Play Nice Derailed, (The Place to Continue Off-Topic Discussion)

[sr36]

not everyone is going to have the same view, many however do share Jacintas views. Why did her local community vote NO?. Why did both NT electorates vote NO?

Don't know. I haven't seen a breakdown of votes by cultural groups.

The most well publicised Aboriginal no voters voted no as they felt it embedded authority over Aboriginal communities to the Australian Govt.

Jacinta appears more of the view that Aboriginal Australia should embrace the Australian Government and the opportunities that multicultural Australia gives.

Both valid views in my opinion, but I'm of the view that Aboriginal Australia should be given the opportunity to make those choices for themselves rather than one size fits all - which Jacinta's view encourages.

Im sure there were many other reasons why some voted no.

 

[gouki88]

Gouki, we make little impact in life unless we can persuade others

Calling Jacinta the names you choose advances nothing

It has a net negative impact

I share many of your political views, and your debating approach does not further our cause

I just don’t see what respectful debate has achieved thus far. The push for reconciliation has been shot down by gremlins misrepresenting it.

I don’t care to treat these bad-faith actors with anything less than the contempt they deserve.

What good have other “debating approaches” led to? What’s the point? It seems that either way in this country the people who want to hold back our marginalised communities are successful.

 

[gouki88]

It is people from your side with the f-wit, racist, dinosaur, dickhead taunts that was a major factor on the YES campaign failing. Ray Martin a classic example. Delivered his hate filled speech, then when asked for details on what the voice was all about in a debate could not explain anything, biggest own goal since John Hewsons GST birthday cake interview.

What tone has worked recently to advance the cause of reconciliation?

Maybe if people gave as much of a shit about Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander people as they did name-calling the country would be a better place.

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

I just don’t see what respectful debate has achieved thus far. The push for reconciliation has been shot down by gremlins misrepresenting it.

I don’t care to treat these bad-faith actors with anything less than the contempt they deserve.

What good have other “debating approaches” led to? What’s the point? It seems that either way in this country the people who want to hold back our marginalised communities are successful.

Have you done significant, direct work in indigenous communities where you have had to enlist the support of multiple stakeholders to get stuff done?

 

[No SPIN]

People wanting to know what they are voting on is only natural!

It’s only considered misinformation by those who would rather keep control of the narrative… keep the population blind.

The voice case was all about the vibe. Albo tried to channel Whitlam and shaman a wave of support for an oblique idea but failed

Every election political parties release policies to help voters decide

And if you go through the history of referendums in this country you’ll struggle to find anything as vague as ‘the voice’ proposed

Referendums in Australia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It was a rubbish idea for a referendum. And a huge disservice not splitting the question into two. Because today we would have had the voice fail but constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians enshrined

Time to admit you picked a donkey and it lost

Albo could simply have made the case the Constitution doesn’t require detail.
Eg It’s specifies Australian will pay Tax, but not the rates
We will have a Defence Force but doesn’t specify the number of Tanks, Infantry etc.
In both cases, the Government of the day needs the flexibility to decide implementation. If the detail were specified in both these examples, then a referendum would be need to change them, which is unworkable.

So “need for detail” was a disingenuous position given what we know about the constitution.

So No - the requirement for detail was not necessary.
And so the face palm is returned.

 

[whiskeytown]

Albo could simply have made the case the Constitution doesn’t require detail.
Eg It’s specifies Australian will pay Tax, but not the rates
We will have a Defence Force but doesn’t specify the number of Tanks, Infantry etc.
In both cases, the Government of the day needs the flexibility to decide implementation. If the detail were specified in both these examples, then a referendum would be need to change them, which is unworkable.

So “need for detail” was a disingenuous position given what we know about the constitution.

Myself and 60% of voting age Australians… agree to disagree

Look up the history of referendums

Referendums in Australia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Very black and white proposals. And where it gets murky eg republic (no detail on the model) and now the voice… too much ambiguity and the referendum fails

 

[No SPIN]

3 years of political science at uni

I understand how a referendum works

I comparing NT and ACT as examples in terms of demographics, socioeconomic status etc… and how they voted yesterday

And that pattern was replicated over most of the country. The inner city materially well off voting yes… and less wealthier, less white outer suburban, rural and remote communities largely voting No

Clearly went well over your head

Aren’t the less wealthy/educated those most but vulnerable to misinformation?
Which is the more likely reason they voted No.

 

[gouki88]

Aren’t the less wealthy/educated those most but vulnerable to misinformation?
Which the far more likely reason they voted No.

