The Voice vote:

[David]

[watt price tully]

The model of equality is to ensure no one is singled out.

I can’t see how voting Yes is anything but racist irrespective of the outcome it might or might not fulfill.

Replace First Nations with any other race would cause an outcry of racism and inequality from the same people that are promoting the Yes vote.

We are all equal within the eyes of the law and constitution and it bewilders me as to why we need to regress to past prejudices based on skin colour after coming so far to the equality of opportunity that we all now have.

What amazes me more is that people are erring on the side of voting Yes without being 100% certain of what the Voice will actually entail and whether it will ever succeed in its objectives.

I still haven’t heard or read how it’s implementation will do anything to improve Indigenous lives and their futures.

Calling proposals like this racist is a bit of a blinkered position that requires a fairly rose-coloured view of Australia and its history. It’s essential to understand that this proposal isn’t emerging from a vacuum, and isn’t about one random ethnocultural group looking for special privileges. It’s about the fabric of this specific country we’re in and the dynamics that have shaped it since day one.

if Australia was not aware of its history then I don’t understand how every adult has an equal vote, every person has equal access to health, education and welfare. …..on .

WTF? What planet are you on? Every Australian has equal access to health, education and welfare?

Goodness me. That erroneous notion explains a lot.

Unbelievable.

[slangman]

You’re telling me that if you turned up to a public emergency department you will be triaged by something other than your medical circumstance?
Children don’t have equal access to public schools?

It seems your ideology is blinding you from the facts.

[slangman]

[think positive]

2 great replies slangman

[stui magpie]

Real change isn’t a constitutional voice.
The ones who think it is are part of the problem.

I don't thing anyone is suggesting that a Constitutional Voice is "Real Change" It's not going to magically fix everything or even anything.

My view though is that it is a start, and a vehicle to enable real change. Giving the people who the changes are aimed at helping, a say in how they should be designed and implemented.

[slangman]

I'm against the voice being enshrined in the constitution.
Should Aboriginal people be listened to? Absolutely.
But not as a permanent part of the constitution where there will no mechanisms other than a referendum to abolish it if it fails to achieve anything or worse still, gets corrupted by the same power hungry egomaniacs that “advised” previous governments with the net outcome being a broken system that has failed the real people in need.
But i guess its a bit more comfortable in the climate controlled and comfortable surroundings of Parliament House and inner city cafes than the dusty, rugged and tough conditions where the real work is needed to be done.

[stui magpie]

^

Fair points, but that's why the Voices existence is to be in the constitution, but the form it takes is up to Parliament.

So if the same power hungry egomaniacs get themselves onto the Voice and start to do what they did with ATSIC, the Government of the day can kick them out and change the rules. The Voice is to be a constant, the form it takes isn't.

We need to make sure those people in the dirty dusty communities are heard, as much as the ones everywhere else in the country about decisions that impact them rather than white blokes in Canberra just making shit up at focus groups.

My hope is that it gets up and that we get women from these communities on it who can drive what is needed in those communities.

[roar]

Questions for the naysayers:

Were you also against the government apology?

Would you support a vote for treaty?

Honest questions as I am curious to see the split.

[think positive]

Questions for the naysayers:

Were you also against the government apology?

Would you support a vote for treaty?

Honest questions as I am curious to see the split.

1. no

2. I'd want to know exactly what that means first, what it entails. I fully believe the voice is a step to that, and I want to know what "that" means for my kids, and their kids.


When I first heard about The Voice, I was all for it, then I started hearing how far the reach might go. First Nation people should absolutely have a say and a vote in policy that directly affect only them, but when it affects everybody in the country, I don't believe they should have any more votes than any other non-elected body. Yes, they can have a say in everything, but not a vote. Thats what caused my bridge too far.

[think positive]

^

Fair points, but that's why the Voices existence is to be in the constitution, but the form it takes is up to Parliament.

So if the same power hungry egomaniacs get themselves onto the Voice and start to do what they did with ATSIC, the Government of the day can kick them out and change the rules. The Voice is to be a constant, the form it takes isn't.

We need to make sure those people in the dirty dusty communities are heard, as much as the ones everywhere else in the country about decisions that impact them rather than white blokes in Canberra just making shit up at focus groups.

My hope is that it gets up and that we get women from these communities on it who can drive what is needed in those communities.

