Is the voice going to Actually change anything if it’s all bout giving Indigineous a voice to parliamentary decisions why do we need to spend thousands of tax payers money to do this?
They already can vote and have a day at both local and federal levels. To me I think Albo has picked an issue that he will lose , Australians are getting sick of being told that this isn’t their country .
And ATSIC’s “replacement” the National Indigenous Council was deeply unpopular and went against an inquiry’s reccommendation that the NIC being temporary and be replaced by a new elected body.
Ugh, I don’t know how I feel about this. Sporting bodies always push back when politics tries to get involved in sport, yet they are now launching into a political debate.
I know exactly what I think, and that is it is not their place to get involved in political issues. I also don’t appreciate the PM’s emotional blackmail in his public messaging on this.
Neither do I. And I support Albanese in just about everything else. I don’t even like the tone of the government “informational” ads on the Referendum. They pretty much say you should vote Yes just with the emotional sounding music in the background. And before everyone jumps on me, I haven’t decided which way to vote. But I believe a Referendum should be presented in a purely fact-based manner, and that sporting bodies and corporations shouldn’t push a stance one way or another. It’s a personal choice based on facts presented, just like a general election. I honestly think sporting bodies and corporations who come out and push the Yes vote will actually do the Yes vote harm, rather than good.
So, I always feel the need to state that I don’t like Dutton, can’t stand him in fact. I am also generally a Labor voter. But I find it hard to disagree with some of these points.
Does anyone really think the result is going to be “decisive” for the Yes case? I feel the best case scenario based on recent polls is a narrow victory. For a Referendum this isn’t a good result. Just look at the Brexit vote. A narrow victory either way simply isn’t a good result for anyone. I also think Labor are increasingly worried that the Yes vote will either lose, or just scrape over the line. I received an automated phone poll the other night that was obviously from Labor, asking about voting intentions, and even posing the question “Is there a chance you could change your mind?”. It sounded desperate. Dutton’s question is valid - if the government thinks it’s likely to fail or be extremely close, should they really proceed?
I think Labor needs to be clear on what the voice is truly about and define it proper if they want to romp home the Yes vote.
Dutton’s tactics are nothing more than dog-whistling culture wars that he and the Coalition seem hellbent on fighting and we can’t have that winning over something meaningful for our Indigenous people. Having said that, as I said again, Labor needs to make their case clear and make it clear that the voice is something that is significant in a positive way.
Maybe, and maybe they need to do this, they could also rub it into the likes of Hanson, Dutton and Thorpe about how they cannot be trusted on Aboriginal issues based on their history.
I agree Labor need to better explain it, but they are evading the issue really and trying to use emotion rather than explain the facts. While I definitely have seen the Coalition and Dutton use dog-whistling culture wars on numerous occasions, it’s not all that way this time. They are actually raising practical problems that will likely emerge. Just trying to pass everything off as dog-whistling isn’t going to help the Yes cause. For example, it is a fact that High Court challenges are possible - and likely. People can’t just fob that off. Also, it’s very likely that most people support recognition - and that would likely romp home - but not the Voice element. Dutton pointing that out isn’t dog-whistling.
It would most likely be because once again, Labor hasn’t explained this one thoroughly and clearly which they REALLY need to do. People want better outcomes for Indigenous people but they need to know what they’re voting for.
Dutton’s concerns in that regard might make sense but I’ve been watching Question Time this week and all Coalition MPs have been asking beyond stupid questions about what the voice can or cannot do with things like Interest rate, Australia Day etc. As much as I admire Linda Burney for standing up to their nonsense, it would be even more effective if she clearly outlined the functionality of the voice (like how it only provides advice to the government according to the representatives appointed by locals).
And to those who says what about other voices and ethnic groups, I think most of our constitution and organisations within the community already cover them quite adequately and our government does a good job with multiculturalism already. Indigenous issues on the other hand have been forgotten or left out in the cold for so long and I think with a sensible approach, I believe it’s time for a change.
