racism then please watch
Don't blame the Yanks for that stuff. I was hearing that back in the 70s and I'm sure it was around (or some other equally nasty version) before that. Say what you will about our American bretheren, they have been & are WELL ahead of us on the issue of indigenous rights. Our problems in this respect are very much our own invention and compared to other English settler societies such as the US, Canada or NZ we are pathetic - haven't even signed a treaty.
Just on the broader issue, it was dead the moment Dutton chose to oppose it. Constitutional change doesn't happen in Australia without bipartisan support. Hughes, Curtin, Menzies, Whitlam and Hawke all failed to do it. The 'yes' campaign has been poor and the 'No' campaign much more effective, but this is still down to Dutton. He was never going to back it, so it will die.
