Ken Wyatt calls on Peter Dutton to give Liberals a conscience vote on the Voice to Parliament

We have the chance to turn the pages over
We can write what we want to write
We gotta make ends meet, before we get much older
We’re all someone’s daughter
We’re all someone’s son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun?
You’re the voice, try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
Oh, whoa
We’re not gonna sit in silence
We’re not gonna live with fear
Oh, whoa
This time, we know we all can stand together
With the power to be powerful
Believing we can make it better
Ooh, we’re all someone’s daughter
We’re all someone’s son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun?

I still don’t really know what exactly this means or how it is going to work in practice.

From the day that we were born we’ve been heading down a track
Sometimes it’s made for good sometimes for bad
But if we look behind us there’s a wave coming down
Carrying us forward to a new age
What about the world around us
How can we fail to see
And now that our fathers have gone
And we’ve been left to carry on
What about the age of reason
So why can’t we be still why can’t we love each other
Is kindness an ancient skill buried by our blindness
And if we look behind us there’s a wind blowing in
To create the age of reason
If we consider carefully the options put before us
So much wisdom so much love so much waiting for us
And if we look ahead there’s the sun and the seasons
Another day another age of reason

party_pants said:

I still don’t really know what exactly this means or how it is going to work in practice.

so pretty much how SCIENCE works then

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

I still don’t really know what exactly this means or how it is going to work in practice.

so pretty much how SCIENCE works then

Well if you are going to put it that way.

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

I still don’t really know what exactly this means or how it is going to work in practice.

so pretty much how SCIENCE works then

You should know I suppose.

Yes Lyrics
“We Agree”

Answers never clear again
This turning of the page
This turn look away

There I took a left turning
Before I came of age
I agreed to let it out
I agreed to let it go
I agreed to turn around
I agreed to turn my face away

Danger is the most important
Fear you’ll ever know
The transporting of refugees
The silent night is cold

And all the time
We looked around
As we were never told

But we agreed to let it out
We agreed to let it go
We agreed to turn our backs
We agreed to turn our face away, away

Thousands to the million
Sisters, grandmothers and more
It’s not the feast we throw away
It’s the way we close the door

Their silence deafens every sound
We try just to ignore
To waste their future freedom
We’ll regret forever more

I believe in
I believe in
These are the days that we will talk about
I believe in
I believe in
One understanding what is real

If we are one
Then we are refugees
We are the prisoners of our own design
If we are one
Seen through the eyes of a child
We will perpetuate this song of love
If we are one
Seen through the eyes of a child
We will perpetuate this song of love
If we are one
Seen through the eyes of a child
We will perpetuate this song
Perpetuate this song of love

Now we build the bridges
That we walk upon together
At the last count many lonely souls
The sadness always kills

Each breaking point is waiting
For the promise to fulfill

When we agree to turn the page
When we agree to help them free
When we agree to let it out
When we agree to let it shine
When we agree to let it run
When we agree to let it change our lives

I believe in, our lives
I believe in, our lives
These are the days we will talk about

When we are one
Seen through the eyes of child
We will perpetuate this song of love

When we are one
Seen through the eyes of child
We will perpetuate this song of love
Song of love

Yeah, yeah, perpetuate this song of love

Seeing through the eyes of child
Seeing through the eyes of child

party_pants said:

I still don’t really know what exactly this means or how it is going to work in practice.

The referendum is simply about formal recognition of the first people. Then the parliament sorts out and sets up exactly what The Voice is. It really is as basic as that. Do we recognize their prior existence here or do we not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbkOZTSvrHs

party_pants said:

I still don’t really know what exactly this means or how it is going to work in practice.

I don’t any of us do yet. I believe it is still being scripted. Those against so far seem to be the dutton’s of this world and the more militant aborigines to whom only a treaty and reparations will suffice.

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I still don’t really know what exactly this means or how it is going to work in practice.

The referendum is simply about formal recognition of the first people. Then the parliament sorts out and sets up exactly what The Voice is. It really is as basic as that. Do we recognize their prior existence here or do we not.

so what is Mundine’s objection to it?

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I still don’t really know what exactly this means or how it is going to work in practice.

The referendum is simply about formal recognition of the first people. Then the parliament sorts out and sets up exactly what The Voice is. It really is as basic as that. Do we recognize their prior existence here or do we not.

This. and Dutton thinks it lacks detail. He’s got heaps of time to nut that out in parliament. We just have to get the bloody thing moving. What, it has been since Cook and later the first fleet. This should have been done way back then.

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I still don’t really know what exactly this means or how it is going to work in practice.

The referendum is simply about formal recognition of the first people. Then the parliament sorts out and sets up exactly what The Voice is. It really is as basic as that. Do we recognize their prior existence here or do we not.

so what is Mundine’s objection to it?

He is a liberal stooge. Probably well pork barrelled.

the referendum has nothing to do with how it will be implemented through legislation.

ChrispenEvan said:

the referendum has nothing to do with how it will be implemented through legislation.

Yes but Dutton doesn’t seem to acknowledge this.

ChrispenEvan said:

the referendum has nothing to do with how it will be implemented through legislation.

I am wary about this. I will wait to see what the actual referendum question is, and what powers it is going to insert into the constitution.

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the referendum has nothing to do with how it will be implemented through legislation.

I am wary about this. I will wait to see what the actual referendum question is, and what powers it is going to insert into the constitution.

We are all waiting and watching until we have to vote.

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the referendum has nothing to do with how it will be implemented through legislation.

I am wary about this. I will wait to see what the actual referendum question is, and what powers it is going to insert into the constitution.

it won’t be a complex question. link below to the 1967 referendum

Link

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the referendum has nothing to do with how it will be implemented through legislation.

I am wary about this. I will wait to see what the actual referendum question is, and what powers it is going to insert into the constitution.

it won’t be a complex question. link below to the 1967 referendum

Link

:)
Tasmania.
Which river do you want the dam on? sorry, No Dams on any river.

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the referendum has nothing to do with how it will be implemented through legislation.

I am wary about this. I will wait to see what the actual referendum question is, and what powers it is going to insert into the constitution.

it won’t be a complex question. link below to the 1967 referendum

Link

Yes, I am aware of the 1967 referendum.

I will still wait to see the wording of any new powers to be inserted into the constitution. At the moment all I have heard are broad motherhood statements.

The no campaign in the voice referendum has claimed Facebook is “interfering with the democratic process” after a conservative thinktank accused the platform of “shadow-banning”, when several of its posts were restricted due to the platform’s internal rules on advertising.

“Facebook is starting to look a bit dangerous in regard to restricting democracy in Australia,” Warren Mundine, a leading campaigner for the no side, told Guardian Australia.

But a spokesperson for Facebook’s parent company, Meta, refuted the Institute of Public Affairs’ suggestion it had censored its videos, saying the thinktank had not included a standard authorisation message on its ad, which goes against the platform’s rules for paid advertisements.

“This ad was removed because the organisation posting it did not include the necessary transparency disclaimer, which is required for ads about social issues, elections or politics. If the ad includes the correct ‘paid for by’ disclaimer, it can be promoted on Facebook,” the spokesperson said.

“At Meta, we have rules in place that outline what we do and don’t allow on our platform. We apply these rules impartially.”

The IPA, a conservative thinktank that has been publishing research critical of the voice, wrote to the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, this week to complain that several of its posts on Facebook and YouTube had been barred from paid promotion.

The IPA claimed that “large foreign-owned corporations deciding how a domestic vote is debated” could amount to “foreign interference” and asked Albanese to amend the Broadcasting Services Act to apply to social media and prevent the “censoring” of referendum material.

Guardian Australia understands Google, which owns YouTube, categorised the IPA video as political advertising because it contained footage of politicians, including Albanese and Peter Dutton. Google requires political advertisers to be verified on its platform to ensure transparency and election integrity, but claimed the IPA was not verified when it tried placing the ad. Google contacted the IPA with information about its ad policies and the IPA video remains on YouTube.

The IPA’s deputy executive director, Daniel Wild, claimed its posts were not campaign ads, but instead research and policy reports.

“At no time has IPA received a fulsome explanation from Facebook/Meta for the targeted censoring of our research content. It seems only when instances of big tech censorship are covered in the media have the relevant social media platforms scrambled to explain their censorship policies,” he told Guardian Australia.

Wild called on Facebook and Google to “make a public pledge” to provide “fair and equal access” to both the yes and no sides of the referendum.

“At all times, the debate should be free of shadow-banning and algorithm manipulation,” he said.
skip past newsletter promotion

Our Australian morning briefing email breaks down the key national and international stories of the day and why they matter
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Mundine, a Bundjalung, Yuin and Gumbaynggirr man and one of the major public faces of the no campaign with his organisation Recognise A Better Way, said: “This is about free speech. Our country is built on free speech.”

He claimed Facebook resembled “Stalin’s state”, referring to the totalitarian Soviet dictator. “They’re interfering with the democratic process of Australia,” he said.

Mundine said the no side was considering options for complaint and taking legal advice.

“We will definitely be campaigning against corrupt interference in the free speech and democracy of Australia,” he said.

Meta told Guardian Australia in January that election and referendum ads are “held to a higher standard and require a ‘paid for by’ disclaimer … These requirements are required for anyone looking to run paid content on these topics across Facebook and Instagram.”

The platform declined to comment on Mundine’s criticisms but said it would monitor coordinated inauthentic behaviour, manipulation campaigns and misinformation through the referendum by partnering with independent third-party factcheckers and continue its transparency ad library around political ads and pages.

The platform will also work with the Australian Electoral Commission, the federal government’s Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce and law enforcement agencies.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/02/voice-referendum-no-campaign-accuses-facebook-of-restricting-democracy-over-ad-removal

Black Peoples Union
1 h ·
Why rally against the Voice?
- The voice is an advisory body that doesn’t guarantee any real change
- Blackfullas don’t get to choose who sits on the Voice to Parliament. The government does
- Relying on the colony for change is futile. Self-determination and grassroots movements will be the only way we make change and get the justice we deserve
- We have always had a voice, it just doesn’t get listened to
- The Voice yes campaign is sitting on millions, whilst we have Mob sleeping on the streets
—-

Just mentioning that there is opposition from those who would prefer treaty yeah!

sarahs mum said:

Black Peoples Union
1 h ·
Why rally against the Voice?
- The voice is an advisory body that doesn’t guarantee any real change
- Blackfullas don’t get to choose who sits on the Voice to Parliament. The government does
- Relying on the colony for change is futile. Self-determination and grassroots movements will be the only way we make change and get the justice we deserve
- We have always had a voice, it just doesn’t get listened to
- The Voice yes campaign is sitting on millions, whilst we have Mob sleeping on the streets
—-

Just mentioning that there is opposition from those who would prefer treaty yeah!

and acknowledgement in the constitution

Maybe we need other voices to direct parliament from all the other racial groups. We could probably extend it to religion as well. If we are to be a fully inclusive society then we need everyone to have a voice directly in parliament. Potentially you’d need to make space for these people in the parliament.

Blackfullas don’t get to choose who sits on the Voice to Parliament. The government does
—-

this bits sticks with me.

it’s hardly representative.

sarahs mum said:

Blackfullas don’t get to choose who sits on the Voice to Parliament. The government does
—-

this bits sticks with me.

it’s hardly representative.

It represents what the politicians want.

wookiemeister said:

Maybe we need other voices to direct parliament from all the other racial groups. We could probably extend it to religion as well. If we are to be a fully inclusive society then we need everyone to have a voice directly in parliament. Potentially you’d need to make space for these people in the parliament.

To compare the voice of people who have been Australians for 65,000 years, with people of ethnic origin who in the main have been here less than 100 years is ludicrous.

sarahs mum said:

Blackfullas don’t get to choose who sits on the Voice to Parliament. The government does
—-

this bits sticks with me.

it’s hardly representative.

We don’t actually know this yet, because the details have not been published.

But still, it wouldn’t be a huge step to change the representation from appointment to elected. So why not back an imperfect model as a first step, and then campaign to fix it later on. If it gets voted down by the radicals because it doesn’t go far enough all in one jump then they end up with nothing. See.. the Republic vote, and the Greens blocking Rudd’s ETS for examples.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

Maybe we need other voices to direct parliament from all the other racial groups. We could probably extend it to religion as well. If we are to be a fully inclusive society then we need everyone to have a voice directly in parliament. Potentially you’d need to make space for these people in the parliament.

To compare the voice of people who have been Australians for 65,000 years, with people of ethnic origin who in the main have been here less than 100 years is ludicrous.

Just being inclusive

Shouldn’t we have LGBT representatives in parliament too ?

How long someone has been here is irrelevant, that’s the thing , everyone gets a voice and can advise the elected representatives what they should do.

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

Blackfullas don’t get to choose who sits on the Voice to Parliament. The government does —-

this bits sticks with me.

it’s hardly representative.

We don’t actually know this yet, because the details have not been published.

But still, it wouldn’t be a huge step to change the representation from appointment to elected. So why not back an imperfect model as a first step, and then campaign to fix it later on. If it gets voted down by the radicals because it doesn’t go far enough all in one jump then they end up with nothing. See.. the Republic vote, and the Greens blocking Rudd’s ETS for examples.

¿ you mean the perfect is the enemy of the good ?

well damn if there couldn’t possibly be any pathway from Voice to Treaty if ultimately that’s what’s desired, like why start a journey of a thousand miles with any steps at all

oh wait that’s just the CHINA 千里之行，始於足下 imperialism talking

Today the bill was introduced to Parliament

Very eloquently too.

