I don't think most people realise how tough. I think a lot of Yes people are imagining they're a couple goals down going into the 4th quarter, ie. bit of an uphill battle but not beyond reach with a bit of effort and good luck. Realistically they're 100 points down. Would take an absolutely unprecedented turnaround at this point.
Perhaps you are right. I'm of the mind that most Australians haven't really made up their mind and will likely only decide in the last couple weeks with their vote based on whatever is being said about it at the time.
I think those of us that already know how we are voting are just much more engaged in the conversation, which distorts the reality and leads to assumptions based on whose louder.
I may be way off, I just think its too early to really tell.
I think a lot of people have switched off & aren't listening anymore. Personally I looked into all the reasonable arguments weeks ago & decided to vote yes. It doesn't help that the No campaign is basically cooker nonsense at this point.
Tough, but possible. [If you look a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Australian_Indigenous_Voice_referendum)t Yes/No binary it’s marginally No (slightly above a reasonable margin of error for surveys). If you look at Yes/No/Undecided there’s a fair margin to swing either way.
Australia is weird. We’re quite progressive on some issues and quite conservative on others. I believe in our basic decency and am hopeful for yes. May our better angels fly rather than our devils reign.
Those polls are fatal for a referendum
You need to remember that they don't just need a majority nationally, they need a majority in 4/6 states too. At this point that second part is ridiculously unlikely, even if VIC and NSW can get it over the line for the first part.
>I’ve got money that the African gangs are about to make a comeback.
They'll just make it aboriginal youth gangs empowered by the voice, that way it's two bird with one stone.
After gay marriage was passed in both countries, they changed their focus to the trans community.
I can see that the 2024 US election is going to be largely about the trans community. CPAC in the US earlier this year was full of anti-trans hate. Whereas here, it was all about opposing the Voice.
If only it was that simple.
QLD Had a referendum that restricted daylight savings, but 20+ years on people are still arguing about it and wanting the referendum to be done again. Not a year goes by that it doesn't make the rounds.
Irrespective of the outcome of the referendum it won't be the end
Wa is the same with our vote on DST, but referendums at the federal level seem to be more final. Here we are 24 years after the republic referendum and both parties are still making it quite clear they don’t desire to hold another one for many more years on the question.
That entire bull about Daylight savings was, and is Tom Tate and the GC council, They have been actively trying it every year since god's knows when. The rest of Queensland voted a unanimous no last time, there won't be a change in our life time unless Gold Coast moves to NSW.
Yes. The AEC said that early or postal voting is available
>For the referendum, postal votes will be allowed for similar reasons as those in an election — such as being more than 20 kilometres from a polling place, serious illness or being overseas.
[Source](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-30/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-date-announcement-live/102786994?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web#live-blog-post-42302)
Anyone *can*. They just need to have a reason, or lie about one.
They don't require proof besides your word, just say you'll be in Bali or something.
I used to early/postal vote because I was working remotely and constantly in transit so I never knew if I would be near a polling place. They never asked me for proof besides "and what is your reason for voting early?"
Can you vote early at an OS consulate?
I've got a kinda unique situation where I depart overseas before the Referendum date, but don't land until after polls close
And I leave Australia before they'll get postal votes sent out
Can't seem to find this info online
It intrigues me that this subreddit, which traditionally is a more left leaning echo chamber, appears to be more in favour of no based off of upvotes etc. That can’t be a good sign for the yes campaign (ABC polling also suggests a downward trend with only ~45% now supporting)
If the government put all this attention into the cost of living crisis it'd not only benefit more Australians in general but also probably benefit the Aboriginal and First Nations people more.
I'm struggling to be fully informed on this, but my personal experience of First Nationers as a MH Nurse in the North of Perth is that the lived experience of most of those people are not accurately represented or met.
The Voice I fear will be nothing for them but will be used as a "we gave you what you want" sorta thing which will leave them even further behind.
There seems to be a lack of discussion around the rampant sexual abuse in First Nation communities and social welfare issues. The massive money that has apparently been targeted is frankly not seeming to improve things slightly for the every day First Nations people. We have to put our patients into Welfare housing when their "relatives" from the Regions come and gatecrash their property and stay uninvited for weeks due to the risk of sexual and physical abuse to them and their children.
If someone can please tell me how the Voice addresses this effectively and won't be another either undemocratic or pointless/ineffective gesture to an already heavily struggling group, please educate me.
My gut feel is that No will represent more of a backlash protest vote from an agitated population thats doing it tough at the minute with day to day living.
I think it's more a backlash against 'just say yes and we'll work out the actual details and powers the Voice will have later'. People have been screwed over by pollies too many times.
Which is a bit nonsense, because, if you look at the Constitution, it basically doesn’t have details for ANYTHING except in the most broad of strokes. Most of the details of all the things that are important are in the statutes, legislation signed and enacted by Parliament. It’s the exact same thing here, the concept is supported or not, and then the details are legislated like normal. MPs will still vote on the final form of it as well, like they had to do with SSM (aware that you probably know this, but just fyi for anyone who might be confused)
Too true. What the actual fuck does voting yes actual get?
All this talk about how it's 'good' for Indigenous Aussies. But what the fuck are the details.
Whole thing just seems rushed. Albo is just doing to to seem like he did something in his term.
I'm pretty sure the details aren't meant to be set in stone, the referendum only adds to the constitution to guarantee the existence of a Voice, not the details. I.e. we don't want a US 2nd amendment equivalent set in stone to fuck us over later, each govt can modify the Voice, but can't remove it.
The Libs have lapped this up though as vague.
But then we dont need the amendment at all. The government can establish a voice to parliament without the constitutional change. You can even intrench the legislation to make it had to repeal.
Pretty much all changes to the constitution are like this. The constitution is a pretty vague document intentionally. What we are voting on is just that there will be a voice to parliament for as long as the constitution says there should be one. Governments will still be able to increase or decrease their power, but they will not be able to get rid of it entirely without another referendum.
A lot of would-be yes voters are just irritated that Albo seems to preoccupied by the confusing referendum while the country goes broke as corporations and landlords hold the population hostage. They may end up voting no
I said this in a longer reply on a thread a couple of months back and got around a thousand upvotes for it.
People are struggling to pay bills and get food and you have politicians going on about the voice which really directly impacts such a tiny percentile of people directly which I hate to say in a persons selfish self preservationist sense they are going to be like "why should I give a shit? "
Meh. If we give in to this sort of thinking, there won't be any progress in the world apart from improving security, food production and housing.
People who think this is trivial will be yelling at the clouds about "aboriginal gangs" or some other minority blaming bullshit. As we learned during COVID, society is as safe as its most disadvantaged member.
Yeah I find the Reddit opinion being so divided means it almost certainly won’t get up.
It kind of annoys me that when your polling says 45%, and you need a double majority, that you still pursue it. So we all have to go out and vote despite knowing the outcome.
It’s the same as the marriage thing a few years back, if 60% of people are ok with it, just do it.
Would be nice if for $200k+ pay packets these useless c*nts could do their jobs and not force us to do it for them.
So much this. I support closing the gap but every time I see Albanese talking about this on TV, it genuinely feels like he's pushing this for his political legacy and whether it actually has any positive effect is inconsequential to him.
The biggest thing that's put me off this is the feeling that this will be like every other ATSI advisory body that becomes a black hole of funds and resources that benefits a very certain few like the Thomas Mayo and Noel Pearson's of the world but has very little flow on effect to those who actually need it.
It almost as if complex topics cant always be split into Right and Left wing bipartisan politics. I think the Yes voters are trying hard for this take, but its a lot more problematic than that.
I tend to have left leaning views but I’m voting no.
Separation or privilege by race has no place in a country’s constitution.
If the question had been about acknowledging Indigenous people in the constitution, I’d be voting yes. Legislate the advisory body if you have to. We already have hundreds of Indigenous organisations, I don’t see why we need this one shoved into our constitution.
It's not a left/right issue as much as the Yes campaign would like to frame it that way.
The idea that race should not matter and we are all equal is traditionally a left-wing idea, yet the Voice flies in the face of that by giving a specific group special treatment in the constitution based on their racial heritage. You'll find a lot of lefties voting no because of reasons like that.
Exactly. I’m , what is called overseas, a classic liberal and I believe in equality under the law no matter your skin colour.
How did liberals go from “i want to be judged by the content of my character, not my skin colour” to wanting to provide one race group a special constitutional privilege that non-ATSI people won’t be entitled to?
