The Voice vote:

[stui magpie]

[think positive]

[stui magpie]

^

Albo has made n absolute hash of it.

[Jezza]

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

[David]

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

[stui magpie]

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

[Bucks5]

Another example of why I cannot trust the Voice:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/that-s-not-democracy-thomas-mayo-wants-a-practical-veto-on-super-policy/ar-AA1d015D

Did Albanese really say it would be ‘a brave government’ that didn't do as the Voice says?

[stui magpie]

If he did say that, he's an absolute dunce.

[Skids]

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

[think positive]

[think positive]

[David]

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.

[Skids]

[stui magpie]

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.

[Magpietothemax]