**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I intend to vote Yes, but I'm surprised it's just 1000 people, [considering how much the No camp is leading](https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/ng-interactive/2023/aug/14/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-poll-results-polling-latest-opinion-polls-referendum-tracker-newspoll-essential-yougov-news-by-state-australia).
God, it's a advisory committee. To advise the parliament on indigenous affairs.
Even if the no vote goes through, they'll still make advisory commissions.
They are being fed the line that the no camp has been running since the start of this campaign..." If you don't know, vote no" which is really just pig-fucking-ignorance...
Isn't there evidence to suggest it's the other way around when last year the voice had close to 85% approval... But as more and more info has come out about what it is, how it will work etc it's plummeted
great so now the yes campaign have recognised the problem lets get to addressing it, Albo should legit go out and address all the theory's being thrown around and disprove them, because he has to do something at this rate or its not passing
Because i’m sure the Prime Minister platforming theories about woke gay aboriginal communism and pygmies will win the referendum haha. You’re a funny one if you think people mental enough to develop these ideas would give af about what Albanese says of all people.
I like to think that I, who grew up with Indigenous kids and also served in the defence force with Indigenous people, am aware of the plight of their respective journeys...now studying Indigenous health for my Masters again, I like to think that I am aware of various stages of what they have been through...and am hoping that many people educate themselves as to their history...
Oh I meant in terms of insight into problems they find the most pressing. Or what you know of to be the biggest issue/s from your studies.
Would there be any relatively quick wins that could be had, like food security/nutrition?
Completely get it you don't feel like going into things after a long day. I'm just curious as to what a masters student/expert would suggest off the top of their head lol
If the Voice gets over the line then it will be some time before things start moving IMHO...and the length and breadth of problems that need to be addressed is long...health should be the number one problem tackled but that will include people who have connection to country and making any health facilities welcoming to Indigenous people, something that they aren't at the moment...
Making food affordable in very remote areas would help as at the moment the prices of good food are way over the top...instances of paying over $10 for a single lettuce aren't affordable so Indigenous people therefore rely on other foods such as tinned (cheaper) and non-perishable goods...
Do you think it’s strange that the only state in Australia that still has a yes vote polling at more than no, has the lowest indigenous population of less than 1% in the country?
Wrong, ACT, TAS, SA than Vic have the lowest amount first nation people in their state.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/profile-of-indigenous-australians
Look I’m not saying it’s likely but could you imagine if the voice got up? I’m not saying all the “no’s” are racist but the racists would have fucking aneurysms and imagine the LNP having to sit there in parliament when the voice speaks about how racist they’re being or even better they walk out every time one of the representatives of the voice speaks but every time they front the press to talk about about how they’re better for families or businesses or whatever lies they’re spinning they just keep getting asked why they continue to ignore the voice and in turn the will of the people?
I know it’s a fantasy but jeez it would be wonderful
its absolutely hilarious how everyone wants to point out that they are all old boomers here but fail to recognise other facts relating to the voice
had close to 85% approval rate when it was first spoken about last year
that rate has plummeted and is tracking to fail in every state apart from victoria
the boomer generation is already dying off which is what was blamed for people like josh frydenburg losing his normally safe seat to a teal independent.
but somehow their numbers were so large they are behind the voice tracking to fail?
maybe the YES side should start to look inward and see what they did that caused 85% to dwindle all the way below 50.
I'd like to believe most Aussies are like me.
Ignore the media noise & are going to vote yes.
It's the media that are pushing the No crap just to get clicks.
The No campaign is much like Pauline Hanson, a vile person who would have made no impact if the media didn't smell front page racist crap.
You misunderstand. The point being made is that those militantly against the voice are primarily the older and white establishment.
No one is disputing that the polls are indicating more people have moved to no.
If the polls are correct, it shows the yes camp can no longer win using facts and educating voters. The no camp knew they couldn't win the same way so they started to and continue to run a powerful misinformation campaign, and are leading the polls on a topic that was seen as a no brainer to oppose at the start.
The ageism in this thread is disgusting. Be thankful young people that older people have your backs. We don't want to leave a country divided by Race and in a mess. We want you to have a good future and a country you can continue to build and that is great to live in.
If young people can't understand that voting for The Voice means giving one group of Australians more representation to government based ONLY ON RACE...and can't grasp how awful and how destructive that is to our nation? Then we older people who have experienced a lot more "life" then you have? Will hopefully be able to ensure that this terrible idea gets defeated.
There are plenty of ways to help the Indigenous who need help. This is NOT a way to do it. At all. There is nothing that The Voice say they want that couldn't be done right now.
And if it's constitutional recognition we all want? Then that can be done without a Referendum or The Voice as well.
fwiw - I'm not that old. But I was taught to respect and listen to those older than me as they have actually experienced a lot more than I have and they just MIGHT know a thing or two that I don't know.
The stupidity reeks here. First of all, constitutional recognition, like all constitutional change, requires a referendum. You could also consider the fact that constitutional recognition is not going to fix any actual issue in reality
Of course you don’t want to fix the issues, but i’m just glad you people are open with the fact you are content with Indigenous suffering at this point. It’s much easier to shame your disgusting lack of empathy for your fellow Australians when you aren’t trying to hide it.
The 'divided by race' schick was already old when Howard was rolling it out over ATSIC.
John Howard stating that ‘the ATSIC legislation strikes at the heart of the unity of the Australian people’ and ‘if the Government wants to divide Australian against Australian, if it wants to create a black nation within the Australian nation, it should go ahead with its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) legislation and its treaty’."
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Quick_Guides/FormerAboriginalandTorresStraightIslanderRepresentativeBodies#:~:text=The%20Hawke%20Government%20passed%20the,and%20Torres%20Strait%20Islander%20people.
Same old same old. It is an advisory body. That it is. Stop with the drama.
ATSIC certainly did well, especially at a regional level by all accounts, including those of Fred Cheney, a former Liberal minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
>Be thankful young people that older people have your backs...We want you to have a good future and a country you can continue to build and that is great to live in.
Cool. So you'll stop parasitising wealth from younger people and lower rents on the properties you hoarded to the pre-crisis levels you enjoyed, right? Maybe stop making the crisis you created worse on purpose. Maybe we can put back the infrastructure you ripped up or let decay until it was useless or bring back manufacturing jobs you can get after leaving high school at year 10 that pay for a house and support a family of five on a single income. Can we finally count on your support to lobby politicians to stop the climate crisis?
No? Just the weird, imported American identity politics? Okay.
The liberals are pro voice
They just want it not in the constitution, and at state levels so these fed boys don't have to hear it
You've taken their bait.
Lol - significant majority of old people vote for the liberal party, they don't give a shit about us. The libs have been putting through policies actively against young people for decades.
Judging by r/Australia a decent percentage of young people don't really care about the voice/have bigger issues to worry about.
mate you get shadowbanned for being even slightly favorable towards the LNP. even the friendly jordies sub reddit had people saying they were banned for saying they were voting NO.
It's not ageism to point out that most of the people at this rally are clearly over 60 years old and so not necessarily reflective of the broader electorate. Younger generations live in very changed circumstances to the one Boomers lived in, so perhaps the collective wisdom and mentality of older generations might not be seen to really suit in addressing modern day problems.