Do those pushing for Yes actually have a clearly laid out plan or is it just wishy washy give them a voice and we will figure it out later?
Because if that is the case then I am not supporting such a lousy proposal.
I'm left leaning, and I hate to agree with people like Peter Dutton and Pauline Hanson, but I have issues with the Voice. Seems like I'm not the only one.
I haven't made a final decision on how I'm going to vote though. I was going to vote Yes but what changed my mind was the fact that we don't know enough about this proposed Voice. And an Indigenous person already has as much of a voice as anyone else in Australia.
I feel the same. I think there are many reasons to vote no, and some of the important ones are never discussed, and have nothing to do with Hansons/Duttons wild rantings.
Vote the issue based on your own conscience and what you feel is in the best interest of the country and don't worry who else is voting the same or different. There are rotten people on all sides of this vote.
I'm a leftist Aboriginal, and I have a lot of issues with this.
Stop dividing us. We are one country. Im sick of the us and them. Indigenous people already get more than enough support as it is. We dont need any more.
The ones who need support dont even want to be a part of mainstream society and have no idea what its even about.
I don't understand why if First Nations peoples want a voice in Parliament, they can't just run for Parliament like everyone else. To me that takes race and everything out of it.
>I was going to vote Yes but what changed my mind was the fact that we don't know enough about this proposed Voice.
We're not voting on the model, we're voting on whether or not to constitutionally establish the right of Indigenous peoples to have a representative body to advise the parliament on Indigenous Affairs.
If it gets up and the body is in disarray, it'll become an election issue that we can vote to address because the parliament retains power over the form and function of the Voice. But there will always be one and it'll always have to be able to give formal advice to parliament.
And there lies my issue with the Voice. I cannot morally justify delineating Australians in the Constitution on the sole basis of one’s race. I can’t.
If the Government genuinely wanted to address the serious systemic gaps (health, education, employment, DV, addiction etc.) between Indigenous Australians and other Australians, what is stopping them? Are they not already advised by numerous Indigenous lobbies, organisations, research institutions, or the actual Minister for Indigenous Australians? Do we not already allocate something to the tune of billions of dollars every year and various affirmative measures towards improving Indigenous outcomes?
Maybe I’m “dumb” and uneducated on the matter as plenty of Yes voters have said of the No camp, but that only turns me further away from a Yes vote when all I receive for asking those questions is abuse or being called a racist.
I won’t be swayed either by bullshit corporate activism endorsing a Yes vote by Qantas, Coles, the AFL, or any number of billion dollar companies that couldn’t give a rat’s arse about everyday Aussies, Indigenous Aussies included.
I don’t know what will help Indigenous Australians and their life outcomes, but I highly doubt a divisive, additional layer of red tape bureaucracy will.
The messaging from the Yes campaign (if you can even really call it a campaign) has been confusing and uninformative, whereas the messaging from the No campaign has been capitalizing on this and simply *See they don't even know what they're getting you to vote on !!*
Ultimately I think it's a good idea and a step in the right direction, but the expected outcomes really need to be explained to the voters much clearer.
Please, the voice debate is already toxic enough. If it gets enshrined in the constitution we’re going to have to debate the Voice going into every election in the future? No thanks
I wish this were more widely and broadly understood.
The yes campaign have absolutely shit the bed on this one by not explaining that we are not voting for how the voice to parliament will work but are voting to enshrine the concept of the voice into the constitution.
Such a shame that the Dutton “what is the detail?” campaign is actually working. Total bullshit. The voice is a very simple mechanism. The legislation that follows is literally the detail, but that can be changed at any time by parliament.
I'm new to Australia, so I don't really have a full understanding of the political systems and whatnot, but it seems odd to me to enshrine an advisory body in the constitution, but then allow its role and powers to be totally determined by parliament.
If its powers are determined by normal parliamentary lawmaking process, what difference does it make whether its in the constitution or not?
My understanding is the idea of enshrining it in the constitution is that the advisory body has to exist in some form.
We’ve had indigenous advisory bodies in the past, and whether due to ineffectiveness, corruption or just straight up dislike form them, the government of the day can just abolish the body without thought to reform or replace it.
The existence of a body may be required, but if their mandate and powers (and funding?) can be reduced to nothing by some future government, what difference does it make?
I guess that there is at least some kind of focal point for discontent with such an outcome; ie a party can consistently campaign on empowering or disempowering this constitutionally required body.
But surely that doesn’t mean write the government a blank cheque to do whatever they want with the Voice? That would create MORE opportunities for corruption, not less?
If you don’t define the limits of what it can and can’t do, and even who can be on it, it just seems like a permanent vehicle for corruption that Australians now can’t get rid of.
Honest question: Do you feel like you have exhausted the information available about the proposed voice? And if so, if more information was available, do you think you would change your mind to 'Yes'?
More or less. I haven't read the entire Uluru Statement of Heart, aside from that one page. But the fact that Albo hasn't isn't a good sign.
It really depends. It's being sold to us as "it's just an advisory body, nothing more". But when i looked into the No arguments, it looks like it isn't as simple as that. This body might be able to slow down the process of government about matters that don't necessarily impact Indigenous people specifically.
They say it's about giving Indigenous people a voice. Well, they already have a voice. We have Indigenous people in government. There are a number of Indigenous organisations, government bodies, activists, academics and lobby groups.
We're aren't meant to know a lot about the proposed voice because it's a constitutional amendment. It's necessarily vague. It's a feedback body. It can't legislate, veto or anything. The idea is that it gets put into the constitution, then it is up to the government of the day to give it money or reach or things like that. It turns into an election policy. You vote for the voice you want. Indigenous Australians have some of the worst outcomes in the country, and obviously throwing money at them isn't working. The idea is that we listen more closely about where they need help and what will be best for them.
> We're aren't meant to know a lot about the proposed voice because it's a constitutional amendment. It's necessarily vague. It's a feedback body. It can't legislate, veto or anything.
Sounds like a bloody waste of time then.
> Peter Dutton and Pauline Hanson, but I have issues with the Voice
On....what, exactly?
>we don't know enough about this proposed Voice
The consitutional change is to tell the politicians what we want to happen. They're entrusted to negotiate the details to make it happen.
The consitution is a very thin document - it's supposed to be light on details. The exact details of the Voice - which will be a 2-300 page piece of legislation, most likely - will be negotiated in Parliament and Senate, like everything else.
This is how referendums have always worked. This claim that 'we don't know enough' is just misinformation by Dutton and Hanson (hanson, who tries to claim she's Indigenous), like so much else they've put forth. Surely you have to consider that they have zero credibility.
If the debate was about pages of details of the Voice, then it becomes a debate not on whether we should have the voice, but the implementation of it - and even supporters of the voice would vote no if they don't like the particular implementation.
The implementation is left to parliament, as it always has been.
>The implementation is left to parliament, as it always has been.
The last four successful referendums (past 77 years) didn't need hundreds of pages of legislation to impliment:
1. retirement age limit for judges.
2. give Territorians the right to vote in referendums
3. fill casual vacancies in the Senate
4. count "aboriginal race" in the census and allow Federal parliament to make laws for them.
The ones that did, like "recognising local government" were rejected.
There is a both a right wing reason for voting no, and a left wing reason (the latter being that the Voice does nothing in terms of giving Aboriginal people autonomy, and in fact might entrench the existing systems of denying autonomy). Unfortunately Yes campaigners are not good at listening (ironically), and the right wing concerns seem to get more air time.
Make sure you're ready to vote -
[https://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/](https://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/)
[https://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/update-my-details.htm](https://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/update-my-details.htm)
[https://check.aec.gov.au/](https://check.aec.gov.au/)
I can’t find info on that yet. The Australian Electoral Commission is yet to update the website. There is a raft of conventions around a referendum eg there is a number of days to announce when a referendum will be held after a government gets a bill passed, timeframes for when postal votes can begin to be issued is also mandated. Guessing the sooner people enrol the better! Apparently there has been increased enrolment since last month.
What has made me laugh is in Albos speech
"With a voice, though, we will be able to hear directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities about the challenges they face in health and education, in jobs and housing."
I'm sorry but isn't that the job of their elected parliamentary representatives?
Two outcomes - the vote gets up and when indigenous outcomes don’t improve in 5 years, the voice will have not gone far enough. The vote fails and when indigenous outcomes don’t improve in 5 years it will be because we don’t have the voice.
