• TassieTosser@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    RIKSY
    UNKOWN
    DIVISIVE
    PERMANENT

    You can tell you should be worried because they use scary words and CAPITAL LETTERS. I also love how they put “it opens the door to activists” like it’s a bad thing. Personally I wouldn’t mind if Australia Day were replaced with a Treaty Day if that came to pass. It’s just an excuse to get absolutely pissed around a barbie anyway.

  • sloonark@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have yet to see a single rational reason to vote no. I just don’t get it. How could you possibly be against consulting people before you make decisions that affect those people?

    Do the No voters think that the government shouldn’t listen to the AMA when making health policy? That they shouldn’t listen to teachers and principals when they make education policy?

    • morry040@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think some of the “No” reasons are valid questions to ask, so simply brushing them off as irrational is not going to win over anyone sitting on the fence. When I have spoken with family & friends, some of their uncertainty and concerns can be found amongst the ten No arguments.

      For example, the question of inequitable representation (point #3 of the No arguments) is a fair one. Shouldn’t all Australians, regardless of their gender, race, or ancestry be represented equally in the Constitution?
      In 1962, all Indigenous Australians were given the fair right to vote, giving them the same level of voice and representation as that of any Australian citizen. This resolved the issue of equal voting rights, which allows all Australians to have their voice equally represented in parliament. The Voice would now add an additional representation above what voting provides to the average Australian and it will be mandated in the Constitution.
      Which personal factors determine if one can be awarded this additional amount of representation? Do you have to prove you are Indigenous by way of a blood test, a written exam, a form of ID, or just by stating that you identify as an Indigenous Australian? I even know of some people who have claimed benefits of Indigenous Australians (e.g. scholarships) when they themselves were Pacific Islander. How pure does your bloodline need to be in order to receive additional representation?

  • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I still honestly don’t know which way to vote. Most of my indigenous friends have been posting on socials saying to vote no, so I’ll probably go that way, but part of me just thinks no matter how tokenistic and kinda “us white men good, help black fella have say” it comes across, surely having it would have to be better than not having it?

    Why couldn’t this just be like gay marriage where the only reason you’d vote no is because you’re a religious nut or a bigot? (unfortunately, it seems 40% of our population fit into those categories)

    The “yes” brochure arguments really sound like a lot of political fluff. “Recognition”…cool, but what does that get them? What does “being recognized in the constitution” mean? “Listening”…ok but are you actually going to do anything? Who are you listening to out of the hundreds/thousands(?) of indigenous tribes around the country? “Better Results”…so got any actual plans for those things? How does the voice help achieve those results?

    Having now looked at the “no” brochure, they basically echo what I just asked above haha. The Government literally won’t divulge the details of what the Voice actually entails. That seems super dodgy.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        With zero answers for the main things people want to know, like how many parole are appointed, how they’re appointed, how long they’re appointed for, what powers they have, etc.

        • sil@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          As a result of this, and through careful deliberation, the final proposal for a National Voice is a 24-member model including 5 members representing remote regions, and one member representing the significant number of Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland. (p. 12)

          Members of the Local & Regional Voices within each state and territory would collectively determine National Voice members from their respective jurisdictions. (p. 12)

          Members would serve 4-year terms. These terms would be staggered, with half the membership determined every 2 years to ensure continuity. There would be a limit of 2 consecutive terms per member. (p. 108)

          • The National Voice would be an advisory body to the Australian Parliament and Government. These relationships would be two-way interactions, with either party able to initiate advice or commence discussion around relevant policy matters… The National Voice would have no power to veto laws made by the Parliament or decisions made by the Australian Government. (p. 109)

    • maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ll be voting Yes. If over the coming months we were to find out that somehow the Voice to Parliament will have a negative impact on demands for Treaties, truth telling, sovereignty among other things then I might change my mind but I find that unlikely. Who knows.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The big problem for me after seeing these is that it seems the government is refusing to give us actual details on what the Voice to Parliament entails. Why are they being so secretive about it and asking us to vote on something that they won’t tell us what it is?

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Very possible unfortunately. Not having an answer for basic questions like how many people are appointed, how they’re appointed, and for how long is pathetic.

            The cynic in me goes straight to that there’s a reason why they’re not divulging these things and it’s because the yes voters wouldn’t like the answers.

            • billytheid@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              More billshit, that assertion has already been directly disproven earlier in this thread. Why are you so committed to posting misinformation?

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It was not disproven. If it is then you should be able to answer my questions in the comment you replied to then, right?

                How many people are appointed?

                How are they appointed?

                How long are the terms of appointment?

                • Ilandar@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Someone already answered this for you here. I have engaged with you in good faith previously, but it’s becoming increasingly clear you are completely full of shit and are simply attempting to spread doubt and fear.