I know all the commentary and speculation was that this would happen, but i’m still surprised.
High risk strategy from Dutton, if the voice succeeds and the libs have dug their heels in on the No side, it will take a very long time for them to live that down. wrong side of history.
Same guy who boycotted the apology to the Stolen Generation. What did people expect?
The voice, from my understanding, is a constitutional body that recognises and will provide advice on issues affecting First Nations people, nothing more nothing less. People might say what about the other 95% of Australians who aren’t First Nations people? Well, the answer lies right there and there’s already other departments and organisations that work to do that job for the other 95%.
The other day we have that stupid Julian Leeser trying to ask Linda Burney about if the voice will advise departments like the Reserve Bank or Defence Force. I mean seriously?
You’d think the Liberals would learn from their bloodbath losses in SA, Federal, Victoria, New South Wales and Aston recently. But no looks like they’re keen to rename their party as ‘Noalition’ permanently.
Most people in this country appear to support this voice and I think it’s good that we have this debate about this. Labor, Greens, Teals, Wilkie, Sharkie, Haines and Gee all appear to support this. The Coalition (and Katter) can continue to wallow in their mediocrity and be consigned to history.
An apology from him in 15 years for opposing the Indigenous Voice.
Exactly.
Just like a federal or state election, both Yes and No camps will have to convince Australians from different ethnic backgrounds why they should vote for or against the voice, because many people (like my parents) still have no idea what that constitutional body is about. That will mean (but not limited to) newspaper ads and leaflets in different languages, and appearing on the various language programs on SBS Audio.
I do fear that we will see a lot of misinformation and scaremongering in this campaign, and would not be surprised to see things turn a bit ugly.
While I do have a couple of concerns with the voice myself, they are certainly not things that would switch me over into the ‘no’ camp:
-Running the referendum on a standalone basis with all the associated costs (easily $250-300+ million) instead of alongside a federal election (such as in 1984). In an economic environment where a large part of the community is struggling and things like homelessness, insecure, and poor quality housing such a massive problem, spending so much on this when it could be used for something like building a lot of social housing apartments or improving the quality of dwellings in remote communities.
-Whether the voice will actually make a difference in the lives of indigenous communities or whether it will be another case of all talk, no action. I do hope that the representation is truly diverse and across a broad cross section of the indigenous community, and that it is not dominated by a small vocal minority. The lack of detail from the government on how it will actually work is a concern.
I don’t think it’s exactly an issue of one issue affecting another. Surely the country can afford to do both without one compromising another. Plus it’s not like Labor is ignoring economic issues. The Housing Australia Fund might not be everyone’s idea of a solution but it has some merits and will at least work to solve part of the problem, which will take longer to solve as it’s not an easy fix.
The Liberals have chosen a strange hill to die on. No alternative solutions towards reconciliation, no alternative solutions towards resolving the economic issues, no alternative solutions towards solving social issues and diplomatic ties. All they know is saying ‘no’ for the sake of saying it. They’re taking the definition of opposition quite literally.
Fair call, although I’d argue that when we’re in as big a budget deficit as we are that it does end up usually being a case of one or the other. Still, to be fair, the voice is a better use of that money than say something like the submarine deal.
And in fairness to the government though, it’s hardly as though the ‘no-alition’ is any better especially given their policies have largely been the cause of this situation.
As far as the Housing Australia Fund goes, it’s an OK start but still very underwhelming in the grand scheme of things given the seriousness of this crisis.
This decision by Dutton to oppose the voice is going to fuel even more division in the party. Wouldn’t be surprised to see more moderates break ranks if they see what Dutton stands for.
Resolving Indigenous issues is important - will a Voice to Parliament do that? I dont know, but I don’t see any real reason (so far) not to vote for it. But it’s important that we don’t stifle reasonable discussion about both the positives and negatives of the proposal just because we have a few politicians who don’t seem to be able to act like adults. Asking (reasonable) questions is an important step to building a better understanding of the proposal.