Active shooter storytime

The Liberal party has resolved to formally oppose the Indigenous voice referendum, several sources in the meeting told Guardian Australia.

The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, is expected to make an announcement later today, but his office hasn’t confirmed any timing yet. The opposition is likely to instead advocate for a focus on local and regional voices, rather than a constitutionally enshrined national voice.

Liberal backbenchers will be free to advocate their own position in the referendum, as the party always lets them do, but frontbenchers – such as Julian Leeser and Simon Birmingham – would be obligated to follow the party line.

Ian said:

The Liberal party has resolved to formally oppose the Indigenous voice referendum, several sources in the meeting told Guardian Australia.

The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, is expected to make an announcement later today, but his office hasn’t confirmed any timing yet. The opposition is likely to instead advocate for a focus on local and regional voices, rather than a constitutionally enshrined national voice.

Liberal backbenchers will be free to advocate their own position in the referendum, as the party always lets them do, but frontbenchers – such as Julian Leeser and Simon Birmingham – would be obligated to follow the party line.

Giving the elevated standing of Spud and the Libs I doubt this will have much impact on the electorate.

Dutton just trying to do right by the one percenters as this is the thanks he gets

The-Spectator said:

Dutton just trying to do right by the one percenters as this is the thanks he gets

Hey someone has to take care of minorities

Ian said:

Ian said:

The Liberal party has resolved to formally oppose the Indigenous voice referendum, several sources in the meeting told Guardian Australia.

The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, is expected to make an announcement later today, but his office hasn’t confirmed any timing yet. The opposition is likely to instead advocate for a focus on local and regional voices, rather than a constitutionally enshrined national voice.

Liberal backbenchers will be free to advocate their own position in the referendum, as the party always lets them do, but frontbenchers – such as Julian Leeser and Simon Birmingham – would be obligated to follow the party line.

Giving the elevated standing of Spud and the Libs I doubt this will have much impact on the electorate.

IMO, the voice is a tricky proposition and it’s far from certain that it will get over the line. The marriage equality vote, I think, was a success largely because most people know, or know of, a gay person and I think this personal connection played a big role in the outcome. The same can’t be said for personal connection to Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander people, and so I can see a push from the Libs potentially damaging the chance, especially for nailed on LibNat voters. It could be significant.

diddly-squat said:

Ian said:

Ian said:

The Liberal party has resolved to formally oppose the Indigenous voice referendum, several sources in the meeting told Guardian Australia.

The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, is expected to make an announcement later today, but his office hasn’t confirmed any timing yet. The opposition is likely to instead advocate for a focus on local and regional voices, rather than a constitutionally enshrined national voice.

Liberal backbenchers will be free to advocate their own position in the referendum, as the party always lets them do, but frontbenchers – such as Julian Leeser and Simon Birmingham – would be obligated to follow the party line.

Giving the elevated standing of Spud and the Libs I doubt this will have much impact on the electorate.

IMO, the voice is a tricky proposition and it’s far from certain that it will get over the line. The marriage equality vote, I think, was a success largely because most people know, or know of, a gay person and I think this personal connection played a big role in the outcome. The same can’t be said for personal connection to Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander people, and so I can see a push from the Libs potentially damaging the chance, especially for nailed on LibNat voters. It could be significant.

Newspoll shows support has dropped to 53%. But with referenda it’s tricky…

I’m not sure how many people will be moved the arguments of the likes of Joyce or Hanson.

(From a Spiny Norman post in the politics thread. I feel it deserves to be here, too.)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-06/ken-wyatt-quits-liberals-over-voice-to-parliament-stance/102197862

speaking of the voice, I hear john farnham is back in hospital.

JudgeMental said:

speaking of the voice, I hear john farnham is back in hospital.

Hopefully, he’s not thinking of attempting another vocal comeback.
I wish him well in attempting to hang on to his life as it is.

Mr Dutton cited Indigenous leaders from parts of the country ranging from Laverton in Western Australia to Palm Island in Queensland as saying the Voice wouldn’t represent their views on the ground.

But that’s at odds with what Pakaanu Aboriginal Corporation chief executive Marty Seelander has told the ABC. He says the majority of the Laverton Aboriginal community is backing the Yes campaign.

“It’s taken out of context because in the initial conversation we had on his visit, the opposition leader’s visit to Laverton, it was around that we want constitutional change,” Mr Seelander said.

“But we as a community, we did mention that we would like to know from the referendum if it was voted yes, how we would be represented from our community on that council.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-06/indigenous-communities-voice-to-parliament-peter-dutton-response/102199338

Shadow Attorney-General Julian Leeser quits Liberal frontbench to support Voice to Parliament

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Do we need a ‘Voice’ thread?

…

Voice will ‘enhance’ system of government: Solicitor General’s advice

By Lisa Visentin
April 21, 2023 — 10.40am

The Commonwealth’s top legal adviser says the federal cabinet and public service would not be forced to consult with the Voice before making policy, in a legal opinion that counters concerns that enshrining the body in the Constitution will clog up the courts and hamstring governments.

In a written opinion submitted to the parliamentary inquiry into the referendum, Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue said the Voice would “enhance” Australia’s system of representative and responsible government, and not “will not fetter or impede” the powers of the parliament or executive.

Read more:

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/voice-will-enhance-system-of-government-solicitor-general-s-advice-20230420-p5d24r.html

You’ve got the voice thread https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/16714/

Ta Roughy. Forgot all about it.

In Breaking News

Broader Consultation Can Frequently Improve Decision Making When Previously Decisions Were Made With Inadequate Consultation ¡

When do I get a voice ?

and those other people over there, points, will they ever have a voice?

To be heard, you need a voice and someone who listens to your voice.

Tau.Neutrino said:

When do I get a voice ?

and those other people over there, points, will they ever have a voice?

To be heard, you need a voice and someone who listens to your voice.

You have one: your local MP.

Tau.Neutrino said:

When do I get a voice ?

and those other people over there, points, will they ever have a voice?

To be heard, you need a voice and someone who listens to your voice.

I’m happy they are placing the voice in the constitution, its people like Peter Dutton who would get rid of committees like that.

But I would like the UN charter on Human rights placed in the constitution as well.

I bet Peter Dutton would hate that eh? Human rights placed in the Australian constitution.

I bet he and others would vote no on human rights without any explanation.

Michael V said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

When do I get a voice ?

and those other people over there, points, will they ever have a voice?

To be heard, you need a voice and someone who listens to your voice.

You have one: your local MP.

True.

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I still don’t really know what exactly this means or how it is going to work in practice.

The referendum is simply about formal recognition of the first people. Then the parliament sorts out and sets up exactly what The Voice is. It really is as basic as that. Do we recognize their prior existence here or do we not.

We really should. It’s pretty fucked that we’re the only country that doesn’t have a treaty with its first peoples, and that there are still people who believe that this country was fairly occupied on the basis of terra nullius.

At least there’s been a bigger step towards acknowledgement of country in recent years… It would be better if people in this area stopped acknowledging ownership by the wrong tribe, though.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the referendum has nothing to do with how it will be implemented through legislation.

Yes but Dutton doesn’t seem to acknowledge this.

Unsurprising… Stupid turnip head that he is.

If Peter Dutton could grow something out of his head, what would it be ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

If Peter Dutton could grow something out of his head, what would it be ?

Nothing useful, that’s for sure!

Dory said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I still don’t really know what exactly this means or how it is going to work in practice.

The referendum is simply about formal recognition of the first people. Then the parliament sorts out and sets up exactly what The Voice is. It really is as basic as that. Do we recognize their prior existence here or do we not.

We really should. It’s pretty fucked that we’re the only country that doesn’t have a treaty with its first peoples, and that there are still people who believe that this country was fairly occupied on the basis of terra nullius.

At least there’s been a bigger step towards acknowledgement of country in recent years… It would be better if people in this area stopped acknowledging ownership by the wrong tribe, though.

I had to buy a map of the local communities to get one woman to stop. She said to me I have been getting it wrong for years. I had politely been saying stuff so I just nodded.

ms spock said:

Dory said:

buffy said:

The referendum is simply about formal recognition of the first people. Then the parliament sorts out and sets up exactly what The Voice is. It really is as basic as that. Do we recognize their prior existence here or do we not.

We really should. It’s pretty fucked that we’re the only country that doesn’t have a treaty with its first peoples, and that there are still people who believe that this country was fairly occupied on the basis of terra nullius.

At least there’s been a bigger step towards acknowledgement of country in recent years… It would be better if people in this area stopped acknowledging ownership by the wrong tribe, though.

I had to buy a map of the local communities to get one woman to stop. She said to me I have been getting it wrong for years. I had politely been saying stuff so I just nodded.

It’s so frustrating…

I just tell whomever will listen that we live on twice stolen land.

Tau.Neutrino said:

If Peter Dutton could grow something out of his head, what would it be ?

I know that one! A potato! potato 🥔🥔🥔

ms spock said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If Peter Dutton could grow something out of his head, what would it be ?

I know that one! A potato! potato 🥔🥔🥔

Correct answer.

Dory said:

ms spock said:

Dory said:

We really should. It’s pretty fucked that we’re the only country that doesn’t have a treaty with its first peoples, and that there are still people who believe that this country was fairly occupied on the basis of terra nullius.

At least there’s been a bigger step towards acknowledgement of country in recent years… It would be better if people in this area stopped acknowledging ownership by the wrong tribe, though.

I had to buy a map of the local communities to get one woman to stop. She said to me I have been getting it wrong for years. I had politely been saying stuff so I just nodded.

It’s so frustrating…

I just tell whomever will listen that we live on twice stolen land.

When I was teaching I took a large Aboriginal language with me and got all the students (and parents) to point to all the First Nations countries they had been on. Then the other teachers got to look as well without me explicitly pointing out their mistakes.

Teaching outdoor Science was especially good for this.

ms spock said:

Dory said:

ms spock said:

I had to buy a map of the local communities to get one woman to stop. She said to me I have been getting it wrong for years. I had politely been saying stuff so I just nodded.

It’s so frustrating…

I just tell whomever will listen that we live on twice stolen land.

When I was teaching I took a large Aboriginal language with me and got all the students (and parents) to point to all the First Nations countries they had been on. Then the other teachers got to look as well without me explicitly pointing out their mistakes.

Teaching outdoor Science was especially good for this.

I live on Bangerang land, but people always try to say that it’s Yorta Yorta… :(

Dory said:

ms spock said:

Dory said:

It’s so frustrating…

I just tell whomever will listen that we live on twice stolen land.

When I was teaching I took a large Aboriginal language with me and got all the students (and parents) to point to all the First Nations countries they had been on. Then the other teachers got to look as well without me explicitly pointing out their mistakes.

Teaching outdoor Science was especially good for this.

I live on Bangerang land, but people always try to say that it’s Yorta Yorta… :(

Gubbi Gubbi (Kabi Kabi) country here.

Dory said:

I live on Bangerang land, but people always try to say that it’s Yorta Yorta… :(

Are any of those people Yorta Yorta themselves?

I know from what i’ve heard from various First Nations people over the years that there’s some conflicting claims to country that would rival anything in European history.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ms spock said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If Peter Dutton could grow something out of his head, what would it be ?

I know that one! A potato! potato 🥔🥔🥔

Correct answer.

Do I get a gold star 🌟🌟🌟?

Michael V said:

Dory said:

ms spock said:

When I was teaching I took a large Aboriginal language with me and got all the students (and parents) to point to all the First Nations countries they had been on. Then the other teachers got to look as well without me explicitly pointing out their mistakes.

Teaching outdoor Science was especially good for this.

I live on Bangerang land, but people always try to say that it’s Yorta Yorta… :(

Gubbi Gubbi (Kabi Kabi) country here.

I’m in Wiradjuri country.

ms spock said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ms spock said:

I know that one! A potato! potato 🥔🥔🥔

Correct answer.

Do I get a gold star 🌟🌟🌟?

Here. Have three. 🌟🌟🌟

ms spock said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ms spock said:

I know that one! A potato! potato 🥔🥔🥔

Correct answer.

Do I get a gold star 🌟🌟🌟?

Yes, have three.

Michael V said:

Dory said:

ms spock said:

When I was teaching I took a large Aboriginal language with me and got all the students (and parents) to point to all the First Nations countries they had been on. Then the other teachers got to look as well without me explicitly pointing out their mistakes.

Teaching outdoor Science was especially good for this.

I live on Bangerang land, but people always try to say that it’s Yorta Yorta… :(

Gubbi Gubbi (Kabi Kabi) country here.

Bundjalung Country here

roughbarked said:

ms spock said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Correct answer.

Do I get a gold star 🌟🌟🌟?

Here. Have three. 🌟🌟🌟

:)

captain_spalding said:

Dory said:

I live on Bangerang land, but people always try to say that it’s Yorta Yorta… :(

Are any of those people Yorta Yorta themselves?

I know from what i’ve heard from various First Nations people over the years that there’s some conflicting claims to country that would rival anything in European history.

Some are, most aren’t.

There really does seem to be a lot of conflict…

It’s a subject I’ve learned to avoid when talking with my next door neighbour, who is Yorta Yorta! Haha.

I keep meaning to visit the Bangerang Cultural Centre, but, like most things, I keep putting it off…

ms spock said:

Michael V said:

Dory said:

I live on Bangerang land, but people always try to say that it’s Yorta Yorta… :(

Gubbi Gubbi (Kabi Kabi) country here.

