…casually failing to mention that the “one racial group” are the traditional land owners who lost their land and 50,000 year-old culture due to colonisation.
And what does that have to do with our modern (and future) Democratic nation?
None of us took anything from any others of us. Its a totally irrelevant point.
We can’t go around changing g the fundamental nature of democracy because of historical tragedies or in 15 minutes we’ll be back to fucking tribalism and feudal lords.
Colonisation took everything from First Nation people, but all you care about is that recognition might end up costing you something. Sound a lot like that tribalism you reckon you’re want to avoid.
And what are you actually giving up?
There is no threat to democracy, The Voice is an advisory body. It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.
Referendums are described in the Constitution to allow Australians to change how it functions. So we explicitly can change how aspects of our democratic process works, and obviously should do so to reflect changes in Australian society since Federation 120+ years ago.
Well you’ve just erected a pretty nice strawman there but not much else.
“It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.”
Nobody has any fucking clue what powers it might have, its a blank check. Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this “advisory body” can and can’t do, or shut the fuck up.
Sure, we can change it. But there has not been any fucking legitimate reason presented as to why we should. The arguments presented by the Yes campaign are certainly emotional, but not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.
Let’s stick the the topic and avoid juvenile debate tactics.
Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this “advisory body” can and can’t do, or shut the fuck up.
Here is exactly what the referendum entails, and note that it specifically limits the role of the Voice (in whatever form it takes) to “make representations” and also that it specifically highlights that parliament - and only parliament - “shall… Have the power to make laws”.
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 by peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
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;
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.
I repeat: the Voice Has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers, and you have no legitimate basis to imply otherwise. We are 100% not being asked to vote on a Constitutional change that undermines democratic principles. If you vote No on that basis then it is because you are ignorant of the proposed Constitutional change and have been conned by the right wing and media.
not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.
The Voice is part of modest recommendations proposed respectfully by First Nations people via the Uluru Statement from the heart. You need to be cynical and unrealistic to think that accepting and supporting their views - with no downsides to you personally or us as a country - really won’t change anything. Are you really interested in the outcomes for First Nations people? If so, please explain how you expect to see change if the Voice is rejected?
Forgot to add - I haven’t been conned by any media, either right wing or slightly less right wing. Don’t own a TV and the only social media I’m on is this which is unsurprisingly light on Aus politics.
Interesting. I’m curious why you aren’t familiar with the details of constitutional amendment I linked to. You’re clearly not basing your opinion on primary sources, so what secondary sources are you consuming?
They will decide after how to establish the advisory body that has no legislative, executive, or judicial power and can only advise parliament (who will then decide what actions are taken or even if any action is taken at all).
They cannot make decisions with respect to giving the Voice Constitutional powers to make or change legislative, executive, or judicial decisions unless there’s another referendum. They can legislate powers, but they can already do that without the referendum.
Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around “powers”
And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.
This is always an interesting one - who is “propagandising” us, and what do they have to gain from their significant investment in advancing this agenda?
Well I mean, have you researched the issue, analyzed it, and developed your own position based on evidence?
Or are you just listening to what comes out of the TV?
If you get your opinions from someone who hands them to you fully formed (like Voice good, no voice racist) then that is propaganda, not information.
As to your second question - a: politicians scoring points and winning elections; and b: a whole lot of people who get a hand in deciding laws and economic decisions for their own special group.
And before you bang out the line about lobby groups all having a say already - yes of course we should fuck those off as well because they too are undemocratic corruption
Ah yes - do your own research… The mating call of the conspiracist.
So it’s the Labor party propagandising us to secure an election win that isn’t an election (top-tier research, I see)? Seems like a big deal that carries a very real risk of a loss, with opportunity for marginal gain at best, which necessitates burning immense political capital. This doesn’t smell of conspiracist bullshit to you?