Thats a great hope.

I'd like to hear from these women, that could sway me. But we really don't know who it is do we? or have i missed that?

And no, I'm not that well versed on it, I'm not that invested, I'm honest about that, and anyone can sling anything at me for that, but you'd also need to realise that the vast majority of voters could be even less invested than I am! I'm here clicking the links and thinking about, most won't be, so quite frankly, the proposal needs to be idiot proof. There is so many negative facebook posts going around, I can't be bothered reading them, but a lot will.

[slangman]

Questions for the naysayers:

Were you also against the government apology?

Would you support a vote for treaty?

Honest questions as I am curious to see the split.

I assume you mean the apology to the stolen generation??
I was in favour of it.

I’m against altering the constitution to include a race based voice. That would be a backward step for us as a nation. If we are not one, then we are doomed.

As for a treaty, it would totally depend on its objectives and it would need to be created with specific parameters with no margin for changes or manipulation after its implementation. If there wasn’t totally transparency I wouldn’t support it.

Ultimately, I want to see real change that benefits those that need it most.
Not just the latte sipping city elite who seem to scab all goodwill meant for others.

[stui magpie]

^

Fair points, but that's why the Voices existence is to be in the constitution, but the form it takes is up to Parliament.

So if the same power hungry egomaniacs get themselves onto the Voice and start to do what they did with ATSIC, the Government of the day can kick them out and change the rules. The Voice is to be a constant, the form it takes isn't.

We need to make sure those people in the dirty dusty communities are heard, as much as the ones everywhere else in the country about decisions that impact them rather than white blokes in Canberra just making shit up at focus groups.

My hope is that it gets up and that we get women from these communities on it who can drive what is needed in those communities.

Thats a great hope.

I'd like to hear from these women, that could sway me. But we really don't know who it is do we? or have i missed that?

And no, I'm not that well versed on it, I'm not that invested, I'm honest about that, and anyone can sling anything at me for that, but you'd also need to realise that the vast majority of voters could be even less invested than I am! I'm here clicking the links and thinking about, most won't be, so quite frankly, the proposal needs to be idiot proof. There is so many negative facebook posts going around, I can't be bothered reading them, but a lot will.

As soon as you try to make something idiot proof, they build a better idiot.

Take it back to basics, everything you said in your earlier post is that of someone who does want to see change. You have compassion and empathy, you're someone (IMHO) who should vote Yes and let the politicians **** around with the details, but it's up to you.

[roar]

Questions for the naysayers:

Were you also against the government apology?

Would you support a vote for treaty?

Honest questions as I am curious to see the split.

1. no

2. I'd want to know exactly what that means first, what it entails. I fully believe the voice is a step to that, and I want to know what "that" means for my kids, and their kids.


When I first heard about The Voice, I was all for it, then I started hearing how far the reach might go. First Nation people should absolutely have a say and a vote in policy that directly affect only them, but when it affects everybody in the country, I don't believe they should have any more votes than any other non-elected body. Yes, they can have a say in everything, but not a vote. Thats what caused my bridge too far.

Thanks TP. Appreciate the reply.

[stui magpie]

Questions for the naysayers:

Were you also against the government apology?

Would you support a vote for treaty?

Honest questions as I am curious to see the split.

1. no

2. I'd want to know exactly what that means first, what it entails. I fully believe the voice is a step to that, and I want to know what "that" means for my kids, and their kids.


When I first heard about The Voice, I was all for it, then I started hearing how far the reach might go. First Nation people should absolutely have a say and a vote in policy that directly affect only them, but when it affects everybody in the country, I don't believe they should have any more votes than any other non-elected body. Yes, they can have a say in everything, but not a vote. Thats what caused my bridge too far.

I think you may have taken in some misinformation there.

Few things.

1. The Voice is to be able to make representations to government on matters relating to First nations Peoples, not on matters that effect everyone. It's role is specific to them.

2. They don't get an extra vote, they don't get right to say No to anything and if the Government disagrees with what they recommend it can choose to ignore it. The only power they have is to give a view, recommendation, suggestion.

The model they're talking about is a group bought together to be an advisory or consultative committee. There's already a shitpile of them in existence in various guises.

My view is there's absolutely nothing to fear from the Voice. It's the Governments that do dumb shit.