Bundjalung Country here

I’m in Creswick

Not sure where Creswick is in this map.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ms spock said:

Michael V said:

Gubbi Gubbi (Kabi Kabi) country here.

Bundjalung Country here

I’m in Creswick

Not sure where Creswick is in this map.

And, unsurprisingly, that map doesn’t show Bangerang/Pangerang.

Dory said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ms spock said:

Bundjalung Country here

I’m in Creswick

Not sure where Creswick is in this map.

And, unsurprisingly, that map doesn’t show Bangerang/Pangerang.

Updated Aboriginal maps would be good with overlays of towns.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Dory said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I’m in Creswick

Not sure where Creswick is in this map.

And, unsurprisingly, that map doesn’t show Bangerang/Pangerang.

Updated Aboriginal maps would be good with overlays of towns.

kinda to the north east of dja dja warrung…

Dory said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Dory said:

And, unsurprisingly, that map doesn’t show Bangerang/Pangerang.

Updated Aboriginal maps would be good with overlays of towns.

kinda to the north east of dja dja warrung…

Dja Dja Wurrung, even. My spelling sucks.

Dory said:

Dory said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Updated Aboriginal maps would be good with overlays of towns.

kinda to the north east of dja dja warrung…

Dja Dja Wurrung, even. My spelling sucks.

https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia

I’d have to look up Penshurst (Mount Rouse is our volcano). We are within the Djab wurrung language area, but right at the Southern end of it. I do know, however, that our front door is about 50m from an important meeting point at the head of a perpetual spring. According to Dawson (primary European source, 1881, of information in the work he produced with his daughter titled “Australian Aborigines”) :

“The country belonging to a tribe is generally distinguished by the name or language of that tribe. The names of tribes are taken from some local object, or from some peculiarity in the country where they live, or in their pronunciation; and when an individual is referred to, ‘Kuurndit’ – meaning ‘member of’ – is affixed to the tribal name, in the same way as the syllable ‘er’ is added to London, ‘Londoner’ or ‘ite’ to Melbourne, ‘Melbournite’. Thus the Mount Rouse tribe is called ‘Kolor’ after the aboriginal name of the mountain; and a member of the trive is called ‘Kolor kuurndit’. The language of the Kolor tribe is called ‘Chaap wuurong’, meaning ‘soft’ or ‘broad lip’, in contradistinction to the othere dialects of harder pronunciation. The Kolor tribe and its language occupy the country commencing near Moutn Napier, thence to Germantown, Dunkeld, Wickliffe, Lake Boloke, down the Salt Creek to Hexham, to Caramut and to starting point.”

James Dawson was a settler in this district who took a serious interest in the locals. His daughter learnt at least one of the languages. Their work is considered very important work. Although at the time, it was not a popular attitude to take.

Here is Isabella with some local people.

It seems the Dawsons are still respected amongst the locals here.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-10/wombeetch-puyuun-james-dawson-camperdown-cemetery-memorial/101083712

roughbarked said:

Dory said:

Dory said:

kinda to the north east of dja dja warrung…

Dja Dja Wurrung, even. My spelling sucks.

https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia

You see, on that map, we are probably in Gunditjmara. The Portland people call themselves Winda mara, but they are on there as Gunditjmara. But another map puts us in Djab wurrung. Right on the edge.

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

Dory said:

Dja Dja Wurrung, even. My spelling sucks.

https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia

You see, on that map, we are probably in Gunditjmara. The Portland people call themselves Winda mara, but they are on there as Gunditjmara. But another map puts us in Djab wurrung. Right on the edge.

I’d say it could be quite difficult to get an accurate map of all the tribal groups and languages as it wasn’t well recorded and some first nations people may well have been totally wiped out, taking all their history with them.

The one linked above has a disclaimer on it. It is available for download here http://nationalunitygovernment.org/pdf/aboriginal-australia-map.pdf

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia

You see, on that map, we are probably in Gunditjmara. The Portland people call themselves Winda mara, but they are on there as Gunditjmara. But another map puts us in Djab wurrung. Right on the edge.

I’d say it could be quite difficult to get an accurate map of all the tribal groups and languages as it wasn’t well recorded and some first nations people may well have been totally wiped out, taking all their history with them.

The one linked above has a disclaimer on it. It is available for download here http://nationalunitygovernment.org/pdf/aboriginal-australia-map.pdf

That’s why I initially quoted the Dawson description for this area. He was there in the 1800s and well respected. There is some confusion, I think, between language areas and tribe names.

roughbarked said:

Dory said:

Dory said:

kinda to the north east of dja dja warrung…

Dja Dja Wurrung, even. My spelling sucks.

https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia

Yeah, nah… Fuck the Yorta Yorta. This is Bangerang land.

Thanks All.

I wasn’t sure which Aboriginal Territory Creswick was in.

Dja Dja Wurrung territory.

If ABC quiz had the Voice in their Quiz I would have failed that question.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ms spock said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Correct answer.

Do I get a gold star 🌟🌟🌟?

Yes, have three.

:)

Dory said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ms spock said:

Bundjalung Country here

I’m in Creswick

Not sure where Creswick is in this map.

And, unsurprisingly, that map doesn’t show Bangerang/Pangerang.

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

buffy said:

I’d have to look up Penshurst (Mount Rouse is our volcano). We are within the Djab wurrung language area, but right at the Southern end of it. I do know, however, that our front door is about 50m from an important meeting point at the head of a perpetual spring. According to Dawson (primary European source, 1881, of information in the work he produced with his daughter titled “Australian Aborigines”) :

“The country belonging to a tribe is generally distinguished by the name or language of that tribe. The names of tribes are taken from some local object, or from some peculiarity in the country where they live, or in their pronunciation; and when an individual is referred to, ‘Kuurndit’ – meaning ‘member of’ – is affixed to the tribal name, in the same way as the syllable ‘er’ is added to London, ‘Londoner’ or ‘ite’ to Melbourne, ‘Melbournite’. Thus the Mount Rouse tribe is called ‘Kolor’ after the aboriginal name of the mountain; and a member of the trive is called ‘Kolor kuurndit’. The language of the Kolor tribe is called ‘Chaap wuurong’, meaning ‘soft’ or ‘broad lip’, in contradistinction to the othere dialects of harder pronunciation. The Kolor tribe and its language occupy the country commencing near Moutn Napier, thence to Germantown, Dunkeld, Wickliffe, Lake Boloke, down the Salt Creek to Hexham, to Caramut and to starting point.”

James Dawson was a settler in this district who took a serious interest in the locals. His daughter learnt at least one of the languages. Their work is considered very important work. Although at the time, it was not a popular attitude to take.

Here is Isabella with some local people.

It seems the Dawsons are still respected amongst the locals here.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-10/wombeetch-puyuun-james-dawson-camperdown-cemetery-memorial/101083712

Iontach!

From the politics thread.

Spiny Norman said:

Dutton refuses to identify ‘Elders’ he met over the Voice.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2023/04/22/dutton-refuses-identify-elders-he-met-over-the-voice#mtr

Nah fair enough I wouldn’t admit to meeting Dutton either

dv said:

Nah fair enough I wouldn’t admit to meeting Dutton either

It would have to be an unfortunate accident.

Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum bill passes the lower house, Nationals, some Liberals voting against.

this pervasive myth about ‘secret documents’ continues to surface

Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers said the tone of online comments on its posts about recent elections and the upcoming referendum voting information has been “aggressive”.

“It worries me greatly,” Mr Rogers said.

“We’re adapting our own social media footprint and the way in which we engage with individuals.

“There’s no point going down a rabbit hole when you know that someone is deliberately trying to take you down.”

Mr Rogers said threatening posts about individual staff members also surfaced online during the recent New South Wales election.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-22/australian-electoral-commissioner-tom-rogers-social-media-abuse/102507204

‘Stand with us, Australia’: NAIDOC Award winner’s message on the Voice

Rachel Perkins, who took home the Creative Talent Award, used her acceptance speech to urge Australians to vote ‘yes’ in the referendum later this year.

“Can I also pay respect to Linda Burney, Minister of Indigenous Australians,” Ms Perkins said during her speech.

“(And) Pat Anderson, elder of the year last year — these two women are leading us with the Uluru Statement from the Heart and leading the country to a ‘Yes’ this year. Stand with us, Australia,” she said.

If you own a house / property and believe in the voice take a stand and transfer them to aboriginal organisations, they desperately need homes.

This was on our watch. Wake up & hold them accountable.
5 h ·
Linda is sincere and holding up well against the vicious onslaught coming against her. Now we understand there is US political funding assisted by Christian evangelical organisations hooked into their propaganda the hostile NO propaganda is very worrying.
I don’t mind people voting No if they’ve come from a healthy desire to understand the voice and have concerns. Of course not. But the lies & nastiness being pumped through social media is scary. Maybe the goal is to ensure social media is tied up so tightly in a knot by regulations that it’s impact at election time is diminished.
I don’t feel those pushing the assaults on individuals care one bit for aboriginal people. Neither do they respect open honest debate/discussions. Neither are they interested in what the voice actually is. The lack of understanding is often shocking. I suspect other motives.
They’ve suddenly woken up to the power of TikTok, something they were slow to catch on to at the last election and they are undermining the platform with false propaganda.
Previously the platforms strength was presenting an argument created from archival or current video footage that indisputably exposed what a politician believed. Eg Scotty’s lies are all on record so are senate estimates & Hansard videos. TikTok connected people to the actions behind the dubious announcements.
Do they want social media silenced?
Disempowered? Scorned? Do they want to spread confusion and stir fear?
I think they want it undermined and controlled and the Voice is possibly a practise run towards that end because the blatant aggression makes no sense.

sarahs mum said:

This was on our watch. Wake up & hold them accountable.
5 h ·
Linda is sincere and holding up well against the vicious onslaught coming against her. Now we understand there is US political funding assisted by Christian evangelical organisations hooked into their propaganda the hostile NO propaganda is very worrying.
I don’t mind people voting No if they’ve come from a healthy desire to understand the voice and have concerns. Of course not. But the lies & nastiness being pumped through social media is scary. Maybe the goal is to ensure social media is tied up so tightly in a knot by regulations that it’s impact at election time is diminished.
I don’t feel those pushing the assaults on individuals care one bit for aboriginal people. Neither do they respect open honest debate/discussions. Neither are they interested in what the voice actually is. The lack of understanding is often shocking. I suspect other motives.
They’ve suddenly woken up to the power of TikTok, something they were slow to catch on to at the last election and they are undermining the platform with false propaganda.
Previously the platforms strength was presenting an argument created from archival or current video footage that indisputably exposed what a politician believed. Eg Scotty’s lies are all on record so are senate estimates & Hansard videos. TikTok connected people to the actions behind the dubious announcements.
Do they want social media silenced?
Disempowered? Scorned? Do they want to spread confusion and stir fear?
I think they want it undermined and controlled and the Voice is possibly a practise run towards that end because the blatant aggression makes no sense.

It is what Aborigines have had to tolerate and worse since white settlement and it has never become easier for them. There can be nothing worse than having the dregs of white society thinking they are better than you and treating you accordingly.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

This was on our watch. Wake up & hold them accountable.
5 h ·
Linda is sincere and holding up well against the vicious onslaught coming against her. Now we understand there is US political funding assisted by Christian evangelical organisations hooked into their propaganda the hostile NO propaganda is very worrying.
I don’t mind people voting No if they’ve come from a healthy desire to understand the voice and have concerns. Of course not. But the lies & nastiness being pumped through social media is scary. Maybe the goal is to ensure social media is tied up so tightly in a knot by regulations that it’s impact at election time is diminished.
I don’t feel those pushing the assaults on individuals care one bit for aboriginal people. Neither do they respect open honest debate/discussions. Neither are they interested in what the voice actually is. The lack of understanding is often shocking. I suspect other motives.
They’ve suddenly woken up to the power of TikTok, something they were slow to catch on to at the last election and they are undermining the platform with false propaganda.
Previously the platforms strength was presenting an argument created from archival or current video footage that indisputably exposed what a politician believed. Eg Scotty’s lies are all on record so are senate estimates & Hansard videos. TikTok connected people to the actions behind the dubious announcements.
Do they want social media silenced?
Disempowered? Scorned? Do they want to spread confusion and stir fear?
I think they want it undermined and controlled and the Voice is possibly a practise run towards that end because the blatant aggression makes no sense.

It is what Aborigines have had to tolerate and worse since white settlement and it has never become easier for them. There can be nothing worse than having the dregs of white society thinking they are better than you and treating you accordingly.

