No it isn’t, it is a vote on whether we want the constitution to be altered, to put it into the constitution. Big difference. As I say, they could effectively establish it tomorrow if they really wanted to but because of the past failures they want to shoe horn it into the bureaucracy so it can’t be touched.
I feel like the way this referendum is going is a pretty good microcosm of the sad state of modern politics in this country in general.
You have many on the left/yes campaign who are unwilling to engage respectfully with those who are undecided or on the no side, or who want more information, choosing instead to patronise them or label them as ‘racist’ (or both).
Then you have the no campaign whose leaders are spreading insinuations and half-truths, and using fear and misinformation rather than any form of logical arguments in their favour (such as on the lack of detail provided so far, or on how effective the voice will be).
Both sides of the debate seriously need to lift their game and fast, I fear otherwise we will continue with this race to the bottom.
No, it’s really not. The Referendum is to alter the constutition. And that cannot be undone without another Referendum. If it doesn’t work or has unintended consequences it can’t simply be removed.
For those that argue the Voice won’t result in Court challenges I give you one of the many, many cases before Canadian courts that cite both their Treaty and their 1982 Constitutional change.
Lawsuits initiated by Canada’s First Nations have been ongoing since the early 2000s around the Duty to Consult Indigenous peoples.
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201917E
It is very, very disingenuous of the government to suggest High Court challenges are unlikely.
A good incentive to ensure whichever government gets to enact it gets it right, rather than previously legislated bodies like ATSIC which as many argue can be established without a referendum but can just a easily be abolished at the whim of the government of the day with a friendly Senate.
Or deal with decades of lawsuits and Court challenges like the Canadian experiences as shown above.
you both say i am wrong, but nothing about your comments is in contradiction to mine.
…and? Who is claiming there would be no lawsuits? I would fully expect anything in the constitution to be challenged and be deliberated in court, its one of the constitutions’ main functions.
Albanese.
If the Canadian experience is anything to go by I would hardly think endless Court challenges is a desirable outcome. And who do you think will be paying the legal bills? Think about it…
You may find this interesting, I found it quite an informative read and relevant to the proposal.
Both quite well written in my opinion. The Yes side will say the No essay is a scare campaign of course, and the No campaign will claim the Yes essay tries to guilt people in to voting yes.
Disagree - I think both are equally poor, the Yes pamphlet phones it in with platitudes and expects people to follow along accepting without anything of substance, while the No pamphlet is full of questionable or potentially incorrect claims that seem to focus on it being divisive (which seems to be the main tenet of the No’s position). I suppose that was to be expected when you’ve asked people to vote for something that’s nothing more than a concept.
Meanwhile, the alleged “fact-checking” of both pamphlets by several media outlets is a whole other level of poor.
The Yes pamphlet is certainly full of platitudes but came across more as a “guilt” trip to me.
Yes, the No pamphlet focused on the divisive aspect and the potential for legal challenges - but those are the two things most people are most concerned about, so why wouldn’t they hone in on that?
I was commenting on the writing style and understandability aspect when I said well-written. I was expecting less. To be honest I was expecting them both to be more “dumbed down”.
The latest polls are a complete disaster for the Yes proponents. The Referendum has no chance in my opinion. Maybe this is a wake up call to the Yes campaign to actually listen to why people are voting No and not tell them. They have to at least consider the view of many that it’s just a bad idea.
It would be a disaster for reconciliation if the Yes side keeps playing deaf to the fact that most are voting no because they don’t know what they’re voting for.
Also if it fails then it would be a disaster for Albo and his Prime Ministership. We could well be on our way to Dutton as PM if the No side wins.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Dutton and co say they support constitutional recognition, yet they NEVER did anything when they were in power for check notes 9 years. And then they want to talk about division. This is the same opposition that set up one of the most divisive public votes in the Same Sex marriage plebiscite. That’s more than enough for me to not take them seriously.
Albanese deserves everything coming to him if the Yes vote is resoundingly defeated.
I still don’t even know what this “yes” is. If they want us to vote yes they need to tell us what we’re voting for. I shouldn’t have to do the research myself.
What am I voting yes for? Until I know it’ll be a no. Seems I’m not alone.
This is the problem. I spoke to my mum about it recently - before our chat she was saying that she is voting yes but didn’t know what exactly she was voting yes to.
I told her to do some research into it, and she’s now undecided because she can’t find a solidifed answer to what “yes” actually means for us all.
A shoe horn of something into our founding document for something that has failed numerous times in the past.
The Labor leadership would have had to consider the move to put it in the constitution may backfire in their face prior to announcement pre-election, but it was their call so they will have to take that back to their supporters and explain why they jeopardised so-called reconciliation by going too far.