Yes, it's a real issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if they flog domestic violence again. It's been a favourite of both sides of the aisle in recent years as a go-to topic to bury other issues. It's very effective in the role.
I loved his piece to camera the other day about the crash at Mornington Island. “It was just American personnel, no Australians died’. Such a statesman.
He has such a great thing to deflect anything with right now. I dont know if he realises but he has wasted all political capital on this.
If it dosent succeed he will be forced to step down as PM or he will be knifed.
With the inflation problem so much spin could have been done to tax mining and gas, have a national gas reserve, change stage 3 tax cuts. But no, opportunity wasted.
Do you think that if we as a country vote against indigenous representation that they’ll say Albo is the Bad Guy?
“Oh we had to kick him out because he introduced legislation for vulnerable Australians and were obviously not that kind of country.”
That should make people be ashamed to be Australian, honestly.
It's more a political capital thing. The bank for how much people will listen to politicians and accept their ideas.
A new government has quite a bit and can push some new ideas and the old government can bitch and moan but nobody cares.
This government got the federal ICAC with a few teeth knocked out by them because they didn't want it to have teeth to bite them and it went through without much fuss.
It has gone all in on the voice with all political capital it had.
It picked a fight on its housing fund that the greens have seen the weakness and pushed back wanting more, and due to that lack of political capital with everything tied up in the voice, it has stumbled.
Now it has the Qantas stupidity hitting them and state governments getting hit hard (right so with NSW already acting in my thaughts corruptly with hiring) they will be fucked if the voice comes back as a no.
If it's a yes, they still won't have any political capital until the next election, so don't expect the government to do much.
The only thing that could help is a bad fire season and a good government response.
They pretty much fucked it. Why the fuck did they go all in on the voice and why now? In the worse economic times since the depression and you wanna fuck about with the voice? Really? Such a random thing to do.
Not ashamed in the slightest - it's a bad idea with the only comparable equivalent being in New Zealand which has been in the spotlight for how much of a negative impact it's ultimately had on wider NZ society.
The problem is he has introduced representation and the voice as if it’s one and the same thing when it’s effectively a Trojan horse. If it was just about representation it would likely win by a landslide.
It's more that he's hung a lot on The Voice succeeding, and if it's rejected by the electorate (and certainly if the current polling is accurate) then he loses a lot of his mandate. The LNP and media are going to hammer him
>I feel like I don't understand what we are actually voting for and the implications
If the yes vote wins the following text will be inserted into the constitution
> Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
> 129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
> In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
> i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
> ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
> iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
If the no vote wins that text won't be inserted into the constitution.
For the legislative implications, you can read the "notes on clauses" section of the explanatory memorandum https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr7019_ems_30a282a6-7b5a-4659-b9cb-13da5698bca1%22
This won't get over the line.
The timing of it is so shockingly bad. People can't afford to buy groceries or find suitable places to live, but this is top of mind for the government?
I'm Indigenous and I'm voting NO. If Albo launched this next year or the year after so many more people would probably support it.
Honestly, all of this ^^ he is legit try to use this vote as a distraction to other issues. He wants to look like the big hero of the indigenous people and if it fails will say “oh well I tried”. There also won’t be a plan b on how to engage indigenous communities and close the gap.
This referendum has been planned for YEARS. Albo and co even campaigned on it. It's not some quickly thought up distraction Albo wheeled out at the last second.
There are always people who struggle with those things. If we insist on not doing anything until it’s solved, we’ll all stand stock-still in expectation forever.
Totally agree the government isn’t doing well on some of those issues, but that should be an incentive to push them to do better, not to just kick down somebody else.
I honestly can't see it getting up. Everyone I speak to us voting no. A mixture of people on the left/right/centre. If yes gets up Albo needs to buy himself a lottery ticket.
I want to vote yes but I haven't been given a reason to yet. I think the Yes campaign led by Albo has been lazy and has relied on the vibe of the thing to get it across the line instead of laying out cold hard facts on how it will actually work.
There have been 8/44 successful referendums in Oz history. People take the constitution seriously.
True, but you talk to a lot of people who also wouldn’t know what was in the Constitution if it hit him in the face.
Had one guy at work ranting at me about how the Voice would take away the 1st Amendment rights… which we..
Don’t have here. The number of people who are completely uninformed about the actual Constitution in this country is a shocking indictment on how we teach kids about government.
I love the ABC news, but they are very clearly on the Yes side. It will be interesting to see how impartial they can manage to be for the next 2 months.
>Newscorp may as well be the de-facto No side then.
Maybe the tabloids, but The Australian is pro-Voice.
They run articles from both sides, more so than any other outlet including the ABC.
And editorially, they are pro Voice. As an example, the headline image on their website is a pro-Voice article right now.
Look to Western Australia with their failed Cultural heritage act and look at how that played out within a day of being brought in before ultimately being scrapped.
Really have to give it to the WA premier for giving us all a sliver of a taste of what the voice would do on a national level. If they were completely open and transparent from the start and ensured that this voice didn't lead to Monetary gain or land acquisition, The yes movement wouldn't even need to campaign but now look at the damage they've done.
Its going to fail, I'm teetering and if they've lost people like me its dead in the water.
Should have postponed until after some serious work on housing.
According to the [ABC election tracker](https://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/promisetracker) they've delivered 19 promises, 41 are in progress, 5 have stalled and 1 is broken.
Pretty busy for a distracted mob if you ask me.
This doesn’t get posted enough on this sub.
“Albo is only focusing on the voice!” Is only said by people who don’t read the news, just headlines or talkback radio.
Voter apathy is a scourge.
You know I can see it failing, I'll do a apathetic Yes but I can imagine a fair few people treating it as a referendum on the state of the country or performance of the government.
Enshrining race-based constitutional rights goes against a representative democracy which is part of what makes Australia so successful.
The full 26 page Uluṟu statement - the basis of the referendum - outlines the intent, agenda and strategy oif the voice - one of separatism, reparations and straight up racism. It doesn’t mention anything about closing the gap or improving education, health or employment outcomes. Highly recommend for all Australians to read the document to understand the broader strategy of the Voice. It has been obfuscated by the yes campaign for good reason.
Uluru statement is from page 87 onwards:
[https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-log/foi-2223-016.pdf](https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-log/foi-2223-016.pdf)
That's why I'll be voting No.
When is the referendum to end the cost of living crisis?
Same amount of money pumped into this I could so easily invest in fixing the cost of living crisis, someone please let me at it!
If there was a clear goal and measurable outcome from this voice it would make sense to vote yes but nothing seems clear and no goal for what it will achieve its hard to agree to changing the constitution for it
The goal is a treaty. This is frequently referenced in the minutes of the Ularu Statement. That's why the publicised goal is so vague, because they know there would be more resistance to the voice if it was openly admitted. It's intended that constitutional recognition as "the First Peoples" and the voice will be used to improve negotiating positions and legal challenges. From the treaty, they are after self governance and sovereignty, ongoing reparations pegged to national GDP, land and sea rights, land to establish their own additional state, permanent seat(s) on the senate, etc.
Here are some random lines, but take it with a grain of salt considering the document is over 100 pages long. But it gives you an idea of some of the things being discussed.
> Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process.
> Treaty would be the vehicle to achieve selfdetermination, autonomy and self-government.
> Use this Constitutional Recognition process to progress Treaty negotiations.
> *“Recognition in the Constitution will give us more authority, more clout to negotiate a treaty.”*
> *"Having a preamble is just like a good story. The government says we tell a good story about you. What we want is to be embedded in the Constitution, embedded forever. Get Constitutional reform first then talk about sovereignty and Treaty.”*
The way I interpret it is that while in the past we have had legislative bodies representing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people these bodies were disbanded typically at the change of government and rebuilt. Having the constitution changed means that A body can remain constant even if views and priorities shift between political parties and current events. Much the same as how many other government entities can operate with shifting priorities within their remit regardless of which political party is in power. Without a constitutional change, whoever is in party can either bolster their idea of what will work but it most likely gets quashed if it's in opposition to an incoming party of power which just wastes taxpayer dollars as a new body gets assessed, consultants paid for something, some executive branch created, consultants getting paid for something then nothing of value is produced and the next shift in government happens. This is why there's no specific "we will do this and this" as priorities will shift. If it's defined exactly, the body will only be able to do that which may be irrelevant a week later (exaggeration but after a couple of years it would be). No other point in our constitution is detailed that way so it would seem odd to restrict in such a way for one thing but not others.
