While polling for Brisbane has suggested the majority will vote No, one supporter of the Yes campaign, Nathan Appo said the large crowd was an indication of strong support.
Gotta say, I think it's going to be a fairly conclusive "NO" result unfortunately.
It's not really something that gets brought up in conversation all that often, but when it does I'm still kinda surprised at how many people plan on voting no. It's always the same arguments too... typical "no" talking points that have been parroted all over the major news channels and what not.
Bit disheartening to be honest, but I've kind of accepted we live in a pretty backwards part of Australia (let alone the world) in so many ways.
Well I plan on voting no, because I disagree with the idea of making something permanent before you've demonstrated that it works. There are countless programmes and departments and taskforces that have been set up over the years that were supposed to help Aboriginals and apparently none of those seem to have worked, so it makes me very sceptical that the Voice is going to be any different. Many in the Yes crowd keep insisting that this will solve problems of the programmes in the past, but I haven't yet seen anything that listed out specific points of why each of those programmes failed, and what the Voice does differently to avoid falling into the same traps.
I just don't understand why it wasn't introduced in a temporary capacity so we could all see how it was going to work first, putting everyone's concerns to rest, and then if it proves successful I wouldn't have any issue voting yes to make it permanent. It's the whole fear of the unknown thing for me - what if it just makes things worse? One of the Yes arguments is that if they made the Voice legislatively instead of via a referendum, a future government might undo it, but that's the whole idea - if it turns out to be another failed attempt added to the pile then we can undo it and try something else. But if it is shown to work THEN we have the referendum to make it stick, I think at that time most Australians would be happy to vote yes as they would know exactly what they are voting for. I think it was incredibly silly of the government to hold the referendum so prematurely, and I think they have probably shot themselves in the foot by doing so.
Sure there are plenty of bigots out there who will vote no because of race, but the majority of people I talk to about it are voting no because they're concerned that it's going to create new problems without solving the existing ones first, and that it won't make one bit of difference to those who need it most. Concerns that could've been easily addressed with a trial run first.
So while I have no ill feelings towards anyone who intends to vote yes, and I think they are well-intentioned and are making the noble choice, I think the government has handled the whole thing poorly and they need to come back with a better plan instead of the half-arsed proposal they put forward this time. It really is straight out of Utopia - make the big announcement first and let someone else worry about whether it will actually work or not.
The “half arsed proposal” is what the first nations requested in the Uluru Statement from the heart after many years of consultation.
It’s what they asked for because they think that what will make a difference on the ground.
They are saying please listen to us on matters that affect us.
It really boils down to will Australia recognise them and listen to them?
Yes or No?
What you ask for and what you present to the people are two very different things though. The Uluru Statement may well be what is requested, but when you put it to the people to vote, you need to remove as much ambiguity as possible and flesh out the practicalities in much more detail. That doesn't mean diverging from the Uluru Statement, it just means providing more detail on how those requests are actually going to be met.
For me, it's the difference between describing your dream home to a friend vs getting the blueprints back from a qualified engineer. If you build off the high-level description you're probably going to be disappointed, but if you sign off on the blueprints before construction starts you'll know exactly what you're going to get - no surprises.
All the government had to do was flesh out the processes and procedures in more detail and instead of us now arguing Yes vs No, we'd instead be assuming Yes and arguing about the various implementation details instead. Such a lost opportunity.
It really boils down to will Australia recognise them and listen to them?
I would suggest avoiding statements like this, because it makes people in the No group more certain they should vote No. It's because the majority of No voters want to recognise First Nations people but they disagree with the way the current proposal has been put forward. It's exactly the same as the referendum on Australian's independence - even people who wanted independence had to vote against it because they weren't happy with the way it was going to be implemented.
Telling No voters they don't want to recognise First Nations people when they actually do, makes them feel like the Yes crowd doesn't understand their concerns, and doesn't see the problems that might arise. So it makes No voters even more certain that they need to vote No, in order to save everyone from problems they think the Yes crowd hasn't seen. Maybe that's untrue, but I feel it necessary to point out that in order to convince people to alter their opinion, you need to understand where they're coming from so you can provide reassurance about whatever it is that worries them. If you don't understand what your opponent's concerns are, you will end up putting forward arguments that are not persuasive and you will have no hope of changing their minds.
To answer your final question, yes I want to recognise First Nations individuals, yes I want to listen to them, but no I don't want it made permanent in the constitution until I have seen it making a difference in the real world first. I don't care what changes anyone wants to make to the constitution - it could be free money for all white males like me - it should not be changed until we have tried it first and are 100% sure that it is going to work and isn't going to introduce any unforeseen problems.
Show me the Voice working for two years and all the positive differences it's making in everyday people's lives and I will gladly vote Yes to make it part of the constitution. Until then I'm afraid it's a No - nothing to do with First Nations people, and everything to do with being given an incomplete picture of what's going to happen.
The point of there not being an extremely precise definition of the voice in the constitution is that it can be changed if it's not working. Most parts of the constitution are like this afaik.
What you are being asked is if you support putting a passage in the constitution that would ensure a body with the express purpose of indigenous representation exists.
Bloody hell he literally just said that by reiterating and simplifying the proposal, you not only don't address his concern, but make him more distrustful of proposal.
