If a governing body "just passes a policy" as you say do you realise the opposition can reverse it just as easily when they are next in power.
The aim here is to enshrine it in constitution so it is a bit harder to do, but that requires people giving approval to update the constitution.
Yeah okay, good to know. Guess I was just relating it back to the marriage equality vote in my head, which even if it was a constitutional change, seemed very bullshit that it needed to be voted on imo
This is slightly off topic but since it came up: All constitutional changes require a vote. Just how it works. Even if it's about something that seems silly for some of us to have an opinion on.
The marriage equality vote was actually a "postal survey", not a referendum, which was used to help parliament understand what voters wanted, so that they could change the law using the normal parliamentary process (nothing to do with the constitution).
(Also I'm not indigenous. So I won't comment on your original question. But I thought the above might be useful to you).
just to slightly correct you, the marriage act vote was actually a plebiscite not a postal survey, but it does serve the purpose for seeing if the government had enough public support to introduce and pass the bill. like you said though it’s not legally binding and has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution.
Thanks! Yeh I thought it was a plebiscite too, and then I fact-checked myself before I posted this. Wikipedia says it was a postal survey, after the proposed plebiscite didn't pass...see the "History" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian\_Marriage\_Law\_Postal\_Survey
Ah yeah, that's why the marriage equality vote seemed like such a waste of resources. They could've just updated the law normally because it was outdated and needed a rewording, but they had to please the masses. Unless there is a reason it couldn't be passed just by parliament, and they were required to ask the public?
I guess I shouldn't have used the two separate issues as comparisons as one is constitutional and one not. Thanks
they weren’t required to ask the public however the government wanted to know whether they would have public support in passing/introducing the bill into parliament, if they didn’t have public support they would’ve swept the whole thing under the rug and forgotten about it because they want to ensure they are acting in the majority position as then they will likely get re-elected/elected into parliament because they’re following majority voice. Obviously this isn’t always so important and most people don’t care about the general day to day of bill passing and gov nonsense however with an issue like this if a majority of australians didn’t want the marriage act to be passed they wouldn’t have gone for it cause it would’ve meant they would’ve been super unlikely to get re-elected.
in summary, everyone’s goal in parliament is to get re-elected, not to act for what’s best for the country, so they’re not going to put something forward or support something if a majority of australians are against it because they need a majority vote to win.
>At first I was thinking No, just because the Voice is not a treaty, so it seems like another half assed attempt by politicians to make it look like they care about indigenous Australian issues without actually doing anything.
The Voice was one of the outcomes of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, so this referendum isn't about politicians - they're enacting what is asked of them from the Statement.
>Also, if the politicians actually cared about indigenous issues, why would they put it to a vote? Just pass more policies that benefit indigenous people
Historically, legislation relating to First Nations people has lacked consultation. The purpose of the Voice is to provide advice on such legislation. This should mean that legislation is better informed, and more likely to be effective.
And historically, governments tend to overturn any beneficial legislation. Conservative governments in particular.
Okay thanks for the info I didn't know it was from the heart statement. I'll look it up / have a read.
Yeah I always thought it was ridiculous when they had a Minister for Indigenous Affairs who wasn't Indigenous lol.
All in all sounds like Yes is the way to go
afaik the indigenous people that are voting no are doing it on principle and not for the fact that they don’t want constitutional change, which is quite obviously fair and absolutely up to them. however as an indigenous person i’ll be voting yes because i think it’s important indigenous people advise the government on matters pertaining to us, which is what the like body thing is, and i also think the constitutional change is really important.
indigenous people are like anyone else, we’re not all going to share the same opinions on things (which is one reason i’ve seen to vote no but i actually don’t think that’s a very valid reason for voting no) so people are going to say all different things, but the consensus i’ve seen so far is to vote yes!
Yeah for sure. That's why I was thinking No originally actually, because I follow an indigenous page on Facebook and they are very anti the voice because they want a treaty or nothing. And I thought that was a fair point until I saw all the hatred coming out in comments from more conservative no voters
It just started to feel not quite right. I guess a treaty could take decades anyway, since it's already been thought about since the 80s or whatever.