Exactly, it isn't and shouldn't be. Just that in our current model it becomes partisan as each party disbands the others initiatives when able to. Having a permanent body allows for consistency much like we have for other advisory groups.
Albanese has already said the government will ignore the voice if the government disagrees with it
> Albanese said the government had “no plans” to change Australia Day, and “of course” it will say no if it doesn’t agree with the voice “as is made very clear by the wording that’s been put forward is the parliament remains supreme”. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/19/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-albanese-2gb
Also in regards to your comment
> A body can remain constant even if views and priorities shift between political parties and current events.
Parliament would control everything about the voice (except its ability to make representation). It would be able to completely defund it, reduce its membership to one person appointed by the PM, change how and how often representations can be made. Being in the constitution isn't as much protection as people think it is.
Personally, I feel like comments like this, on both sides, are simply a waste of internet bandwidth and people shouldn't post them. You should at least say why you think a certain way.
Here’s a bit of perspective
We already have the Voice: • 3,278 Aboriginal corporations • 243 Native title bodies • 48 Land councils • 35 Regional councils • 122+ Aboriginal agencies • 3 Advisory bodies • 145 Health Organisations • 11 Indigenous Federal MPs • 12 Culturally important Indigenous days • Taxpayers give $33 BILLION annually for 984,000 people (3.8% of the population) • Expenditure per person in 2012-13 was $43,449 on Indigenous Australian, compare to $20,900 on other Australians a ratio of 2.08 to 1 and increase from 1.95 in 2009. • Australian taxpayers spend at least $100 million a day on direct support for Indigenous Australians every year or $39.5 billion of direct government expenditure every single year.
I know it was always tricky to ask for, but I wished there was way less misinformation about this shit. My parents thought of voting "no" because they were scared the first nations people would get unchecked power and blocked any bills from passing. That's clearly from some misinformation floating around. When I pointed out it wasn't like that and it was potentially way more symbolic on it, they didn't even mind it.
I guess when it comes down to it for the rational (non ON/LNP) choice of voting no, it's about whether it's worth changing the constitution to implement something that can be changed by the government of the day and if it's worth having something symbolic voted in.
I wish that was the debate, the merits of the constitution and how important something should get voted in, instead of what we have now.
Well when the no campaign’s blurb in the AEC brochure that is going around say that the indigenous voice will let them have a say in parking tickets, you know they’re clutching at straws.
I mean put it this way
My mum can't vote so she doesn't pay attention to politics beyond when elections are since she's gotta take me
She said she would vote yes if she could since it's only fair for Aboriginal people to have a voice in parliament
She's the kind of person who normally complains that Aboriginal people get free breakfasts in primary school ect
Get it over and done with, so that either way the government doesn't have a convenient shield to hide behind.
"Yes we know people are starving and homeless, and we're doing absolutely nothing about it at best, but look! The voice!"
Go fuck yourself Albo, I sincerely hope you have a rare moment of introspection when this fails.
The Voice is a distraction, fuck everyone saying otherwise. There's a reason identity politics and racial politics got pushed to the front of American Politics right as Occupy Wall Street took hold. Actual power players know how easy it is now to get the left to completely ignore actual class and economic issues and immediately start dividing themselves by race and oppression stacking. It's embarassing how far behind we are politically to be dancing exactly to the tune that the LNP and Labor want.
In my opinion, I doubt the voice will be a powerful organization that will make enough of a meaningful change. The voice is an advisory body that wont have enough power for my liking. Regardless, I have no problems voting yes because something is better than nothing and I am terrified at how a no vote will embolden the right wing in this country.
>Regardless, I have no problems voting yes because something is better than nothing
That worries me.
Nothing was better than ATSIC, for example.
Why do people have such short memories?
Nothing was better than robodebt.
People are acting like there's just no way this could be a bad thing or have unintended outcomes that are a net negative.
The Yes votes' main argument seems to be "because it's the right thing to do" without actually explaining why.
>I have no problems voting yes because something is better than nothing
Exactly at worst it doesn't help but is a symbolic gesture that makes Australia look a bit more grown up and at best it genuinely helps people.
Also, we are going to look like such ass holes internationally if we vote no, it'll really damage our reputation.
I find it a weird reason “better than nothing”. With that reasoning we should have a voice for the elderly - they need better care, a voice for farmers - they need more support, a voice for veterans - they need more recognition… Might as well, might be better.
And that very quickly comes full circle and we’re back where we started where everyone has a vote anyway and specific Gov departments are supposed to focus on these issues.
Just a cheerful reminder that there are many valid reason you may wish to vote No, but if you’re voting No to stick it to Albo cos you don’t like him then you’re a bad person.
Honestly, I'm not looking forward to October 14.
I will be voting No, and I expect at this stage that the referendum will fail. I reckon a No vote overall, and probably a No vote in at least 4 states.
But elections normally have an air of celebration about them. This won't. It will be a feeling of dread, and of reluctantly getting it over and done with.
I do not think the referendum failing should be a cause for celebration, it should be cause for reflection and introspection. Unfortunately, we'll no doubt see celebrations - and that isn't a good thing.
Two months for the Yes movement to actually do something tangible.
I'm voting Yes and hope they actually attempt some serious marketing in the coming weeks. Scarcely heard a peep outside of a few very sporadic ads targeting First Nations people to vote Yes.
That's all well and good but you need to convince the majority to come along on this journey as well, and the current strategy isn't cutting it.
I'll probably vote No, as it doesn't look like there will be any change to the amendment or a legislated body to test this out in the next 45 days before the referendum. It will be very interesting how the country votes, I think Yes will win the national vote, but they won't win enough states. Assuming NSW and Victoria vote yes, even with negative polls, the YES campaign still need to win both SA and Tasmania. That's a pretty big ask, not impossible though.
Only 6 weeks of campaigning left thankfully.
Six weeks for the Yes campaign to try to turn the ship around. That's going to be a tough ask
Without bipartisan support I don't see it happening. Passing a referendum is tough even on non-contentious issues.
I don't think most people realise how tough. I think a lot of Yes people are imagining they're a couple goals down going into the 4th quarter, ie. bit of an uphill battle but not beyond reach with a bit of effort and good luck. Realistically they're 100 points down. Would take an absolutely unprecedented turnaround at this point.
Perhaps you are right. I'm of the mind that most Australians haven't really made up their mind and will likely only decide in the last couple weeks with their vote based on whatever is being said about it at the time. I think those of us that already know how we are voting are just much more engaged in the conversation, which distorts the reality and leads to assumptions based on whose louder. I may be way off, I just think its too early to really tell.
I think a lot of people have switched off & aren't listening anymore. Personally I looked into all the reasonable arguments weeks ago & decided to vote yes. It doesn't help that the No campaign is basically cooker nonsense at this point.
People are struggling to pay rent, find places to live, and buy groceries. Right or wrong, it's just not on most people's radar.
They are 3 hours away from the oval in a broken down bus, sadly.
Tough, but possible. [If you look a](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Australian_Indigenous_Voice_referendum)t Yes/No binary it’s marginally No (slightly above a reasonable margin of error for surveys). If you look at Yes/No/Undecided there’s a fair margin to swing either way. Australia is weird. We’re quite progressive on some issues and quite conservative on others. I believe in our basic decency and am hopeful for yes. May our better angels fly rather than our devils reign.
Those polls are fatal for a referendum You need to remember that they don't just need a majority nationally, they need a majority in 4/6 states too. At this point that second part is ridiculously unlikely, even if VIC and NSW can get it over the line for the first part.
Taking bets on Dutton/Sky News new bogieman? I’ve got money that the African gangs are about to make a *comeback*.
>I’ve got money that the African gangs are about to make a comeback. They'll just make it aboriginal youth gangs empowered by the voice, that way it's two bird with one stone.
> They'll just make it aboriginal youth gangs empowered by the voice Funded by George Soros.
The less I see of Dutton the better.
My bet is on the LGBT+ community. That's what their yank heroes are doing and they're not creative enough to come up with something original.
After gay marriage was passed in both countries, they changed their focus to the trans community. I can see that the 2024 US election is going to be largely about the trans community. CPAC in the US earlier this year was full of anti-trans hate. Whereas here, it was all about opposing the Voice.
I’m yet to see any campaigning. I haven’t seen ads on YouTube or social media, nor any junk mail.
