The Voice vote:
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests Registered Users: None |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
My vote: |
Yes |
|
54% |
[ 13 ] |
No |
|
37% |
[ 9 ] |
undecided leaning to yes |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
undecided leaning to no |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
|
Total Votes : 24 |
|
Author |
Message |
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
What'sinaname wrote: | stui magpie wrote: | The first level details are in the wording to be voted on. Nothing scary there.
The next level details will be decided by parliament and therefore subject to change by future governments.
Taking one clause in a legal document literally without the context of referring to previous clauses is always a recipe for getting the wrong answer |
So wouldn't it be better if these details were spelled out BEFORE we vote. When things are intentionally concealed, it's hard not to be suspicious. |
2 problems with that.
1. The whole idea is to vote on The Voice referendum as it effects the constitution, to create it and it's limits. Then Parliament legislates after discussion and likely amendments to get the final form. I say final but in reality, the form will change over time.
2. Putting that level of detail up now only leads to people arguing over the detail. Like the last Referendum, the people who wanted one were split 3 ways over what form it should take and split the yes vote 3 ways. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
What'sinaname wrote: | stui magpie wrote: | The first level details are in the wording to be voted on. Nothing scary there.
The next level details will be decided by parliament and therefore subject to change by future governments.
Taking one clause in a legal document literally without the context of referring to previous clauses is always a recipe for getting the wrong answer |
So wouldn't it be better if these details were spelled out BEFORE we vote. When things are intentionally concealed, it's hard not to be suspicious. | exactly!
Why would anyone trust government! Any government!
As I said before a lot of people just don’t give a shit, lack of easy, clear precise info makes it an easy no vote. _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Last edited by think positive on Sun Jun 25, 2023 6:53 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
^
Albo has made n absolute hash of it. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End
|
Post subject: | |
|
History says this referendum will fail. The 'NO' side has the lead nationally and in the majority of states according to the latest Newspoll.
National = Yes 43, No 47, Undecided 10
NSW = Yes 46, No 41, Undecided 13
VIC = Yes 48, No 41, Undecided 11
QLD = Yes 40, No 54, Undecided 6
WA = Yes 39, No 52, Undecided 9
SA = Yes 45, No 46, Undecided 9
TAS = Yes 43, No 48, Undecided 9
https://twitter.com/kevinbonham/status/1672930438464311299 _________________ | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
If Queensland and WA are write-offs (and they were likely always going to be), the only hope for this succeeding looks to be to squeak home with a narrow national majority and somehow find a way to get the Yes vote over the line in SA and Tasmania. History certainly seems to be against anything like that happening now.
Dutton playing this very cleverly, in the meantime; he’s saying out loud what’s no doubt already being suggested behind closed doors in the Labor party room, and effectively forcing Labor to have to choose between going down with the sinking ship or doing what he’s "helpfully" suggesting. As far as tactical political smarts are concerned, he seems to have Albo well covered:
https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/anthony-albanese-rejects-peter-duttons-call-to-put-voice-referendum-on-ice/news-story/0483ce2e8926fb2eacd55120afb23bff?amp _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Albo's wedged, he can't back down now, he made this his signature policy. Dutton's playing him like a $2 fiddle.
The Yes vote's only hope now is to come out swinging with some clear, concise information to try to counter all the misinformation floating around.
I agree with TP, a lot of people don't really care, can't see the benefits and gaps in information are being willed with doubt.
I think George Brandis nails it.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/yes-campaign-s-in-deplorable-territory-these-seven-ideas-can-save-it-20230621-p5di91.html _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Bucks5
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
If he did say that, he's an absolute dunce. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
I really don't see why an additional voice or whatever you want to call it is even being discussed.
Out of the 76 senators currently in parliament, 8 identify as Aboriginal or Torres Straits Islanders. That's a tad over 10% for a group that make up just over 3% of the population.
Senator Dorinda Cox, Western Australia
Senator Patrick Dodson, Western Australia
Senator Jacqui Lambie, Tasmania
Senator Kerrynne Liddle, South Australia
Senator the Hon Malarndirri McCarthy, Northern Territory
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Northern Territory
Senator Jana Stewart, Victoria
Senator Lidia Thorpe, Victoria
Federal parliament has 227 MP's , 11 (4.8%) are Indigenous.
There are 837 MP's Australia wide, 26 (3.1%) are Indigenous.
If that doesn't already constitute a 'voice', I don't know what does.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Quick_Guides/IndigenousMPs2022 _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
ok doubling down on the no now thanks!!
super shits me already! _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
Skids wrote: | I really don't see why an additional voice or whatever you want to call it is even being discussed.
Out of the 76 senators currently in parliament, 8 identify as Aboriginal or Torres Straits Islanders. That's a tad over 10% for a group that make up just over 3% of the population.
Senator Dorinda Cox, Western Australia
Senator Patrick Dodson, Western Australia
Senator Jacqui Lambie, Tasmania
Senator Kerrynne Liddle, South Australia
Senator the Hon Malarndirri McCarthy, Northern Territory
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Northern Territory
Senator Jana Stewart, Victoria
Senator Lidia Thorpe, Victoria
Federal parliament has 227 MP's , 11 (4.8%) are Indigenous.
