Voice referendum

[Doogie]

Missed that. It's not a conspiracy or anything. It's a common marketing strategy used by many now days. Any marketing company that wants to make an impact, has to use social media influencers

No campaign spreads through TikTok ‘like wildfire’ as pro-voice creators struggle to cut through

Fair Australia’s memes and slick videos are surging on social platform, garnering far more views and followers than the yes campaign

www.theguardian.com

Yes but have you followed the money on this?

Fair Australia. Funded by Advance.
Advance funded by donations and multiple businessman including the dude who started Kennards and David Adler amongst others.
And it was started by a Liberal Party staffer.

Why should anyone care? Well - David Adler has another job title. President of the Australian Jewish Association.

So basically, a fair chunk of the no advocates here are also big on the conspiracies such as the Zionist control of govts etc. And those same people are here siding with a jewish funded think group specifically pushing an agenda.

Go figure.

 

[Memberberries]

The "Yes" vote is something akin to a Trojan Horse. It will be full of surprises and most of the surprises will not be popular.

End of story!
Thread closed!

 

[Doogie]

Cross of Sacrifice vandalised with 'No' in run-up to Voice referendum

A memorial to those who served or were killed in action during World War II has been graffitied in south-east South Australia.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Bullpit]

Missed that. It's not a conspiracy or anything. It's a common marketing strategy used by many now days. Any marketing company that wants to make an impact, has to use social media influencers

No campaign spreads through TikTok ‘like wildfire’ as pro-voice creators struggle to cut through

Fair Australia’s memes and slick videos are surging on social platform, garnering far more views and followers than the yes campaign

www.theguardian.com

Thanks for clarifying. I had a quick read of the article - nowhere does this say that the NO campaign is paying influencers, as you claimed. The fact is the YES campaign is advertising a lot more than the NO campaign, flooding us with useless and irrelevant emotional and virtue signalling content.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Yes but have you followed the money on this?

Fair Australia. Funded by Advance.
Advance funded by donations and multiple businessman including the dude who started Kennards and David Adler amongst others.
And it was started by a Liberal Party staffer.

Why should anyone care? Well - David Adler has another job title. President of the Australian Jewish Association.

So basically, a fair chunk of the no advocates here are also big on the conspiracies such as the Zionist control of govts etc. And those same people are here siding with a jewish funded think group specifically pushing an agenda.

Go figure.

Not the founder of Kennards. Pretty sure he's been dead for a while. But the part owner and managing Director of Kennards (Sam Kennard). Worked with him a bit when he was running for a seat. Nice enough bloke, but Diehard Libertarian.

Adler is a complete trash bag.

 

[N4TE]

until it does impact you.. the detail just isnt there to confirm it won’t impact you.. when you have to pay to for a permit to host Christmas lunch on your land or even park your car in your own driveway.. it might seem ridiculous but the detail isnt there so you can’t rule it out.. you want to stick it in the constitition so they can stitch you up?

If you don’t know (the impacts) vote NO!!

this voice will make everything their business, only for handsome % fee of every proposal they may let it pass through.

There are a few people on here that I gave more credit than they deserve as to their intelligence. Then you read some of yes campaign propaganda that they blindly embrace and you shake your head

Your ticket is on a sinking ship , come across and sail away with the no voters, let’s punish these fools come Sunday, dont be labelled a money wasters after this is done..

watch them all run for cover come Sunday when I come hunting

It won’t get up as far as I can gather but I still wanted to progress my relationship with the indigenous people of Australia. oldest mate is Aboriginal and he has thought about it and says he is undecided but I’ve decided that if it can help improve peoples lives why would I block it. If you have ever been to Bourke you would understand. Everyone has their own right to choose how they vote. Gloating and “punishing” someone on a vote that you don’t agree with and kind of already know the outcome of is just childish. Just my opinion.