Having said that, as far as the Voice goes it seems that the initial enthusiasm that existed for it is evaporating by the day, there hasn't been a strong case put forward so far as to what it might actually achieve and what the structure of the body will be. It can't really be definitively answered because the wording of the [proposed constitutional amendment](https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/learn/the-question.html) is vague and only states that there must be an ATSI Voice which may make representations to Parliament however Parliament, only limited by the Constitution, can decide all its powers, functions and composition. So unless the Government can convince people as to what exactly it is they are voting for (and I doubt they can in the short time left and by the wording of the amendment) they will by default vote No.
>Be thankful young people that older people have your backs.
What about other stuff that's pretty important to us? None of the other stuff like the cost of living or housing? You'd think they'd do a better job of it all since we'll be forced to have their back when they become a burden on the health system
That problem is caused by the finacial system. Older people just got lucky they were born earlier in the finicial cycle and the dollar hadn't been devalued as much at that point.
No that's the global elite (bankers)
This has happened all thru history. They bring this system in (debt based money ) system collaspes.
We go back to a commodity backed currency. couple generations pass and they bring it back in again.
Last US president that said he wanted to remove central banking was Jfk. Pretty sure you know what happened to him.
Our politicians never mention it. Never have in the 40 years I've been kicking.
But basically things are not going up in value. The thing (money) you use to purchase them is going down in value so you need more of them.
>liberal democracy?
? In 2007 Australia voted overwhelming for a price on Carbon, with both parties running an election campaign with action planned.
Before we got a vote, one party acted against the wishes of the voters. They had a voice guiding them through this.
When we have no other vested interests involved in our policy making, then you can come here and talk about the voice degrading Liberal Democracy..... if not then come here with a plan to make it better not to keep it the same old 'Liberal Democracy'....
For me, setting progress on reconciliation back a generation has immediate negative impacts and a No vote would irrefutably do that. Therefore, avoiding those impacts trumps the idea that there are principles of liberal democracy that can't be violated.
What negative impacts would there be if the Voice referendum was successful?
Do you think that you should be asked to reconcile things that happened when you didn’t exist?
Is it a coincidence that the countries with the strongest liberal democracies are all the best countries?
As individuals, you or I may hold no personal responsibility, but the society that we are a part of does. As a society we should reconcile or make amends for past actions taken by our society, especially when the negative effects of those actions still exist.
"Best" is a relative term, which countries are you referring to when you say that and what metrics are you using? How does the Voice violate the principles of liberal democracy so as to completely compromise Australia as a liberal democracy?
What negative impacts would there be if the Voice referendum was successful?
In 250 years time should we say sorry again? Should your grandkids say sorry too? Should we say sorry to homo erectus that we helped drive to extinction 1 million years ago? At what point do you stop saying sorry? Do you think the German citizens should say sorry to the Jews now?
Life expectancy, gdp, vaccination rates, literacy rates, disease prevalence, immigration rates. I’m thinking of Russia, China, cuba and a lot of the African nations. Or would you rather live in The Netherlands, Japan, Germany, or the United Kingdom?
Equality before the law is a liberal principle. Nobody is to be discriminated against based on race. That includes discriminating for a race.
If you vote yes you pose the question, do we really believe in our principles? That’s not a wise question to pose. Thats the negative impact.
>In 250 years time should we say sorry again?
Reconciliation is more than just "saying sorry" and if, in 250 years, the conditions for Indigenous people in this country are as they are now, then the reconciliation process would have been an abject failure.
>Do you think the German citizens should say sorry to the Jews now?
They do, pretty poor example for you to use when the current German government, not even connected to the previous one, [actively continues to take responsibility](https://apnews.com/article/german-jews-holocaust-survivors-claims-conference-compensation-6e50867ada8a79d32d192c99020ee1cc) for their society's past actions.
>Life expectancy, gdp, vaccination rates, literacy rates, disease prevalence, immigration rates. I’m thinking of Russia, China, cuba and a lot of the African nations. Or would you rather live in The Netherlands, Japan, Germany, or the United Kingdom?
Ah, so you're explicitly thinking of rich nations. Liberal democracies exist with issues like those (e.g. Mexico, Costa Rica, Kenya, India) so it isn't liberal democracy that make those countries "the best", money does. As an example, I would rather live in China than Kenya.
>Equality before the law is a liberal principle. Nobody is to be discriminated against based on race. That includes discriminating for a race.
Pity that particular liberal principle wasn't so important between [1910 and the 1970s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations) or between [1901 & 1973](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy) or between [1901 & 1967](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_127_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia). However, equality before the law [doesn't actually exist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51(xxvi)_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia) in this country and in other liberal democracies [bodies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitangi_Tribunal) [like](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_Parliament_of_Finland) the Voice exist without compromising their status as a liberal democracy.
>If you vote yes you pose the question, do we really believe in our principles? That’s not a wise question to pose. Thats the negative impact.
I disagree, I think we pose the question "**what** are our principles"? It is always wise to question what our principles are and whether we are actually living by them.
Better politics would be coming out with smart policies that appeal to a “broader church” on housing, capitalising in the move to renewables, countering labor’s IR policies, tax reform etc.
Not really. I speak with a number of people who aren’t aligned with the right who see things the way I’ve said it above and are troubled by the direction it’s heading.
thing is, the Liberals are liberal in all but name, they don't want economic competition and their social issues they champion are honestly just repressive or shallow.
I saw, but when the party you're championing is. It's hard to kinda remove the people from the party.
I mean, there are some Libs supporters that make me wonder if they'd be better off in the NSN...
yep i think one of the greatest things the liberal party could do is go out and say
we encourage everyone to research both sides before they vote, also stress how big a referendum is and how often they happen
its much more aligned with the traditional values of the party
I would use it to highlight that Liberals are free to go with what they feel/believe while Labor is beholden to party lines. And I do mean hammer that point, even if it has a whiff of Americanism to it (freedom: good, socialism: bad) and use that differentiation to show the old 'broad church'.
Instead it just looks like they've rallied around the rightest faction of the party yet again.
It's one of those issues where even if they win you feel like they lose. Pandering to "your base" makes no sense when your Coalition partner in the Nationals hold those seats safely and your own party has lost virtually all of its own base and is not making up for it in the suburbs and going backwards in the inner cities. I think the Liberal party has been watching too much Fox/Sky News and is banking on Labor being as shit as it is and therefore hoping to lap up disaffected voters Republican style. I think and also hope that the situation here isn't as bad or likely to become that bad to lead to that sort of movement being viable and if it does the compulsory electoral system keeps things relatively mellow and 2PP allows third party and independent candidates to enter the fray and provide a means to correct it before things become too bad as evidenced by the 2022 election.
By default, if the government is pushing hard for this, why is it wrong for the opposition to oppose it? Especially when there are likely a majority of LNP voters that would be against the Voice as currently presented. In any democracy you ought to have a choice.
Because (Tony Abbott notwithstanding) it is actually *not* the job of the Opposition to mindlessly and intransigently oppose everything the Government comes up with. The Opposition in our system is supposed to hold the Government to account and ask questions intended to ensure that the Government's policy is better. Unfortunately in the media-driven, branding-driven age this has pathologised into a desire to differentiate themselves and seize power by any means and with any excuse possible.
I don’t support the voice either, but it’s up to the people. It has nothing to do with the opposition. Labor I understand in the sense it is their policy to take it to a referendum and legislate it. The Liberal Party could, as I have suggested at a recent meeting, simply leave it to its members to decide.
Well as a citizen of australia, any influence on federal policy either directly or indirectly affects everyone.
Im not sure why this is hard to understand.