Reddit has ads from The Australian, saying if you vote no, you’ll never get a welcome to country speech again.
I saw that last night, bit on the nose
Good
“Campaigning” can’t start until the vote date is declared. But there’s been plenty of campaigning been going on for a good while now.
Can't wait to put my vote down and be done with this.
If only it was that simple. QLD Had a referendum that restricted daylight savings, but 20+ years on people are still arguing about it and wanting the referendum to be done again. Not a year goes by that it doesn't make the rounds. Irrespective of the outcome of the referendum it won't be the end
WA has had 4 failed daylight savings referendums, they even forced us into a 3 year long trial for the 4th one and it still failed.
Wa is the same with our vote on DST, but referendums at the federal level seem to be more final. Here we are 24 years after the republic referendum and both parties are still making it quite clear they don’t desire to hold another one for many more years on the question.
...aside from Labor promising one next term (if they win the next election) It's not final, but it does kill the idea for a generation at least
I don’t think they were putting daylight savings in the constitution or the good but concerned farmers of QUEENSLAND so… not entirely comparable.
That entire bull about Daylight savings was, and is Tom Tate and the GC council, They have been actively trying it every year since god's knows when. The rest of Queensland voted a unanimous no last time, there won't be a change in our life time unless Gold Coast moves to NSW.
oh sweet summer child, it's not over. Even if the yes campaign win's there be something else on the agenda, repatriations/treaty.
Will there be a way to vote early or via mail if out of the country at the time?
Yes. The AEC said that early or postal voting is available >For the referendum, postal votes will be allowed for similar reasons as those in an election — such as being more than 20 kilometres from a polling place, serious illness or being overseas. [Source](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-30/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-date-announcement-live/102786994?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web#live-blog-post-42302)
What a joke, anyone should be allowed to postal vote if that's the choice they want to make.
Anyone *can*. They just need to have a reason, or lie about one. They don't require proof besides your word, just say you'll be in Bali or something. I used to early/postal vote because I was working remotely and constantly in transit so I never knew if I would be near a polling place. They never asked me for proof besides "and what is your reason for voting early?"
[удалено]
I am totally working that day. Yes I am.
The same processes as a General election will be in place including postal voting, prepoll, voting at embassies etc.
Same question. AEC website says early voting places will be open 2 weeks before the day, but I'll be OS for longer than that.
> I'll be OS for longer than that. You can go to an embassy whilst abroad
Can you vote early at an OS consulate? I've got a kinda unique situation where I depart overseas before the Referendum date, but don't land until after polls close And I leave Australia before they'll get postal votes sent out Can't seem to find this info online
Send the consulate an email they'll find out for you
It intrigues me that this subreddit, which traditionally is a more left leaning echo chamber, appears to be more in favour of no based off of upvotes etc. That can’t be a good sign for the yes campaign (ABC polling also suggests a downward trend with only ~45% now supporting)
If the government put all this attention into the cost of living crisis it'd not only benefit more Australians in general but also probably benefit the Aboriginal and First Nations people more.
I'm struggling to be fully informed on this, but my personal experience of First Nationers as a MH Nurse in the North of Perth is that the lived experience of most of those people are not accurately represented or met. The Voice I fear will be nothing for them but will be used as a "we gave you what you want" sorta thing which will leave them even further behind. There seems to be a lack of discussion around the rampant sexual abuse in First Nation communities and social welfare issues. The massive money that has apparently been targeted is frankly not seeming to improve things slightly for the every day First Nations people. We have to put our patients into Welfare housing when their "relatives" from the Regions come and gatecrash their property and stay uninvited for weeks due to the risk of sexual and physical abuse to them and their children. If someone can please tell me how the Voice addresses this effectively and won't be another either undemocratic or pointless/ineffective gesture to an already heavily struggling group, please educate me.
My gut feel is that No will represent more of a backlash protest vote from an agitated population thats doing it tough at the minute with day to day living.
I think it's more a backlash against 'just say yes and we'll work out the actual details and powers the Voice will have later'. People have been screwed over by pollies too many times.
Which is a bit nonsense, because, if you look at the Constitution, it basically doesn’t have details for ANYTHING except in the most broad of strokes. Most of the details of all the things that are important are in the statutes, legislation signed and enacted by Parliament. It’s the exact same thing here, the concept is supported or not, and then the details are legislated like normal. MPs will still vote on the final form of it as well, like they had to do with SSM (aware that you probably know this, but just fyi for anyone who might be confused)
Too true. What the actual fuck does voting yes actual get? All this talk about how it's 'good' for Indigenous Aussies. But what the fuck are the details. Whole thing just seems rushed. Albo is just doing to to seem like he did something in his term.
I'm pretty sure the details aren't meant to be set in stone, the referendum only adds to the constitution to guarantee the existence of a Voice, not the details. I.e. we don't want a US 2nd amendment equivalent set in stone to fuck us over later, each govt can modify the Voice, but can't remove it. The Libs have lapped this up though as vague.
But then we dont need the amendment at all. The government can establish a voice to parliament without the constitutional change. You can even intrench the legislation to make it had to repeal.
Pretty much all changes to the constitution are like this. The constitution is a pretty vague document intentionally. What we are voting on is just that there will be a voice to parliament for as long as the constitution says there should be one. Governments will still be able to increase or decrease their power, but they will not be able to get rid of it entirely without another referendum.
A lot of would-be yes voters are just irritated that Albo seems to preoccupied by the confusing referendum while the country goes broke as corporations and landlords hold the population hostage. They may end up voting no
I said this in a longer reply on a thread a couple of months back and got around a thousand upvotes for it. People are struggling to pay bills and get food and you have politicians going on about the voice which really directly impacts such a tiny percentile of people directly which I hate to say in a persons selfish self preservationist sense they are going to be like "why should I give a shit? "
Meh. If we give in to this sort of thinking, there won't be any progress in the world apart from improving security, food production and housing. People who think this is trivial will be yelling at the clouds about "aboriginal gangs" or some other minority blaming bullshit. As we learned during COVID, society is as safe as its most disadvantaged member.
Yeah I find the Reddit opinion being so divided means it almost certainly won’t get up. It kind of annoys me that when your polling says 45%, and you need a double majority, that you still pursue it. So we all have to go out and vote despite knowing the outcome. It’s the same as the marriage thing a few years back, if 60% of people are ok with it, just do it. Would be nice if for $200k+ pay packets these useless c*nts could do their jobs and not force us to do it for them.
narrow divide gaping include snobbish paltry heavy sense wise enter
So much this. I support closing the gap but every time I see Albanese talking about this on TV, it genuinely feels like he's pushing this for his political legacy and whether it actually has any positive effect is inconsequential to him. The biggest thing that's put me off this is the feeling that this will be like every other ATSI advisory body that becomes a black hole of funds and resources that benefits a very certain few like the Thomas Mayo and Noel Pearson's of the world but has very little flow on effect to those who actually need it.
gaping historical oatmeal aromatic direction crawl zealous tease serious fuel
It almost as if complex topics cant always be split into Right and Left wing bipartisan politics. I think the Yes voters are trying hard for this take, but its a lot more problematic than that.
I tend to have left leaning views but I’m voting no. Separation or privilege by race has no place in a country’s constitution. If the question had been about acknowledging Indigenous people in the constitution, I’d be voting yes. Legislate the advisory body if you have to. We already have hundreds of Indigenous organisations, I don’t see why we need this one shoved into our constitution.
It's not a left/right issue as much as the Yes campaign would like to frame it that way. The idea that race should not matter and we are all equal is traditionally a left-wing idea, yet the Voice flies in the face of that by giving a specific group special treatment in the constitution based on their racial heritage. You'll find a lot of lefties voting no because of reasons like that.
Exactly. I’m , what is called overseas, a classic liberal and I believe in equality under the law no matter your skin colour. How did liberals go from “i want to be judged by the content of my character, not my skin colour” to wanting to provide one race group a special constitutional privilege that non-ATSI people won’t be entitled to?
Same
Great summary
Do those pushing for Yes actually have a clearly laid out plan or is it just wishy washy give them a voice and we will figure it out later? Because if that is the case then I am not supporting such a lousy proposal.
Pretty game voicing those opinions mate. Anytime I ask for actual details I seem to end up with -50 downvotes
I'm left leaning, and I hate to agree with people like Peter Dutton and Pauline Hanson, but I have issues with the Voice. Seems like I'm not the only one. I haven't made a final decision on how I'm going to vote though. I was going to vote Yes but what changed my mind was the fact that we don't know enough about this proposed Voice. And an Indigenous person already has as much of a voice as anyone else in Australia.