The Aborigines had to fight with each and every new wave of immigrants. The Italians fought with the Aborigines to get off the bottom of the heap. This went on down the line. The Fijjians, The Tongans, The Samoans etc. Then the Indians, The Pakistanis. You name it. The first thing the kids of any race or creed felt that to get on with the whiteys they had to fight with the Aborigines to be better than them and indeed again to fight with the whiteys to stand up in the eyes of the Whiteys. Because, no matter what, the Aborigines had to stay on the bottom. THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED A VOICE.

sarahs mum said:

This was on our watch. Wake up & hold them accountable.
5 h ·
Linda is sincere and holding up well against the vicious onslaught coming against her. Now we understand there is US political funding assisted by Christian evangelical organisations hooked into their propaganda the hostile NO propaganda is very worrying.
I don’t mind people voting No if they’ve come from a healthy desire to understand the voice and have concerns. Of course not. But the lies & nastiness being pumped through social media is scary. Maybe the goal is to ensure social media is tied up so tightly in a knot by regulations that it’s impact at election time is diminished.
I don’t feel those pushing the assaults on individuals care one bit for aboriginal people. Neither do they respect open honest debate/discussions. Neither are they interested in what the voice actually is. The lack of understanding is often shocking. I suspect other motives.
They’ve suddenly woken up to the power of TikTok, something they were slow to catch on to at the last election and they are undermining the platform with false propaganda.
Previously the platforms strength was presenting an argument created from archival or current video footage that indisputably exposed what a politician believed. Eg Scotty’s lies are all on record so are senate estimates & Hansard videos. TikTok connected people to the actions behind the dubious announcements.
Do they want social media silenced?
Disempowered? Scorned? Do they want to spread confusion and stir fear?
I think they want it undermined and controlled and the Voice is possibly a practise run towards that end because the blatant aggression makes no sense.

This is largely why I stay aay from facebark, twatter, tik tok etc. and on the internet chat scene, I pretty much only come here other than to do stuff that we all use the internet for.
Silly human race.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

This was on our watch. Wake up & hold them accountable.
5 h ·
Linda is sincere and holding up well against the vicious onslaught coming against her. Now we understand there is US political funding assisted by Christian evangelical organisations hooked into their propaganda the hostile NO propaganda is very worrying.
I don’t mind people voting No if they’ve come from a healthy desire to understand the voice and have concerns. Of course not. But the lies & nastiness being pumped through social media is scary. Maybe the goal is to ensure social media is tied up so tightly in a knot by regulations that it’s impact at election time is diminished.
I don’t feel those pushing the assaults on individuals care one bit for aboriginal people. Neither do they respect open honest debate/discussions. Neither are they interested in what the voice actually is. The lack of understanding is often shocking. I suspect other motives.
They’ve suddenly woken up to the power of TikTok, something they were slow to catch on to at the last election and they are undermining the platform with false propaganda.
Previously the platforms strength was presenting an argument created from archival or current video footage that indisputably exposed what a politician believed. Eg Scotty’s lies are all on record so are senate estimates & Hansard videos. TikTok connected people to the actions behind the dubious announcements.
Do they want social media silenced?
Disempowered? Scorned? Do they want to spread confusion and stir fear?
I think they want it undermined and controlled and the Voice is possibly a practise run towards that end because the blatant aggression makes no sense.

It is what Aborigines have had to tolerate and worse since white settlement and it has never become easier for them. There can be nothing worse than having the dregs of white society thinking they are better than you and treating you accordingly.

The idea of “ US political funding assisted by Christian evangelical organisations” pisses me off.

sarahs mum said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

This was on our watch. Wake up & hold them accountable.
5 h ·
Linda is sincere and holding up well against the vicious onslaught coming against her. Now we understand there is US political funding assisted by Christian evangelical organisations hooked into their propaganda the hostile NO propaganda is very worrying.
I don’t mind people voting No if they’ve come from a healthy desire to understand the voice and have concerns. Of course not. But the lies & nastiness being pumped through social media is scary. Maybe the goal is to ensure social media is tied up so tightly in a knot by regulations that it’s impact at election time is diminished.
I don’t feel those pushing the assaults on individuals care one bit for aboriginal people. Neither do they respect open honest debate/discussions. Neither are they interested in what the voice actually is. The lack of understanding is often shocking. I suspect other motives.
They’ve suddenly woken up to the power of TikTok, something they were slow to catch on to at the last election and they are undermining the platform with false propaganda.
Previously the platforms strength was presenting an argument created from archival or current video footage that indisputably exposed what a politician believed. Eg Scotty’s lies are all on record so are senate estimates & Hansard videos. TikTok connected people to the actions behind the dubious announcements.
Do they want social media silenced?
Disempowered? Scorned? Do they want to spread confusion and stir fear?
I think they want it undermined and controlled and the Voice is possibly a practise run towards that end because the blatant aggression makes no sense.

It is what Aborigines have had to tolerate and worse since white settlement and it has never become easier for them. There can be nothing worse than having the dregs of white society thinking they are better than you and treating you accordingly.

The idea of “ US political funding assisted by Christian evangelical organisations” pisses me off.

I suppose they have to spend all that ill gotten gain on something. Like sponsoring new contributors.

Price, Ley & Co use parliamentary privilege to spread an unfounded conspiracy theory about The Voice. I think this is unconscionable.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-10/voice-conspiracy-theory/102709262

I found out on Tuesday at my local branch meeting that apparently the main No campaign (associated with Advance Australia) are running multiple campaigns. No only are they running with the line that the Voice goes too far, they are also running a campaign that it doesn’t go far enough and that there should be a treaty and reparations as part of the package to convince those in the electorate like Senator Thorpe to also vote no to the voice.

Michael V said:

Price, Ley & Co use parliamentary privilege to spread an unfounded conspiracy theory about The Voice. I think this is unconscionable.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-10/voice-conspiracy-theory/102709262

But will the commercial stations run the same story?

Witty Rejoinder said:

I found out on Tuesday at my local branch meeting that apparently the main No campaign (associated with Advance Australia) are running multiple campaigns. No only are they running with the line that the Voice goes too far, they are also running a campaign that it doesn’t go far enough and that there should be a treaty and reparations as part of the package to convince those in the electorate like Senator Thorpe to also vote no to the voice.

It was only to be expected. As a nation we have been shoving the aborigine in the trash can and slamming the lid from day one and we still are.
I did have great hope that the voice was finally a time when they would get a voice and I am still optimistic but I cannot write off those who have had a couple of centuries of practice.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

Price, Ley & Co use parliamentary privilege to spread an unfounded conspiracy theory about The Voice. I think this is unconscionable.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-10/voice-conspiracy-theory/102709262

But will the commercial stations run the same story?

I found out on Tuesday at my local branch meeting that apparently the main No campaign (associated with Advance Australia) are running multiple campaigns. No only are they running with the line that the Voice goes too far, they are also running a campaign that it doesn’t go far enough and that there should be a treaty and reparations as part of the package to convince those in the electorate like Senator Thorpe to also vote no to the voice.

It was only to be expected. As a nation we have been shoving the aborigine in the trash can and slamming the lid from day one and we still are.
I did have great hope that the voice was finally a time when they would get a voice and I am still optimistic but I cannot write off those who have had a couple of centuries of practice.

So the correct way to do it would be to put all those options on the ballot, Yes versus No(too far) versus No(not enough) versus No(we lie about length) versus No(…) and then pick the highest count.

Michael V said:

Price, Ley & Co use parliamentary privilege to spread an unfounded conspiracy theory about The Voice. I think this is unconscionable.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-10/voice-conspiracy-theory/102709262

Sounds like SOP. Credlin and her Sky mates have been pushing hard on this.

Ian said:

Michael V said:

Price, Ley & Co use parliamentary privilege to spread an unfounded conspiracy theory about The Voice. I think this is unconscionable.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-10/voice-conspiracy-theory/102709262

Sounds like SOP. Credlin and her Sky mates have been pushing hard on this.

Bar-stewards!

Terrible polling coming in. I think it had little hope now.

dv said:

Terrible polling coming in. I think it had little hope now.

Think they should cancel, build a strong case, publicise, then go again. Labor have not done enough and made the Voice too easy to rubbish.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Terrible polling coming in. I think it had little hope now.

Think they should cancel, build a strong case, publicise, then go again. Labor have not done enough and made the Voice too easy to rubbish.

Labor have been trying to keep it out of politics but the Dutton’s mob are relentless and ruthless.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Terrible polling coming in. I think it had little hope now.

Think they should cancel, build a strong case, publicise, then go again. Labor have not done enough and made the Voice too easy to rubbish.

Referendums tend to fail as well, regardless of what it’s about

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Terrible polling coming in. I think it had little hope now.

Think they should cancel, build a strong case, publicise, then go again. Labor have not done enough and made the Voice too easy to rubbish.

Referendums tend to fail as well, regardless of what it’s about

Aussies are quick to bulldoze an aboriginal camp if they can.
Asking them yes or no is too simple.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Terrible polling coming in. I think it had little hope now.

Think they should cancel, build a strong case, publicise, then go again. Labor have not done enough and made the Voice too easy to rubbish.

Labor have been trying to keep it out of politics but the Dutton’s mob are relentless and ruthless.

You cannot keep something out of politics when there are obvious divisions in most quarters. Labor has been very naive about the whole affair.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Terrible polling coming in. I think it had little hope now.

Think they should cancel, build a strong case, publicise, then go again. Labor have not done enough and made the Voice too easy to rubbish.

My own view is that it won’t get up without bipartisan support, and Dutton will never support it. But Dutton is very unpopular, only 21% of Australians have him as preferred prime minister so he won’t be around for long.

The Guardian had an Essential Research Poll that has No ahead by 4%, and leading in all states but Victoria. The Australian has a Newspoll that has No ahead by 3% and leading in Qld, WA and Tasmania.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Think they should cancel, build a strong case, publicise, then go again. Labor have not done enough and made the Voice too easy to rubbish.

Labor have been trying to keep it out of politics but the Dutton’s mob are relentless and ruthless.

You cannot keep something out of politics when there are obvious divisions in most quarters. Labor has been very naive about the whole affair.

It should be simple but Liberals are not so secretly racist so want to stop it.

SCIENCE said:

I’m smart enough to see the relevance but for archival purposes you should explain it.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

I’m smart enough to see the relevance but for archival purposes you should explain it.

Would also help for the less smart amongst us.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

I’m smart enough to see the relevance but for archival purposes you should explain it.

Sorry we were just posting a nice picture from the article.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-10/giant-aboriginal-art-years-in-making-sprouting-acoss-wa/102711838

SCIENCE said:

Where’s that at?

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

I’m smart enough to see the relevance but for archival purposes you should explain it.

Sorry we were just posting a nice picture from the article.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-10/giant-aboriginal-art-years-in-making-sprouting-acoss-wa/102711838

Ta.

SCIENCE said:

that takes some planning, very lovely

Arts said:

SCIENCE said:

that takes some planning, very lovely

Indeedy.

dv said:

Terrible polling coming in. I think it had little hope now.

perhaps we aren’t sorry.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Terrible polling coming in. I think it had little hope now.

Think they should cancel, build a strong case, publicise, then go again. Labor have not done enough and made the Voice too easy to rubbish.

My own view is that it won’t get up without bipartisan support, and Dutton will never support it. But Dutton is very unpopular, only 21% of Australians have him as preferred prime minister so he won’t be around for long.

The Guardian had an Essential Research Poll that has No ahead by 4%, and leading in all states but Victoria. The Australian has a Newspoll that has No ahead by 3% and leading in Qld, WA and Tasmania.

For mine, the key problem is that the vast majority of ordinary, every-day, Australians, be they Labs or Libs or somewhere in-between, have no personal connection to Aboriginal Australia. One of the big leg-ups the same sex plebiscite had was that most people know a gay person, they are members of our families or we work with them, etc.. but very few people can call a first nations person a member of their family or a work colleague…

It’s disappointing, but I don’t see this getting up…

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Think they should cancel, build a strong case, publicise, then go again. Labor have not done enough and made the Voice too easy to rubbish.

My own view is that it won’t get up without bipartisan support, and Dutton will never support it. But Dutton is very unpopular, only 21% of Australians have him as preferred prime minister so he won’t be around for long.

The Guardian had an Essential Research Poll that has No ahead by 4%, and leading in all states but Victoria. The Australian has a Newspoll that has No ahead by 3% and leading in Qld, WA and Tasmania.

For mine, the key problem is that the vast majority of ordinary, every-day, Australians, be they Labs or Libs or somewhere in-between, have no personal connection to Aboriginal Australia. One of the big leg-ups the same sex plebiscite had was that most people know a gay person, they are members of our families or we work with them, etc.. but very few people can call a first nations person a member of their family or a work colleague…

It’s disappointing, but I don’t see this getting up…

i feel we are being brexitted. I don’t do skynews but every thumbnail I see is no is dangerous. Also that it about no on tiktok being funded by US evangelicals.

sarahs mum said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

My own view is that it won’t get up without bipartisan support, and Dutton will never support it. But Dutton is very unpopular, only 21% of Australians have him as preferred prime minister so he won’t be around for long.

The Guardian had an Essential Research Poll that has No ahead by 4%, and leading in all states but Victoria. The Australian has a Newspoll that has No ahead by 3% and leading in Qld, WA and Tasmania.

For mine, the key problem is that the vast majority of ordinary, every-day, Australians, be they Labs or Libs or somewhere in-between, have no personal connection to Aboriginal Australia. One of the big leg-ups the same sex plebiscite had was that most people know a gay person, they are members of our families or we work with them, etc.. but very few people can call a first nations person a member of their family or a work colleague…

It’s disappointing, but I don’t see this getting up…

i feel we are being brexitted. I don’t do skynews but every thumbnail I see is no is dangerous. Also that it about no on tiktok being funded by US evangelicals.

Also that bit about

sarahs mum said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

My own view is that it won’t get up without bipartisan support, and Dutton will never support it. But Dutton is very unpopular, only 21% of Australians have him as preferred prime minister so he won’t be around for long.

The Guardian had an Essential Research Poll that has No ahead by 4%, and leading in all states but Victoria. The Australian has a Newspoll that has No ahead by 3% and leading in Qld, WA and Tasmania.