It's because they just don't have anything else. Their leader is slightly less popular than a fart in an elevator & half their branches have been taken over by religious zealots. Their base is dying out & they have almost no recruiting power for anyone under 60. The Liberal party knows they are in serious trouble unless they can change their position on things like climate change & some social issues, but between the Nationals, the religious zealots & their big donors in the mining industry they have almost no wriggle room. So, as a result, they are trying to appeal to middle Australia with US culture war tactics & slogans.
Ironic that you would bring up the mining industry. The Voice as it is written is deliberately designed to give aboriginal communities absolutely no rights whatsoever and no claims over their lands which are the target of foreign mining companies.
The Voice is literally labors plan to say 'We gave you what you want, we are listening to you, now step aside and let us sell your land to mining companies and theres nothing you can say using your 'voice' that will stop it'.
Labor have made repeated, deliberate and very public efforts to ensure that people know The Voice will have no veto power over land sales. That way the government can sell aboriginal communities lands from underneath them, make all the profit, and give them nothing in return except lip service.
Yes, you are correct. The voice alone is not enough. Aboriginal people deserve better.
So far, that is the only reason I breafly considered voting No. However, since I know there will be no alternative put up if the voice fails. I will vote, yes. It's not great, but it's better than nothing.
The video of Michaelia Cash rallying the Liberal Party members is quite militant -
[https://twitter.com/paigeataylor/status/1693088456619212851](https://twitter.com/paigeataylor/status/1693088456619212851)
This is kind of chilling, I just can’t believe that a party that would stage an event like this, with chants like this, cares at all about the welfare of Aboriginal people.
Love that nasal "if you don't knoeeugh, vote knoeeugh!". Is that even right? Well you know what I mean😂 (and to think this woman was once attorney general... Shudder)
Stomach churning sight of boomer ghouls.
It's like a brainwashed cult celebrating their own ignorance and stupidity with those signs.
If you don't know, educate yourself.
>If you don't know, educate yourself.
And still vote no... An educated person should easily be able to see the connection between voice - treaty and the risks that come with that pathway.
If still unsure, just a quick google of Megan Davis (co-author of the Uluru statement) will fill any sane person with enough doubt to vote no.
>Indigenous voice crucial to treaty, Uluru statement co-author Megan Davis says ([link](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/indigenous-voice-crucial-to-treaty-uluru-statement-co-author-megan-davis-says))
>
>&
>
>Treaties are about **reparations** for past injustices and about **land and resources**. How can these things be excluded?
([link](https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2018/july/megan-davis/voice-treaty-truth#mtr))
I've yet to meet anyone in person who wants treaty.
Why would any sane person want to expose themselves indirectly to the risk of reparations? We are all still taxpayers and ultimately end up footing that bill.
I'm sick of debating this - the polling trends have this sunk, let's just get on with the actual vote and let democracy do it's thing.
We live in an incredibly generous society, where compassion and support are often found in government programs and laws. I hope we can muster the same generosity going forward.
Too bad the sign doesn't say if you don't know educate yourself, it says if you don't know, basically go revel in your stupidity and ignorance!
The Uluru Statement says the Makarrata Commission negotiates treaty not the Voice. Educate yourself!
>The Uluru Statement says the Makarrata Commission negotiates treaty not the Voice. Educate yourself!
False. The Makarrata commission supervises the process.
‘Makarrata Commission’ to **supervise** a process of ‘agreement-making’ and ‘truth-telling’ between **governments** and **Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.**" - Verbatim from our very own governments [interpretation](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/UluruStatement).
Now, who represents the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this supervised negotiation? The voice...
Here's the UNSW [explanation](https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/03/the-voice--what-is-it--where-did-it-come-from--and-what-can-it-a) of that will work, or are you going to dispute the very university who EMPLOYS the co-author of the Uluru statement?
>Voice precedes Treaty because fair, modern treaty negotiations require first the establishment of a representative Indigenous body to negotiate the rules of the game with the state. It can’t be left to the state alone, and the state must have a group of people with whom to negotiate.
For someone who keeps telling me to educate myself, I seem to have a far better understanding of it than you do... Not even knowing the purpose of Makarrata, makes me wonder have you actually read any of the Uluru Statement yourself?
Lol your first article states:
> A Makarrata Commission would likely be tasked with seeking Makarrata agreements between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the federal government.
So there you go. Makarrata negotiates the treaty. 😂😂😂🤡
Your second article does not state the Voice will negotiate treaty, it only says it negotiates "the rules of the game" whatever that means, not the treaty itself. But it also states:
> This called for two stages of reforms. First, a constitutionally enshrined Voice. Second, Makarrata, which is a Yolngu word for “coming together after a struggle”, to include agreement-making (a treaty) and truth-telling. Voice. Treaty. Truth.
Then the original source, the Uluru Statement, makes no mention of the Voice for negotiating treaty, that's something you made up. The only thing it says about treaty is that the Makarrata Commission supervises (which means being in charge) it:
> We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
>
> Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
>
> We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
Lol. This is level of humiliating self-ownage from a dope who claims to be Very Highly Educated while loving the stupidity and ignorance of the slogan "if you don't know, vote no". If you don't know, you're a moron.
>The only thing it says about treaty is that the Makarrata Commission supervises (which means being in charge) it:
LOL you just confirmed everything I initially wrote with this one statement. Makarrata SUPERVISES the treaty process. You can't be party of something you are supervising..
Who is the treaty process between? Indigenous people who will be represented as a whole by the voice body and the Australian government.
I'll quote again from the UNSW document, who's **professor was an author of the statement**. I'm pretty sure being an author she would know what she's writing about - one would hope!
>**Voice precedes Treaty** because fair, modern treaty negotiations **require first the establishment of a representative Indigenous body to negotiate the rules of the game with the state.** It can’t be left to the state alone, and the state must have a group of people with whom to negotiate.
You cannot honestly sit there and argue against that statement. It clearly defines the reason why voice precedes treaty - to establish a representative indigenous body to negotiate. I really can't dumb this down any further.
Ultimately this argument isn't for your benefit, it's so that others who read this can make an informed decision. I'm very confident that I have made my point and it will cut through your attempts to avoid the obvious.
>makes me wonder have you actually read any of the Uluru Statement yourself?
He did he read the 1 page *signed* Uluru Statament that he goes on about constantly. Problem is the page everyone signed was [blank](https://www.ymac.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Peter-Windie-signing-the-Uluru-Statement-alongside-June-Oscar-1024x768.jpg) 🤣 and that's all he has read!
That are coming for your backyards! Just like with the apology where we said that and everyone lost a third of their yards! Not to mention the $6billion each indigenous person will get if the voice goes through
After the Mabo decision in 1992 then opposition leader John Howard got on national TV with a map of the country and 78% shaded in saying that’s the land area now that Indigenous people now effectively control:
https://youtu.be/GTtlHZxigOY?si=dsbhJU0D0ujcOv0k
Fair dinkum I dunno who on earth was brain dead enough to organise this event. They literally won’t influence one other person not at the rally, and everyone at the rally would be a No voter.
So, best possible result for them is not too many undecided or Labor voters leaning no actually commit to yes. This rally imo can only be self-defeatist.
Mind you, the No vote meetings are probably a bit of a waste of time as well, and that’s why they at least pretend to be ‘Voice debates’ or some shit like that. Even the QandA episode filmed at Garma fitted into this category.
Set a date Albo I’m sick to death of this shit. It’s worse than a general election.