There are 837 MP's Australia wide, 26 (3.1%) are Indigenous.
If that doesn't already constitute a 'voice', I don't know what does.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Quick_Guides/IndigenousMPs2022 |
we need a like button! _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Having Indigenous people in parliament (representing a wide range of parties and ultimately being answerable to them and/or their states or electorates) is not quite the same thing as a specific policy advisory panel representing all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities, though.
Whatever you think of them, the views of Jacinta Price and Lidia Thorpe likely do not represent the vast majority of Indigenous people who sit in-between their respective ends of the ideological spectrum; while someone like Jacqui Lambie, who only has distant heritage, probably wouldn’t put herself up as an Aboriginal spokesperson to begin with. Otherwise, the major party politicians are bound by strict party room and factional discipline and can only advocate internally at best.
Linda Burney or Pat Dodson might be strong voices for Indigenous issues in caucus, but they’re not free to speak their minds publicly on any matters that contradict party policy or aren’t currently on the government’s agenda. As with so many past ALP politicians from activist backgrounds (think Peter Garrett), you think you’re getting an independent voice but you end up with just another party salesperson – whatever dissent they might offer is brought in-house and neutralised. And the Liberals and the Greens are little different (hence why Lidia Thorpe left the party: she didn’t feel that she could speak her mind on the referendum freely).
But even if the current number of First Nations MPs and senators were satisfactory on its own, there’s also no guarantee that such representation will continue; let’s not forget that, until 2010, there had never been an Indigenous politician elected to the House of Representatives, and as recently as 2013 there were no Indigenous senators, either. So the recent relative influx is a relatively new phenomenon, and only time will tell if it’s a sign of things to come or a flash in the pan.
The Voice, on the other hand, will lock in Indigenous representation permanently. Putting all the distractions to one side, it’s hard to see how that wouldn’t be a good thing. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | Having Indigenous people in parliament (representing a wide range of parties and ultimately being answerable to them and/or their states or electorates) is not quite the same thing as a specific policy advisory panel representing all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities, though.
Whatever you think of them, the views of Jacinta Price and Lidia Thorpe likely do not represent the vast majority of Indigenous people who sit in-between their respective ends of the ideological spectrum; while someone like Jacqui Lambie, who only has distant heritage, probably wouldn’t put herself up as an Aboriginal spokesperson to begin with. Otherwise, the major party politicians are bound by strict party room and factional discipline and can only advocate internally at best.
Linda Burney or Pat Dodson might be strong voices for Indigenous issues in caucus, but they’re not free to speak their minds publicly on any matters that contradict party policy or aren’t currently on the government’s agenda. As with so many past ALP politicians from activist backgrounds (think Peter Garrett), you think you’re getting an independent voice but you end up with just another party salesperson – whatever dissent they might offer is brought in-house and neutralised. And the Liberals and the Greens are little different (hence why Lidia Thorpe left the party: she didn’t feel that she could speak her mind on the referendum freely).
But even if the current number of First Nations MPs and senators were satisfactory on its own, there’s also no guarantee that such representation will continue; let’s not forget that, until 2010, there had never been an Indigenous politician elected to the House of Representatives, and as recently as 2013 there were no Indigenous senators, either. So the recent relative influx is a relatively new phenomenon, and only time will tell if it’s a sign of things to come or a flash in the pan.
The Voice, on the other hand, will lock in Indigenous representation permanently. Putting all the distractions to one side, it’s hard to see how that wouldn’t be a good thing. |
Interesting you say 'distant heritage' That would equate to the growing majority of people now identifying as aboriginal.
There were 812,728 people who identified as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin counted in the 2021 Census – up from 649,171 in 2016. This represents an increase of 25.2% or 163,557 people (Australias total population increased 8% in the same period) and was higher than the increase between 2006 and 2011 (20.5%) and between 2011 and 2016 (18.4%)
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/understanding-change-counts-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians-census/latest-release#:~:text=There%20were%20812%2C728%20people%20who,2011%20and%202016%20(18.4%25). _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
There is a legitimate number of people discovering Indigenous ancestry by researching their family tree. A grandmother or grandfather who was part of the stolen generation, raised white and never spoke of it.
There's also a number who just choose to identify as Indigenous because it's trendy and they can. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Magpietothemax
magpietothemax
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
|
Post subject: | |
|
Have you ever asked yourself, why are those who want a ''yes'' vote failing to provide enough information to make their case compelling? Precisely because this was never a grass roots movement, but it was a top down plan hatched in a meeting between Tony Abbot, Bill Shorten, Marcia Langton and Noel Pearson in 2015, held in Kirribilli House. This is why the Voice will most likely be voted down. For this reason, many people (the perceptive ones) as well as many indigenous people suspect it to be a monumental fraud aimed at putting a progressive veneer on policies which will enforce the continued social misery of the aboriginal population at large. Naturally, the proponents of the Voice will seek to label all those who oppose it as "racist''. What they are trying to cover up, however, is that it is possible to oppose the Voice not just from the right, but also from the left. _________________ Free Julian Assange!!
Ice in the veins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|