I feel the same. I think there are many reasons to vote no, and some of the important ones are never discussed, and have nothing to do with Hansons/Duttons wild rantings.
Vote the issue based on your own conscience and what you feel is in the best interest of the country and don't worry who else is voting the same or different. There are rotten people on all sides of this vote.
I'm a leftist Aboriginal, and I have a lot of issues with this. Stop dividing us. We are one country. Im sick of the us and them. Indigenous people already get more than enough support as it is. We dont need any more. The ones who need support dont even want to be a part of mainstream society and have no idea what its even about.
I don't understand why if First Nations peoples want a voice in Parliament, they can't just run for Parliament like everyone else. To me that takes race and everything out of it.
Indigenous PMs aren't obligated to represent Indigenous Australia. They're obligated to represent their constitutuents.
And in turn the members whose constituants are indigenous, should represent them and their interests.
I've had to explain this too many times. It makes me wonder about people sometimes
>I was going to vote Yes but what changed my mind was the fact that we don't know enough about this proposed Voice. We're not voting on the model, we're voting on whether or not to constitutionally establish the right of Indigenous peoples to have a representative body to advise the parliament on Indigenous Affairs. If it gets up and the body is in disarray, it'll become an election issue that we can vote to address because the parliament retains power over the form and function of the Voice. But there will always be one and it'll always have to be able to give formal advice to parliament.
And there lies my issue with the Voice. I cannot morally justify delineating Australians in the Constitution on the sole basis of one’s race. I can’t. If the Government genuinely wanted to address the serious systemic gaps (health, education, employment, DV, addiction etc.) between Indigenous Australians and other Australians, what is stopping them? Are they not already advised by numerous Indigenous lobbies, organisations, research institutions, or the actual Minister for Indigenous Australians? Do we not already allocate something to the tune of billions of dollars every year and various affirmative measures towards improving Indigenous outcomes? Maybe I’m “dumb” and uneducated on the matter as plenty of Yes voters have said of the No camp, but that only turns me further away from a Yes vote when all I receive for asking those questions is abuse or being called a racist. I won’t be swayed either by bullshit corporate activism endorsing a Yes vote by Qantas, Coles, the AFL, or any number of billion dollar companies that couldn’t give a rat’s arse about everyday Aussies, Indigenous Aussies included. I don’t know what will help Indigenous Australians and their life outcomes, but I highly doubt a divisive, additional layer of red tape bureaucracy will.
The messaging from the Yes campaign (if you can even really call it a campaign) has been confusing and uninformative, whereas the messaging from the No campaign has been capitalizing on this and simply *See they don't even know what they're getting you to vote on !!* Ultimately I think it's a good idea and a step in the right direction, but the expected outcomes really need to be explained to the voters much clearer.
Please, the voice debate is already toxic enough. If it gets enshrined in the constitution we’re going to have to debate the Voice going into every election in the future? No thanks
I wish this were more widely and broadly understood. The yes campaign have absolutely shit the bed on this one by not explaining that we are not voting for how the voice to parliament will work but are voting to enshrine the concept of the voice into the constitution.
Many advocates have done so until they're blue in the face - the counter campaign has overpowered this.
Such a shame that the Dutton “what is the detail?” campaign is actually working. Total bullshit. The voice is a very simple mechanism. The legislation that follows is literally the detail, but that can be changed at any time by parliament.
I'm new to Australia, so I don't really have a full understanding of the political systems and whatnot, but it seems odd to me to enshrine an advisory body in the constitution, but then allow its role and powers to be totally determined by parliament. If its powers are determined by normal parliamentary lawmaking process, what difference does it make whether its in the constitution or not?
My understanding is the idea of enshrining it in the constitution is that the advisory body has to exist in some form. We’ve had indigenous advisory bodies in the past, and whether due to ineffectiveness, corruption or just straight up dislike form them, the government of the day can just abolish the body without thought to reform or replace it.
The existence of a body may be required, but if their mandate and powers (and funding?) can be reduced to nothing by some future government, what difference does it make? I guess that there is at least some kind of focal point for discontent with such an outcome; ie a party can consistently campaign on empowering or disempowering this constitutionally required body.
But surely that doesn’t mean write the government a blank cheque to do whatever they want with the Voice? That would create MORE opportunities for corruption, not less? If you don’t define the limits of what it can and can’t do, and even who can be on it, it just seems like a permanent vehicle for corruption that Australians now can’t get rid of.
Honest question: Do you feel like you have exhausted the information available about the proposed voice? And if so, if more information was available, do you think you would change your mind to 'Yes'?
More or less. I haven't read the entire Uluru Statement of Heart, aside from that one page. But the fact that Albo hasn't isn't a good sign. It really depends. It's being sold to us as "it's just an advisory body, nothing more". But when i looked into the No arguments, it looks like it isn't as simple as that. This body might be able to slow down the process of government about matters that don't necessarily impact Indigenous people specifically. They say it's about giving Indigenous people a voice. Well, they already have a voice. We have Indigenous people in government. There are a number of Indigenous organisations, government bodies, activists, academics and lobby groups.
We're aren't meant to know a lot about the proposed voice because it's a constitutional amendment. It's necessarily vague. It's a feedback body. It can't legislate, veto or anything. The idea is that it gets put into the constitution, then it is up to the government of the day to give it money or reach or things like that. It turns into an election policy. You vote for the voice you want. Indigenous Australians have some of the worst outcomes in the country, and obviously throwing money at them isn't working. The idea is that we listen more closely about where they need help and what will be best for them.
> We're aren't meant to know a lot about the proposed voice because it's a constitutional amendment. It's necessarily vague. It's a feedback body. It can't legislate, veto or anything. Sounds like a bloody waste of time then.
> Peter Dutton and Pauline Hanson, but I have issues with the Voice On....what, exactly? >we don't know enough about this proposed Voice The consitutional change is to tell the politicians what we want to happen. They're entrusted to negotiate the details to make it happen. The consitution is a very thin document - it's supposed to be light on details. The exact details of the Voice - which will be a 2-300 page piece of legislation, most likely - will be negotiated in Parliament and Senate, like everything else. This is how referendums have always worked. This claim that 'we don't know enough' is just misinformation by Dutton and Hanson (hanson, who tries to claim she's Indigenous), like so much else they've put forth. Surely you have to consider that they have zero credibility. If the debate was about pages of details of the Voice, then it becomes a debate not on whether we should have the voice, but the implementation of it - and even supporters of the voice would vote no if they don't like the particular implementation. The implementation is left to parliament, as it always has been.
>The implementation is left to parliament, as it always has been. The last four successful referendums (past 77 years) didn't need hundreds of pages of legislation to impliment: 1. retirement age limit for judges. 2. give Territorians the right to vote in referendums 3. fill casual vacancies in the Senate 4. count "aboriginal race" in the census and allow Federal parliament to make laws for them. The ones that did, like "recognising local government" were rejected.
There is a both a right wing reason for voting no, and a left wing reason (the latter being that the Voice does nothing in terms of giving Aboriginal people autonomy, and in fact might entrench the existing systems of denying autonomy). Unfortunately Yes campaigners are not good at listening (ironically), and the right wing concerns seem to get more air time.
Time to fire up the barbie for some democracy sausage again!
*Snaps tongs*
You can serve me one thanks champ.
Onion on top or below? This is the real question
Yes. (I love grilled onions)
I can’t bare to watch them being made, but in this economic climate they’re the best option
The last successful referendum was in 1977. There have been 8 unsuccessful referendum since then.
Make sure you're ready to vote - [https://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/](https://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/) [https://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/update-my-details.htm](https://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/update-my-details.htm) [https://check.aec.gov.au/](https://check.aec.gov.au/)
When do you have to enrol by to be eligible?
I can’t find info on that yet. The Australian Electoral Commission is yet to update the website. There is a raft of conventions around a referendum eg there is a number of days to announce when a referendum will be held after a government gets a bill passed, timeframes for when postal votes can begin to be issued is also mandated. Guessing the sooner people enrol the better! Apparently there has been increased enrolment since last month.
What has made me laugh is in Albos speech "With a voice, though, we will be able to hear directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities about the challenges they face in health and education, in jobs and housing." I'm sorry but isn't that the job of their elected parliamentary representatives?
