The Voice vote:

[eddiesmith]

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.

Imagine if they got people of the ilk of Lidia Thorpe on board, god help us all!

[watt price tully]

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.

Yes and they’re hiding under our beds. Really has it come to this

[stui magpie]

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.

Won't happen.

How the Voice works and how people are selected will be subject to legislation. The voice existing will be in the Constitution, what form it takes and how it works will be up to the Government of the day.

Very senior law experts have given the framework the all clear. If you get a couple of random Fwits like Thorpe on there, the Government will have the power to remove them one way or another.

It's a voice, a consultative committee. It will have no power of veto, if it doesn't like something, too bad as long as the Government gives them opportunity to be heard.

It's a powerless vehicle for getting the views of First Nations Peoples before decisions are made that effect them.

[think positive]

They said that about #skynet too!

[stui magpie]

[What'sinaname]

^

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.

So the 1967 referendum addressed the issue of including indigenous Australians as people. So why is there a need to now separately recognise them. Are they not people now?

[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.

Exactly this


WIAN Bingo

[David]

[watt price tully]

^ Succinct and eloquent David.

[think positive]

you forgot judgemental

voting no doesn't mean someone is hostile or racist.

for the people i have spoken to its a trust issue. we simply don't trust we are getting the whole, or the ending story.

[stui magpie]

I agree, obviously people who are racist will vote No, but the vast majority of those who do won't be racist, they'll have different reasons.

I'm happy to provide whatever info I can to help allay fears from misinformation, but I'm not going to get into arguments, be judgemental, or try to change anyone's beliefs.

My Mum is going to vote no. I tried to have a discussion but she believes what she believes so I left it.

As I've said before, I think the proposed wording for the constitution is perfect (or close to it). Yes the Government will fck up the implementation, that's a given, but the good thing about the model is that when they do, there's capacity to change it until they get it right, for the time.

My simplistic view is that either way it will have zero impact on me, but the capacity to cause good for the First Nations Peoples is far greater than any capacity to cause harm, to anyone.

[think positive]

Cheers Stu I get where you’re coming from. I still have wiggle room but I’m not exactly sure what I’d need to hear to change my mind.

So good to read an opposing post that is non judgmental.

[David]

you forgot judgemental

voting no doesn't mean someone is hostile or racist.

Who said it did?

[think positive]

You came across IMO as insinuating it

[Magpietothemax]