I also note there is already a National Indigenous Australians Agency created in 2019 whose role is “works in genuine partnership to enable the self-determination and aspirations of First Nations communities. We lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.”
“The Executive Order gives the NIAA a number of functions, including:
Would this bureaucracy be abolished with the clear double up in scope?
It’s a good question. I suspect the NIAA would “morph” into the Voice.
Surprised there isn’t a lot more chatter in here about the referendum given recent polling results. I’ve noticed a change in language from Albo since the latest polls showing a Yes vote now looking less likely. He’s now saying stuff like “it’s now up to the Australian people”. To me that means he thinks it’s unlikely to get up and he’s preparing that narrative. Also I hear from sources it will be in 12 weeks.
Just as I feared, the No campaign are now using racist and dog-whistling tactics to bait the Australian people into fear and submission to their cause, instead of pointing out the negatives of the voice itself. Shameful stuff from these extreme nutjobs. Clearly respectful and civilised debate has gone out of the window with antics like these.
The Yes campaign needs to ramp up their effort big time and Albo and co needs to release everything about the Voice so we know what we’re voting for. If the No vote prevails then it’s also indirectly an endorsement of the vile views held by the extreme far right extremists like Hanson and Dutton, and we don’t want that.
The Yes campaign is hopeless. They are just pushing the “right thing to do” and “seize the moment” line. They aren’t explaining how it will work practically, and I fear it’s because they don’t know. What we actually need is a few case studies, not grand statements that try to guilt people into voting yes. That won’t wash with people. People who are on the fence and have concerns are being made to feel they are “racist”, which just isn’t on. In my view the biggest decider for many people is that they’re afraid of putting something into the Constitution that can’t be backed out if it does turn into a complete disaster or just doesn’t work.
Agree with all this.
I’m all for a voice to succeed (as everyone’s aware by now) for there to be greater support for Indigenous Australians and I don’t want to see the No side with some of the most divisive figures win out with their conservative and discriminatory views about this group (amongst others).
But the Yes Campaign is very far behind at the moment.
The thing to remember though Tom is that if No does win in the end, I firmly believe it won’t be because of those divisive figures. I think the majority of people who may end up voting No are not aligned with those discriminatory views, they are voting No for other (pragmatic) reasons.
It might well be but it will also be viewed as a ‘win’ for the likes of Hanson, Dutton, Thorpe, Price etc. who have endorsed the No vote, whether we like it or not. For example, I can just see Dutton touting himself and blowing his tyres with how they could defeat the government instead of criticising the voice model itself.
And that’s my problem with some of these people. The other day Dutton said something about how he doesn’t want to hand over money to pay for companies that are ‘activist CEOs’. I mean how did he ever get that connection? If companies want to endorse a particular stance then that is their choice and shouldn’t be criticised by the likes of Dutton. So much for the party of freedom and conscience. And before anyone says anything, I don’t agree with labelling people as racists if they vote No.
Where’s the criticism of the voice based on practicality and effectiveness? I haven’t heard a lot about that whilst all I’ve heard is that it will be divisive and it is a stunt etc which I’ve heard and seen enough.
In all honesty I just want to see this referendum over and done with so that I can stop hearing about some of the absolute tripe coming from the No side and the absolutely unnecessary division within the Yes campaign.
But anyway, having said all that, I thank you @Brianc68 for bringing some well needed respectful debate and perspectives across on this topic. If only those who are actually campaigning on this were this respectful.
I don’t think it is completely unreasonable to suspect a proud No voter of racist ideation. If people have concerns about detail or implementation, then the forum for that is at the next election when the parties are thrashing out those issues. The referendum is a vote on the general principal of whether we want the voice at all or not.
we’ll only know in hindsight. in the early 20th century there must have been a large contingent that thought it was normal to oppose women’s voting rights, an obviously sexist position looking back from the 21st century. We are now entering a period where it is becoming more clear that opposing same sex marriage was homophobic, even though just 6 years ago it was a legitimate opposing view. 20 years from now, opposing the voice will look very different to the current conversation.