The Labor Party have invested $9.5m into this, which has been spent on things like broad civics education and website upgrades. The yes campaign has also been set to lose for some time now - so my comment and the risk is already validated, and Labor get to tie themselves to an unpopular position, and lose. Genius.
Do you baselessly assume I get my information from TV because you don’t own/watch TV, get your info from the likes of YouTube (or better, Rumble - where do you get your research?), and think you’re an enlightened type because of it? I’ve looked at legislative review and the explanatory memorandum, cases from both campaigns, stats around indigenous outcomes, and the history of this country, but there was really no need - this is very simple. I personally don’t think it’s great to turn up, genocide the population, take their land, witness comparatively atrocious outcomes according to just about any metric you care to choose that persist 2 centuries after we turned up and shrug my shoulders because doing the bare minimum about that would be racist. The least we could do is give them a dismissable voice in matters that relate to them.
You can say you disagree with the existence of representative bodies like the business council, but the fact of the matter is that we have them. To now shut the gate on a marginalised group while the other bodies continue to exist only exacerbates the issue. Those bodies also have massive amounts of cash to throw around - the voice, on the other hand would get to make representions that can simply be ignored… What are you afraid of here? This is like me beating you up and taking your lunch money, then saying we can’t do a thing about that because you’re a different race/gender/sexuality/whatever, and that would be (pick)-ist.
I’ll put it differently - is the massive disparity in outcomes for indigenous Australians a product of the systemic issues that have been thrust upon them, or inferior genetics? If it’s systemic, why not get their input on addressing the issues that affect them? If it’s genetic, we get to have a very different chat. Feel free to pick a deflection like culture, but it’s all a product of genetics or systemic in the end.
Adding a new governmental body that is open to only one racial group is racist and it is also undemocratic.
Your vote is well intentioned its just poorly informed. You’ve been propagandised.
…casually failing to mention that the “one racial group” are the traditional land owners who lost their land and 50,000 year-old culture due to colonisation.
And what does that have to do with our modern (and future) Democratic nation?
None of us took anything from any others of us. Its a totally irrelevant point.
We can’t go around changing g the fundamental nature of democracy because of historical tragedies or in 15 minutes we’ll be back to fucking tribalism and feudal lords.
Colonisation took everything from First Nation people, but all you care about is that recognition might end up costing you something. Sound a lot like that tribalism you reckon you’re want to avoid.
And what are you actually giving up?
There is no threat to democracy, The Voice is an advisory body. It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.
Referendums are described in the Constitution to allow Australians to change how it functions. So we explicitly can change how aspects of our democratic process works, and obviously should do so to reflect changes in Australian society since Federation 120+ years ago.
Well you’ve just erected a pretty nice strawman there but not much else.
“It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.”
Nobody has any fucking clue what powers it might have, its a blank check. Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this “advisory body” can and can’t do, or shut the fuck up.
Sure, we can change it. But there has not been any fucking legitimate reason presented as to why we should. The arguments presented by the Yes campaign are certainly emotional, but not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.
Let’s stick the the topic and avoid juvenile debate tactics.
Here is exactly what the referendum entails, and note that it specifically limits the role of the Voice (in whatever form it takes) to “make representations” and also that it specifically highlights that parliament - and only parliament - “shall… Have the power to make laws”.
I repeat: the Voice Has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers, and you have no legitimate basis to imply otherwise. We are 100% not being asked to vote on a Constitutional change that undermines democratic principles. If you vote No on that basis then it is because you are ignorant of the proposed Constitutional change and have been conned by the right wing and media.
The Voice is part of modest recommendations proposed respectfully by First Nations people via the Uluru Statement from the heart. You need to be cynical and unrealistic to think that accepting and supporting their views - with no downsides to you personally or us as a country - really won’t change anything. Are you really interested in the outcomes for First Nations people? If so, please explain how you expect to see change if the Voice is rejected?
Forgot to add - I haven’t been conned by any media, either right wing or slightly less right wing. Don’t own a TV and the only social media I’m on is this which is unsurprisingly light on Aus politics.