 

[Blue_boost]

It won’t get up as far as I can gather but I still wanted to progress my relationship with the indigenous people of Australia. oldest mate is Aboriginal and he has thought about it and says he is undecided but I’ve decided that if it can help improve peoples lives why would I block it. If you have ever been to Bourke you would understand. Everyone has their own right to choose how they vote. Gloating and “punishing” someone on a vote that you don’t agree with and kind of already know the outcome of is just childish. Just my opinion.

plenty of aboriginal people voting No.. I don’t see my NO vote as impacting my relationship with aboriginal people. I love aboriginal people as much as you do. But I’m voting No

It’s a huge waste of taxpayer money, these buffoons need to be brought to account. Next time we have water restrictions with the dam at 30% and the dam wasnt upgraded, let’s remember this huge waste of money.

 

[cntrbry bnkstwn]

i voted today, wrote terry lamb in the box provided

 

[Memberberries]

Majority of people I have encountered today are voting no!
It's pretty obvious they're voting no and are not trolling when they drive passed a polling both saying vote NO, F Israel, F the Jews!

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Thanks for clarifying. I had a quick read of the article - nowhere does this say that the NO campaign is paying influencers, as you claimed. The fact is the YES campaign is advertising a lot more than the NO campaign, flooding us with useless and irrelevant emotional and virtue signalling content.

This doesn't cover the influencers, but it covers the NO campaign spending lots of money on Facebook and other social media advertising, including some deceptive advertising designed to spread viral misinformation.

No campaign runs opposite claims on Indigenous voice across different social media pages

Exclusive: Advance lobby group runs multiple Facebook pages that target different demographics, including one that purports to be a neutral news source

www.theguardian.com

The no campaign in the Indigenous voice referendum is running three different social media strategies, each targeting different groups of Australians with apparently contradictory messages, a Guardian Australia investigation can reveal.

The lobby group Advance, one of the lead organisations in the no camp, runs one Facebook page highlighting conservative criticism, another highlighting progressive complaints, and a third portraying itself as a neutral news source....

 

[Doogie]

Majority of people I have encountered today are voting no!
It's pretty obvious they're voting no and are not trolling when they drive passed a polling both saying vote NO, F Israel, F the Jews!

But the president of the Australian Jewish association is funding the no campaign through fair Australia.

So yes, they are trolling. Themselves.

 

[Bullpit]

It won’t get up as far as I can gather but I still wanted to progress my relationship with the indigenous people of Australia. oldest mate is Aboriginal and he has thought about it and says he is undecided but I’ve decided that if it can help improve peoples lives why would I block it. If you have ever been to Bourke you would understand. Everyone has their own right to choose how they vote. Gloating and “punishing” someone on a vote that you don’t agree with and kind of already know the outcome of is just childish. Just my opinion.

Fair enough … definitely agree we should respect everyone and how they vote. It’s awesome that you want to help, but I really want to know exactly how the Voice will help??

As I mentioned in a previous post, people are voting for the wrong question. The question is not “Do you want things to improve for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities”? Of course, like you, a large majority of people will vote Yes to that question.

Rather, the question we are all voting on on Saturday is whether we should change our Constitution permanently to include the existence of a yet to be defined body. For mine, as it has been presented to date, this question is full of legal, operational and definitional holes.

And don’t fall for that “there is no downside” argument. Having additional levels of bureaucracy can do more harm than good. I won’t go into all the Aboriginal representative organisations that exist now (as it has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread), but no one from the Yes campaign has explained how the Voice will integrate with these organisations. As one example, the NIAA has around 1400 employees and they report directly to Linda Burney, so have FULL access to parliament - this from their website ….

“The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) vision is to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered. We recognise each First Nations community is unique. We work in partnership with community to make sure policies, programs and services meet their unique needs. We work to support the Minister for Indigenous Australians.”

Sounds very much like they are a Voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. And there are numerous other organisations like this. Do we want to add another level of bureaucracy??

We definitely need to do something different to what we have been doing to close the gap, but the Voice is just more of the same.