I think it is probably due to feelings of their concerns (cost of living implosion) not being heard

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

Have you done significant, direct work in indigenous communities where you have had to enlist the support of multiple stakeholders to get stuff done?

gouki88 just gave me a detailed, friendly PM sharing his experience in the indigenous space

It is significant

 

[No SPIN]

Myself and 60% of voting age Australians… agree to disagree

Look up the history of referendums

Referendums in Australia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Very black and white proposals. And where it gets murky eg republic (no detail on the model) and now the voice… too much ambiguity and the referendum fails

I go back to my example on Tax and Defence - detail is not needed as it then becomes immutable without a further referendum.
What better way of implementing the detail, than having the Parliament debate and argue in preparation of a bill that finally passes.
And if it needs change in 5 years then it can be done without a referendum.

It’s simple - there was no risk Voting YES given the above flexibility.

A NO vote doesn’t stand up to scrutiny if “no detail” is the objection.

 

[sr36]

gouki88 just gave me a detailed, friendly PM sharing his experience in the indigenous space

It is significant

Im calling BS. Yes voters don't do details.

 

[gerryg400]

What tone has worked recently to advance the cause of reconciliation?

Maybe if people gave as much of a s**t about Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander people as they did name-calling the country would be a better place.

Having had that realisation, is there a chance you might stop name-calling?

 

[jathanas]

I'm not too concerned about the Voice not getting up as I do think it was primarily tokenism with a very slight nod towards something more meaningful. But I'm more peeved about the state of political discussion rather than the actual campaign. We're at a point when it is all about catchphrases and soundbites. Eg. Ultimately the voice and Aboriginal rights to a level of autonomy are about division, but you can't discuss that because conceding division is a sound bite with a really negative connotation. And there's your campaign done and dusted. You've basically got to patronise and dumb it down but pretend not to.

Symbolism is powerful sr, we've squandered a great opportunity. A complicated issue like this is difficult to reduce to "catchy soundbites" but surely a better job could have been done to simplify and streamline the messaging. I'll just point to the "No" camp to illustrate my point.

Australia is a fair and magnificent country. Being an optimist I see goodness in most people. This wasn't the hard sell that most are making it out to be in my view. We soldier on, onwards and upwards.

P.S: My little neck of the woods lived up to its "left leaning progressive hippie" reputation.

 

[gouki88]

Im calling BS. Yes voters don't do details.

It was all on one page

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Regardless of how you voted can we all agree the marketing for the No campaign smoked the Yes campaign? “Don’t know, vote no” captured the essence of this referendum. All the fence sitters who didn’t have strong feelings either way just wanted clear answers from the Yes group, but the moment Yes started resorting to “you’re a racist/stupid/go read” responses to genuine questions it was clear how the vote was going to go.

Going to be a while before the government ever touches this issue again.

The Yes campaign never detailed the advisory committee's structure, membership and powers, and naturally in the absence of certainty, many people voted No. I think there is also an element of the electorate frustrated by the cost of living and their powerlessness to control rising costs and prices who took the opportunity to use this as a protest vote, despite this issue being unrelated to the referendum.

The No campaigners were far more vocal and influential than the Yes campaigners. Albanese can blame lack of partisan support but I think he also needs to accept responsibility for a poorly run campaign. The result really is a bit of a disaster for the ALP and for indigenous people faced with the stark reality that 60% of Australians voted against giving constitutional recognition to their right to an advisory role in shaping policy and programs which affect their welfare.

 

[VinnieB]

Aren’t the less wealthy/educated those most but vulnerable to misinformation?
Which is the more likely reason they voted No.

Also I would have thought it was little surprise QLD and WA were an overwhelming NO. Both mining states.

Let’s hope at least more Australians are sympathetic to the plight of First Nations people and both parties can come together to find a proper, workable solution to ensure we ‘bridge the gap’.

I for one did a complete 180 degree change from a hard ‘NO’ to a ‘YES’.

I understand for many it can seem like a big change. But, apart from the minority of Australians, I do believe most would want to ensure the issues are fixed through guidance from the right people.

 

[whiskeytown]

I go back to my example on Tax and Defence - detail is not needed as it then becomes immutable without a further referendum.
What better way of implementing the detail, than having the Parliament debate and argue in preparation of a bill that finally passes.
And if it needs change in 5 years then it can be done without a referendum.

It’s simple - there was no risk Voting YES given the above flexibility.

A NO vote doesn’t stand up to scrutiny if “no detail” is the objection.