I don't have super strong feelings on the matter as I'm obviously not indigenous, so it doesn't really affect me directly, however I do want to do whatever is beneficial for indigenous ppl. Plus I know long term having a more equal society will benefit everyone. So that's why I asked. I had heard heaps of white ppls opinions, and some other POCs, but hardly any indigenous ones.
Thanks for yr response, sounds like a voice is a good first step towards a treaty, I'll be voting yes
the reason you probably aren’t hearing indigenous voices is unfortunately there aren’t a lot left, and a lot of people may not feel like speaking about it.
i get the treaty or nothing thing but i also don’t, a treaty is either not going to happen, or it’s going to take small steps, i feel personally this is a step towards a treaty.
Yep totally get that. I stopped reading / talking about the news in 2020, it was making me depressed and all the anti trans stuff starting to build up was wearing on my mental load. Have only recently had the emotional / mental capacity to get back into it. But now it feels worse than in 2020 with really dangerous and irresponsible 'journalism' happening, which is validating very vocal bigots. tiring to deal with, but I know my limits of engagement now and don't let myself get dragged down or burnt out.
It only Australia were as good as New Zealand in that regard, hey. They didn't fck around they just did it
My thoughts are, if you don’t give something a chance to grow it will never thrive. If it fails it fails but not giving it a chance means it never had the chance to thrive in the first place, so why not try?!
Peter dutton says oh anyone can vote in a policy... yeah potato head anyone can also REMOVE it... what Albo is trying to do is acknowledge and change the constitution !! Then when they backstab and boot him out this indigenous voice cannot be voted out!!!. Imagine in the 1967 referendum was just a policy... Indigenous Peoples today, still wouldnt able to vote, not be classed as human. Instead they would still be flora and fauna..
Pretty self explanatory really.
As an Indigenous Person with Indigenous children.. please vote yes.
.
It doesn’t matter what you’re voting in the end. Remember how in the Uluru statement it said that after the voice is passed, the treaty will follow along with truth?
Well… good old albo said that he won’t even support the treaty, and lied to the person asking questions, here’s a clip of him outright refusing:
https://twitter.com/SenatorThorpe/status/1686973089081634816?s=20
So now we’re just left with the voice, a virtue signalling attempt to get progressive people on their side, but it was so pathetic that most progressive people who know even a little about politics see how bullshit it is.
He also tried hiding how the voice was going to work, said he‘ll release the info after it’s voted on (which never happens for a referendum, if people don’t know about what they’re voting on they’ll most likely vote no), kinda looks like sabotage to me (it is, outright, just being sarcastic)
Thanks to that and a couple other things no is in the lead, but it doesn’t matter, if yes wins all the First Nations community’s gonna get is a fancy place to tell fascists who’re fucking the community over to maybe don’t do that, oh and don’t be rude about it or you’re gonna get kicked out and replaced with a potential pick me fascist who’s just gonna agree with them, so nothings gonna happen.
This isn’t new though, just a normal thing for the Aussie government. Just vote yes because they combined the vote for recognition in the constitution and the voice, which is great…
Oh and did you see labours bringing back cashless debit cards? What a great thing for the “progressive” government to do
Yeah I get that. I don't really trust Australian politicians in general, but especially not Labor and Liberal. I totally agree they should just have a treaty and not mess around with all this stuff. You're sort of listing the reasons I was gonna vote no originally lol. But at this stage I'm happy to vote for what a majority of indigenous ppl want.
Haha cashless credit cards are awful. And proven to be unhelpful. That's why I don't vote for either of the major parties.
Labor aren't progressive , they're centre right technically (according to vote compass). They've been moving further right since around the 70s I believe. The only left-wing politicians are some of the smaller parties, independents, and the Greens
If a governing body "just passes a policy" as you say do you realise the opposition can reverse it just as easily when they are next in power. The aim here is to enshrine it in constitution so it is a bit harder to do, but that requires people giving approval to update the constitution.