For mine, the key problem is that the vast majority of ordinary, every-day, Australians, be they Labs or Libs or somewhere in-between, have no personal connection to Aboriginal Australia. One of the big leg-ups the same sex plebiscite had was that most people know a gay person, they are members of our families or we work with them, etc.. but very few people can call a first nations person a member of their family or a work colleague…

It’s disappointing, but I don’t see this getting up…

i feel we are being brexitted. I don’t do skynews but every thumbnail I see is no is dangerous. Also that it about no on tiktok being funded by US evangelicals.

“no on tiktok being funded by US evangelicals.”

For real? If so that that really is foreign interference. Awful stuff.

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

diddly-squat said:

For mine, the key problem is that the vast majority of ordinary, every-day, Australians, be they Labs or Libs or somewhere in-between, have no personal connection to Aboriginal Australia. One of the big leg-ups the same sex plebiscite had was that most people know a gay person, they are members of our families or we work with them, etc.. but very few people can call a first nations person a member of their family or a work colleague…

It’s disappointing, but I don’t see this getting up…

i feel we are being brexitted. I don’t do skynews but every thumbnail I see is no is dangerous. Also that it about no on tiktok being funded by US evangelicals.

“no on tiktok being funded by US evangelicals.”

For real? If so that that really is foreign interference. Awful stuff.

it’s happening across the planet. it is a thing.

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

diddly-squat said:

For mine, the key problem is that the vast majority of ordinary, every-day, Australians, be they Labs or Libs or somewhere in-between, have no personal connection to Aboriginal Australia. One of the big leg-ups the same sex plebiscite had was that most people know a gay person, they are members of our families or we work with them, etc.. but very few people can call a first nations person a member of their family or a work colleague…

It’s disappointing, but I don’t see this getting up…

i feel we are being brexitted. I don’t do skynews but every thumbnail I see is no is dangerous. Also that it about no on tiktok being funded by US evangelicals.

“no on tiktok being funded by US evangelicals.”

For real? If so that that really is foreign interference. Awful stuff.

Apparently funding for the NO campaign in the marriage equality debate also came from US religious sources.

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

diddly-squat said:

For mine, the key problem is that the vast majority of ordinary, every-day, Australians, be they Labs or Libs or somewhere in-between, have no personal connection to Aboriginal Australia. One of the big leg-ups the same sex plebiscite had was that most people know a gay person, they are members of our families or we work with them, etc.. but very few people can call a first nations person a member of their family or a work colleague…

It’s disappointing, but I don’t see this getting up…

i feel we are being brexitted. I don’t do skynews but every thumbnail I see is no is dangerous. Also that it about no on tiktok being funded by US evangelicals.

“no on tiktok being funded by US evangelicals.”

For real? If so that that really is foreign interference. Awful stuff.

Evangelical preaching is awful all on its own

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

i feel we are being brexitted. I don’t do skynews but every thumbnail I see is no is dangerous. Also that it about no on tiktok being funded by US evangelicals.

“no on tiktok being funded by US evangelicals.”

For real? If so that that really is foreign interference. Awful stuff.

Apparently funding for the NO campaign in the marriage equality debate also came from US religious sources.

Bar-stewards!

Not saying d-s is wrong but I wouldn’t mind seeing some statistics

bump

Let’s hope that in the end, most Australians will decide it’s not a good idea to completely trash their international reputation.

Bubblecar said:

Let’s hope that in the end, most Australians will decide it’s not a good idea to completely trash their international reputation.

Worked For USUK¡

Wait…

Oh shit…

party_pants said:

bump

Ta.

Western Australian Liveral Leader Libby Mettam has flipped and will now be supporting the No campaign.

dv said:

Western Australian Liveral Leader Libby Mettam has flipped and will now be supporting the No campaign.

Two state Liberal leaders have backed the voice: Premier Rockliff of Tasmania, and opposition leader Mark Speakman of NSW

dv said:

dv said:

Western Australian Liveral Leader Libby Mettam has flipped and will now be supporting the No campaign.

Two state Liberal leaders have backed the voice: Premier Rockliff of Tasmania, and opposition leader Mark Speakman of NSW

Good. Hope there are more to come.

Bogsnorkler said:

That would be funny if it wasn’t so damn sad.

buffy said:

Bogsnorkler said:

That would be funny if it wasn’t so damn sad.

yeah.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/14/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-zoom-meeting-abducted-racist-comments

Link

Bogsnorkler said:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/14/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-zoom-meeting-abducted-racist-comments

Link

gee it hurts.

sarahs mum said:

Bogsnorkler said:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/14/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-zoom-meeting-abducted-racist-comments

Link

gee it hurts.

Might be a good thing as most people would not like to be voting in agreement with an unruly bunch of Nazis.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

Bogsnorkler said:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/14/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-zoom-meeting-abducted-racist-comments

Link

gee it hurts.

Might be a good thing as most people would not like to be voting in agreement with an unruly bunch of Nazis.

So maybe it’s a bunch of false flags to make people feel sorry for the Yes¡

SCIENCE said:

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

gee it hurts.

Might be a good thing as most people would not like to be voting in agreement with an unruly bunch of Nazis.

So maybe it’s a bunch of false flags to make people feel sorry for the Yes¡

The especially stupid might think that way.

does anyone have any fact checking comments on this please?

TRUTH TELLING PLEASE
Linda Burney said in Parliament “Under our constitution Australia and Torres Strait Island Australians have had no voice, no say in matters that affected our communities.” And she deliberately fails to acknowledge they have had recognition under law from before 1901. Aborigines in NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania could vote in colonial elections before 1901 and, by virtue of Section 41 of the Constitution, which my great-grandfather helped to write, they could vote in Commonwealth elections. Aboriginals could vote if they registered, same as white fellas. In 1962 – before the 1967 referendum – the Commonwealth legislated to extend the vote to any Aborigine who had not already registered demonstrating clearly that Aborigines were not excluded from the Constitution before 1967.
‘IF’ they were not recognised, how could they have voted?
Really: “We have had no voice, no say in matters that affected our communities,” that, Linda Burney, is baloney — Koolymoot from Kurdaitcha.
There are 11 indigenous MP’s in Canberra, that are their Voice, representing a bit over 3% of the Australian population.
There were 3,273 registered Aboriginal Corporations, making representations to governments delivering health and other services.
National Indigenous Australian Agency (NIAA) has 1,317 employees costing close to 4.5 billion dollars this financial year. They are the commonwealth body responsible for policy development, implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples — They are their VOICE.
Over $34 billion a year goes to Indigenous people and communities; aboriginal organizations receive hundreds of millions of dollars from mining royalties every year. More than 230 million dollars in the NT alone. Taxpayer now provide of $39 billion dollars a year on Aboriginal needs, more than is spent on Medicare. What are they spending it all on??
The above appears to be irrefutable evidence Linda Burney has misled Parliament and the people of Australia — Aboriginals are over represented, over funded and over heard.

sarahs mum said:

does anyone have any fact checking comments on this please?

TRUTH TELLING PLEASE
Linda Burney said in Parliament “Under our constitution Australia and Torres Strait Island Australians have had no voice, no say in matters that affected our communities.” And she deliberately fails to acknowledge they have had recognition under law from before 1901. Aborigines in NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania could vote in colonial elections before 1901 and, by virtue of Section 41 of the Constitution, which my great-grandfather helped to write, they could vote in Commonwealth elections. Aboriginals could vote if they registered, same as white fellas. In 1962 – before the 1967 referendum – the Commonwealth legislated to extend the vote to any Aborigine who had not already registered demonstrating clearly that Aborigines were not excluded from the Constitution before 1967.
‘IF’ they were not recognised, how could they have voted?
Really: “We have had no voice, no say in matters that affected our communities,” that, Linda Burney, is baloney — Koolymoot from Kurdaitcha.
There are 11 indigenous MP’s in Canberra, that are their Voice, representing a bit over 3% of the Australian population.
There were 3,273 registered Aboriginal Corporations, making representations to governments delivering health and other services.
National Indigenous Australian Agency (NIAA) has 1,317 employees costing close to 4.5 billion dollars this financial year. They are the commonwealth body responsible for policy development, implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples — They are their VOICE.
Over $34 billion a year goes to Indigenous people and communities; aboriginal organizations receive hundreds of millions of dollars from mining royalties every year. More than 230 million dollars in the NT alone. Taxpayer now provide of $39 billion dollars a year on Aboriginal needs, more than is spent on Medicare. What are they spending it all on??
The above appears to be irrefutable evidence Linda Burney has misled Parliament and the people of Australia — Aboriginals are over represented, over funded and over heard.

I don’t have time to check out most of it, but I did divide 4.5 billion by 1317, and now I’m wondering how I can get a job with the NIAA.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has implied the government gave unequal treatment to the Yes and No campaigns by “fumbling” the latter’s DGR status. Is that correct?

‘My community has not been consulted at any stage through this process and if our voice has not been heard in the consultation stage, how will we be heard with a Voice?’

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-29/jana-pittman-qa-the-voice-confusing-gordon-reid-aaron-violi/102786342

Will a Bitterly Divided Australia Elevate the Voice of Aboriginal People?
A referendum to set up an Indigenous advisory body in Parliament was envisioned as uniting the country. The opposite has happened.

By Yan Zhuang and Natasha Frost
Reporting from Albury and Melbourne, Australia.

Aug. 29, 2023

It was billed as a modest proposal that would help heal the traumas of history and unite the country. Australia would change its Constitution to recognize the original inhabitants of the land and enshrine an advisory body in Parliament for Aboriginal people, giving them a greater say on issues that affect their lives.

But over the past year, the proposal has exposed racial fault lines and become ensnared in a bitter culture war, in a country that has long struggled to reckon with its colonial legacy.

One former prime minister said it would “entrench victimhood,” and another called British colonization the “luckiest thing that happened to this country.” One opponent said Aboriginal people wanting “a voice” should “learn English” and suggested that those who receive welfare payments should prove their heritage with blood tests.

And now, public polling suggests, a referendum on the matter — which will be held on Oct. 14 — is likely to fail. That result, according to Thomas Mayo, an Indigenous leader, would mean “Australia officially dismissing our very existence.”

The vote is an inflection point for Australia’s relationship with the hundreds of Indigenous tribes that first occupied the continent and today are a small minority in the country. Since colonization, they have been subject to ineffective or deliberately harmful government policy, activists said. Prior to a 1967 constitutional referendum, Indigenous people were not counted as part of Australia’s population. They remain stuck at the bottom of society, with an average life expectancy eight years lower than the national average and the highest rate of incarceration in the world.

The Voice to Parliament is the cumulation of a fight by Indigenous activists to be recognized in the 120-year-old Constitution and for equality. It was developed by over 250 Indigenous leaders who gathered at Uluru, a sacred site once known as Ayers Rock, in 2017. They sought to address what they called “the torment of our powerlessness.”

The plan for a referendum was laid out about a year ago by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the leader of the center-left Labor Party, who announced the referendum date on Wednesday.

The body would give advice to Parliament, government ministers and the departments they oversee on issues affecting Indigenous people. If the vote succeeds, the body’s design and precise details will be determined by Parliament, but its architects say members will be chosen by Indigenous communities, who represent less than 4 percent of Australia’s population. The government has said its priorities are health, education, jobs and housing.

“There’s a broad sense that things can and absolutely should be better for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this country,” said Dean Parkin, the director of Yes23, the group leading the campaign in support of the Voice.

But proponents must convince the public that changing the Constitution will have a practical benefit, said Larissa Baldwin-Roberts, an Aboriginal activist and chief executive of the progressive group GetUp. That is a particularly difficult task, she said, in a country where most people do not interact with Aboriginal people, and many still believe Indigenous people are responsible for their own disadvantages.

“They don’t know us, they hear a lot about us, and they’re worried about giving us more rights and what that would take away from them,” said Ms. Baldwin-Roberts.

Opponents of the Voice have also cast doubt on its efficacy, using the lack of details about the proposal — which is normal for a referendum — to suggest that it could give advice on every government policy. Some Aboriginal leaders have called the measure toothless because the government is not mandated to heed its advice. Others call it divisive.

“Right now, there’s a lot of confusion in the Australian community about what is a pretty modest form of recognition,” said Megan Davis, one of the leaders of the Uluru process, who is campaigning for the Voice with the group the Uluru Dialogue.

Opponents argue that the Voice would make Australia less equal by giving Indigenous people special rights.

“I want to see Australia move forward as one, not two, divided,” Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, an opposition lawmaker who is Indigenous, said in a parliamentary speech. “This is a dangerous and costly proposal; it is legally risky and full of unknowns.”

In a statement, Advance, the conservative group leading the “No” campaign, added: “Australians who do not want their Constitution to divide us by race are not racists. In fact, the opposite is true.”

But, observers said, colonial tropes remain at play.

“Some people are of the view that Indigenous people have already had enough advantages and government payments, and going any further is just some sort of exercise in making us feel guilty for the success of this country,” said Mark Kenny, a political commentator and professor at the Australian National University. “This is a very potent message that seems to resonate with a number of people.”

Another obstacle, Mr. Kenny said, is a population that is generally averse to constitutional change. Only eight of 44 constitutional referendums in Australian history have succeeded. The most recent one, on whether to end the symbolic rule of the British monarchy, was soundly defeated in 1999.

On a recent day, as Jim Durkin, 63, handed out leaflets in support of the Voice in suburban Melbourne, he worried about the effects of misinformation on the campaign. “If people are in two minds, the easier option is ‘no,’” he said.

