Voice referendum

[Harry Oz]

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:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2. 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;
3. 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.”

It looks like the proposed constitutional change is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice will only be able to make representations to Parliament.

Seems reasonable.

Centre For 21st Century Humanities

 

[SARGE]

 

[SARGE]

 

[2144superman]

Yawwwwwwn

 

[Wahesh]

 

[SARGE]

If legit, I wonder why MSM hasn't jumped on this?

 

[SARGE]

PS are forced to vote on this shit or is it like the SSM vote?

 

[Wahesh]

PS are forced to vote on this shit or is it like the SSM vote?

The SSM vote was a postal vote and was optional, so it wasn't a true indication of what most Australians wanted (hence it was nothing but a political vote winner). This one however is a vote so it's mandatory, we will be going to the polls and voting like we do at an election.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

The good old slippery slope strawman.

"you must vote no because after this vote, in the future after many more votes, maybe this will happen"

The same argument was made against same-sex marriage. The same argument was made against interracial marriage. The same argument was made against allowing Aboriginals to have the same rights as white Australians.

Could they demand their own state in the future? Sure. It's possible. But the voice doesn't give them the power to do that. So why even bother making that argument?

 

[SARGE]

The SSM vote was a postal vote and was optional, so it wasn't a true indication of what most Australians wanted (hence it was nothing but a political vote winner). This one however is a vote so it's mandatory, we will be going to the polls and voting like we do at an election.

Great, we have to waste our time on a Saturday on some rigged political bullshit.

 

[SARGE]

The good old slippery slope strawman.

"you must vote no because after this vote, in the future after many more votes, maybe this will happen"

The same argument was made against same-sex marriage. The same argument was made against interracial marriage. The same argument was made against allowing Aboriginals to have the same rights as white Australians.

Could they demand their own state in the future? Sure. It's possible. But the voice doesn't give them the power to do that. So why even bother making that argument?

I've always wondered about that.

Say they actually get their state, what happens to the people that currently reside there? Do they get a choice to move to "Australia" and do they have to finance the move themselves?

Reason I asked because IIRC, Western Australia was an option for Assyria and Israel at different times. Don't know if it was legit or just talk.

 

[Alan79]

The good old slippery slope strawman.

"you must vote no because after this vote, in the future after many more votes, maybe this will happen"

The same argument was made against same-sex marriage. The same argument was made against interracial marriage. The same argument was made against allowing Aboriginals to have the same rights as white Australians.

Could they demand their own state in the future? Sure. It's possible. But the voice doesn't give them the power to do that. So why even bother making that argument?

Scare tactics Hacky. Too many people lack thf understanding that this just allows for Aboriginal groups to put forward a proposal only. It's not going to fast track laws or division of the nation.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I've always wondered about that.

Say they actually get their state, what happens to the people that currently reside there? Do they get a choice to move to "Australia" and do they have to finance the move themselves?

Reason I asked because IIRC, Western Australia was an option for Assyria and Israel at different times. Don't know if it was legit or just talk.

It's all talk. I'm sure there are some hardline Aboriginals that would support the Aboriginal state. It would be free land, so who wouldn't support it?

But the voice doesn't give them that power. Or any power. The voice is literally just an advisory committee. It's a bunch of Aboriginal people saying, "our people would like this", and the government can say, "no, piss off" and that's the end of it.

 

[SARGE]

Scare tactics Hacky. Too many people lack thf understanding that this just allows for Aboriginal groups to put forward a proposal only. It's not going to fast track laws or division of the nation.

This is the SSM bullshit all over again. All the info is not given out causing speculation and the slippery slope discussions start.

It's like the government wants conflict over nothing.

 

[SARGE]

It's all talk. I'm sure there are some hardline Aboriginals that would support the Aboriginal state. It would be free land, so who wouldn't support it?

But the voice doesn't give them that power. Or any power. The voice is literally just an advisory committee. It's a bunch of Aboriginal people saying, "our people would like this", and the government can say, "no, piss off" and that's the end of it.

So pardon my ignorance but why the fuck do we have to vote for something so simple?

It's just a way for the government to offload "blame" onto the people if it fucks up down the track, like SSM.

They care more about votes than the ones that vote.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

This is the SSM bullshit all over again. All the info is not given out causing speculation and the slippery slope discussions start.

It's like the government wants conflict over nothing.

Not exactly. All the info is publicly available. Same as it was for SSM vote. But people will tell you that the information isn't available because they want you to second guess your vote.

They did the same thing with the SSM vote, "they don't say if they'll force churches to marry gays!"

The did though. It was publicly available that they couldn't force churches to marry gay people. It was just Conservatives trying to trick you into voting against it. Same thing they're doing now.

Anyone can read up on what it's about, and apparently they are releasing the full write ups from the Yes and No campaigns today.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

So pardon my ignorance but why the fuck do we have to vote for something so simple?

It's just a way for the government to offload "blame" onto the people if it fucks up down the track, like SSM.

They care more about votes than the ones that vote.

It's due to how Australia works. It's a bit stupid at times, but it's our democratic process. In Australia if there's any amendment to the Constitution, then the people have to be able to vote on it. It's a little silly because you're asking people with no knowledge of a subject to vote on that subject. Imagine asking the general public to vote if you needed a heart transplant, when they don't even know how a heart works and they've never met you. It's stupid. But the alternative is that we have no say on something that will be permanent.

 

[SARGE]

It's due to how Australia works. It's a bit stupid at times, but it's our democratic process. In Australia if there's any amendment to the Constitution, then the people have to be able to vote on it. It's a little silly because you're asking people with no knowledge of a subject to vote on that subject. Imagine asking the general public to vote if you needed a heart transplant, when they don't even know how a heart works and they've never met you. It's stupid. But the alternative is that we have no say on something that will be permanent.

I for one think the yes side will "win" even if they don't so Straya won't be labelled "racist" if the no side wins.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I for one think the yes side will "win" even if they don't so Straya won't be labelled "racist" if the no side wins.

The last time we had this kind of referendum around Aboriginals was in 1962 when we had a vote to see if Aboriginal people would be allowed to vote. All Australians had to vote to see if a small percentage of Australians would get the right to vote. The Yes vote won even though there was heavy opposition saying that it would lead to worse things. Just like the No campaign are doing now.

Prior to that, Aboriginals couldn't vote on elections, referendums, or anything.

 

[04 Dreaming]

I for one think the yes side will "win" even if they don't so Straya won't be labelled "racist" if the no side wins.

Of course yes will win. It’s a waste of time voting

Society is finished. I won’t waste my time on this one. Stay home, they can fine me if they like. I would urge you to do the same