This highlights a real frustration I have with the process - there has been a conscious decision to limit official commentary for a yes or no vote, but there have been and will be questions that should be answered. This is potentially one of them (despite how it was asked) - but it’s dismissed out of hand rather than providing what should be a simple answer. In this case, adding the words “Executive Government” to the proposed wording has the potential to broaden the scope of who the proposed body can make representations to. Its quite possibly a very good outcome, but its hard to determine that without some context.
Its clear that there is a strong desire to avoid some of the issues that were had with the republican referendum, but this heightens the risk that people are either misinformed or ill-informed - directing people to read hundreds of pages of preamble to understand what they’re voting for is not a great outcome.
Except like everything that Governments at three levels and of many persuasions have done on housing in the recent past, it’s not actually a solution that will be successful. Saying we’ll build more homes in a market that is already stretched will result in poor outcomes (if any) and is papering over the cracks that is the actual demand for social housing (not to mention does very little for other housing availability related matters).
There is no political capital in actually fixing the problem (it pisses off too much of the major parties base of voters) so we’re left with tinkering at the edges and window dressing while there are real world consequences to not working towards fixing the issues.
Bridget Archer is likely to cause a lot of headaches for the Liberals, and so she should. She’s one of the few reasonable ones.
Which is what the Liberals are content with doing. Asking stupid questions is basically their smokescreen to cover any legitimate discussions and debate about the voice to parliament.
I think everyone on this forum would agree with this comment 100x over. Sadly she’s likely to be sidelined/benched more than anything under Dutton.
I respectfully disagree with some of this. Yes it’s a solution that takes far too long and is on paper more smokes and mirrors than substance but at the same time the housing crisis has existed for over a decade (and even longer, and the Coalition have done nothing about it) and it’s not like it can be fixed overnight (even though the Greens seem to think that way).
I believe the Housing Australia Fund is just a beginning and I don’t think Albo is going to neglect this area now that they’ve got their foot into it. They know voters will come down hard on them if they don’t act but they also shouldn’t act too radically. I would like to see them have something that is more substantial in terms of addressing short-term problems whilst building towards permanent fixture of the problem. But apart from that I don’t see much wrong with the fund, at least the intentions of it.
While they’re unwilling to change the tax system, all the Feds can do is throw money at the problem, they have limited power when it comes to opening up developable land. What ends up happening is that inappropriately sized complexes of dwellings are constructed because there is no other feasible option - a continuation of what happened during the GFC.
We’re well beyond the need for intentions - we’re overdue for tangible action.
I think the bigger problem with opposition to the voice by the likes of Dutton and Price and co is the fact that they’re not just saying no without proposing a better solution, but they’re going to actively campaign against it.
Unless if I’m missing something, it well and truly shows that those who oppose it are on the wrong side of reconciliation, even in a symbolic way.
They say (officially) that their objection is to the need for the constitutional amendment, not to the Voice itself. In that case, offering an alternative is probably not necessary. That said, it’s hard to believe that that’s their only concern with it, and its a smokescreen for something bigger.
I don’t think that’s necessarily a fair characterisation - symbolism only gets you so far and frankly, we lean too much into symbolic actions rather than real ones.
I honestly think that they’re just satisfied with the incumbent: Continue what’s in place, nothing more need to be added which has contributed to almost zilch been done since the last 9 years under the coalition. Either they’re too lazy to contribute their efforts or they’ve got something to hide.
If they don’t have a better proposition that says ‘What we have is better’ then it would give the impression that they have a ‘Yes it’s important but we don’t care and we don’t want to recognise you’ kind of stance.
Labor’s radical proposal would effectively install a permanent third chamber.
Why hide the proposed legislation? It’s a con.
Albanese need to get fair dinkum. He cannot expect Australians to agree to a permanent constitutional change based on “the vibe”. You would have to be a complete idiot to fall for that.
Is that you Peter Dutton?
Funny how Albo and co attack the individual rather than offering answers regarding their ridiculous “voice” proposal.
They go low and then go lower.