I don't think the question "if the government is so eager to address indigenous affairs, why haven't they road tested the voice and taken other funding stimulus measures in the 2023 budget?" Is a ludicrous question.
You could increase the amount of senators in the NT! I wouldn't have a problem with that.
The government could do many things, but it's not the question being asked by the constitutional amendment. It's not hard to find the design principles for the voice, something I suspect people wouldn't read even if this wasn't going to referendum.
Wanting to see something for two years first is kind of an excuse to never do anything. It's also not really a good argument for voting no, because the idea is that the "shape" of the voice can be changed if it isn't working. What people are voting on is the concept.
I dunno what else to tell you, that's the proposal and that's where we are. If people are voting no because lack of details there's not much to do to convince them. The government is hardly going to release more details now.
Alot of these arguments are good, however, not in the context of the referendum. The alteration to the constitution is just to guarantee that it exists, the rest is effectively up to the government that we have already elected. Don't like it? Vote for someone else or "make a representation to parliament" by talking with your local member about it. At the end of the day we live in a democracy.
It really boils down to will Australia recognise them and listen to them?
Narrator Voice: They won't.
Source: «broadly gestures toward Canadian liberals seeing and hearing us and doing nothing, either»
One of the Yes arguments is that if they made the Voice legislatively instead of via a referendum, a future government might undo it
This is literally my reason for voting yes.
If the NBN taught me anything, it's that the Liberals will make decisions to the detriment of an entire generation of Australians for the sake of votes. They will not hesitate to throw a minority group under a bus for the chance at an extra marginal seat.
I don't know enough about The Voice to know if it's truly a good idea or not, but people far more qualified than me have spent a lot of time coming to the conclusion that it is. Therefore I've decided to trust in their credentials-backed advice.
Whereas with the NBN, I did know enough about it to know it was a great idea... and had to watch equal air time get given to people with malicious intent tell blatant lies to convince people with no idea how to vote. Then those same people posted on Facebook with great authority about why they were voting the way they were voting using the lies they'd heard.
I have no doubt that if this was some temporary or easily removed thing, the Liberals would just campaign on removing it regardless of it "working" or not.
I can't argue with your reasoning there. But I would like to think that if it actually worked, at least a future government could hold the referendum to make it permanent and everyone would know exactly what they're getting, because they'd already seen how it was going to work. There's too much uncertainty around at the moment to convince most No people to change their mind, so I think the Yes crowd are facing an uphill battle.
One of the problems I see with the Yes arguments are that they often claim some part of the Voice will work in a certain way, so there's no need for alarm, but the problem is the No crowd can see it going wrong ten different ways and there aren't any reassurances coming from the Yes side showing how none of those problems could happen. The Yes side seems too focused on the one way things might work if everyone plays by the rules and nobody does anything bad, but it means they aren't addressing the No concerns about people taking advantage of the system, as politicians typically do. So without actually addressing those issues they're going to have a hard time changing the minds of the No people I think. It might be possible but they'd have to change tactics.
I do find it interesting and somewhat ironic how between the two of us, the same things are causing us to vote differently - specifically the permanent nature of the legislation, and that we are both hearing convincing points from people we respect.
I kind of feel this is false. Not only has there been advisory bodies and committees in the past regarding other issues, but all the detail you need is in the constitutional amendment.
- 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.
The biggest concern that No has is some sort of High Court challenge in which the Voice could be allowed some sort of enumerated legislative capacity, the second is that it could provide "cover" to a government to introduce bills.
The first one is explicitly denied in the amendment; Government has the ability to make laws subject to the current constitution, and retains all ability to make laws regarding the composition and powers of the Voice. There's a potential that a High Court ruling could one day decide on such things as minimum standards for composition (such as being composed of Aboriginals) and representation (can't force them to fax only documents).
The second is true, but ignores the 10s of major think tanks, the media, public opinion and reactions, foreign representations and every other excuse under the sun a politician can use as cover for their decisions.
A lot has been said about lack of detail, but the important thing is looking at the constitutional amendment, all the cards are in Parliament's hands. If the Liberals think the Voice as it stands is bad, all they need is a simple majority to change the composition etc. Truly, they think a voice is a bad deal entirely.
It's an even simpler no vote from me: I am opposed to any ethnicity-based segregation of government.
I understand a lot of the intent of the people wanting to vote yes but this is too important a principle to violate for me. I would of course vote for a constitutional voice style taskforce on eliminating pokies or tackling DV - both areas where indigenous people suffer; but so do many other Australians.
It's not a segregation of government though, it's merely an advisory body, which, the government can completely ignore if their advice is inconvenient.
Furthermore, it's not based on ethnicity, it's based on a cultural group
A principle so "important" that you completely fail to do any research before making decisions in relation to it.
There are countless programmes and departments and taskforces that have been set up over the years that were supposed to help Aboriginals and apparently none of those seem to have worked
Because they keep getting disbanded, or killed due to funding cuts. One of the leading No campaigners was even in one of them and said on the weekend that they achieved a lot during his time there. The basic concept of this Voice would be in the constitution so that it couldn't be totally disbanded with a change of government. It would survive temporary downscaling and could be restructured if the initial implementation was ineffective.
