Voice referendum

[Nasheed]

 

[SexBomb]

Ah sorry. You just come across like one of the vegans you see on tele protesting outside of the steak restaurant.

My bad.

All good, I'm equally as human as you

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I disagree - there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered and are simply dismissed by the Yes side by nominating these matters as details to be decided by the Parliament post a successful Vote

For example?

 

[Blue_boost]

Sure if you were around in the 1960's you'd have said the same about the referendum then.

And bet you would have raved about the Hillman Imp being an awesome car.

this referendum has nothing to do with the one in 1960s..

If you don’t know vote NO!! Onus on the people who want change to deliver the message properly.. I’m not going out of my way to sift through the details.. (and then still note NO)

if you don’t know… VOTE NO!

 

[Blue_boost]

Next the LBGTQI community will want a voice, then renters.

it’s a no to all… if you want a voice put up a credible candidate and get elected to parliament

Jacinta Price is a credible candidate and she votes NO! to this voice debacle..

it’s a shambles the voice argument, imbeciles

 

[Doogie]

this referendum has nothing to do with the one in 1960s..

If you don’t know vote NO!! Onus on the people who want change to deliver the message properly.. I’m not going out of my way to sift through the details.. (and then still note NO)

if you don’t know… VOTE NO!

That one in the 60's gave first nations a Voice in democracy. Completely different lol.

As for the rest - just shows you have nothing to contribute to the debate. When you have a federal election, do you bother to educate yourself on what each party is proposing or go for the first sound bite that sounds credible?

Is that what happened with the Hyundai I30? The ad sounded credible?

 

[Bullpit]

For example?

How exactly will the representatives on the Voice be elected?

What will be the governance around the Voice and their representations?

What exactly is within the scope of the Voice, given anything the government does can be considered to impact the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities.

What are the legal and/or other avenues available to the Voice if Parliament rejects their representations?

How extensive will the Voice’s resources be - budget (as we as taxpayers will be funding it), etc. Could this end up being yet another entity with hundreds of employees?

Etc etc etc etc etc ……

 

[Philistine]

For example?

Number one question is why do we need a constitutional change? This question has been asked before, and the stock response is that, if the government legislates a voice through the parliamentary channels available to it, a future government can cancel it the same way. This is a rubbish response, although technically true.

Why would a future government change something if it can be seen to be working? ATSIC was dismantled in 2005 (IMO about 12 years late) by the Liberal government after Labor had gone to the 2004 election on a promise to abolish it. I have no doubt the Libs would have liked to get rid of ATSIC long before 2005, but only summoned up the political will once the other side began calling for its removal. The then Labor leader, Mark Latham has said "ATSIC was as corrupt, wasteful and ineffective a public body as this country has ever seen. Albanese was part of the Labor frontbench that moved to abolish it in 2004, then Howard followed. Now Albanese wants to entrench an ATSIC equivalent (Voice) in the Australian Constitution."

 

[sideswip]

Will Albo Cry if the NO vote wins... i do so much want to see him cry again.

 

[XPICATE]

For example?

Ah duh let’s enshrine a potential mistake into the constitution duh cos i’m woke bro, rainbows and antivirals and stuff..

 

[Hacky McAxe]

How exactly will the representatives on the Voice be elected?

They haven't covered specifically how members will be selected, but stated that they would be selected by community members and will have to be members of those communities, with members from different communities making up the bulk.

What will be the governance around the Voice and their representations?

The governance is mainly covered too. It will operate independently of government, and will be governed by members and the community. But they will also be accountable so corruption will result in the government stepping in.

What exactly is within the scope of the Voice, given anything the government does can be considered to impact the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities.

The scope is covered. The Voice provides advice on behalf of the Aboriginal communities. It will also be completely transparent to avoid corruption.

What are the legal and/or other avenues available to the Voice if Parliament rejects their representations?

Also covered. They don't have any. If government rejects their suggestions then they make more suggestions. This is the same as any other advisory body.

How extensive will the Voice’s resources be - budget (as we as taxpayers will be funding it), etc. Could this end up being yet another entity with hundreds of employees?

Unfortunately this hasn't really been covered. But I also wouldn't expect it to be covered. It's like every other advisory body. Until it's built, you don't know what kind of costs and full set up you're facing.

But yeah, most of that stuff has already been covered in depth.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Number one question is why do we need a constitutional change? This question has been asked before, and the stock response is that, if the government legislates a voice through the parliamentary channels available to it, a future government can cancel it the same way. This is a rubbish response, although technically true.

Why would a future government change something if it can be seen to be working? ATSIC was dismantled in 2005 (IMO about 12 years late) by the Liberal government after Labor had gone to the 2004 election on a promise to abolish it. I have no doubt the Libs would have liked to get rid of ATSIC long before 2005, but only summoned up the political will once the other side began calling for its removal. The then Labor leader, Mark Latham has said "ATSIC was as corrupt, wasteful and ineffective a public body as this country has ever seen. Albanese was part of the Labor frontbench that moved to abolish it in 2004, then Howard followed. Now Albanese wants to entrench an ATSIC equivalent (Voice) in the Australian Constitution."

Governments change stuff that works all the time, because their government didn't put it in place. A follow on government will remove a successful project if it saves money.

