The Voice vote:

[think positive]

Do you know how you will vote?

[stui magpie]

Yep, I'm voting Yes. I think putting it in the Constitution is a geed idea, that means that the Voice must exist, in some form or another. Not putting specifics in the constitution is also a good idea as that means the form of the voice and and will change over years as needs and governments change.

While there's doubts over how much good it will actually create, it doesn't have any capacity to do any harm, in my understanding, despite some of the misinformation around the place.

[David]

It's a yes for me. I acknowledge criticisms from the left about it potentially being a toothless tiger and respect that some First Nations people are opposed, but I feel like something's better than nothing and that it can achieve some good.

[Bucks5]

I am undecided but leaning towards no.

The indigenous community are already recognised in the constitution as Australians like everyone else and they already have more representation than everyone else.

It is my understanding that the implementation of the Voice is just the first step towards treaty. I fear that the changes happening to the WA land owners will just be the tip of the iceberg.

[stui magpie]

^

I'm unclear how the Indigenous community are already recognised in the constitution, I've downloaded a copy of it and to my read there is zero recognition that the continent was already occupied when England colonised it.

There's zero mention IRRC of Indigenous people in the constitution at all.

[watt price tully]

Clear and unequivocal yes. The No campaign is devoid of merit.
This needs to be followed by a Treaty.

[KenH]

My vote will be yes, will be disappointed if Australia votes for no.

[Jezza]

I'm voting No. I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why the Voice needs to be enshrined into our founding document and how it will improve the lives of indigenous peoples.

Would have been happy to have explicit indigenous recognition inserted into the preamble, but the Voice is a step too far in my opinion.

[eddiesmith]

It's a yes for me. I acknowledge criticisms from the left about it potentially being a toothless tiger and respect that some First Nations people are opposed, but I feel like something's better than nothing and that it can achieve some good.

Which pretty much sums up the current AnAl Labor Government, they expect everything to be passed even if it’s shit because something is better than nothing.

Housing bill, climate change action, the voice, etc…

[swoop42]

Just like gay marriage it'll make no difference to the people it isn't intended for but has the potential to improve the lives of the indigenous Australians it's focused on moving forward and across the generations. That's good enough reason for mine because even a small short term positive outcome is better than doing nothing and expecting a different result.

That's madness.

Unfortunately just like the debate on gay marriage we'll have the usual suspects once again hiding their bigotry under the guise of the sky will fall in.

It wont and honestly the way some people on the No side carry on you'd think we don't already live in a society controlled by the whims of politicians, bureaucracy and red tape.

As far as I'm concerned if a voice to parliament adds one extra layer of tape on to some issues then it'll barely be noticed among all the others and it's about time Indigenous Australians had a chance to bowl and take a wicket in their own backyard.

Not to much to ask is it?

[Bucks5]

^

I'm unclear how the Indigenous community are already recognised in the constitution, I've downloaded a copy of it and to my read there is zero recognition that the continent was already occupied when England colonised it.

There's zero mention IRRC of Indigenous people in the constitution at all.

Where it talks about 'the people'. That includes indigenous people too right? Like any Australian, they can vote, elect a representative or even run for parliament.

Why should one group get more say than everyone else.

[think positive]

^

I'm unclear how the Indigenous community are already recognised in the constitution, I've downloaded a copy of it and to my read there is zero recognition that the continent was already occupied when England colonised it.

There's zero mention IRRC of Indigenous people in the constitution at all.

Where it talks about 'the people'. That includes indigenous people too right? Like any Australian, they can vote, elect a representative or even run for parliament.

Why should one group get more say than everyone else.

This,

That’s what elections are for

At first I thought it was like a panel for a voice on things that are specificity directed to First Nation issues, but not to every single issue.

[think positive]

Just like gay marriage it'll make no difference to the people it isn't intended for but has the potential to improve the lives of the indigenous Australians it's focused on moving forward and across the generations. That's good enough reason for mine because even a small short term positive outcome is better than doing nothing and expecting a different result.

That's madness.

Unfortunately just like the debate on gay marriage we'll have the usual suspects once again hiding their bigotry under the guise of the sky will fall in.

It wont and honestly the way some people on the No side carry on you'd think we don't already live in a society controlled by the whims of politicians, bureaucracy and red tape.

As far as I'm concerned if a voice to parliament adds one extra layer of tape on to some issues then it'll barely be noticed among all the others and it's about time Indigenous Australians had a chance to bowl and take a wicket in their own backyard.

Not to much to ask is it?

Can you not have a discussion without labelling people with opposing views?

[stui magpie]

^

I'm unclear how the Indigenous community are already recognised in the constitution, I've downloaded a copy of it and to my read there is zero recognition that the continent was already occupied when England colonised it.

There's zero mention IRRC of Indigenous people in the constitution at all.

Where it talks about 'the people'. That includes indigenous people too right? Like any Australian, they can vote, elect a representative or even run for parliament.

Why should one group get more say than everyone else.

Not quite. When it talks about "The people" it sort of included Indigenous people by default, although the original document actively discriminated against them with 2 sections that said they wouldn't be counted in the census and prevented the Federal Government from making laws about them. These were the 2 things that were corrected in the 1967 Referendum. They just weren't considered part of "the people" when the document was written.

Why should they get more say than anyone else? My view is it's the simple principle that they were here first, deserve recognition of that and deserve to have a say when Government is making decisions that are about them.

The voice isn't intended to be consulted on every government decision, just those that directly impact First nations Peoples. When the NT Government implements alcohol restrictions white people in Melbourne lose their minds and scream Racism, but it's the people in those communities that need to be heard, they're the ones impacted and IIRC they supported it.

99% of the stuff that would go to The Voice would have zero impact on you or I.

[Bucks5]

Or the Voice will be eventually be taken over by Blak activists and it will become a vehicle to badger parliament into making changes that will adversely affect you and I.