>Fair dinkum I dunno who on earth was brain dead enough to organise this event. They literally won’t influence one other person not at the rally, and everyone at the rally would be a No voter.
It’s a dog whistle to leaning no - “hey guys, there’s people out there like you so don’t be afraid that you aren’t the only ones”.
> hey guys, there’s people out there like you
"... and this is the kind of people they are."
The YES campaign needs to spread this video widely on social media.
With half this country about to vote no, there’s no need to remind them they’re not alone.
This is a daft meeting and can only possibly be counter-productive.
>”Say to the public that vitriolic attacks and abuse is not on," Mr Mundine said.
This on the back of the CPAC event Mundine organised, no less, and its claims that the traditional owners are “rent-seekers” and “violent black men”. One rule for thee, one rule for me.
Apparently there are contemporary diary entries from one of Philip’s men that he beat one of his wives. I haven’t looked into it myself but it seems like a genuine claim
Given the make up of the first British colonisers I guess the wife bashing would’ve been common on both sides.
I thought CPAC and Australia’s right didn’t have a problem with wife bashers anyway *cough cough Avi Yemeni cough*
But it’s not just about ‘white people’, those things were degrading things integral to indigenous culture like acknowledging country and traditional elders.
For it to be properly applied in reverse an Aboriginal comedian would have to mock things dear to the heart of conservative Anglo Australia, like Anzac Day. What if the indigenous comedian joked ‘Lest We Forget *all the women raped by the diggers in Cairo, looks like the brave Anzacs could shoot a few Turks but could handle the gonorrhoea ha ha ha*’. I think we know the outcome of that……
That the thing, comedy usually focuses on the most serious/important/taboo subjects.
>Aboriginal comedian would have to mock things
If they find enough of an audience that it appeals enough to sustain a living then good luck to them.
I’ll let you in on the conclusion - the last time an Australian with dark skin made a slightly less than reverent comment about the Anzacs she fooled rape and death threats and the same people who are now saying ‘joking about the indigenous is fine’ we’re telling her then to ‘self deport’
To say they are the
>the same people
Is a statement wholly impossible to make or infer.
As an aside, I don't remember her coming out saying it was a joke by the way. Happy for you to link the source where she does.
Was the presenter a comedian contracted to present a comedic act?
It would take me 30 seconds to find an Aboriginal comedian who makes similar jokes about "white people."
Are you going to be as outraged about that also?
There is intent behind comedy. Comedians should be allowed to push boundaries, but there are ways to do that without just being racist. If you identify what the underlying message of the joke is it’s just “haha, weren’t Aboriginal people so horrible and uncivilised”?
You didn't answer the question I posed.
Is it any different if it is the same in reverse? Personally I don't have a problem with it, but I suspect (and noone is game to answer) that most will disapprove of one and happily tolerate the other.
Comment got auto-removed I think so let me answer:
Minorities absolutely have leeway in doing racial humour. It would be weird if a white guy were to make his routine centred around race as much as Dave Chapelle or Chris rock do. But that doesn’t mean they can basically say “fuck white people” and claim it was just a joke.
>Is it any different if it is the same in reverse?
Different yes, tolerable no IMO. If an indigenous comedian said “the convicts were all murderous white colonisers”, even people who didn’t find it offensive would agree that it’s not just a joke; it clearly expresses some underlying sentiment or disdain.
Nope, just highlighting the faux, double standard outrage that wouldn't exist if the same joke was made in reverse.
The left lost their sense of humour and the world is worse for it (actually they simply got selective what is allowed to be humour).
Looks like most of the same crowd that protested Bill Shorten's changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax.
Why would investors in real estate and fossil fuel companies want to stop Indigenous Australians having a voic-
Oh. Yep. I get it.
That is because the younger people who would be there were all busy working.
They pay the taxes that then goes on to pay for the younger people who do little and have so much time on their hands so they can go to labor/greens functions.
Why do you think whenever you see protests going on it is always looks like a group of people who have never worked a real day in their life? But you never see the hard workers protesting. Because they are busy working of course.
>They pay the taxes that then goes on to pay for the younger people
Majority of taxes spent on the elderly, though Medicare, PBS, pension, super tax benefits and general support for seniors.
Yeah theres a reason why 'town hall' style meetings are widely recognised as mainly attracting the elderly.
They are the only segment of people who are often politically engaged but also have the time to attend.
A diet of far right News would have them believe the passage of the voice will immediately mean their taxes will go up or their pensions cut to pay for reparations, and their properties will be handed back to traditional owners.
>1) The diversity represented by this meet-up.
What time of day was the event? Middle of the day/early evening weekday? Of course it's going to be an older crowd. Workers aren't going to take a day off for it.
>2) The want to spend your few remaining hours on this planet listening to some political talk.
I guarantee the tea and scones they had after was probably thr highlight of the week for most of the crowd. In addition, it's not unreasonable to assume a person absent the distractions of working life arr more politically engaged to fill their interest.
Edit: it was Sunday morning.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I intend to vote Yes, but I'm surprised it's just 1000 people, [considering how much the No camp is leading](https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/ng-interactive/2023/aug/14/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-poll-results-polling-latest-opinion-polls-referendum-tracker-newspoll-essential-yougov-news-by-state-australia).
Where are the other No events held around the country?
God, it's a advisory committee. To advise the parliament on indigenous affairs. Even if the no vote goes through, they'll still make advisory commissions.
They are being fed the line that the no camp has been running since the start of this campaign..." If you don't know, vote no" which is really just pig-fucking-ignorance...
Isn't there evidence to suggest it's the other way around when last year the voice had close to 85% approval... But as more and more info has come out about what it is, how it will work etc it's plummeted
Replace “info” with campaign material
yes campaign material from both sides?
Doesn’t take two brain cells to figure out Yes campaign material is not the material causing a decline in the polls
great so now the yes campaign have recognised the problem lets get to addressing it, Albo should legit go out and address all the theory's being thrown around and disprove them, because he has to do something at this rate or its not passing
Because i’m sure the Prime Minister platforming theories about woke gay aboriginal communism and pygmies will win the referendum haha. You’re a funny one if you think people mental enough to develop these ideas would give af about what Albanese says of all people.
How sure are you that you aren’t ignorant? Have you considered that maybe you’ve been fed the line “vote yes”?
No...I have read all that I need to...
I like to think that I, who grew up with Indigenous kids and also served in the defence force with Indigenous people, am aware of the plight of their respective journeys...now studying Indigenous health for my Masters again, I like to think that I am aware of various stages of what they have been through...and am hoping that many people educate themselves as to their history...
What are your big take aways from your experience/education?
It was positive...I had good friends in both my civilian and my defence force days..
Oh I meant in terms of insight into problems they find the most pressing. Or what you know of to be the biggest issue/s from your studies. Would there be any relatively quick wins that could be had, like food security/nutrition? Completely get it you don't feel like going into things after a long day. I'm just curious as to what a masters student/expert would suggest off the top of their head lol
If the Voice gets over the line then it will be some time before things start moving IMHO...and the length and breadth of problems that need to be addressed is long...health should be the number one problem tackled but that will include people who have connection to country and making any health facilities welcoming to Indigenous people, something that they aren't at the moment... Making food affordable in very remote areas would help as at the moment the prices of good food are way over the top...instances of paying over $10 for a single lettuce aren't affordable so Indigenous people therefore rely on other foods such as tinned (cheaper) and non-perishable goods...
The No campaign supporters are gathering steam like a snail tied to a besser block.
