Discussion The Random Discussion Thread

[Sun Ra]

The NO campaign has been very energetic and quite successful in muddying the waters. They have been able to make this referendum about everything other than what is at the very heart of the matter which is indigenous recognition.

Anecdotally, the number of my friends who are regurgitating the rhetoric “I agree BUT…” is off the charts. And I think it all comes down to fear. Of what, I’m not even sure they really understand.

For me this is really easy. Do I feel in my heart Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders should be recognised in our constitution?

Yes.

And do you think the government should listen to their views when making laws that will/could affect them ?

Yes.

 

[CursingFijian]

Can’t agree with your last line there mate
The no vote will get up because of the terrible job the government has done with the information and how it will work. The main reason will be Albanese incompetence in selling it to the people

I don’t think you’re right Mowman.

You’re mistaking Albanese incompetence with Duttons effectiveness at confusing everyone about what this referendum is about.

 

[Mowman]

I don’t think you’re right Mowman.

You’re mistaking Albanese incompetence with Duttons effectiveness at confusing everyone about what this referendum is about.

No not all .

Very poorly implemented

To easy and to important to blame this on Dutton or who ever if it fails

As most things these days the yes cookers are as bad as the no cookers it’s disgusting

And neither have the best interest of the people that this effects most

 

[StFly]

Kinda reminds me of the republic referendum, where it's so watered down with nonsense that the people in the middle that shrug shoulders and DGAF have the right of it and the yes or no group need to hash it out and resolve their shit.

They are still mostly unified. Most of the no vote indigenous folks are either from the Liberal party or cookers like Anthony Mundine. Lydia Thorp who is a nutter wants to go head first into treaty and thinks that it's designed to pacify the people who want one.

That guy you put up has a very questionable looking website and I wouldn't be surprised if it's funded by the no campaign. He does these $90 courses on indigenous issues, he's spinning the lines straight from the No campaign prayer book. It smells a bit to me. I'd like to know what his political affiliations are. It looks like a Trojan horse.

The No campaign is all about muddying the water and making a basic thing look scary and complex. The Yes campaign isn't good at selling it either though, like most people who think that they are on the right path, they think people will go with common sense and decency.

It's honestly the most basic thing imaginable. It just makes it so that new governments don't rip up the work of the last lot. Whitlam put in the first representative body, Fraser tore it up and put his own in. Hawke and Keating put one in and Howard ripped it up. Howard put one in Rudd tore it up. Gillard put one in Abbott got rid of it all together. Turnbull put one in, Scotty tore it up. There are big gaps between them, sometimes nothing at all.

Some have been good, some have been campaignery, Howard with his protection stuff took back a lot of hard won rights and they were able to open up mining leases against the will of their local communities under the guise of stopping DV and alcoholism in remote communities. Mining companies are still blowing up our cultural treasures without recrimination. These aren't just important to them. They are world treasures. WA found out how much we care when they tried to make it harder. The No vote will win because most people are wilfully ignorant or have underlying racism toward indigenous people.

It really doesn't;

Can still be ripped up and torn out, just you'd need to update the constitution to do it is all.

I be undecided, as no trust in pollies and the discourse just makes me want to scream at both to STFU already or kiss and make up already and book out hotel rooms before those coming for finals beat them to the punch.

 

[phantom13]

I agree with you on the last point about everything stopping until the vote made no sense but this referendum has divided the general population and the indigenous population. Why is there so much resistance from the indigenous community, shouldn't they be overwhelmingly in favour of the voice, and if constitutional lawyers can't even come to a consensus on the implications of the voice, it unfortunately leaves me with more questions than answers.

There really isnt much resistance from indigenous communities.

Latest newspolls from first nations Australians had support for the voice at 90%+.

Dont let a handful of loud prominent Indigenous Australians make you think otherwise. Generally youve got two categories, cookers like Munidine sprouting about sovereignty and new world orders and more militant politicians who want treaty. I dont blame the latter but if you cant even get the voice over the line, treaty is a ****ing pipe dream.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

They are still mostly unified. Most of the no vote indigenous folks are either from the Liberal party or cookers like Anthony Mundine. Lydia Thorp who is a nutter wants to go head first into treaty and thinks that it's designed to pacify the people who want one.