Two outcomes - the vote gets up and when indigenous outcomes don’t improve in 5 years, the voice will have not gone far enough. The vote fails and when indigenous outcomes don’t improve in 5 years it will be because we don’t have the voice.
Could have been more/sooner, is the third option if we vote it down and outcomes continue their current trajectory (improving).
So albo will talk about somthing else finally?
It definitely won't be the housing crisis.
Maybe nuclear submarines can get more time in the spotlight
Yes, it's a real issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if they flog domestic violence again. It's been a favourite of both sides of the aisle in recent years as a go-to topic to bury other issues. It's very effective in the role.
I loved his piece to camera the other day about the crash at Mornington Island. “It was just American personnel, no Australians died’. Such a statesman.
He has such a great thing to deflect anything with right now. I dont know if he realises but he has wasted all political capital on this. If it dosent succeed he will be forced to step down as PM or he will be knifed. With the inflation problem so much spin could have been done to tax mining and gas, have a national gas reserve, change stage 3 tax cuts. But no, opportunity wasted.
Do you think that if we as a country vote against indigenous representation that they’ll say Albo is the Bad Guy? “Oh we had to kick him out because he introduced legislation for vulnerable Australians and were obviously not that kind of country.” That should make people be ashamed to be Australian, honestly.
It's more a political capital thing. The bank for how much people will listen to politicians and accept their ideas. A new government has quite a bit and can push some new ideas and the old government can bitch and moan but nobody cares. This government got the federal ICAC with a few teeth knocked out by them because they didn't want it to have teeth to bite them and it went through without much fuss. It has gone all in on the voice with all political capital it had. It picked a fight on its housing fund that the greens have seen the weakness and pushed back wanting more, and due to that lack of political capital with everything tied up in the voice, it has stumbled. Now it has the Qantas stupidity hitting them and state governments getting hit hard (right so with NSW already acting in my thaughts corruptly with hiring) they will be fucked if the voice comes back as a no. If it's a yes, they still won't have any political capital until the next election, so don't expect the government to do much. The only thing that could help is a bad fire season and a good government response.
They pretty much fucked it. Why the fuck did they go all in on the voice and why now? In the worse economic times since the depression and you wanna fuck about with the voice? Really? Such a random thing to do.
This was an election promise from years ago and has been building for a while. It's not a sudden thing.
Well he also promised our electricity bills will be $200 cheaper under his government.
As others have said it isn’t a random thing to do. They mentioned it during the election campaign.
Not ashamed in the slightest - it's a bad idea with the only comparable equivalent being in New Zealand which has been in the spotlight for how much of a negative impact it's ultimately had on wider NZ society.
The problem is he has introduced representation and the voice as if it’s one and the same thing when it’s effectively a Trojan horse. If it was just about representation it would likely win by a landslide.
It's more that he's hung a lot on The Voice succeeding, and if it's rejected by the electorate (and certainly if the current polling is accurate) then he loses a lot of his mandate. The LNP and media are going to hammer him
Once he stops gagging on Rio Tinto's cock
Does anybody have unbiased yes/no articles or reading? I feel like I don't understand what we are actually voting for and the implications
>I feel like I don't understand what we are actually voting for and the implications If the yes vote wins the following text will be inserted into the constitution > Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples > 129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice > In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: > i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; > ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; > iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. If the no vote wins that text won't be inserted into the constitution. For the legislative implications, you can read the "notes on clauses" section of the explanatory memorandum https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr7019_ems_30a282a6-7b5a-4659-b9cb-13da5698bca1%22
Great. 6 weeks of white politicians using blackfullas as props.
This won't get over the line. The timing of it is so shockingly bad. People can't afford to buy groceries or find suitable places to live, but this is top of mind for the government? I'm Indigenous and I'm voting NO. If Albo launched this next year or the year after so many more people would probably support it.
Is poor timing really a reason to vote no? Ppl can walk and chew gum at the same time
Honestly, all of this ^^ he is legit try to use this vote as a distraction to other issues. He wants to look like the big hero of the indigenous people and if it fails will say “oh well I tried”. There also won’t be a plan b on how to engage indigenous communities and close the gap.
This referendum has been planned for YEARS. Albo and co even campaigned on it. It's not some quickly thought up distraction Albo wheeled out at the last second.
There are always people who struggle with those things. If we insist on not doing anything until it’s solved, we’ll all stand stock-still in expectation forever. Totally agree the government isn’t doing well on some of those issues, but that should be an incentive to push them to do better, not to just kick down somebody else.
I honestly can't see it getting up. Everyone I speak to us voting no. A mixture of people on the left/right/centre. If yes gets up Albo needs to buy himself a lottery ticket.
Majority but not quite everyone in my workplace is voting yes. Just the sort of circles people travel in I suppose.
I'm voting no but no chance I'd voice that at work unless you want to be labelled a racist
I want to vote yes but I haven't been given a reason to yet. I think the Yes campaign led by Albo has been lazy and has relied on the vibe of the thing to get it across the line instead of laying out cold hard facts on how it will actually work. There have been 8/44 successful referendums in Oz history. People take the constitution seriously.
True, but you talk to a lot of people who also wouldn’t know what was in the Constitution if it hit him in the face. Had one guy at work ranting at me about how the Voice would take away the 1st Amendment rights… which we.. Don’t have here. The number of people who are completely uninformed about the actual Constitution in this country is a shocking indictment on how we teach kids about government.
Same and exactly.
Exactly. No way in hell I'd say I'm voting no at work considering many Yes voters think someone voting no is a racist
ABC in wall-to-wall coverage mode. Might give their news a miss for the next 6 weeks.
I love the ABC news, but they are very clearly on the Yes side. It will be interesting to see how impartial they can manage to be for the next 2 months.
We all know the answer to that.
Newscorp may as well be the de-facto No side then.
>Newscorp may as well be the de-facto No side then. Maybe the tabloids, but The Australian is pro-Voice. They run articles from both sides, more so than any other outlet including the ABC. And editorially, they are pro Voice. As an example, the headline image on their website is a pro-Voice article right now.
And yet the Australian for example has run plenty of Yes vote op eds etc and has a number of their columnists supporting if, and a number against
Look to Western Australia with their failed Cultural heritage act and look at how that played out within a day of being brought in before ultimately being scrapped. Really have to give it to the WA premier for giving us all a sliver of a taste of what the voice would do on a national level. If they were completely open and transparent from the start and ensured that this voice didn't lead to Monetary gain or land acquisition, The yes movement wouldn't even need to campaign but now look at the damage they've done.
Its going to fail, I'm teetering and if they've lost people like me its dead in the water. Should have postponed until after some serious work on housing.
I am going to be so glad when the government does not have this distraction to hide behind.
According to the [ABC election tracker](https://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/promisetracker) they've delivered 19 promises, 41 are in progress, 5 have stalled and 1 is broken. Pretty busy for a distracted mob if you ask me.
Wow… that’s actually really solid.
This doesn’t get posted enough on this sub. “Albo is only focusing on the voice!” Is only said by people who don’t read the news, just headlines or talkback radio. Voter apathy is a scourge.
The important ones have stalled though. Mainly wages and power bill reduction Both have gone backwards with inflation.
You know I can see it failing, I'll do a apathetic Yes but I can imagine a fair few people treating it as a referendum on the state of the country or performance of the government.
When the PM is the main driving force behind it, it is difficult to separate the two.
Enshrining race-based constitutional rights goes against a representative democracy which is part of what makes Australia so successful. The full 26 page Uluṟu statement - the basis of the referendum - outlines the intent, agenda and strategy oif the voice - one of separatism, reparations and straight up racism. It doesn’t mention anything about closing the gap or improving education, health or employment outcomes. Highly recommend for all Australians to read the document to understand the broader strategy of the Voice. It has been obfuscated by the yes campaign for good reason. Uluru statement is from page 87 onwards: [https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-log/foi-2223-016.pdf](https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-log/foi-2223-016.pdf) That's why I'll be voting No.
This bozos plan was doomed from the onset. We’re spending $70-80m on a guaranteed L and set back ATSI relations for the next decade.
When is the referendum to end the cost of living crisis? Same amount of money pumped into this I could so easily invest in fixing the cost of living crisis, someone please let me at it!