 

[N4TE]

Fair enough … definitely agree we should respect everyone and how they vote. It’s awesome that you want to help, but I really want to know exactly how the Voice will help??

As I mentioned in a previous post, people are voting for the wrong question. The question is not “Do you want things to improve for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities”? Of course, like you, a large majority of people will vote Yes to that question.

Rather, the question we are all voting on on Saturday is whether we should change our Constitution permanently to include the existence of a yet to be defined body. For mine, as it has been presented to date, this question is full of legal, operational and definitional holes.

And don’t fall for that “there is no downside” argument. Having additional levels of bureaucracy can do more harm than good. I won’t go into all the Aboriginal representative organisations that exist now (as it has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread), but no one from the Yes campaign has explained how the Voice will integrate with these organisations. As one example, the NIAA has around 1400 employees and they report directly to Linda Burney, so have FULL access to parliament - this from their website ….

“The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) vision is to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered. We recognise each First Nations community is unique. We work in partnership with community to make sure policies, programs and services meet their unique needs. We work to support the Minister for Indigenous Australians.”

Sounds very much like they are a Voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. And there are numerous other organisations like this. Do we want to add another level of bureaucracy??

We definitely need to do something different to what we have been doing to close the gap, but the Voice is just more of the same.

Again well articulated..

 

[Blue_boost]

Fair enough … definitely agree we should respect everyone and how they vote. It’s awesome that you want to help, but I really want to know exactly how the Voice will help??

As I mentioned in a previous post, people are voting for the wrong question. The question is not “Do you want things to improve for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities”? Of course, like you, a large majority of people will vote Yes to that question.

Rather, the question we are all voting on on Saturday is whether we should change our Constitution permanently to include the existence of a yet to be defined body. For mine, as it has been presented to date, this question is full of legal, operational and definitional holes.

And don’t fall for that “there is no downside” argument. Having additional levels of bureaucracy can do more harm than good. I won’t go into all the Aboriginal representative organisations that exist now (as it has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread), but no one from the Yes campaign has explained how the Voice will integrate with these organisations. As one example, the NIAA has around 1400 employees and they report directly to Linda Burney, so have FULL access to parliament - this from their website ….

“The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) vision is to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered. We recognise each First Nations community is unique. We work in partnership with community to make sure policies, programs and services meet their unique needs. We work to support the Minister for Indigenous Australians.”

Sounds very much like they are a Voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. And there are numerous other organisations like this. Do we want to add another level of bureaucracy??

We definitely need to do something different to what we have been doing to close the gap, but the Voice is just more of the same.

Good points. So everyone VOtE NO

 

[Blue_boost]

This is what we will do on Saturday to the yes campaign used car salesmen trying to pedal their nonsense

Reece Walsh SMASHED by Joe Tapine #canberraraiders #nrl #nrlhighlights #brisbanebroncos

All fair but wow what a mismatch, especially given the game was done! Maybe do that in the first half next time!!

youtube.com

 

[Bullpit]

This doesn't cover the influencers, but it covers the NO campaign spending lots of money on Facebook and other social media advertising, including some deceptive advertising designed to spread viral misinformation.

No campaign runs opposite claims on Indigenous voice across different social media pages

Exclusive: Advance lobby group runs multiple Facebook pages that target different demographics, including one that purports to be a neutral news source

www.theguardian.com

The no campaign in the Indigenous voice referendum is running three different social media strategies, each targeting different groups of Australians with apparently contradictory messages, a Guardian Australia investigation can reveal.

The lobby group Advance, one of the lead organisations in the no camp, runs one Facebook page highlighting conservative criticism, another highlighting progressive complaints, and a third portraying itself as a neutral news source....

There are also verified reports of YES campaigners being told by the YES campaign to convey different messages to potential voters based on where they stand and how strongly they feel about various issues - for example, what the YES campaigners are supposed to say about Treaty. That is disingenuous. There are examples on both sides of various dubious tactics - we have to Vote ignoring the BS noise (which is most of what the YES campaign is - sorry, could not resist!).

