Voice referendum

[Hacky McAxe]

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.

The representatives are being chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So if they choose to elect non-Indigenous/fake Aboriginals, that was their choice to do it. Do you think they will though?

Secondly, important to note that the Voice requires many of those representative be from remote Aboriginal communities. I doubt they'll find fake Aboriginals in those communities.

And thirdly, the Voice will be completely transparent. Which means that if they choose fake Aboriginals or Aboriginal elites, we will know about it. Except if they're really devious. Like they get full on plastic surgery or something...

 

[Bullpit]

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

That's not disingenuous. That's illegal.

As I said, crap happening on both sides

 

[Bullpit]

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?

Because people are asking questions about it, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Bullpit]

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"



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."

“They will continue to exist” is not an answer to my question. I was more asking about how they will work together with each other and to what extent they will integrate and/ or draw upon each other. In fact, your response raises more questions - will the representative bodies have the same budget as they currently have? Will the Voice having a budget, whatever that is as no one has any idea about the $’s involved, in addition to the budgets of all these other Aboriginal representative groups, be doubling up into inefficient solutions to the same directives and issues. I get the Voice is not responsible for implementing fixes supposedly, but surely there are multiple inefficiencies that can exist with another body being introduced, albeit with a dissimilar purpose. Sounds like a huge cluster f**k to me

 

[Hacky McAxe]

“They will continue to exist” is not an answer to my question. I was more asking about how they will work together with each other and to what extent they will integrate and/ or draw upon each other. In fact, your response raises more questions - will the representative bodies have the same budget as they currently have? Will the Voice having a budget, whatever that is as no one has any idea about the $’s involved, in addition to the budgets of all these other Aboriginal representative groups, be doubling up into inefficient solutions to the same directives and issues. I get the Voice is not responsible for implementing fixes supposedly, but surely there are multiple inefficiencies that can exist with another body being introduced, albeit with a dissimilar purpose. Sounds like a huge cluster f**k to me

I think you misunderstand. They won't work together. NIAA is government, The Voice is independent. They can't work together or it will be a conflict of interest. The Voice is an advisory body that runs independent and represents directly to Parliament. If they Voice and the NIAA worked together in any way, then the Voice wouldn't be independent.

As far as the Budget goes. Yep, don't know unfortunately. But it's not a doubling up. As I pointed out in the article I shared earlier, the Voice and the NIAA are two separate entities with two separate purposes. The Voice is advisory. Pure and simple. They can't deliver anything beyond advice.

 

[Grunthos]

The representatives are being chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So if they choose to elect non-Indigenous/fake Aboriginals, that was their choice to do it. Do you think they will though?

Secondly, important to note that the Voice requires many of those representative be from remote Aboriginal communities. I doubt they'll find fake Aboriginals in those communities.

And thirdly, the Voice will be completely transparent. Which means that if they choose fake Aboriginals or Aboriginal elites, we will know about it. Except if they're really devious. Like they get full on plastic surgery or something...

Unfortunately what they say and what they do will be two completely different things...

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Unfortunately what they say and what they do will be two completely different things...

True. It could always change. But that's the current plan.

 

[wendog33]

I'm gonna have another rant lol

What a shame Australia couldn't have had a mature, inclusive, intelligent debate about trying to fix the Aboriginal inequality problem and sorting a solution to their very real disadvantage in life expectancy etc and grievances from colonisation atrocities etc. to facilitate a healing and coming together to solve a problem.

If our 2 major parties, and their leaders, could have got together in a conciliatory manner and worked for the good in solving this problem for first nations people and the general public and saved so much money from our national budget on unsuccessful, meaningless welfare programs that haven't worked.

If we could have worked for the national good in improving our country, all our peoples, our reputation and standing.

But as usual this higher ideal is turned into a pipe dream that's been railroaded by a whole heap of selfish interest groups who have other agendas.

No one side is to blame but more is the pity that we are condemned to this political cycle of never achieving anything of much value because it's all too hard for our small minded citizenship on all sides of the fence. We let our politicans get away with being average weak leaders and don't demand more of them or our ourselves.

Another opportunity to show a willingness to inspire and solve problems lost bc we couldn't face a truth and accepted our lazy politicians inability to work together to solve it and present that solution to the Australian people rather than this abomination of a referendum we did get presented to us which was so open to criticism and not really a sound platform to initiate a Voice or greater understanding of the issues.

Like republican movement and dropping the royal family...all too hard for this one as well.

 

[SPEARTAKVIDREFS]

I'm gonna have another rant lol

What a shame Australia couldn't have had a mature, inclusive, intelligent debate about trying to fix the Aboriginal inequality problem and sorting a solution to their very real disadvantage in life expectancy etc and grievances from colonisation atrocities etc. to facilitate a healing and coming together to solve a problem.