The “Yes” campaign has been criticized for being slow to mobilize and respond to opponents’ attacks, running an uninspiring campaign, and courting the support of celebrities — including, bizarrely, Shaquille O’Neal. But it hopes to galvanize support in the next few weeks with its 28,000 volunteers knocking on doors.

In Albury, a rural town roughly halfway between Sydney and Melbourne, the volunteers found both hope and discouragement.

At one house, Jane Richardson, 43, said she wholeheartedly supported the Voice. She said she understood the “historic culture of exclusion” to which Aboriginal people had been subjected and, as a Chinese Australian woman, strongly believed in racial justice. But she said that it had taken some time to persuade her husband, who had never really interrogated the stereotype of Indigenous people, to follow suit.

Vehement resistance came from residents worried about what they would lose, said Liz Quinn, a volunteer. Several were under the impression that their land would be taken away if the vote succeeded, she said.

These misconceptions were the result of racist dog whistling and scare tactics that have been used for decades to stall progress on Aboriginal issues by suggesting that addressing colonial injustices would require a sacrifice from the rest of the country, said Ms. Baldwin-Roberts, the Aboriginal activist, who is pushing for a “Yes” vote but is not affiliated with the official campaign.

“This debate has thrown a bomb at race relations in this country, and that’s going to reverberate for years to come,” she said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/29/world/australia/voice-aboriginal-indigenous.html?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Will a Bitterly Divided Australia Elevate the Voice of Aboriginal People?
A referendum to set up an Indigenous advisory body in Parliament was envisioned as uniting the country. The opposite has happened.

By Yan Zhuang and Natasha Frost
Reporting from Albury and Melbourne, Australia.

Aug. 29, 2023

It was billed as a modest proposal that would help heal the traumas of history and unite the country. Australia would change its Constitution to recognize the original inhabitants of the land and enshrine an advisory body in Parliament for Aboriginal people, giving them a greater say on issues that affect their lives.

But over the past year, the proposal has exposed racial fault lines and become ensnared in a bitter culture war, in a country that has long struggled to reckon with its colonial legacy.

One former prime minister said it would “entrench victimhood,” and another called British colonization the “luckiest thing that happened to this country.” One opponent said Aboriginal people wanting “a voice” should “learn English” and suggested that those who receive welfare payments should prove their heritage with blood tests.

And now, public polling suggests, a referendum on the matter — which will be held on Oct. 14 — is likely to fail. That result, according to Thomas Mayo, an Indigenous leader, would mean “Australia officially dismissing our very existence.”

The vote is an inflection point for Australia’s relationship with the hundreds of Indigenous tribes that first occupied the continent and today are a small minority in the country. Since colonization, they have been subject to ineffective or deliberately harmful government policy, activists said. Prior to a 1967 constitutional referendum, Indigenous people were not counted as part of Australia’s population. They remain stuck at the bottom of society, with an average life expectancy eight years lower than the national average and the highest rate of incarceration in the world.

The Voice to Parliament is the cumulation of a fight by Indigenous activists to be recognized in the 120-year-old Constitution and for equality. It was developed by over 250 Indigenous leaders who gathered at Uluru, a sacred site once known as Ayers Rock, in 2017. They sought to address what they called “the torment of our powerlessness.”

The plan for a referendum was laid out about a year ago by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the leader of the center-left Labor Party, who announced the referendum date on Wednesday.

The body would give advice to Parliament, government ministers and the departments they oversee on issues affecting Indigenous people. If the vote succeeds, the body’s design and precise details will be determined by Parliament, but its architects say members will be chosen by Indigenous communities, who represent less than 4 percent of Australia’s population. The government has said its priorities are health, education, jobs and housing.

“There’s a broad sense that things can and absolutely should be better for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this country,” said Dean Parkin, the director of Yes23, the group leading the campaign in support of the Voice.

But proponents must convince the public that changing the Constitution will have a practical benefit, said Larissa Baldwin-Roberts, an Aboriginal activist and chief executive of the progressive group GetUp. That is a particularly difficult task, she said, in a country where most people do not interact with Aboriginal people, and many still believe Indigenous people are responsible for their own disadvantages.

“They don’t know us, they hear a lot about us, and they’re worried about giving us more rights and what that would take away from them,” said Ms. Baldwin-Roberts.

Opponents of the Voice have also cast doubt on its efficacy, using the lack of details about the proposal — which is normal for a referendum — to suggest that it could give advice on every government policy. Some Aboriginal leaders have called the measure toothless because the government is not mandated to heed its advice. Others call it divisive.

“Right now, there’s a lot of confusion in the Australian community about what is a pretty modest form of recognition,” said Megan Davis, one of the leaders of the Uluru process, who is campaigning for the Voice with the group the Uluru Dialogue.

Opponents argue that the Voice would make Australia less equal by giving Indigenous people special rights.

“I want to see Australia move forward as one, not two, divided,” Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, an opposition lawmaker who is Indigenous, said in a parliamentary speech. “This is a dangerous and costly proposal; it is legally risky and full of unknowns.”

In a statement, Advance, the conservative group leading the “No” campaign, added: “Australians who do not want their Constitution to divide us by race are not racists. In fact, the opposite is true.”

But, observers said, colonial tropes remain at play.

“Some people are of the view that Indigenous people have already had enough advantages and government payments, and going any further is just some sort of exercise in making us feel guilty for the success of this country,” said Mark Kenny, a political commentator and professor at the Australian National University. “This is a very potent message that seems to resonate with a number of people.”

Another obstacle, Mr. Kenny said, is a population that is generally averse to constitutional change. Only eight of 44 constitutional referendums in Australian history have succeeded. The most recent one, on whether to end the symbolic rule of the British monarchy, was soundly defeated in 1999.

On a recent day, as Jim Durkin, 63, handed out leaflets in support of the Voice in suburban Melbourne, he worried about the effects of misinformation on the campaign. “If people are in two minds, the easier option is ‘no,’” he said.

The “Yes” campaign has been criticized for being slow to mobilize and respond to opponents’ attacks, running an uninspiring campaign, and courting the support of celebrities — including, bizarrely, Shaquille O’Neal. But it hopes to galvanize support in the next few weeks with its 28,000 volunteers knocking on doors.

In Albury, a rural town roughly halfway between Sydney and Melbourne, the volunteers found both hope and discouragement.

At one house, Jane Richardson, 43, said she wholeheartedly supported the Voice. She said she understood the “historic culture of exclusion” to which Aboriginal people had been subjected and, as a Chinese Australian woman, strongly believed in racial justice. But she said that it had taken some time to persuade her husband, who had never really interrogated the stereotype of Indigenous people, to follow suit.

Vehement resistance came from residents worried about what they would lose, said Liz Quinn, a volunteer. Several were under the impression that their land would be taken away if the vote succeeded, she said.

These misconceptions were the result of racist dog whistling and scare tactics that have been used for decades to stall progress on Aboriginal issues by suggesting that addressing colonial injustices would require a sacrifice from the rest of the country, said Ms. Baldwin-Roberts, the Aboriginal activist, who is pushing for a “Yes” vote but is not affiliated with the official campaign.

“This debate has thrown a bomb at race relations in this country, and that’s going to reverberate for years to come,” she said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/29/world/australia/voice-aboriginal-indigenous.html?

What I am concerned about is our ethical standing as seen by the rest of the world if we “no” vote.

buffy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Will a Bitterly Divided Australia Elevate the Voice of Aboriginal People?
A referendum to set up an Indigenous advisory body in Parliament was envisioned as uniting the country. The opposite has happened.

By Yan Zhuang and Natasha Frost
Reporting from Albury and Melbourne, Australia.

Aug. 29, 2023

It was billed as a modest proposal that would help heal the traumas of history and unite the country. Australia would change its Constitution to recognize the original inhabitants of the land and enshrine an advisory body in Parliament for Aboriginal people, giving them a greater say on issues that affect their lives.

But over the past year, the proposal has exposed racial fault lines and become ensnared in a bitter culture war, in a country that has long struggled to reckon with its colonial legacy.

One former prime minister said it would “entrench victimhood,” and another called British colonization the “luckiest thing that happened to this country.” One opponent said Aboriginal people wanting “a voice” should “learn English” and suggested that those who receive welfare payments should prove their heritage with blood tests.

And now, public polling suggests, a referendum on the matter — which will be held on Oct. 14 — is likely to fail. That result, according to Thomas Mayo, an Indigenous leader, would mean “Australia officially dismissing our very existence.”

The vote is an inflection point for Australia’s relationship with the hundreds of Indigenous tribes that first occupied the continent and today are a small minority in the country. Since colonization, they have been subject to ineffective or deliberately harmful government policy, activists said. Prior to a 1967 constitutional referendum, Indigenous people were not counted as part of Australia’s population. They remain stuck at the bottom of society, with an average life expectancy eight years lower than the national average and the highest rate of incarceration in the world.

The Voice to Parliament is the cumulation of a fight by Indigenous activists to be recognized in the 120-year-old Constitution and for equality. It was developed by over 250 Indigenous leaders who gathered at Uluru, a sacred site once known as Ayers Rock, in 2017. They sought to address what they called “the torment of our powerlessness.”

The plan for a referendum was laid out about a year ago by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the leader of the center-left Labor Party, who announced the referendum date on Wednesday.

The body would give advice to Parliament, government ministers and the departments they oversee on issues affecting Indigenous people. If the vote succeeds, the body’s design and precise details will be determined by Parliament, but its architects say members will be chosen by Indigenous communities, who represent less than 4 percent of Australia’s population. The government has said its priorities are health, education, jobs and housing.

“There’s a broad sense that things can and absolutely should be better for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this country,” said Dean Parkin, the director of Yes23, the group leading the campaign in support of the Voice.

But proponents must convince the public that changing the Constitution will have a practical benefit, said Larissa Baldwin-Roberts, an Aboriginal activist and chief executive of the progressive group GetUp. That is a particularly difficult task, she said, in a country where most people do not interact with Aboriginal people, and many still believe Indigenous people are responsible for their own disadvantages.

“They don’t know us, they hear a lot about us, and they’re worried about giving us more rights and what that would take away from them,” said Ms. Baldwin-Roberts.

Opponents of the Voice have also cast doubt on its efficacy, using the lack of details about the proposal — which is normal for a referendum — to suggest that it could give advice on every government policy. Some Aboriginal leaders have called the measure toothless because the government is not mandated to heed its advice. Others call it divisive.

“Right now, there’s a lot of confusion in the Australian community about what is a pretty modest form of recognition,” said Megan Davis, one of the leaders of the Uluru process, who is campaigning for the Voice with the group the Uluru Dialogue.

Opponents argue that the Voice would make Australia less equal by giving Indigenous people special rights.

“I want to see Australia move forward as one, not two, divided,” Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, an opposition lawmaker who is Indigenous, said in a parliamentary speech. “This is a dangerous and costly proposal; it is legally risky and full of unknowns.”

In a statement, Advance, the conservative group leading the “No” campaign, added: “Australians who do not want their Constitution to divide us by race are not racists. In fact, the opposite is true.”

But, observers said, colonial tropes remain at play.

“Some people are of the view that Indigenous people have already had enough advantages and government payments, and going any further is just some sort of exercise in making us feel guilty for the success of this country,” said Mark Kenny, a political commentator and professor at the Australian National University. “This is a very potent message that seems to resonate with a number of people.”

Another obstacle, Mr. Kenny said, is a population that is generally averse to constitutional change. Only eight of 44 constitutional referendums in Australian history have succeeded. The most recent one, on whether to end the symbolic rule of the British monarchy, was soundly defeated in 1999.

On a recent day, as Jim Durkin, 63, handed out leaflets in support of the Voice in suburban Melbourne, he worried about the effects of misinformation on the campaign. “If people are in two minds, the easier option is ‘no,’” he said.

The “Yes” campaign has been criticized for being slow to mobilize and respond to opponents’ attacks, running an uninspiring campaign, and courting the support of celebrities — including, bizarrely, Shaquille O’Neal. But it hopes to galvanize support in the next few weeks with its 28,000 volunteers knocking on doors.

In Albury, a rural town roughly halfway between Sydney and Melbourne, the volunteers found both hope and discouragement.

At one house, Jane Richardson, 43, said she wholeheartedly supported the Voice. She said she understood the “historic culture of exclusion” to which Aboriginal people had been subjected and, as a Chinese Australian woman, strongly believed in racial justice. But she said that it had taken some time to persuade her husband, who had never really interrogated the stereotype of Indigenous people, to follow suit.

Vehement resistance came from residents worried about what they would lose, said Liz Quinn, a volunteer. Several were under the impression that their land would be taken away if the vote succeeded, she said.

These misconceptions were the result of racist dog whistling and scare tactics that have been used for decades to stall progress on Aboriginal issues by suggesting that addressing colonial injustices would require a sacrifice from the rest of the country, said Ms. Baldwin-Roberts, the Aboriginal activist, who is pushing for a “Yes” vote but is not affiliated with the official campaign.

“This debate has thrown a bomb at race relations in this country, and that’s going to reverberate for years to come,” she said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/29/world/australia/voice-aboriginal-indigenous.html?

What I am concerned about is our ethical standing as seen by the rest of the world if we “no” vote.

Which is why Qantas says yes.

buffy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Will a Bitterly Divided Australia Elevate the Voice of Aboriginal People?
A referendum to set up an Indigenous advisory body in Parliament was envisioned as uniting the country. The opposite has happened.

