You're viewing part of a thread.
100% incorrect.
I would have voted yes if we were guaranteeing something to indigenous people that would actually be guaranteed to help, like 10 senate seats or something. A new indigenous government agency that gives indigenous people money and say over all indigenous things.
You know what would also really help? Details about the thing I’m voting on, not a vague “just leave the details to us, the government, who have shown we’re not to be trusted over and over again”.
Voting for the voice as it was was essentially maintaining the status quo while being able to pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves we saved the indigenous people.
Could it not have been a start? Now it looks like you’ve all said no to the bare minimum, so there’s no point in continuing with anything at all. And have you seen the reaction from the indigenous community? That doesn’t seem like they felt it was useless. They’ve just been ignored again.
I’m on the outside looking in, btw. From Ireland it looks like you’ve all been played by the No campaign.
No, that couldn’t have been the start because it likely would have been the end too. What was proposed wasn’t the bare minimum, it was a complete embarrassment. It was a giant “trust us guys, we’re the government and we’ll definitely do the right thing”.
No one got played. Maybe, just maybe, the majority of people saw this ridiculous waste of time and money as just that. A virtue signalling waste of time and money so the rich inner city lefties can feel good about themselves for ending racism by doing the absolutely smallest thing possible.
Yeah, and if it went all the way, guaranteed senate seats, minimum employee numbers in all companies and universities, that would be going too far, wouldn’t it.
Fucks sake. It might have had the chance to be the start of something, but you’ve all definitely made sure it’s the end of it now, haven’t ye.
It wasn’t going to be the start of anything other than another waste of time. How many indigenous advisory boards have the government already had?
This was the equivalent of putting a black square as your social media profile picture.
Indigenous advisory boards that were legislated for, and were killed by legislation. That’s why it was a referendum this time, so the next politician can’t just kill it.
Oh, and this seems appropriate
Yet they wouldn't legislate any real power for it, nor even the size or makeup of the advisory board. Note the proposal didn't even say that the advisory board had to be made up of or even include an indigenous person.
No one is asking for the "perfect" solution, just not a shitty virtue signalling one that will change nothing.
Well you’ve all made sure nothing will change for 20 years, because no politician is going to want to touch it because “the people said no the last time”, so well done there.
Said no to enshrining an advisory group in the constitution, nothing more. There’s nothing even stopping them from making the voice via legislation.
What’s with the new narrative of “it was the voice or nothing for decades! You’ve killed us all!” coming from the virtue signallers?
…which the next shower will legislate out of existence again.
Look, maybe they’ll go the Irish route like with the Treaty of Nice, where there was a referendum that was ill defined, it was voted down, so in true Mrs Doyle style they made small amendments and said “you will, you will, you will” and it got through.
I certainly hope so, because regardless of why you voted against it, it’s not a good look internationally.
The same exact thing would essentially happen with a constitutionally protected voice though, that’s the thing. Under the LNP they’d just strip it right back till the point where it may as well have been legislated out of existence. The referendum protected a name only basically.
Upvote for father Ted ❤️
All the details were on the sheet you wrote No on. Looking forward to all the helpful progressive policies getting passed now that you've voted no, what a champ.
All the details? Really? How many people would this government put on the board? How would they be selected?
Point me to those details please.
We're not going to be able to answer those questions because you voted no, were those really your hangups, though? How many people would be on the advisory board? If you're actually curious to learn more, go have a read https://ulurustatement.org/the-voice/what-is-the-voice/ It's a bit late, though.
Those were some of my hangups, yes.
That site doesn’t tell me what the Albanese government were going to do if it passed.
Recognise aboriginals in the constitution and add an advisory board that can't simply be removed by the next government. It says it right there. The advisory board wouldn't change how our government is run in any way, it would just be there to help decision making on things specifically relating to aboriginal affairs. I'm not sure if you're actually being sincere here, it's not a nefarious plot or anything. Advisory boards are a very common normal thing and you can read about them here: https://www.directory.gov.au/boards-and-other-entities/what-board There's also a list of all the advisory boards we currently have. But seriously, there's a ton of information on how it would have worked. https://voice.gov.au/resources/information-booklet This mentions it would have members from each of the states, territories and Torres Strait islands. So now you know, had you done some basic research you would have gotten your answer.
Recognise aboriginals in the constitution and add an advisory board that can’t simply be removed by the next government. It says it right there.
That's not the details people are asking for. How many people would be on the advisory board? How would they be selected? How long would their terms be?
They. Would. Not. Give. Us. Any. Details. This is a huge part of the reason why they lost. People don't trust the government, and this was a huge "trust us, we'll definitely do the right thing this time" move. It's no surprise it backfired so badly.
So now you know, had you done some basic research you would have gotten your answer.
Maybe try not being so smug when you're incorrectly answering questions next time.
literally everything you just asked is answered in the links, maybe try learning how to read lol
Literally none of it is.
What was this Albanese governments makeup of the voice going to look like? How were they going to be selected? What were the term limits?
They list the constitutional amendment process on the page, a lot of the finer details are decided on afterwards, this has been the case for almost all referendums. It mentions specifically that consultation with aboriginal leaders, parliament and the broader public would help design the voice. It also mentions that it would work alongside existing organisations and structures, again, advisory boards are very common.
They also explicitly state that the voice would be chosen by aboriginal and torres strait islander people based on the wishes of the community. It also says members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the torres straight islands.
If it's the structure of a referendum that you have a problem with then cool, but it wasn't a good reason to vote no.
Also please read, it talks about all of your questions. It's honestly frustrating to hear you say it doesn't talk about any of it when all of these things are covered in the official literature.
This isn’t one of the things that should be out in the constitution and “have the finer details decided on afterwards”. An advisory board with no power doesn’t belong in the constitution.
There is no “official literature” with what it would look like if it won. There are lots of ideas, but nothing concrete. It can’t be both “we’ll work out the details later” and “here are the details”.