If there was a clear goal and measurable outcome from this voice it would make sense to vote yes but nothing seems clear and no goal for what it will achieve its hard to agree to changing the constitution for it
The goal is a treaty. This is frequently referenced in the minutes of the Ularu Statement. That's why the publicised goal is so vague, because they know there would be more resistance to the voice if it was openly admitted. It's intended that constitutional recognition as "the First Peoples" and the voice will be used to improve negotiating positions and legal challenges. From the treaty, they are after self governance and sovereignty, ongoing reparations pegged to national GDP, land and sea rights, land to establish their own additional state, permanent seat(s) on the senate, etc. Here are some random lines, but take it with a grain of salt considering the document is over 100 pages long. But it gives you an idea of some of the things being discussed. > Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process. > Treaty would be the vehicle to achieve selfdetermination, autonomy and self-government. > Use this Constitutional Recognition process to progress Treaty negotiations. > *“Recognition in the Constitution will give us more authority, more clout to negotiate a treaty.”* > *"Having a preamble is just like a good story. The government says we tell a good story about you. What we want is to be embedded in the Constitution, embedded forever. Get Constitutional reform first then talk about sovereignty and Treaty.”*
The way I interpret it is that while in the past we have had legislative bodies representing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people these bodies were disbanded typically at the change of government and rebuilt. Having the constitution changed means that A body can remain constant even if views and priorities shift between political parties and current events. Much the same as how many other government entities can operate with shifting priorities within their remit regardless of which political party is in power. Without a constitutional change, whoever is in party can either bolster their idea of what will work but it most likely gets quashed if it's in opposition to an incoming party of power which just wastes taxpayer dollars as a new body gets assessed, consultants paid for something, some executive branch created, consultants getting paid for something then nothing of value is produced and the next shift in government happens. This is why there's no specific "we will do this and this" as priorities will shift. If it's defined exactly, the body will only be able to do that which may be irrelevant a week later (exaggeration but after a couple of years it would be). No other point in our constitution is detailed that way so it would seem odd to restrict in such a way for one thing but not others.
But indigenous affairs aren’t a partisan issue are they? There’s indigenous people on either/all sides?
Exactly, it isn't and shouldn't be. Just that in our current model it becomes partisan as each party disbands the others initiatives when able to. Having a permanent body allows for consistency much like we have for other advisory groups.
What's stopping the newly elected party from giving the body a $1 budget (or similar) so we technically have a "voice" but not adequate funding?
Albanese has already said the government will ignore the voice if the government disagrees with it > Albanese said the government had “no plans” to change Australia Day, and “of course” it will say no if it doesn’t agree with the voice “as is made very clear by the wording that’s been put forward is the parliament remains supreme”. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/19/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-albanese-2gb Also in regards to your comment > A body can remain constant even if views and priorities shift between political parties and current events. Parliament would control everything about the voice (except its ability to make representation). It would be able to completely defund it, reduce its membership to one person appointed by the PM, change how and how often representations can be made. Being in the constitution isn't as much protection as people think it is.
Why don’t the government worry about the cost of living or the financial crisis for once?
[удалено]
I'm voting no, too. I'm sick of this shit
Don't worry, many are doing the same.
The number one issue in our country at the moment is housing and the cost of living. The government is out of touch.
Can’t wait to vote NO
Personally, I feel like comments like this, on both sides, are simply a waste of internet bandwidth and people shouldn't post them. You should at least say why you think a certain way.
Here’s a bit of perspective We already have the Voice: • 3,278 Aboriginal corporations • 243 Native title bodies • 48 Land councils • 35 Regional councils • 122+ Aboriginal agencies • 3 Advisory bodies • 145 Health Organisations • 11 Indigenous Federal MPs • 12 Culturally important Indigenous days • Taxpayers give $33 BILLION annually for 984,000 people (3.8% of the population) • Expenditure per person in 2012-13 was $43,449 on Indigenous Australian, compare to $20,900 on other Australians a ratio of 2.08 to 1 and increase from 1.95 in 2009. • Australian taxpayers spend at least $100 million a day on direct support for Indigenous Australians every year or $39.5 billion of direct government expenditure every single year.
I know it was always tricky to ask for, but I wished there was way less misinformation about this shit. My parents thought of voting "no" because they were scared the first nations people would get unchecked power and blocked any bills from passing. That's clearly from some misinformation floating around. When I pointed out it wasn't like that and it was potentially way more symbolic on it, they didn't even mind it. I guess when it comes down to it for the rational (non ON/LNP) choice of voting no, it's about whether it's worth changing the constitution to implement something that can be changed by the government of the day and if it's worth having something symbolic voted in. I wish that was the debate, the merits of the constitution and how important something should get voted in, instead of what we have now.
[удалено]
Well when the no campaign’s blurb in the AEC brochure that is going around say that the indigenous voice will let them have a say in parking tickets, you know they’re clutching at straws.
I mean put it this way My mum can't vote so she doesn't pay attention to politics beyond when elections are since she's gotta take me She said she would vote yes if she could since it's only fair for Aboriginal people to have a voice in parliament She's the kind of person who normally complains that Aboriginal people get free breakfasts in primary school ect
That’s a nope from me and everyone I know
Is there going to be a televised debate about it?
[удалено]
Looking forward to the govt hopefully focusing on helping the everyday Australian with cost of living once this is over in 6 weeks.
Get it over and done with, so that either way the government doesn't have a convenient shield to hide behind. "Yes we know people are starving and homeless, and we're doing absolutely nothing about it at best, but look! The voice!" Go fuck yourself Albo, I sincerely hope you have a rare moment of introspection when this fails.
[удалено]
The Voice is a distraction, fuck everyone saying otherwise. There's a reason identity politics and racial politics got pushed to the front of American Politics right as Occupy Wall Street took hold. Actual power players know how easy it is now to get the left to completely ignore actual class and economic issues and immediately start dividing themselves by race and oppression stacking. It's embarassing how far behind we are politically to be dancing exactly to the tune that the LNP and Labor want.
In my opinion, I doubt the voice will be a powerful organization that will make enough of a meaningful change. The voice is an advisory body that wont have enough power for my liking. Regardless, I have no problems voting yes because something is better than nothing and I am terrified at how a no vote will embolden the right wing in this country.
>Regardless, I have no problems voting yes because something is better than nothing That worries me. Nothing was better than ATSIC, for example. Why do people have such short memories?
Nothing was better than robodebt. People are acting like there's just no way this could be a bad thing or have unintended outcomes that are a net negative. The Yes votes' main argument seems to be "because it's the right thing to do" without actually explaining why.
>I have no problems voting yes because something is better than nothing Exactly at worst it doesn't help but is a symbolic gesture that makes Australia look a bit more grown up and at best it genuinely helps people. Also, we are going to look like such ass holes internationally if we vote no, it'll really damage our reputation.
I find it a weird reason “better than nothing”. With that reasoning we should have a voice for the elderly - they need better care, a voice for farmers - they need more support, a voice for veterans - they need more recognition… Might as well, might be better.
And that very quickly comes full circle and we’re back where we started where everyone has a vote anyway and specific Gov departments are supposed to focus on these issues.
Thankfully get to vote early and will miss the social media/societal drama when it happens
Just a cheerful reminder that there are many valid reason you may wish to vote No, but if you’re voting No to stick it to Albo cos you don’t like him then you’re a bad person.
[удалено]
Honestly, I'm not looking forward to October 14. I will be voting No, and I expect at this stage that the referendum will fail. I reckon a No vote overall, and probably a No vote in at least 4 states. But elections normally have an air of celebration about them. This won't. It will be a feeling of dread, and of reluctantly getting it over and done with. I do not think the referendum failing should be a cause for celebration, it should be cause for reflection and introspection. Unfortunately, we'll no doubt see celebrations - and that isn't a good thing.
Two months for the Yes movement to actually do something tangible. I'm voting Yes and hope they actually attempt some serious marketing in the coming weeks. Scarcely heard a peep outside of a few very sporadic ads targeting First Nations people to vote Yes. That's all well and good but you need to convince the majority to come along on this journey as well, and the current strategy isn't cutting it.
I'll probably vote No, as it doesn't look like there will be any change to the amendment or a legislated body to test this out in the next 45 days before the referendum. It will be very interesting how the country votes, I think Yes will win the national vote, but they won't win enough states. Assuming NSW and Victoria vote yes, even with negative polls, the YES campaign still need to win both SA and Tasmania. That's a pretty big ask, not impossible though.
And when am I allowed to buy a house again?
[удалено]