 

[Doogie]

There are also verified reports of YES campaigners being told by the YES campaign to convey different messages to potential voters based on where they stand and how strongly they feel about various issues - for example, what the YES campaigners are supposed to say about Treaty. That is disingenuous. There are examples on both sides of various dubious tactics - we have to Vote ignoring the BS noise (which is most of what the YES campaign is - sorry, could not resist!).

Haven't seen any reports of yes campaigners vandalising yes onto war memorials or street signs.

That's not disingenuous. That's illegal.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

There are also verified reports of YES campaigners being told by the YES campaign to convey different messages to potential voters based on where they stand and how strongly they feel about various issues - for example, what the YES campaigners are supposed to say about Treaty. That is disingenuous. There are examples on both sides of various dubious tactics - we have to Vote ignoring the BS noise (which is most of what the YES campaign is - sorry, could not resist!).

I'm sure there would be disingenuous campaigners on both sides. What does Treaty have to do with it though? Why would they even mention it if it's not part of the vote?

 

[Grunthos]

I really want to vote yes but my years in the media tell me the only people who will benefit from a yes vote are the activists in the "Aboriginal industry" and those who "identify" as Aboriginal without a single strand of First Nation DNA in them, so it's a big NO from me unfortunately.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Fair enough … definitely agree we should respect everyone and how they vote. It’s awesome that you want to help, but I really want to know exactly how the Voice will help??

As I mentioned in a previous post, people are voting for the wrong question. The question is not “Do you want things to improve for our Aboriginal and Torres Strait communities”? Of course, like you, a large majority of people will vote Yes to that question.

Rather, the question we are all voting on on Saturday is whether we should change our Constitution permanently to include the existence of a yet to be defined body. For mine, as it has been presented to date, this question is full of legal, operational and definitional holes.

And don’t fall for that “there is no downside” argument. Having additional levels of bureaucracy can do more harm than good. I won’t go into all the Aboriginal representative organisations that exist now (as it has been discussed ad nauseum on this thread), but no one from the Yes campaign has explained how the Voice will integrate with these organisations.

Have you asked?

Referendum on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

On 14 October 2023, Australians voted in a referendum about whether to change the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. It was the first referendum of the 21st century. The referendum did not pass...

voice.gov.au

"Agencies like the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) would continue to exist because they would serve different purposes and have different functions to the Voice.

The NIAA is a federal government agency responsible for leading and coordinating Australian Government policy development, program design, and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As such, the NIAA works to deliver the policies and programs of the Government of the day. The Voice would not deliver policies and programs or manage any money"

As one example, the NIAA has around 1400 employees and they report directly to Linda Burney, so have FULL access to parliament - this from their website ….

“The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) vision is to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered. We recognise each First Nations community is unique. We work in partnership with community to make sure policies, programs and services meet their unique needs. We work to support the Minister for Indigenous Australians.”

Sounds very much like they are a Voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. And there are numerous other organisations like this. Do we want to add another level of bureaucracy??

We definitely need to do something different to what we have been doing to close the gap, but the Voice is just more of the same.

That's a bit different than "full access to parliament". They report to one Minister. If that Minister chooses to not listen, that's the end of it. They can't approach parliament because they don't have access to Parliament.

There's other issues and differences around it:

Sorting Fact from Fiction in the Voice to Parliament Referendum

In this digital age, when information spreads far and wide at the click of a button, separating fact from fiction has never been trickier. Nowhere is this

www.amnesty.org.au

"...There are several other key differences between the NIAA and the Voice. For instance, the Voice would consist entirely of representatives of First Nations peoples. Meanwhile, only 22% of the NIAA identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Finally, as an internal agency, the NIAA is accountable to the government. This is different to the proposed Voice, which would sit outside both the executive and parliament, making it truly independent."