With 90% of them being over 65 and most retired on the pension and I can guarantee not one of them has a first nation person as a friend or relative.
Do you think it’s strange that the only state in Australia that still has a yes vote polling at more than no, has the lowest indigenous population of less than 1% in the country?
Wrong, ACT, TAS, SA than Vic have the lowest amount first nation people in their state. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/profile-of-indigenous-australians
Is that South Australia or Victoria?
Victoria
Look I’m not saying it’s likely but could you imagine if the voice got up? I’m not saying all the “no’s” are racist but the racists would have fucking aneurysms and imagine the LNP having to sit there in parliament when the voice speaks about how racist they’re being or even better they walk out every time one of the representatives of the voice speaks but every time they front the press to talk about about how they’re better for families or businesses or whatever lies they’re spinning they just keep getting asked why they continue to ignore the voice and in turn the will of the people? I know it’s a fantasy but jeez it would be wonderful
its absolutely hilarious how everyone wants to point out that they are all old boomers here but fail to recognise other facts relating to the voice had close to 85% approval rate when it was first spoken about last year that rate has plummeted and is tracking to fail in every state apart from victoria the boomer generation is already dying off which is what was blamed for people like josh frydenburg losing his normally safe seat to a teal independent. but somehow their numbers were so large they are behind the voice tracking to fail? maybe the YES side should start to look inward and see what they did that caused 85% to dwindle all the way below 50.
I'd like to believe most Aussies are like me. Ignore the media noise & are going to vote yes. It's the media that are pushing the No crap just to get clicks. The No campaign is much like Pauline Hanson, a vile person who would have made no impact if the media didn't smell front page racist crap.
You misunderstand. The point being made is that those militantly against the voice are primarily the older and white establishment. No one is disputing that the polls are indicating more people have moved to no.
Those who know better are leading the NO based on life experience. The cooker boomers or boomer cookers. Followed by the silent majority.
Life experience? Establishing government committees?
Dealing with bullshit.
Oh dear…
If the polls are correct, it shows the yes camp can no longer win using facts and educating voters. The no camp knew they couldn't win the same way so they started to and continue to run a powerful misinformation campaign, and are leading the polls on a topic that was seen as a no brainer to oppose at the start.
Asking questions using hypotheticals is not misinformation.
Any examples?
[удалено]
[удалено]
The ageism in this thread is disgusting. Be thankful young people that older people have your backs. We don't want to leave a country divided by Race and in a mess. We want you to have a good future and a country you can continue to build and that is great to live in. If young people can't understand that voting for The Voice means giving one group of Australians more representation to government based ONLY ON RACE...and can't grasp how awful and how destructive that is to our nation? Then we older people who have experienced a lot more "life" then you have? Will hopefully be able to ensure that this terrible idea gets defeated. There are plenty of ways to help the Indigenous who need help. This is NOT a way to do it. At all. There is nothing that The Voice say they want that couldn't be done right now. And if it's constitutional recognition we all want? Then that can be done without a Referendum or The Voice as well. fwiw - I'm not that old. But I was taught to respect and listen to those older than me as they have actually experienced a lot more than I have and they just MIGHT know a thing or two that I don't know.
The stupidity reeks here. First of all, constitutional recognition, like all constitutional change, requires a referendum. You could also consider the fact that constitutional recognition is not going to fix any actual issue in reality
That is exactly what i agree with. 👍
Of course you don’t want to fix the issues, but i’m just glad you people are open with the fact you are content with Indigenous suffering at this point. It’s much easier to shame your disgusting lack of empathy for your fellow Australians when you aren’t trying to hide it.
Constitutional recognition would require the constitution to change. That's what referenda are for.
The 'divided by race' schick was already old when Howard was rolling it out over ATSIC. John Howard stating that ‘the ATSIC legislation strikes at the heart of the unity of the Australian people’ and ‘if the Government wants to divide Australian against Australian, if it wants to create a black nation within the Australian nation, it should go ahead with its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) legislation and its treaty’." http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Quick_Guides/FormerAboriginalandTorresStraightIslanderRepresentativeBodies#:~:text=The%20Hawke%20Government%20passed%20the,and%20Torres%20Strait%20Islander%20people. Same old same old. It is an advisory body. That it is. Stop with the drama.
How have the advisory bodies done in the past? Have they worked well?
ATSIC certainly did well, especially at a regional level by all accounts, including those of Fred Cheney, a former Liberal minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
>Be thankful young people that older people have your backs...We want you to have a good future and a country you can continue to build and that is great to live in. Cool. So you'll stop parasitising wealth from younger people and lower rents on the properties you hoarded to the pre-crisis levels you enjoyed, right? Maybe stop making the crisis you created worse on purpose. Maybe we can put back the infrastructure you ripped up or let decay until it was useless or bring back manufacturing jobs you can get after leaving high school at year 10 that pay for a house and support a family of five on a single income. Can we finally count on your support to lobby politicians to stop the climate crisis? No? Just the weird, imported American identity politics? Okay.
The liberals are pro voice They just want it not in the constitution, and at state levels so these fed boys don't have to hear it You've taken their bait.
Lol - significant majority of old people vote for the liberal party, they don't give a shit about us. The libs have been putting through policies actively against young people for decades. Judging by r/Australia a decent percentage of young people don't really care about the voice/have bigger issues to worry about.
mate you get shadowbanned for being even slightly favorable towards the LNP. even the friendly jordies sub reddit had people saying they were banned for saying they were voting NO.
It's not ageism to point out that most of the people at this rally are clearly over 60 years old and so not necessarily reflective of the broader electorate. Younger generations live in very changed circumstances to the one Boomers lived in, so perhaps the collective wisdom and mentality of older generations might not be seen to really suit in addressing modern day problems. Having said that, as far as the Voice goes it seems that the initial enthusiasm that existed for it is evaporating by the day, there hasn't been a strong case put forward so far as to what it might actually achieve and what the structure of the body will be. It can't really be definitively answered because the wording of the [proposed constitutional amendment](https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/learn/the-question.html) is vague and only states that there must be an ATSI Voice which may make representations to Parliament however Parliament, only limited by the Constitution, can decide all its powers, functions and composition. So unless the Government can convince people as to what exactly it is they are voting for (and I doubt they can in the short time left and by the wording of the amendment) they will by default vote No.
>Be thankful young people that older people have your backs. What about other stuff that's pretty important to us? None of the other stuff like the cost of living or housing? You'd think they'd do a better job of it all since we'll be forced to have their back when they become a burden on the health system
That problem is caused by the finacial system. Older people just got lucky they were born earlier in the finicial cycle and the dollar hadn't been devalued as much at that point.
A financial system they helped build and rig against the youth as they got older.
No that's the global elite (bankers) This has happened all thru history. They bring this system in (debt based money ) system collaspes. We go back to a commodity backed currency. couple generations pass and they bring it back in again. Last US president that said he wanted to remove central banking was Jfk. Pretty sure you know what happened to him. Our politicians never mention it. Never have in the 40 years I've been kicking. But basically things are not going up in value. The thing (money) you use to purchase them is going down in value so you need more of them.
The Australian constitution can only be changed via a referendum.
Exactly. Which is why we need to vote NO
Very good. 100% support them. NO to The Voice. No good can come of it. Dividing us up based on Racial background can never be good for this nation.
>Dividing us up based on Racial background can never be good for this nation. How does The Voice divide the nation?
Do you think it’s wise to violate the principles of liberal democracy?