By Yan Zhuang and Natasha Frost
Reporting from Albury and Melbourne, Australia.

Aug. 29, 2023

It was billed as a modest proposal that would help heal the traumas of history and unite the country. Australia would change its Constitution to recognize the original inhabitants of the land and enshrine an advisory body in Parliament for Aboriginal people, giving them a greater say on issues that affect their lives.

But over the past year, the proposal has exposed racial fault lines and become ensnared in a bitter culture war, in a country that has long struggled to reckon with its colonial legacy.

One former prime minister said it would “entrench victimhood,” and another called British colonization the “luckiest thing that happened to this country.” One opponent said Aboriginal people wanting “a voice” should “learn English” and suggested that those who receive welfare payments should prove their heritage with blood tests.

And now, public polling suggests, a referendum on the matter — which will be held on Oct. 14 — is likely to fail. That result, according to Thomas Mayo, an Indigenous leader, would mean “Australia officially dismissing our very existence.”

The vote is an inflection point for Australia’s relationship with the hundreds of Indigenous tribes that first occupied the continent and today are a small minority in the country. Since colonization, they have been subject to ineffective or deliberately harmful government policy, activists said. Prior to a 1967 constitutional referendum, Indigenous people were not counted as part of Australia’s population. They remain stuck at the bottom of society, with an average life expectancy eight years lower than the national average and the highest rate of incarceration in the world.

The Voice to Parliament is the cumulation of a fight by Indigenous activists to be recognized in the 120-year-old Constitution and for equality. It was developed by over 250 Indigenous leaders who gathered at Uluru, a sacred site once known as Ayers Rock, in 2017. They sought to address what they called “the torment of our powerlessness.”

The plan for a referendum was laid out about a year ago by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the leader of the center-left Labor Party, who announced the referendum date on Wednesday.

The body would give advice to Parliament, government ministers and the departments they oversee on issues affecting Indigenous people. If the vote succeeds, the body’s design and precise details will be determined by Parliament, but its architects say members will be chosen by Indigenous communities, who represent less than 4 percent of Australia’s population. The government has said its priorities are health, education, jobs and housing.

“There’s a broad sense that things can and absolutely should be better for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this country,” said Dean Parkin, the director of Yes23, the group leading the campaign in support of the Voice.

But proponents must convince the public that changing the Constitution will have a practical benefit, said Larissa Baldwin-Roberts, an Aboriginal activist and chief executive of the progressive group GetUp. That is a particularly difficult task, she said, in a country where most people do not interact with Aboriginal people, and many still believe Indigenous people are responsible for their own disadvantages.

“They don’t know us, they hear a lot about us, and they’re worried about giving us more rights and what that would take away from them,” said Ms. Baldwin-Roberts.

Opponents of the Voice have also cast doubt on its efficacy, using the lack of details about the proposal — which is normal for a referendum — to suggest that it could give advice on every government policy. Some Aboriginal leaders have called the measure toothless because the government is not mandated to heed its advice. Others call it divisive.

“Right now, there’s a lot of confusion in the Australian community about what is a pretty modest form of recognition,” said Megan Davis, one of the leaders of the Uluru process, who is campaigning for the Voice with the group the Uluru Dialogue.

Opponents argue that the Voice would make Australia less equal by giving Indigenous people special rights.

“I want to see Australia move forward as one, not two, divided,” Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, an opposition lawmaker who is Indigenous, said in a parliamentary speech. “This is a dangerous and costly proposal; it is legally risky and full of unknowns.”

In a statement, Advance, the conservative group leading the “No” campaign, added: “Australians who do not want their Constitution to divide us by race are not racists. In fact, the opposite is true.”

But, observers said, colonial tropes remain at play.

“Some people are of the view that Indigenous people have already had enough advantages and government payments, and going any further is just some sort of exercise in making us feel guilty for the success of this country,” said Mark Kenny, a political commentator and professor at the Australian National University. “This is a very potent message that seems to resonate with a number of people.”

Another obstacle, Mr. Kenny said, is a population that is generally averse to constitutional change. Only eight of 44 constitutional referendums in Australian history have succeeded. The most recent one, on whether to end the symbolic rule of the British monarchy, was soundly defeated in 1999.

On a recent day, as Jim Durkin, 63, handed out leaflets in support of the Voice in suburban Melbourne, he worried about the effects of misinformation on the campaign. “If people are in two minds, the easier option is ‘no,’” he said.

The “Yes” campaign has been criticized for being slow to mobilize and respond to opponents’ attacks, running an uninspiring campaign, and courting the support of celebrities — including, bizarrely, Shaquille O’Neal. But it hopes to galvanize support in the next few weeks with its 28,000 volunteers knocking on doors.

In Albury, a rural town roughly halfway between Sydney and Melbourne, the volunteers found both hope and discouragement.

At one house, Jane Richardson, 43, said she wholeheartedly supported the Voice. She said she understood the “historic culture of exclusion” to which Aboriginal people had been subjected and, as a Chinese Australian woman, strongly believed in racial justice. But she said that it had taken some time to persuade her husband, who had never really interrogated the stereotype of Indigenous people, to follow suit.

Vehement resistance came from residents worried about what they would lose, said Liz Quinn, a volunteer. Several were under the impression that their land would be taken away if the vote succeeded, she said.

These misconceptions were the result of racist dog whistling and scare tactics that have been used for decades to stall progress on Aboriginal issues by suggesting that addressing colonial injustices would require a sacrifice from the rest of the country, said Ms. Baldwin-Roberts, the Aboriginal activist, who is pushing for a “Yes” vote but is not affiliated with the official campaign.

“This debate has thrown a bomb at race relations in this country, and that’s going to reverberate for years to come,” she said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/29/world/australia/voice-aboriginal-indigenous.html?

What I am concerned about is our ethical standing as seen by the rest of the world if we “no” vote.

Yeah. Me too.

What I am concerned about is our ethical standing as seen by the rest of the world if we “no” vote.

—
Secondarily yeah

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2023/jul/20/the-vote-no-pamphlet-referendum-voice-to-parliament-voting-essay-aec-published-read-in-full-annotated-fact-checked

Link

Coalition members refuse to meet with Indigenous mental health experts calling for respectful Voice referendum

We got our Voice booklet on Monday. And there it is, right there on page 6. The reason people really, really don’t need to be worried about this thing at all.

Chapter IX
129
(iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including it composition, functions, powers and procedures.

The whole thing is completely under the control of your elected representatives, people. What is all this fuss about?!

buffy said:

We got our Voice booklet on Monday. And there it is, right there on page 6. The reason people really, really don’t need to be worried about this thing at all.

Chapter IX
129
(iii) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including it composition, functions, powers and procedures.

The whole thing is completely under the control of your elected representatives, people. What is all this fuss about?!

That’s what I’ve been telling people who have been confused by all the noise.

This Aboriginal elder is voting No. She’s persuaded her Voice-backing MP to do the same

By Lisa Visentin
September 10, 2023 — 5.00am

Kurnai elder Aunty Cheryl Drayton is on a mission to make clear to her local community in the Victorian electorate of Monash that she will be voting No in the Voice referendum and that they should do the same.

Drayton is not affiliated with the No campaign, nor is she a member of a political party. But she is fiercely opposed to the Voice, unconvinced by the arguments of Yes advocates that it will empower grassroots communities when there is little detail about how it will operate.

“While there’s no meat on the bone of how this is going to work, I can’t see how any normal person with a brain could vote for it,” Drayton, 71, said.

One person persuaded by Drayton is Monash MP Russell Broadbent. The veteran Liberal MP had long been an outspoken supporter of the Voice, and even contributed to a book published earlier this year in which he argued a rejection of the proposal would “impoverish” the country.

“It’s a matter of me keeping my integrity. I can’t say one thing – that I’m listening to Indigenous people – and then go and do another,” Broadbent said, explaining why he would now vote No.

“The basis for me changing my position was this woman sitting there and saying to me: ‘we are the Indigenous people in your community. You said you wanted to hear from us. You said you would listen to us’.”

Drayton has spent five decades working in Aboriginal affairs across education, health and employment roles in west Gippsland region, which begins at the south-eastern fringes of Melbourne. She argues there is inadequate detail on how the Voice is going to work.

“It doesn’t tell them how people are going to get elected . The government has thrown a lot of money at this and it could have been spent developing communities’ aspirations,” she said.

“I don’t trust the government in any way shape or form and that’s why I’m voting No.”

She acknowledged that there are other Kurnai elders who are voting Yes, including her sister. Meanwhile, another clan in the Gippsland area, the Gunaikurnai people, has issued a statement through their local representative body endorsing the Voice.

As the Yes and No campaigns ramp up their targeting of “soft” and undecided voters ahead of referendum day on October 14, the views of grassroots Aboriginal people like Drayton are providing powerful advocacy for Australians wanting to base their vote on the wishes of Indigenous people.

Labor and the Yes23 campaign routinely reference polling that they maintain shows more than 80 per cent of Indigenous Australians support the referendum, and promote endorsements from local Aboriginal leaders across their social media pages.

Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney has repeatedly emphasised that “the idea of the Voice comes from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves, not from government”, and referred to the consultation process that led up to the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, signed by more than 250 Indigenous leaders, calling for a constitutional Voice.

In its bid to dismantle this portrayal of consensus, No campaign outfit Fair Australia – led by Coalition frontbencher Jacinta Nampijinpa Price – has been quick to seize on any media coverage portraying dissenting views among Indigenous leaders about the Voice. It has repackaged soundbites as shareable content across its social media pages with the message that the referendum is promoting division.

In the western NSW electorate of Parkes, which comprises almost half of the state, Nationals MP Mark Coulton represents one of the largest Aboriginal constituencies of any seat in the parliament.

The Nationals were widely criticised for adopting a party position opposing the Voice in late 2022, long before the referendum process had been finalised. Coulton chaired the party subcommittee that advised the party to take a No position, and said his personal view was informed by discussions with local Aboriginal leaders who opposed the Voice in his community.

“They reinforced my own view, which was that they are much more inclined to want to support more local leadership. They don’t have very good memories of ATSIC and they don’t have a lot of faith in who will be actually on the Voice,” Coulton said.

“Having said that, there are some people who I’m very fond of and who I admire who are very strong Yes voters.”

One such person is Wiradjuri elder and former Dubbo deputy mayor Rod Towney, one of the signatories of Uluru Statement From the Heart, who is disappointed by Coulton’s position, and believes it does not reflect the majority view of his Aboriginal constituents.

“I believe there is strong support among Aboriginal people for it . But I would like to see more information given to grassroots people. They’ve still got questions,” Towney, who has no political affiliations, said.

Among the No voters reinforcing Coulton’s thinking is Peter Gibbs, a Gamillaroi man, National Party member, and community leader from Dubbo who holds the polar opposite view to Towney, his friend.

“I live and work in the NSW western region and travel extensively and I can tell you there is not strong support for the Voice among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people,” Gibbs said.

“I know that the ATSIC model was a failure that did not deliver positive outcomes for Indigenous Australians, and that the Voice to parliament would be a similar experiment.”

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/this-aboriginal-elder-is-voting-no-she-s-persuaded-her-voice-backing-mp-to-do-the-same-20230908-p5e33v.html

Witty Rejoinder said:

This Aboriginal elder is voting No. She’s persuaded her Voice-backing MP to do the same

By Lisa Visentin
September 10, 2023 — 5.00am

Kurnai elder Aunty Cheryl Drayton is on a mission to make clear to her local community in the Victorian electorate of Monash that she will be voting No in the Voice referendum and that they should do the same.

Drayton is not affiliated with the No campaign, nor is she a member of a political party. But she is fiercely opposed to the Voice, unconvinced by the arguments of Yes advocates that it will empower grassroots communities when there is little detail about how it will operate.

“While there’s no meat on the bone of how this is going to work, I can’t see how any normal person with a brain could vote for it,” Drayton, 71, said.

One person persuaded by Drayton is Monash MP Russell Broadbent. The veteran Liberal MP had long been an outspoken supporter of the Voice, and even contributed to a book published earlier this year in which he argued a rejection of the proposal would “impoverish” the country.

“It’s a matter of me keeping my integrity. I can’t say one thing – that I’m listening to Indigenous people – and then go and do another,” Broadbent said, explaining why he would now vote No.

“The basis for me changing my position was this woman sitting there and saying to me: ‘we are the Indigenous people in your community. You said you wanted to hear from us. You said you would listen to us’.”

Drayton has spent five decades working in Aboriginal affairs across education, health and employment roles in west Gippsland region, which begins at the south-eastern fringes of Melbourne. She argues there is inadequate detail on how the Voice is going to work.

“It doesn’t tell them how people are going to get elected . The government has thrown a lot of money at this and it could have been spent developing communities’ aspirations,” she said.

“I don’t trust the government in any way shape or form and that’s why I’m voting No.”

She acknowledged that there are other Kurnai elders who are voting Yes, including her sister. Meanwhile, another clan in the Gippsland area, the Gunaikurnai people, has issued a statement through their local representative body endorsing the Voice.

As the Yes and No campaigns ramp up their targeting of “soft” and undecided voters ahead of referendum day on October 14, the views of grassroots Aboriginal people like Drayton are providing powerful advocacy for Australians wanting to base their vote on the wishes of Indigenous people.