 

[Bullpit]

They haven't covered specifically how members will be selected, but stated that they would be selected by community members and will have to be members of those communities, with members from different communities making up the bulk.



The governance is mainly covered too. It will operate independently of government, and will be governed by members and the community. But they will also be accountable so corruption will result in the government stepping in.



The scope is covered. The Voice provides advice on behalf of the Aboriginal communities. It will also be completely transparent to avoid corruption.



Also covered. They don't have any. If government rejects their suggestions then they make more suggestions. This is the same as any other advisory body.



Unfortunately this hasn't really been covered. But I also wouldn't expect it to be covered. It's like every other advisory body. Until it's built, you don't know what kind of costs and full set up you're facing.

But yeah, most of that stuff has already been covered in depth.

Making a broad high level statement about something does not mean it’s covered. I guess each to their own - some may be happy with how these have been covered but to me I need some substance and detail which you in response to my examples have not provided More importantly, Albo and the Yes campaign have not provided the details. It’s sad really that Albo and his cronies expect us to rely on broad based motherhood statements to vote in favour of this significant change in our Constitution (despite them unbelievably saying it’s just a simple change)

 

[Blue_boost]

That one in the 60's gave first nations a Voice in democracy. Completely different lol.

Is that what happened with the Hyundai I30? The ad sounded credible?

if as you say it’s the same as the 1960 referendum, there is already a First Nation voice in democracy. why we doing it again?

also the Hyundai i30 is a remarkable car. How many Km on your old tractor? Your answer: it dont matter how many Km as for $50 I’ll go to Ahmet bros mechanic from greenacre to snip 150,000km off the odometer next time they do a blind pink slip

 

[Doogie]

if as you say it’s the same as the 1960 referendum, there is already a First Nation voice in democracy. why we doing it again?

also the Hyundai i30 is a remarkable car. How many Km on your old tractor? Your answer: it dont matter how many Km as for $50 I’ll go to Ahmet bros mechanic from greenacre to snip 150,000km off the odometer next time they do a blind pink slip

No idea and we leave it at that. If u don't know go educate yourself.

 

[TwinTurbo]

They haven't covered specifically how members will be selected, but stated that they would be selected by community members and will have to be members of those communities, with members from different communities making up the bulk.

Not a major issue, but from memory there are around 75 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognised communities. If the issue to be voiced is National (not Regional or Local) then there's going to a bucket full of money spent on deciding who gets a voice when it is cut down to 20 or so. The 4 main priority areas have been stated as health, education, jobs and housing, they are all National, Regional and Local issues. I can imagine the political infighting, especially as there is an assumption that they will get paid, handsomely.

On the topic of cost, the number of highly paid Public Servants required to support the Voice will put a dent in the Budget.

If they follow the Calma-Langton model that's 24 members, with gender balance (which on it's own would be interesting). That's 2 members from each State + NT + ACT + Torres Strait. An additional 5 members to represent remote areas due to their unique needs, NT, WA, Qld, SA, NSW and Torres Strait Islanders living elsewhere.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Blue_boost]

No idea and we leave it at that. If u don't know go educate yourself.

it’s not my job to sell this shifty scheme.. the yes movement have tripped over their own feet trying to sell this pumpkin. If a fast food joint releases a new burger they must convince us to go buy it, not the customers responsibility to find out.

if you dont know, vote NO!

 

[Blue_boost]

No idea and we leave it at that. If u don't know go educate yourself.

also you can sit there all night weighing up the nonsense, you seem like a rational person so I would assume you will end up voting NO after you boil down the 15 yes reasons, you realise they are all really the same ridiculous one reason.

instead I’ll watch car videos on YouTube and still vote No.

who amongst us wasted their time reading the unnecessary detail?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Not a major issue, but from memory there are around 75 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognised communities. If the issue to be voiced is National (not Regional or Local) then there's going to a bucket full of money spent on deciding who gets a voice when it is cut down to 20 or so. The 4 main priority areas have been stated as health, education, jobs and housing, they are all National, Regional and Local issues. I can imagine the political infighting, especially as there is an assumption that they will get paid, handsomely.

On the topic of cost, the number of highly paid Public Servants required to support the Voice will put a dent in the Budget.

If they follow the Calma-Langton model that's 24 members, with gender balance (which on it's own would be interesting). That's 2 members from each State + NT + ACT + Torres Strait. An additional 5 members to represent remote areas due to their unique needs, NT, WA, Qld, SA, NSW and Torres Strait Islanders living elsewhere.


Always a Bulldog

I believe it's meant to be 35 regions (combining all 75 into the 35 regions) and every community/region gets a say. The 24 elected won't be restricted to certain communities or regions. It will just be the number restrictions per state that you mentioned.

I'm sure there will be conflict over who gets in, but it will be democratic so it will be no different to Australians electing members. Although there isn't much detail in how the election/selection process will go. But that's why they are forcing transparency.

 

[Blue_boost]

In a referendum there should be a penalty if it’s voted No… ie something needs to be lost.. not just return to the current position.

for instance the money used (wasted) on the referendum should come out of the ingigenous affairs budget for next year. Then We will see who really wants a voice.

do they take the risk?