That guy you put up has a very questionable looking website and I wouldn't be surprised if it's funded by the no campaign. He does these $90 courses on indigenous issues, he's spinning the lines straight from the No campaign prayer book. It smells a bit to me. I'd like to know what his political affiliations are. It looks like a Trojan horse.

The No campaign is all about muddying the water and making a basic thing look scary and complex. The Yes campaign isn't good at selling it either though, like most people who think that they are on the right path, they think people will go with common sense and decency.

It's honestly the most basic thing imaginable. It just makes it so that new governments don't rip up the work of the last lot. Whitlam put in the first representative body, Fraser tore it up and put his own in. Hawke and Keating put one in and Howard ripped it up. Howard put one in Rudd tore it up. Gillard put one in Abbott got rid of it all together. Turnbull put one in, Scotty tore it up. There are big gaps between them, sometimes nothing at all.

Some have been good, some have been campaignery, Howard with his protection stuff took back a lot of hard won rights and they were able to open up mining leases against the will of their local communities under the guise of stopping DV and alcoholism in remote communities. Mining companies are still blowing up our cultural treasures without recrimination. These aren't just important to them. They are world treasures. WA found out how much we care when they tried to make it harder. The No vote will win because most people are wilfully ignorant or have underlying racism toward indigenous people.

You should know that nothing in politics is that simple and straightforward.

Why you are deliberately minimising one side of a debate to racist, ignorant or “cOoKeRs” is beyond me, you’re better than that.

Head in sand type stuff and presents similarly to the cookers you are trying to denigrate.

The day we can’t have a balanced discussion as a public, we have lost. I feel that day is long gone.

 

[phantom13]

You should know that nothing in politics is that simple and straightforward.

Why you are deliberately minimising one side of a debate to racist, ignorant or “cOoKeRs” is beyond me, you’re better than that.

Head in sand type stuff and presents similarly to the cookers you are trying to denigrate.

The day we can’t have a balanced discussion as a public, we have lost. I feel that day is long gone.

Im really yet to hear a reasonable point supporting the no vote that doesnt boil down to garden variety racism (edit -) Or cooker TBH.

The "its unclear what it means" crowd probably have a point but then if you direct them to the website that answers pretty much all the questions or even offer to answer them yourself they find some excuse why its not their problem. If you want to remain unclear about it thats a choice your making.

 

[CursingFijian]

No not all .

Very poorly implemented

To easy and to important to blame this on Dutton or who ever if it fails

As most things these days the yes cookers are as bad as the no cookers it’s disgusting

And neither have the best interest of the people that this effects most

Neither have the best interest of indigenous people at heart...so therefore don't recognize Aboriginals and Torres Straight Islanders in our constitution?

 

[gringo2011]

Can’t agree with your last line there mate
The no vote will get up because of the terrible job the government has done with the information and how it will work. The main reason will be Albanese incompetence in selling it to the people

Yeah, Albo's been really bad at articulating it, to be fair though it's not meant to be him selling it, he's just supporting it, people running the campaign have to sell it. It's not his job as prime minister to be running it, all he can do is say that he supports it or not and sell his reasons for doing it.

The indigenous representatives aren't much better at prosecuting their case than Albo unfortunately. There's a guy from that band AB Original, Briggs who should be the salesman for it. He's young enough and switched on enough to sell it properly and he's tough enough to stand up for it.

They need a face that makes it more of a compassion choice. At the moment most people don't give a shit and are more irritated that they have to vote on something.

Indigenous people are still ****ed more than non indigenous people in things like education, health, incarceration rates etc. A big part is the historical shit we did thinking that we were helping them. There is an interesting thing where the peer group your kids associate with will have more bearing on their life outcomes than parenting. Taking kids away and institutionalising them has set them back and means that a lot are coming from unstable backgrounds. If you don't know anyone that went to uni you probably won't go to uni. Most people that are opposed are either pissed off that they are not getting the same opportunity or using it as a political issue. Aboriginals in Australia are like the Gold Coast Suns in the AFL, they keep spending but until there is a tipping point they'll stay behind everyone else. This hopefully lets them choose some of their own direction.

 

[CursingFijian]

You should know that nothing in politics is that simple and straightforward.