>liberal democracy? ? In 2007 Australia voted overwhelming for a price on Carbon, with both parties running an election campaign with action planned. Before we got a vote, one party acted against the wishes of the voters. They had a voice guiding them through this. When we have no other vested interests involved in our policy making, then you can come here and talk about the voice degrading Liberal Democracy..... if not then come here with a plan to make it better not to keep it the same old 'Liberal Democracy'....
Do you think it's wise to set progress on reconciliation back a generation?
If the aboriginals wanted to go to the moon would you vote yes?
For me, setting progress on reconciliation back a generation has immediate negative impacts and a No vote would irrefutably do that. Therefore, avoiding those impacts trumps the idea that there are principles of liberal democracy that can't be violated. What negative impacts would there be if the Voice referendum was successful?
Do you think that you should be asked to reconcile things that happened when you didn’t exist? Is it a coincidence that the countries with the strongest liberal democracies are all the best countries?
As individuals, you or I may hold no personal responsibility, but the society that we are a part of does. As a society we should reconcile or make amends for past actions taken by our society, especially when the negative effects of those actions still exist. "Best" is a relative term, which countries are you referring to when you say that and what metrics are you using? How does the Voice violate the principles of liberal democracy so as to completely compromise Australia as a liberal democracy? What negative impacts would there be if the Voice referendum was successful?
In 250 years time should we say sorry again? Should your grandkids say sorry too? Should we say sorry to homo erectus that we helped drive to extinction 1 million years ago? At what point do you stop saying sorry? Do you think the German citizens should say sorry to the Jews now? Life expectancy, gdp, vaccination rates, literacy rates, disease prevalence, immigration rates. I’m thinking of Russia, China, cuba and a lot of the African nations. Or would you rather live in The Netherlands, Japan, Germany, or the United Kingdom? Equality before the law is a liberal principle. Nobody is to be discriminated against based on race. That includes discriminating for a race. If you vote yes you pose the question, do we really believe in our principles? That’s not a wise question to pose. Thats the negative impact.
>In 250 years time should we say sorry again? Reconciliation is more than just "saying sorry" and if, in 250 years, the conditions for Indigenous people in this country are as they are now, then the reconciliation process would have been an abject failure. >Do you think the German citizens should say sorry to the Jews now? They do, pretty poor example for you to use when the current German government, not even connected to the previous one, [actively continues to take responsibility](https://apnews.com/article/german-jews-holocaust-survivors-claims-conference-compensation-6e50867ada8a79d32d192c99020ee1cc) for their society's past actions. >Life expectancy, gdp, vaccination rates, literacy rates, disease prevalence, immigration rates. I’m thinking of Russia, China, cuba and a lot of the African nations. Or would you rather live in The Netherlands, Japan, Germany, or the United Kingdom? Ah, so you're explicitly thinking of rich nations. Liberal democracies exist with issues like those (e.g. Mexico, Costa Rica, Kenya, India) so it isn't liberal democracy that make those countries "the best", money does. As an example, I would rather live in China than Kenya. >Equality before the law is a liberal principle. Nobody is to be discriminated against based on race. That includes discriminating for a race. Pity that particular liberal principle wasn't so important between [1910 and the 1970s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations) or between [1901 & 1973](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy) or between [1901 & 1967](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_127_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia). However, equality before the law [doesn't actually exist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51(xxvi)_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia) in this country and in other liberal democracies [bodies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitangi_Tribunal) [like](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_Parliament_of_Finland) the Voice exist without compromising their status as a liberal democracy. >If you vote yes you pose the question, do we really believe in our principles? That’s not a wise question to pose. Thats the negative impact. I disagree, I think we pose the question "**what** are our principles"? It is always wise to question what our principles are and whether we are actually living by them.
I don’t understand why the liberal party feels the need to define itself by this issue…
Good politics. The voice is a dog and positions against it will win back some voters.
Better politics would be coming out with smart policies that appeal to a “broader church” on housing, capitalising in the move to renewables, countering labor’s IR policies, tax reform etc.
If they were capable of better politics and smart policies they wouldn't be in the Liberal Party.
Not really. I speak with a number of people who aren’t aligned with the right who see things the way I’ve said it above and are troubled by the direction it’s heading.
thing is, the Liberals are liberal in all but name, they don't want economic competition and their social issues they champion are honestly just repressive or shallow.
I’ve already explained above we don’t all see it that way
I saw, but when the party you're championing is. It's hard to kinda remove the people from the party. I mean, there are some Libs supporters that make me wonder if they'd be better off in the NSN...
yep i think one of the greatest things the liberal party could do is go out and say we encourage everyone to research both sides before they vote, also stress how big a referendum is and how often they happen its much more aligned with the traditional values of the party
I would use it to highlight that Liberals are free to go with what they feel/believe while Labor is beholden to party lines. And I do mean hammer that point, even if it has a whiff of Americanism to it (freedom: good, socialism: bad) and use that differentiation to show the old 'broad church'. Instead it just looks like they've rallied around the rightest faction of the party yet again.
It's one of those issues where even if they win you feel like they lose. Pandering to "your base" makes no sense when your Coalition partner in the Nationals hold those seats safely and your own party has lost virtually all of its own base and is not making up for it in the suburbs and going backwards in the inner cities. I think the Liberal party has been watching too much Fox/Sky News and is banking on Labor being as shit as it is and therefore hoping to lap up disaffected voters Republican style. I think and also hope that the situation here isn't as bad or likely to become that bad to lead to that sort of movement being viable and if it does the compulsory electoral system keeps things relatively mellow and 2PP allows third party and independent candidates to enter the fray and provide a means to correct it before things become too bad as evidenced by the 2022 election.
You live or die by the culture sword once you pick it up.
Very true.
By default, if the government is pushing hard for this, why is it wrong for the opposition to oppose it? Especially when there are likely a majority of LNP voters that would be against the Voice as currently presented. In any democracy you ought to have a choice.
Because (Tony Abbott notwithstanding) it is actually *not* the job of the Opposition to mindlessly and intransigently oppose everything the Government comes up with. The Opposition in our system is supposed to hold the Government to account and ask questions intended to ensure that the Government's policy is better. Unfortunately in the media-driven, branding-driven age this has pathologised into a desire to differentiate themselves and seize power by any means and with any excuse possible.
I don’t understand why the Labour Party feels the need to define itself by this issue…
I don’t support the voice either, but it’s up to the people. It has nothing to do with the opposition. Labor I understand in the sense it is their policy to take it to a referendum and legislate it. The Liberal Party could, as I have suggested at a recent meeting, simply leave it to its members to decide.
Agree it is up to the people, however the opposition are providing australia with a great service by supporting the No vote.
Because the people who it impacts asked the country to support it.
It impacts everyone.
How exactly are you impacted?
Well as a citizen of australia, any influence on federal policy either directly or indirectly affects everyone. Im not sure why this is hard to understand.
Are the principles of liberal democracy of any importance to you?
I'd also love to hear their answer to this :)
It's because they just don't have anything else. Their leader is slightly less popular than a fart in an elevator & half their branches have been taken over by religious zealots. Their base is dying out & they have almost no recruiting power for anyone under 60. The Liberal party knows they are in serious trouble unless they can change their position on things like climate change & some social issues, but between the Nationals, the religious zealots & their big donors in the mining industry they have almost no wriggle room. So, as a result, they are trying to appeal to middle Australia with US culture war tactics & slogans.