Its ain’t me being conned here
Interesting. I’m curious why you aren’t familiar with the details of constitutional amendment I linked to. You’re clearly not basing your opinion on primary sources, so what secondary sources are you consuming?
What makes you think I’m unfamiliar with it? I know exactly what it says, regardless of whether I’m a shit debater
Right here:
“its composition, functions, powers and procedures”
There is literally no scope included - they’ll decide after
They will decide after how to establish the advisory body that has no legislative, executive, or judicial power and can only advise parliament (who will then decide what actions are taken or even if any action is taken at all).
They cannot make decisions with respect to giving the Voice Constitutional powers to make or change legislative, executive, or judicial decisions unless there’s another referendum. They can legislate powers, but they can already do that without the referendum.
What specifically do you object to about this?
Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around “powers”
And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.
Those specifically are what I object to
This is always an interesting one - who is “propagandising” us, and what do they have to gain from their significant investment in advancing this agenda?
Well I mean, have you researched the issue, analyzed it, and developed your own position based on evidence?
Or are you just listening to what comes out of the TV?
If you get your opinions from someone who hands them to you fully formed (like Voice good, no voice racist) then that is propaganda, not information.
As to your second question - a: politicians scoring points and winning elections; and b: a whole lot of people who get a hand in deciding laws and economic decisions for their own special group.
And before you bang out the line about lobby groups all having a say already - yes of course we should fuck those off as well because they too are undemocratic corruption
Ah yes - do your own research… The mating call of the conspiracist.
So it’s the Labor party propagandising us to secure an election win that isn’t an election (top-tier research, I see)? Seems like a big deal that carries a very real risk of a loss, with opportunity for marginal gain at best, which necessitates burning immense political capital. This doesn’t smell of conspiracist bullshit to you?
The Labor Party have invested $9.5m into this, which has been spent on things like broad civics education and website upgrades. The yes campaign has also been set to lose for some time now - so my comment and the risk is already validated, and Labor get to tie themselves to an unpopular position, and lose. Genius.
Do you baselessly assume I get my information from TV because you don’t own/watch TV, get your info from the likes of YouTube (or better, Rumble - where do you get your research?), and think you’re an enlightened type because of it? I’ve looked at legislative review and the explanatory memorandum, cases from both campaigns, stats around indigenous outcomes, and the history of this country, but there was really no need - this is very simple. I personally don’t think it’s great to turn up, genocide the population, take their land, witness comparatively atrocious outcomes according to just about any metric you care to choose that persist 2 centuries after we turned up and shrug my shoulders because doing the bare minimum about that would be racist. The least we could do is give them a dismissable voice in matters that relate to them.
You can say you disagree with the existence of representative bodies like the business council, but the fact of the matter is that we have them. To now shut the gate on a marginalised group while the other bodies continue to exist only exacerbates the issue. Those bodies also have massive amounts of cash to throw around - the voice, on the other hand would get to make representions that can simply be ignored… What are you afraid of here? This is like me beating you up and taking your lunch money, then saying we can’t do a thing about that because you’re a different race/gender/sexuality/whatever, and that would be (pick)-ist.
I’ll put it differently - is the massive disparity in outcomes for indigenous Australians a product of the systemic issues that have been thrust upon them, or inferior genetics? If it’s systemic, why not get their input on addressing the issues that affect them? If it’s genetic, we get to have a very different chat. Feel free to pick a deflection like culture, but it’s all a product of genetics or systemic in the end.
No matter how many downvotes you get on Lemmy you still have the majority of your countrymen on your side so at the end of the day you still win.
Which is a damn shame too cos most tkof them are doing because they’re just as uninformed as the yes side.
Its fucking brexit all over again.
Some discussion and informed decision making wouldn’t go astray, but its a bit fucking late now
Except Brexit very predictably sent the country off the rails, while this establishes an advisory body that can simply be ignored.