Why you are deliberately minimising one side of a debate to racist, ignorant or “cOoKeRs” is beyond me, you’re better than that.

Head in sand type stuff and presents similarly to the cookers you are trying to denigrate.

The day we can’t have a balanced discussion as a public, we have lost. I feel that day is long gone.

We can do that here.

Let's have a balanced discussion about why we shouldn't recognise Aboriginals and Torres Straight Islanders in our constitution.

 

[Yawkey way]

hierarchy based on race makes absolutely no sense at all and I’ll be voting no. I’ve also read and watched quite a few people standing next to good old albo who now have swiftly changed what they have been screaming from the rooftops for years about what the statement is and what the next steps are. John Anderson was the best minister I ever had and he’s an honourable balanced man, he’s voting no. When people tell me what they want repeatedly I see no reason not to believe them. Anyway it’s like anything else people have a vote and an opinion which I have no trouble respecting.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

We can do that here.

Let's have a balanced discussion about why we shouldn't recognise Aboriginals and Torres Straight Islanders in our constitution.

I think the strongest argument on that side is the one that it will have unlimited (extending beyond indigenous matters), permanent scope, as well as create a race based inequality within the parliamentary system itself - and we’ve seen how that has worked thus far.

I’m still undecided, will do some more reading in the lead-up.

Happy to hear everyone’s thoughts thrown in the mix!

 

[gringo2011]

You should know that nothing in politics is that simple and straightforward.

Why you are deliberately minimising one side of a debate to racist, ignorant or “cOoKeRs” is beyond me, you’re better than that.

Head in sand type stuff and presents similarly to the cookers you are trying to denigrate.

The day we can’t have a balanced discussion as a public, we have lost. I feel that day is long gone.

Because I honestly believe that if this was a logical debate this would be a non issue. It should go through just on common sense. The fact that it's even become a debate is ridiculous. People like Julie Bishop support it. It's hardly like it's deserving of the energy that anyone is putting into debating it. Pure wedge politics and nothing more IMO. Actually pretty shitful behaviour IMO and really base crap to distract us.

Politics should be debating why the big corporations are fleecing everyone and the governments are too scared to stand up to them. We are finding out who really runs the country when we are in a cost of living crisis and certain companies are ripping the society apart for huge profit while paying **** all tax. Instead we are all standing around wondering why our wages don't grow but costs for everything are crazy. You basically earn half of what you used to earn even with pay rises.....but aboriginals might have more rights and that will make it hard for us to do something that I can't remember but I know it was terrible. We should have debated selling off all of our assets to private enterprise with the same vigour. That really does effect us.

 

[phantom13]

hierarchy based on race makes absolutely no sense at all and I’ll be voting no. I’ve also read and watched quite a few people standing next to good old albo who now have swiftly changed what they have been screaming from the rooftops for years about what the statement is and what the next steps are. John Anderson was the best minister I ever had and he’s an honourable balanced man, he’s voting no. When people tell me what they want repeatedly I see no reason not to believe them. Anyway it’s like anything else people have a vote and an opinion which I have no trouble respecting.

Thats a pretty interesting take.

Its obviously an opinion that Indigenous Australians being recognized in the constitution and given the voice is providing a hierarchy for race but even if that is your position, where in this hierarchy does this referendum put them? Its certainly not at the top given the voices "powers" dont extend beyond providing advice and recommendations.

 

[phantom13]

I think the strongest argument on that side is the one that it will have unlimited (extending beyond indigenous matters), permanent scope, as well as create a race based inequality within the parliamentary system itself - and we’ve seen how that has worked thus far.

I’m still undecided, will do some more reading in the lead-up.

Happy to hear everyone’s thoughts thrown in the mix!

I stand to be corrected but this looks like the old "slippery slope argument"?

Even if the voice is asked for advice on matter not directly related to Indigenous affairs would that really matter? Its not binding advice.