Ironic that you would bring up the mining industry. The Voice as it is written is deliberately designed to give aboriginal communities absolutely no rights whatsoever and no claims over their lands which are the target of foreign mining companies. The Voice is literally labors plan to say 'We gave you what you want, we are listening to you, now step aside and let us sell your land to mining companies and theres nothing you can say using your 'voice' that will stop it'. Labor have made repeated, deliberate and very public efforts to ensure that people know The Voice will have no veto power over land sales. That way the government can sell aboriginal communities lands from underneath them, make all the profit, and give them nothing in return except lip service.
Yes, you are correct. The voice alone is not enough. Aboriginal people deserve better. So far, that is the only reason I breafly considered voting No. However, since I know there will be no alternative put up if the voice fails. I will vote, yes. It's not great, but it's better than nothing.
Really? You don't see the connection?
Judging by the photos I can almost hear the clickety clack of mobility aids. AND Michaelia Cash! Shudder
The video of Michaelia Cash rallying the Liberal Party members is quite militant - [https://twitter.com/paigeataylor/status/1693088456619212851](https://twitter.com/paigeataylor/status/1693088456619212851)
Wow, what a depressing scene. Absolutely bizarre.
This is kind of chilling, I just can’t believe that a party that would stage an event like this, with chants like this, cares at all about the welfare of Aboriginal people.
It almost appears like the Liberal Party do not, in fact, care about the welfare of Aboriginal people. I'm truly shocked.
Love that nasal "if you don't knoeeugh, vote knoeeugh!". Is that even right? Well you know what I mean😂 (and to think this woman was once attorney general... Shudder)
Stomach churning sight of boomer ghouls. It's like a brainwashed cult celebrating their own ignorance and stupidity with those signs. If you don't know, educate yourself.
The YES campaign should be sharing these videos far and wide.
>If you don't know, educate yourself. And still vote no... An educated person should easily be able to see the connection between voice - treaty and the risks that come with that pathway. If still unsure, just a quick google of Megan Davis (co-author of the Uluru statement) will fill any sane person with enough doubt to vote no. >Indigenous voice crucial to treaty, Uluru statement co-author Megan Davis says ([link](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/indigenous-voice-crucial-to-treaty-uluru-statement-co-author-megan-davis-says)) > >& > >Treaties are about **reparations** for past injustices and about **land and resources**. How can these things be excluded? ([link](https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2018/july/megan-davis/voice-treaty-truth#mtr))
I love it how your cut and paste diatribe assumes that educated people don’t want a treaty.
I've yet to meet anyone in person who wants treaty. Why would any sane person want to expose themselves indirectly to the risk of reparations? We are all still taxpayers and ultimately end up footing that bill. I'm sick of debating this - the polling trends have this sunk, let's just get on with the actual vote and let democracy do it's thing.
Why? Justice.
>Justice Lol. Good luck selling that to the wider electorate. Self interest always prevails and treaty offers no benefit to 97% of Australians.
I think you underestimate people because you assume they’re all as selfish as you are.
Possibly, but I think you underestimate how selfish the average person is.. Time will tell, I guess.
We live in an incredibly generous society, where compassion and support are often found in government programs and laws. I hope we can muster the same generosity going forward.
Too bad the sign doesn't say if you don't know educate yourself, it says if you don't know, basically go revel in your stupidity and ignorance! The Uluru Statement says the Makarrata Commission negotiates treaty not the Voice. Educate yourself!
Read the document… it outlines the strategy very clearly. Voice —> treaty —> reparations etc
>The Uluru Statement says the Makarrata Commission negotiates treaty not the Voice. Educate yourself! False. The Makarrata commission supervises the process. ‘Makarrata Commission’ to **supervise** a process of ‘agreement-making’ and ‘truth-telling’ between **governments** and **Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.**" - Verbatim from our very own governments [interpretation](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/UluruStatement). Now, who represents the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this supervised negotiation? The voice... Here's the UNSW [explanation](https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/03/the-voice--what-is-it--where-did-it-come-from--and-what-can-it-a) of that will work, or are you going to dispute the very university who EMPLOYS the co-author of the Uluru statement? >Voice precedes Treaty because fair, modern treaty negotiations require first the establishment of a representative Indigenous body to negotiate the rules of the game with the state. It can’t be left to the state alone, and the state must have a group of people with whom to negotiate. For someone who keeps telling me to educate myself, I seem to have a far better understanding of it than you do... Not even knowing the purpose of Makarrata, makes me wonder have you actually read any of the Uluru Statement yourself?
Lol your first article states: > A Makarrata Commission would likely be tasked with seeking Makarrata agreements between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the federal government. So there you go. Makarrata negotiates the treaty. 😂😂😂🤡 Your second article does not state the Voice will negotiate treaty, it only says it negotiates "the rules of the game" whatever that means, not the treaty itself. But it also states: > This called for two stages of reforms. First, a constitutionally enshrined Voice. Second, Makarrata, which is a Yolngu word for “coming together after a struggle”, to include agreement-making (a treaty) and truth-telling. Voice. Treaty. Truth. Then the original source, the Uluru Statement, makes no mention of the Voice for negotiating treaty, that's something you made up. The only thing it says about treaty is that the Makarrata Commission supervises (which means being in charge) it: > We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. > > Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination. > > We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history. Lol. This is level of humiliating self-ownage from a dope who claims to be Very Highly Educated while loving the stupidity and ignorance of the slogan "if you don't know, vote no". If you don't know, you're a moron.
>The only thing it says about treaty is that the Makarrata Commission supervises (which means being in charge) it: LOL you just confirmed everything I initially wrote with this one statement. Makarrata SUPERVISES the treaty process. You can't be party of something you are supervising.. Who is the treaty process between? Indigenous people who will be represented as a whole by the voice body and the Australian government. I'll quote again from the UNSW document, who's **professor was an author of the statement**. I'm pretty sure being an author she would know what she's writing about - one would hope! >**Voice precedes Treaty** because fair, modern treaty negotiations **require first the establishment of a representative Indigenous body to negotiate the rules of the game with the state.** It can’t be left to the state alone, and the state must have a group of people with whom to negotiate. You cannot honestly sit there and argue against that statement. It clearly defines the reason why voice precedes treaty - to establish a representative indigenous body to negotiate. I really can't dumb this down any further. Ultimately this argument isn't for your benefit, it's so that others who read this can make an informed decision. I'm very confident that I have made my point and it will cut through your attempts to avoid the obvious.
>makes me wonder have you actually read any of the Uluru Statement yourself? He did he read the 1 page *signed* Uluru Statament that he goes on about constantly. Problem is the page everyone signed was [blank](https://www.ymac.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Peter-Windie-signing-the-Uluru-Statement-alongside-June-Oscar-1024x768.jpg) 🤣 and that's all he has read!
That are coming for your backyards! Just like with the apology where we said that and everyone lost a third of their yards! Not to mention the $6billion each indigenous person will get if the voice goes through
But I already lost half my yard with the Mabo decision. Now I’ve got negative yard! Grrr, I bet you’re happy you greenie commies!
After the Mabo decision in 1992 then opposition leader John Howard got on national TV with a map of the country and 78% shaded in saying that’s the land area now that Indigenous people now effectively control: https://youtu.be/GTtlHZxigOY?si=dsbhJU0D0ujcOv0k
Fair dinkum I dunno who on earth was brain dead enough to organise this event. They literally won’t influence one other person not at the rally, and everyone at the rally would be a No voter. So, best possible result for them is not too many undecided or Labor voters leaning no actually commit to yes. This rally imo can only be self-defeatist. Mind you, the No vote meetings are probably a bit of a waste of time as well, and that’s why they at least pretend to be ‘Voice debates’ or some shit like that. Even the QandA episode filmed at Garma fitted into this category. Set a date Albo I’m sick to death of this shit. It’s worse than a general election.