If our 2 major parties, and their leaders, could have got together in a conciliatory manner and worked for the good in solving this problem for first nations people and the general public and saved so much money from our national budget on unsuccessful, meaningless welfare programs that haven't worked.

If we could have worked for the national good in improving our country, all our peoples, our reputation and standing.

But as usual this higher ideal is turned into a pipe dream that's been railroaded by a whole heap of selfish interest groups who have other agendas.

No one side is to blame but more is the pity that we are condemned to this political cycle of never achieving anything of much value because it's all too hard for our small minded citizenship on all sides of the fence. We let our politicans get away with being average weak leaders and don't demand more of them or our ourselves.

Another opportunity to show a willingness to inspire and solve problems lost bc we couldn't face a truth and accepted our lazy politicians inability to work together to solve it and present that solution to the Australian people rather than this abomination of a referendum we did get presented to us which was so open to criticism and not really a sound platform to initiate a Voice or greater understanding of the issues.

Like republican movement and dropping the royal family...all too hard for this one as well.

Remember Sherman form Rocky and Bullwinkle? Its who I instantly think of whenever I see or hear the Prime Minister of Australia.
We have no great leaders.

 

[Trinfly]

 

[The DoggFather]

I think most sensible people will have the shits that this referendum has ruined their Saturday standing in lines. They will vote no so they don’t try this stunt on again.

Didn't the Liberal fuckwits already said they will try if and when the Labor fuckwits fail?

 

[The DoggFather]

@Hacky McAxe or @Doogie when does the advertising go dark?

Is it like an election or will these ***** run shit ads up to Saturday?

 

[Doogie]

@Hacky McAxe or @Doogie when does the advertising go dark?

Is it like an election or will these ***** run shit ads up to Saturday?

Fckd if I know.

My advice. Get a premium subscription on pornhub. No ads of any kind.

 

[The DoggFather]

Fckd if I know.

My advice. Get a premium subscription on pornhub. No ads of any kind.

Yes Doctor, I follow Doctors orders....usually lol

 

[Bullpit]

I think you misunderstand. They won't work together. NIAA is government, The Voice is independent. They can't work together or it will be a conflict of interest. The Voice is an advisory body that runs independent and represents directly to Parliament. If they Voice and the NIAA worked together in any way, then the Voice wouldn't be independent.

As far as the Budget goes. Yep, don't know unfortunately. But it's not a doubling up. As I pointed out in the article I shared earlier, the Voice and the NIAA are two separate entities with two separate purposes. The Voice is advisory. Pure and simple. They can't deliver anything beyond advice.

Thanks for clarifying - I see where you are coming from but I disagree. Taking the NIAA as an example, their mandate is to “hear” what the indigenous community has to say. This is exactly what the Voice is supposedly designed to do. There is an overlap and there is doubling up. To say there is a conflict of interest if they work together is to say their ultimate goals are different, which they are not. The only way there would be a conflict of interest is if the Voice was purely a governance body which, per my understanding, it is not designed to be.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Thanks for clarifying - I see where you are coming from but I disagree. Taking the NIAA as an example, their mandate is to “hear” what the indigenous community has to say. This is exactly what the Voice is supposedly designed to do. There is an overlap and there is doubling up. To say there is a conflict of interest if they work together is to say their ultimate goals are different, which they are not. The only way there would be a conflict of interest is if the Voice was purely a governance body which, per my understanding, it is not designed to be.

Nah, I mean it's a conflict of interest if a government body works with an independent body, because it's no longer independent.

 

[Bullpit]

Nah, I mean it's a conflict of interest if a government body works with an independent body, because it's no longer independent.

So, who sets and approves the budget for the Voice? If it’s Parliament or any government related body, it’s fundamentally a conflict. How would that work?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

So, who sets and approves the budget for the Voice? If it’s Parliament or any government related body, it’s fundamentally a conflict. How would that work?

Funding isn't a conflict unless the funding is drastically reduced with the intent to ensure there isn't enough money for the Voice to operate.

 

[Bulldog Brower]

@Hacky McAxe or @Doogie when does the advertising go dark?

Is it like an election or will these ***** run shit ads up to Saturday?

@Hacky McAxe or @Doogie when does the advertising go dark?

Is it like an election or will these ***** run shit ads up to Saturday?

I think that on the news tonight they said that advertising must finish on Wednesday night, but I was only half listening.

 

[The DoggFather]

I think that on the news tonight they said that advertising must finish on Wednesday night, but I was only half listening.

Thank God for that!