 

[Mowman]

hierarchy based on race makes absolutely no sense at all and I’ll be voting no. I’ve also read and watched quite a few people standing next to good old albo who now have swiftly changed what they have been screaming from the rooftops for years about what the statement is and what the next steps are. John Anderson was the best minister I ever had and he’s an honourable balanced man, he’s voting no. When people tell me what they want repeatedly I see no reason not to believe them. Anyway it’s like anything else people have a vote and an opinion which I have no trouble respecting.

well said mate

 

[CursingFijian]

hierarchy based on race makes absolutely no sense at all and I’ll be voting no. I’ve also read and watched quite a few people standing next to good old albo who now have swiftly changed what they have been screaming from the rooftops for years about what the statement is and what the next steps are. John Anderson was the best minister I ever had and he’s an honourable balanced man, he’s voting no. When people tell me what they want repeatedly I see no reason not to believe them. Anyway it’s like anything else people have a vote and an opinion which I have no trouble respecting.

Are you suggesting we don't have a race based socio-economic hierachy now?

 

[PoppedCorn]

I’m going to tick jedi

 

[CursingFijian]

I’m going to tick jedi

Social media works on you.

 

[gringo2011]

I think the strongest argument on that side is the one that it will have unlimited (extending beyond indigenous matters), permanent scope, as well as create a race based inequality within the parliamentary system itself - and we’ve seen how that has worked thus far.

I’m still undecided, will do some more reading in the lead-up.

Happy to hear everyone’s thoughts thrown in the mix!

Lots of bodies advise parliament without the power to alter shit though. Not sure that advising politicians of anything has ever worked unless they are getting something out of it. The way the body operates and who it will be made up of isn't in the vote.

Not sure where the race stuff comes from. Farmers have a voice to parliament that is a representative body and funny enough are opposed to the indigenous one. Private schools have their own lobby groups, corporations pay to have professional lobbyists etc. Politicians then have teams of paid advisers that are across issues. The pollies are just front-men who sell the product to us.

Unless the Indigenous body can lobby with some cash to splash they won't be getting anything big off the ground. Miners will win over indigenous landholders every time because they will stuff the government coffers. The power they have will be to compile health data and stuff and come to government with proposals.

 

[Yawkey way]

Thats a pretty interesting take.

Its obviously an opinion that Indigenous Australians being recognized in the constitution and given the voice is providing a hierarchy for race but even if that is your position, where in this hierarchy does this referendum put them? Its certainly not at the top given the voices "powers" dont extend beyond providing advice and recommendations.

That is a hotly contested opinion and again I see no reason to alter the constitution.

 

[Mowman]

Neither have the best interest of indigenous people at heart...so therefore don't recognize Aboriginals and Torres Straight Islanders in our constitution?

I think its more important to fix the real issues Health - Education - Life expectancy etc

Our politicians don't need a voice to do this it should already be a matter of urgency

will the voice committee be the right people to represent the people that need help most ? I doubt it

Will the voice fix this or in 10 - 15 years will we have the same problems we have now ?

 

[CursingFijian]

I think the strongest argument on that side is the one that it will have unlimited (extending beyond indigenous matters), permanent scope, as well as create a race based inequality within the parliamentary system itself - and we’ve seen how that has worked thus far.

I’m still undecided, will do some more reading in the lead-up.

Happy to hear everyone’s thoughts thrown in the mix!

I don't see any issue with the permanency, as I certainly don't think recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders should be a temporary acknowledgement.

The notion that the voice confers special powers of any sort to anybody, let alone ones extending beyond indigenous matters, is an inaccuracy. Parliament retains full control over it's own procedures.

The sky is not falling.

 

[phantom13]

That is a hotly contested opinion and again I see no reason to alter the constitution.

Which opinion is hotly contested?

 

[phantom13]

I think its more important to fix the real issues Health - Education - Life expectancy etc

Our politicians don't need a voice to do this it should already be a matter of urgency

will the voice committee be the right people to represent the people that need help most ? I doubt it

Will the voice fix this or in 10 - 15 years will we have the same problems we have now ?

This is a fair point but youre saying we should stick with the status quo whilst acknowledging the status quo doesnt work.

The worst case scenario is it doesnt actually change anything but provides some public recongition of our First Nations people. Best case scenario it improves all the things you listed through the recommendations and advice. Reality is likely somewhere to the low end of the middle.

To me this is the crux of the argument, whats the downside versus whats the potential upside? Given the downside is so low its virtually non existent, why would you vote no?