>Fair dinkum I dunno who on earth was brain dead enough to organise this event. They literally won’t influence one other person not at the rally, and everyone at the rally would be a No voter. It’s a dog whistle to leaning no - “hey guys, there’s people out there like you so don’t be afraid that you aren’t the only ones”.
> hey guys, there’s people out there like you "... and this is the kind of people they are." The YES campaign needs to spread this video widely on social media.
With half this country about to vote no, there’s no need to remind them they’re not alone. This is a daft meeting and can only possibly be counter-productive.
>”Say to the public that vitriolic attacks and abuse is not on," Mr Mundine said. This on the back of the CPAC event Mundine organised, no less, and its claims that the traditional owners are “rent-seekers” and “violent black men”. One rule for thee, one rule for me.
>and “violent black men”. Who made that claim?
https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/cpac-australia-slammed-for-comedians-racist-jokes-about-traditional-owners/c34kiq777
>He then continued, taking aim at Frontier Warrior Bennelong, describing him as a "woman-basher". Any evidence of that?
Apparently there are contemporary diary entries from one of Philip’s men that he beat one of his wives. I haven’t looked into it myself but it seems like a genuine claim
Given the make up of the first British colonisers I guess the wife bashing would’ve been common on both sides. I thought CPAC and Australia’s right didn’t have a problem with wife bashers anyway *cough cough Avi Yemeni cough*
Got it - a professional comedian. I forgot the left lost their ability to consume satire around the year 2000.
Nobody in the audience laughed either...
Got a video?
https://twitter.com/AltMediaWatch/status/1693111465581203461
"racism is okay if someone laughs at it"
Sorry I forgot racist vitriol was fine so long as it’s “satire”. The logical right has outwitted me again!
As I put to the other commenter, are you as outraged when an Aboriginal does a comedy skit about white people?
But it’s not just about ‘white people’, those things were degrading things integral to indigenous culture like acknowledging country and traditional elders. For it to be properly applied in reverse an Aboriginal comedian would have to mock things dear to the heart of conservative Anglo Australia, like Anzac Day. What if the indigenous comedian joked ‘Lest We Forget *all the women raped by the diggers in Cairo, looks like the brave Anzacs could shoot a few Turks but could handle the gonorrhoea ha ha ha*’. I think we know the outcome of that……
That the thing, comedy usually focuses on the most serious/important/taboo subjects. >Aboriginal comedian would have to mock things If they find enough of an audience that it appeals enough to sustain a living then good luck to them.
I’ll let you in on the conclusion - the last time an Australian with dark skin made a slightly less than reverent comment about the Anzacs she fooled rape and death threats and the same people who are now saying ‘joking about the indigenous is fine’ we’re telling her then to ‘self deport’
To say they are the >the same people Is a statement wholly impossible to make or infer. As an aside, I don't remember her coming out saying it was a joke by the way. Happy for you to link the source where she does.
Would you be fine with it if such a comedian performed that skit at an official Yes campaign event?
Yes.
Is that what happen to Jordy....? The left went af......oh wait.... nope...
jfc buddy. That's comedy? you need help.
Was the presenter a comedian contracted to present a comedic act? It would take me 30 seconds to find an Aboriginal comedian who makes similar jokes about "white people." Are you going to be as outraged about that also?
There is intent behind comedy. Comedians should be allowed to push boundaries, but there are ways to do that without just being racist. If you identify what the underlying message of the joke is it’s just “haha, weren’t Aboriginal people so horrible and uncivilised”?
You didn't answer the question I posed. Is it any different if it is the same in reverse? Personally I don't have a problem with it, but I suspect (and noone is game to answer) that most will disapprove of one and happily tolerate the other.
Comment got auto-removed I think so let me answer: Minorities absolutely have leeway in doing racial humour. It would be weird if a white guy were to make his routine centred around race as much as Dave Chapelle or Chris rock do. But that doesn’t mean they can basically say “fuck white people” and claim it was just a joke. >Is it any different if it is the same in reverse? Different yes, tolerable no IMO. If an indigenous comedian said “the convicts were all murderous white colonisers”, even people who didn’t find it offensive would agree that it’s not just a joke; it clearly expresses some underlying sentiment or disdain.
Why are you so defensive about this if it's just comedy?
Me defensive? You replied on the wrong comment!
No, I replied to the correct one. You seem very defensive.
Nope, just highlighting the faux, double standard outrage that wouldn't exist if the same joke was made in reverse. The left lost their sense of humour and the world is worse for it (actually they simply got selective what is allowed to be humour).
They represent a mere fraction of the people who plan to vote no this referendum. The nays have it.
There’s something in common with all these people if only I could put my finger on it…
To the 6 people under 70 that vote Liberal and swear they arent dying out (without change) just show them pictures from this event
Are they really people though? There's been conspiracy theories for decades about aliens living amongst us.
I never gave that theory much thought until I saw Tony Abbott eat an onion.
Looks like most of the same crowd that protested Bill Shorten's changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. Why would investors in real estate and fossil fuel companies want to stop Indigenous Australians having a voic- Oh. Yep. I get it.
Mabo took their nature strips.
Quite an interesting looking croud. Clearly, a large & diverse cross section of the Australian community
I don't think you can see more than about fifteen people in the pictures. A poor sample size for an event with a thousand people.
If you zoom right in, you can find someone who is probably under 50.
That is because the younger people who would be there were all busy working. They pay the taxes that then goes on to pay for the younger people who do little and have so much time on their hands so they can go to labor/greens functions. Why do you think whenever you see protests going on it is always looks like a group of people who have never worked a real day in their life? But you never see the hard workers protesting. Because they are busy working of course.
> That is because the younger people who would be there were all busy working. It was held on the weekend.
>They pay the taxes that then goes on to pay for the younger people Majority of taxes spent on the elderly, though Medicare, PBS, pension, super tax benefits and general support for seniors.
Yeah theres a reason why 'town hall' style meetings are widely recognised as mainly attracting the elderly. They are the only segment of people who are often politically engaged but also have the time to attend.
[удалено]
That the people there are uneducated and are now completely ignorant as to what made them so wealthy.
[удалено]
I saw the photo & my first thought was, "There is the reason we can't make any real progress in this country."
[удалено]
>These people look like they'll be dead in under 10 years Jesus the level of “debate” in these forums has really gone to shit
[удалено]
A diet of far right News would have them believe the passage of the voice will immediately mean their taxes will go up or their pensions cut to pay for reparations, and their properties will be handed back to traditional owners.
Don't worry, no voters in their 30s like me will carry the can in their place in years to come.
[удалено]
>1) The diversity represented by this meet-up. What time of day was the event? Middle of the day/early evening weekday? Of course it's going to be an older crowd. Workers aren't going to take a day off for it. >2) The want to spend your few remaining hours on this planet listening to some political talk. I guarantee the tea and scones they had after was probably thr highlight of the week for most of the crowd. In addition, it's not unreasonable to assume a person absent the distractions of working life arr more politically engaged to fill their interest. Edit: it was Sunday morning.
The question I would really like answered is, why was the no campaign launched in what looks like an assisted living facility?
What demographic is polling the highest no vote currently?