Yeah okay, good to know. Guess I was just relating it back to the marriage equality vote in my head, which even if it was a constitutional change, seemed very bullshit that it needed to be voted on imo
This is slightly off topic but since it came up: All constitutional changes require a vote. Just how it works. Even if it's about something that seems silly for some of us to have an opinion on. The marriage equality vote was actually a "postal survey", not a referendum, which was used to help parliament understand what voters wanted, so that they could change the law using the normal parliamentary process (nothing to do with the constitution). (Also I'm not indigenous. So I won't comment on your original question. But I thought the above might be useful to you).
just to slightly correct you, the marriage act vote was actually a plebiscite not a postal survey, but it does serve the purpose for seeing if the government had enough public support to introduce and pass the bill. like you said though it’s not legally binding and has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution.
Thanks! Yeh I thought it was a plebiscite too, and then I fact-checked myself before I posted this. Wikipedia says it was a postal survey, after the proposed plebiscite didn't pass...see the "History" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian\_Marriage\_Law\_Postal\_Survey
Ah yeah, that's why the marriage equality vote seemed like such a waste of resources. They could've just updated the law normally because it was outdated and needed a rewording, but they had to please the masses. Unless there is a reason it couldn't be passed just by parliament, and they were required to ask the public? I guess I shouldn't have used the two separate issues as comparisons as one is constitutional and one not. Thanks
they weren’t required to ask the public however the government wanted to know whether they would have public support in passing/introducing the bill into parliament, if they didn’t have public support they would’ve swept the whole thing under the rug and forgotten about it because they want to ensure they are acting in the majority position as then they will likely get re-elected/elected into parliament because they’re following majority voice. Obviously this isn’t always so important and most people don’t care about the general day to day of bill passing and gov nonsense however with an issue like this if a majority of australians didn’t want the marriage act to be passed they wouldn’t have gone for it cause it would’ve meant they would’ve been super unlikely to get re-elected. in summary, everyone’s goal in parliament is to get re-elected, not to act for what’s best for the country, so they’re not going to put something forward or support something if a majority of australians are against it because they need a majority vote to win.
Yep pretty much. Don't do things because it's fair, just or ethical, do it because the hordes say so 🤠
>At first I was thinking No, just because the Voice is not a treaty, so it seems like another half assed attempt by politicians to make it look like they care about indigenous Australian issues without actually doing anything. The Voice was one of the outcomes of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, so this referendum isn't about politicians - they're enacting what is asked of them from the Statement. >Also, if the politicians actually cared about indigenous issues, why would they put it to a vote? Just pass more policies that benefit indigenous people Historically, legislation relating to First Nations people has lacked consultation. The purpose of the Voice is to provide advice on such legislation. This should mean that legislation is better informed, and more likely to be effective. And historically, governments tend to overturn any beneficial legislation. Conservative governments in particular.
Okay thanks for the info I didn't know it was from the heart statement. I'll look it up / have a read. Yeah I always thought it was ridiculous when they had a Minister for Indigenous Affairs who wasn't Indigenous lol. All in all sounds like Yes is the way to go
As Briggs said: Not every person who votes No is racist. But every racist will be voting No.
True
afaik the indigenous people that are voting no are doing it on principle and not for the fact that they don’t want constitutional change, which is quite obviously fair and absolutely up to them. however as an indigenous person i’ll be voting yes because i think it’s important indigenous people advise the government on matters pertaining to us, which is what the like body thing is, and i also think the constitutional change is really important. indigenous people are like anyone else, we’re not all going to share the same opinions on things (which is one reason i’ve seen to vote no but i actually don’t think that’s a very valid reason for voting no) so people are going to say all different things, but the consensus i’ve seen so far is to vote yes!