Legislations vs constitution - You’re comparing apples with pears

Legislation on say tax cuts or buying tanks can be easily repealed

If a referendum was held on say ‘tanks’

Pretty soon people would also ask ‘how many tanks?’ ‘Why do they want this in the constitution?’ Etc etc. I.e detail

That’s human nature. Dismissing questions as ‘misinformation’ says that the populace should just trust govt

That’s something a lot of people are just not prepared to do… especially post Covid

You may like to wholeheartedly subscribe to whatever the left leaning political and media elites are telling you… and that’s your right too

But a lot of people want to be more… not less involved… in political decisions

The biggest concern for me is the ugliness that comes out during a same sex marriage plebiscite or a referendum on the voice.

This is chiefly because Australians are not practiced at participatory or direct democracy

Yes, the issues are contentious but if you look at the Swiss model of democracy… citizens vote multiple times a year… and sometimes it’s on contentious topics too

But they are used to it. And thereby everyone remains a bit more civil and sane throughout their political debates

The political elites, commentariat, big business, etc don’t want more of our participation in our democracy. It leads to too much scrutiny and too many questions

So we are novices and many are unable when it comes to thinking through political issues for themselves

 

[Maggie5]

Yet she works tirelessly behind the scenes and actually works her arse off for her people.

Price, Mundine, Thorpe and the others like them, don't have to worry about their health, food or shelter. Are in well paid jobs, comfortable homes and don't have to worry about their children's education and future so can say anything. Let's see what the future looks for Aboriginal people now that they have won and see what legislation they will put forth for the betterment of their community.

Negativity and fear mongering with a powerful press behind you always wins out it seems.

 

[doofdoof]

Do you think the NT is exclusively Aboriginal people? They do not make up 1/3 of the NT

Population - Northern Territory Economy

The Northern Territory’s population is much younger and more mobile than Australia’s general population. Here is analysis on key components of NT’s population growth.

nteconomy.nt.gov.au

The indigenous population is 30.8% of the NT

 

[gouki88]

Having had that realisation, is there a chance you might stop name-calling?

Population - Northern Territory Economy

The Northern Territory’s population is much younger and more mobile than Australia’s general population. Here is analysis on key components of NT’s population growth.

nteconomy.nt.gov.au

The indigenous population is 30.8% of the NT

Which is less than 1/3

 

[whiskeytown]

Price, Mundine, Thorpe and the others like them, don't have to worry about their health, food or shelter. Are in well paid jobs, comfortable homes and don't have to worry about their children's education and future so can say anything. Let's see what the future looks for Aboriginal people now that they have won and see what legislation they will put forth for the betterment of their community.

Negativity and fear mongering with a powerful press behind you always wins out it seems.

Touché’

Neither do Lucinda Burney, Thomas Mayo, Marcia Langton, Stan grant, Adam Goodes, etc etc

But agree that some indigenous people whether it’s Noel Pearson or Jacinta price have more experience in remote communities than the city dwellers

 

[gouki88]

Touché’

Neither do Lucinda Burney, Thomas Mayo, Marcia Langton, Stan grant, Adam Goodes, etc etc

But agree that some indigenous people whether it’s Noel Pearson or Jacinta price have more experience in remote communities than the city dwellers

What about representative groups for remote communities, like the Land Councils? Wouldn’t they have most authority?

 

[Maggie5]

Touché’

Neither do Lucinda Burney, Thomas Mayo, Marcia Langton, Stan grant, Adam Goodes, etc etc

But agree that some indigenous people whether it’s Noel Pearson or Jacinta price have more experience in remote communities than the city dwellers

Sorry, your Touché missed the mark.

Perhaps do some homework?

Goodes set up the Goodes-O'Loughlin Foundation, Langton does a lot of the community having established new courses of study at universities, ensuring the inclusion of Indigenous students and Indigenous knowledge in education, as does Burney who not only worked as a teacher in the the community but most of her career before politics se has spent bettering the lives of aboriginals.

Also haven't really seen the background of the other two so can't comment on them.

 

[doofdoof]

Price, Mundine, Thorpe and the others like them, don't have to worry about their health, food or shelter. Are in well paid jobs, comfortable homes and don't have to worry about their children's education and future so can say anything. Let's see what the future looks for Aboriginal people now that they have won and see what legislation they will put forth for the betterment of their community.

Negativity and fear mongering with a powerful press behind you always wins out it seems.

Touché’

Neither do Lucinda Burney, Thomas Mayo, Marcia Langton, Stan grant, Adam Goodes, etc etc

But agree that some indigenous people whether it’s Noel Pearson or Jacinta price have more experience in remote communities than the city dwellers

That's Prada Linda Burney

Add Megan Davis, Pat Anderson, Geraldine Atkinson and now also, Ray Martin, who is indigenous.

 

[Maggie5]

That's Prada Linda Burney

Add Megan Davis, Pat Anderson, Geraldine Atkinson and now also, Ray Martin, who is indigenous.

No need, your position has been made.