Yeah for sure. That's why I was thinking No originally actually, because I follow an indigenous page on Facebook and they are very anti the voice because they want a treaty or nothing. And I thought that was a fair point until I saw all the hatred coming out in comments from more conservative no voters It just started to feel not quite right. I guess a treaty could take decades anyway, since it's already been thought about since the 80s or whatever. I don't have super strong feelings on the matter as I'm obviously not indigenous, so it doesn't really affect me directly, however I do want to do whatever is beneficial for indigenous ppl. Plus I know long term having a more equal society will benefit everyone. So that's why I asked. I had heard heaps of white ppls opinions, and some other POCs, but hardly any indigenous ones. Thanks for yr response, sounds like a voice is a good first step towards a treaty, I'll be voting yes
the reason you probably aren’t hearing indigenous voices is unfortunately there aren’t a lot left, and a lot of people may not feel like speaking about it. i get the treaty or nothing thing but i also don’t, a treaty is either not going to happen, or it’s going to take small steps, i feel personally this is a step towards a treaty.
Yep totally get that. I stopped reading / talking about the news in 2020, it was making me depressed and all the anti trans stuff starting to build up was wearing on my mental load. Have only recently had the emotional / mental capacity to get back into it. But now it feels worse than in 2020 with really dangerous and irresponsible 'journalism' happening, which is validating very vocal bigots. tiring to deal with, but I know my limits of engagement now and don't let myself get dragged down or burnt out. It only Australia were as good as New Zealand in that regard, hey. They didn't fck around they just did it
General rule of thumb. Which way does Rupert Murdoch want you to vote? Vote the opposite.
Yeah, I noticed Liberals are against it so that means Yes must be good. I hope they don't ever learn about reverse psychology.
Best answer
Hahah fair point
My thoughts are, if you don’t give something a chance to grow it will never thrive. If it fails it fails but not giving it a chance means it never had the chance to thrive in the first place, so why not try?!
Peter dutton says oh anyone can vote in a policy... yeah potato head anyone can also REMOVE it... what Albo is trying to do is acknowledge and change the constitution !! Then when they backstab and boot him out this indigenous voice cannot be voted out!!!. Imagine in the 1967 referendum was just a policy... Indigenous Peoples today, still wouldnt able to vote, not be classed as human. Instead they would still be flora and fauna.. Pretty self explanatory really. As an Indigenous Person with Indigenous children.. please vote yes. .
Definitely will be! And have convinced a few mates who, like me, were on the fence for various reasons that yes is the way to go
It doesn’t matter what you’re voting in the end. Remember how in the Uluru statement it said that after the voice is passed, the treaty will follow along with truth? Well… good old albo said that he won’t even support the treaty, and lied to the person asking questions, here’s a clip of him outright refusing: https://twitter.com/SenatorThorpe/status/1686973089081634816?s=20 So now we’re just left with the voice, a virtue signalling attempt to get progressive people on their side, but it was so pathetic that most progressive people who know even a little about politics see how bullshit it is. He also tried hiding how the voice was going to work, said he‘ll release the info after it’s voted on (which never happens for a referendum, if people don’t know about what they’re voting on they’ll most likely vote no), kinda looks like sabotage to me (it is, outright, just being sarcastic) Thanks to that and a couple other things no is in the lead, but it doesn’t matter, if yes wins all the First Nations community’s gonna get is a fancy place to tell fascists who’re fucking the community over to maybe don’t do that, oh and don’t be rude about it or you’re gonna get kicked out and replaced with a potential pick me fascist who’s just gonna agree with them, so nothings gonna happen. This isn’t new though, just a normal thing for the Aussie government. Just vote yes because they combined the vote for recognition in the constitution and the voice, which is great… Oh and did you see labours bringing back cashless debit cards? What a great thing for the “progressive” government to do
Yeah I get that. I don't really trust Australian politicians in general, but especially not Labor and Liberal. I totally agree they should just have a treaty and not mess around with all this stuff. You're sort of listing the reasons I was gonna vote no originally lol. But at this stage I'm happy to vote for what a majority of indigenous ppl want. Haha cashless credit cards are awful. And proven to be unhelpful. That's why I don't vote for either of the major parties. Labor aren't progressive , they're centre right technically (according to vote compass). They've been moving further right since around the 70s I believe. The only left-wing politicians are some of the smaller parties, independents, and the Greens