Labor and the Yes23 campaign routinely reference polling that they maintain shows more than 80 per cent of Indigenous Australians support the referendum, and promote endorsements from local Aboriginal leaders across their social media pages.

Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney has repeatedly emphasised that “the idea of the Voice comes from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves, not from government”, and referred to the consultation process that led up to the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, signed by more than 250 Indigenous leaders, calling for a constitutional Voice.

In its bid to dismantle this portrayal of consensus, No campaign outfit Fair Australia – led by Coalition frontbencher Jacinta Nampijinpa Price – has been quick to seize on any media coverage portraying dissenting views among Indigenous leaders about the Voice. It has repackaged soundbites as shareable content across its social media pages with the message that the referendum is promoting division.

In the western NSW electorate of Parkes, which comprises almost half of the state, Nationals MP Mark Coulton represents one of the largest Aboriginal constituencies of any seat in the parliament.

The Nationals were widely criticised for adopting a party position opposing the Voice in late 2022, long before the referendum process had been finalised. Coulton chaired the party subcommittee that advised the party to take a No position, and said his personal view was informed by discussions with local Aboriginal leaders who opposed the Voice in his community.

“They reinforced my own view, which was that they are much more inclined to want to support more local leadership. They don’t have very good memories of ATSIC and they don’t have a lot of faith in who will be actually on the Voice,” Coulton said.

“Having said that, there are some people who I’m very fond of and who I admire who are very strong Yes voters.”

One such person is Wiradjuri elder and former Dubbo deputy mayor Rod Towney, one of the signatories of Uluru Statement From the Heart, who is disappointed by Coulton’s position, and believes it does not reflect the majority view of his Aboriginal constituents.

“I believe there is strong support among Aboriginal people for it . But I would like to see more information given to grassroots people. They’ve still got questions,” Towney, who has no political affiliations, said.

Among the No voters reinforcing Coulton’s thinking is Peter Gibbs, a Gamillaroi man, National Party member, and community leader from Dubbo who holds the polar opposite view to Towney, his friend.

“I live and work in the NSW western region and travel extensively and I can tell you there is not strong support for the Voice among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people,” Gibbs said.

“I know that the ATSIC model was a failure that did not deliver positive outcomes for Indigenous Australians, and that the Voice to parliament would be a similar experiment.”

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/this-aboriginal-elder-is-voting-no-she-s-persuaded-her-voice-backing-mp-to-do-the-same-20230908-p5e33v.html

So a “veteran Liberal” MP is convinced by an argument to vote No.

What a surprise.

“While there’s no meat on the bone of how this is going to work, I can’t see how any normal person with a brain could vote for it,” Drayton, 71, said.

another one who doesn’t know how this is going to work despite all the info out there.

>“While there’s no meat on the bone of how this is going to work, I can’t see how any normal person with a brain could vote for it,” Drayton, 71, said.

So she thinks the 80-90% of indigenous Australians who support The Voice are not normal people with brains.

Bogsnorkler said:

“While there’s no meat on the bone of how this is going to work, I can’t see how any normal person with a brain could vote for it,” Drayton, 71, said.

another one who doesn’t know how this is going to work despite all the info out there.

I think it is a valid criticism. The detail is at the whim of the parliament of the day. It says so in section (iii) of the wording. Whether the body is effective or ineffective at promoting the interests of indigenous people is largely down to the mood of the parliament.

party_pants said:

Bogsnorkler said:

“While there’s no meat on the bone of how this is going to work, I can’t see how any normal person with a brain could vote for it,” Drayton, 71, said.

another one who doesn’t know how this is going to work despite all the info out there.

I think it is a valid criticism. The detail is at the whim of the parliament of the day. It says so in section (iii) of the wording. Whether the body is effective or ineffective at promoting the interests of indigenous people is largely down to the mood of the parliament.

it isn’t. if you know how it will work, in the general sense, then you wouldn’t say this. This is a typical “No” campaign point.

“While there’s no meat on the bone of how this is going to work, I can’t see how any normal person with a brain could vote for it,” Drayton, 71, said.

Clearly she has no understanding of how things work in Australia

It could be better to split Australia into separate countries

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

This Aboriginal elder is voting No. She’s persuaded her Voice-backing MP to do the same

By Lisa Visentin
September 10, 2023 — 5.00am

Kurnai elder Aunty Cheryl Drayton is on a mission to make clear to her local community in the Victorian electorate of Monash that she will be voting No in the Voice referendum and that they should do the same.

Drayton is not affiliated with the No campaign, nor is she a member of a political party. But she is fiercely opposed to the Voice, unconvinced by the arguments of Yes advocates that it will empower grassroots communities when there is little detail about how it will operate.

“While there’s no meat on the bone of how this is going to work, I can’t see how any normal person with a brain could vote for it,” Drayton, 71, said.

One person persuaded by Drayton is Monash MP Russell Broadbent. The veteran Liberal MP had long been an outspoken supporter of the Voice, and even contributed to a book published earlier this year in which he argued a rejection of the proposal would “impoverish” the country.

“It’s a matter of me keeping my integrity. I can’t say one thing – that I’m listening to Indigenous people – and then go and do another,” Broadbent said, explaining why he would now vote No.

“The basis for me changing my position was this woman sitting there and saying to me: ‘we are the Indigenous people in your community. You said you wanted to hear from us. You said you would listen to us’.”

Drayton has spent five decades working in Aboriginal affairs across education, health and employment roles in west Gippsland region, which begins at the south-eastern fringes of Melbourne. She argues there is inadequate detail on how the Voice is going to work.

“It doesn’t tell them how people are going to get elected . The government has thrown a lot of money at this and it could have been spent developing communities’ aspirations,” she said.

“I don’t trust the government in any way shape or form and that’s why I’m voting No.”

She acknowledged that there are other Kurnai elders who are voting Yes, including her sister. Meanwhile, another clan in the Gippsland area, the Gunaikurnai people, has issued a statement through their local representative body endorsing the Voice.

As the Yes and No campaigns ramp up their targeting of “soft” and undecided voters ahead of referendum day on October 14, the views of grassroots Aboriginal people like Drayton are providing powerful advocacy for Australians wanting to base their vote on the wishes of Indigenous people.

Labor and the Yes23 campaign routinely reference polling that they maintain shows more than 80 per cent of Indigenous Australians support the referendum, and promote endorsements from local Aboriginal leaders across their social media pages.

Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney has repeatedly emphasised that “the idea of the Voice comes from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves, not from government”, and referred to the consultation process that led up to the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, signed by more than 250 Indigenous leaders, calling for a constitutional Voice.

In its bid to dismantle this portrayal of consensus, No campaign outfit Fair Australia – led by Coalition frontbencher Jacinta Nampijinpa Price – has been quick to seize on any media coverage portraying dissenting views among Indigenous leaders about the Voice. It has repackaged soundbites as shareable content across its social media pages with the message that the referendum is promoting division.

In the western NSW electorate of Parkes, which comprises almost half of the state, Nationals MP Mark Coulton represents one of the largest Aboriginal constituencies of any seat in the parliament.

The Nationals were widely criticised for adopting a party position opposing the Voice in late 2022, long before the referendum process had been finalised. Coulton chaired the party subcommittee that advised the party to take a No position, and said his personal view was informed by discussions with local Aboriginal leaders who opposed the Voice in his community.

“They reinforced my own view, which was that they are much more inclined to want to support more local leadership. They don’t have very good memories of ATSIC and they don’t have a lot of faith in who will be actually on the Voice,” Coulton said.

“Having said that, there are some people who I’m very fond of and who I admire who are very strong Yes voters.”

One such person is Wiradjuri elder and former Dubbo deputy mayor Rod Towney, one of the signatories of Uluru Statement From the Heart, who is disappointed by Coulton’s position, and believes it does not reflect the majority view of his Aboriginal constituents.

“I believe there is strong support among Aboriginal people for it . But I would like to see more information given to grassroots people. They’ve still got questions,” Towney, who has no political affiliations, said.

Among the No voters reinforcing Coulton’s thinking is Peter Gibbs, a Gamillaroi man, National Party member, and community leader from Dubbo who holds the polar opposite view to Towney, his friend.

“I live and work in the NSW western region and travel extensively and I can tell you there is not strong support for the Voice among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people,” Gibbs said.

“I know that the ATSIC model was a failure that did not deliver positive outcomes for Indigenous Australians, and that the Voice to parliament would be a similar experiment.”

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/this-aboriginal-elder-is-voting-no-she-s-persuaded-her-voice-backing-mp-to-do-the-same-20230908-p5e33v.html

So a “veteran Liberal” MP is convinced by an argument to vote No.

What a surprise.

and Rupert prints it everyday. because he makes money out of racism and division just like his daddy taught him to.

Bogsnorkler said:

party_pants said:

Bogsnorkler said:

“While there’s no meat on the bone of how this is going to work, I can’t see how any normal person with a brain could vote for it,” Drayton, 71, said.

another one who doesn’t know how this is going to work despite all the info out there.

I think it is a valid criticism. The detail is at the whim of the parliament of the day. It says so in section (iii) of the wording. Whether the body is effective or ineffective at promoting the interests of indigenous people is largely down to the mood of the parliament.

it isn’t. if you know how it will work, in the general sense, then you wouldn’t say this. This is a typical “No” campaign point.

There is no guarantee on how it will work, only an expectation.

At the end of the day, all that will matter is the words in the constitution. The promises and expectations of each campaign are worthless. I am ignoring both campaigns. The only thing that matters is the words on page 6, these will end up permanently in the big C.

party_pants said:

Bogsnorkler said:

party_pants said:

I think it is a valid criticism. The detail is at the whim of the parliament of the day. It says so in section (iii) of the wording. Whether the body is effective or ineffective at promoting the interests of indigenous people is largely down to the mood of the parliament.

it isn’t. if you know how it will work, in the general sense, then you wouldn’t say this. This is a typical “No” campaign point.

There is no guarantee on how it will work, only an expectation.

At the end of the day, all that will matter is the words in the constitution. The promises and expectations of each campaign are worthless. I am ignoring both campaigns. The only thing that matters is the words on page 6, these will end up permanently in the big C.

Well that’s a relief

Former WA Liberal premier Colin Barnett has declared his support for the Voice to Parliament but says he has reservations about the process.

“I will vote Yes. But I do so with doubts,” he told the ABC’s Four Corners.

“I think the question is flawed, but I will vote Yes because I don’t want to stand in the way of the aspirations of Aboriginal Australians.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-10/colin-barnett-reveals-position-on-indigenous-voice-referendum/102822906

Unsure how I will be voting yet.

Peak Warming Man said:

Unsure how I will be voting yet.

It is a no brainer.
It doesn’t bear wasting time thinking about which way to vote. It is as the RevD wuld say, an either or.

Peak Warming Man said:

Unsure how I will be voting yet.

I think this means voting yes but not comfortable saying so?

the fact that so many do not want Aborigines to have a voice is exactly why the voice is needed.

sarahs mum said:

the fact that so many do not want Aborigines to have a voice is exactly why the voice is needed.

Yes.

No campaign’s ‘fear, doubt’ strategy revealed

By Paul Sakkal
September 12, 2023 — 4.17am

The campaign to sink the Voice has instructed volunteers to use fear and doubt rather than facts to trump arguments used by the Yes camp.

In an online training session, the national campaigning chief for leading No activist group Advance, Chris Inglis, detailed the anti-Voice movement’s core strategy of playing on voters’ emotions.

Inglis instructed volunteers not to identify themselves upfront as No campaigners as they make hundreds of thousands of calls to persuadable voters, but instead to raise reports of financial compensation to Indigenous Australians if the Voice referendum were to succeed.

“When reason and emotion collide, emotion always wins. Always wins,” he said as he displayed the same quote from US psychology professor Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain.

The No case is now leading in several national polls ahead of the October 14 referendum. The latest RPM poll, published on Monday, shows support for the Indigenous Voice slumping to 43 per cent, with voter sentiment swinging against the constitutional amendment in every state except Tasmania.

Inglis explained at the meeting on Monday, August 28, that the No camp’s job was to make people suspicious of the Voice and its backers, while the Yes campaign continued to cite academic arguments and documents such as the Uluru Statement.

“This is the difference between facts and figures or the ‘divisive Voice’,” the long-time Liberal Party staffer said. “That feeling of uncertainty, of fear or doubt, that stays. That lasts for a very, very long time.

“I’m going to hammer in a lot of this emotive language.

“If you took everything that I had just said and turned it into one little thing, this is what you should write down and remember forever so you can tell your kids, tell your grandkids, tell your nephews and nieces: that people vote based on how they feel.”

Advance runs the leading No campaign Fair Australia, which is aligned with the Coalition’s Indigenous Australians spokeswoman, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.

Advance was started in 2018 as a conservative counterweight to GetUp and counts former prime minister Tony Abbott on its advisory board. It claims it has a 250,000-strong supporter base fighting “woke politicians and elitist activist groups … taking Aussies for a ride with their radical agenda”.

It is not suggested that either Price or Abbott endorses the coaching methods outlined in the training session run by Inglis.

Scripts used by Advance’s 10,000-strong network of phone campaigners show how they are taught not to introduce themselves as calling from “the No campaign”.

Instead, they are asked to sound as if they were concerned citizens associated with Fair Australia who “heard” the Voice would push for financial compensation for Aboriginal people.

“It’s been designed purely for soft voters. If we had put in the opening line … that in itself will scare people, right?” Inglis told volunteers.

“It’s not from the ‘No campaign’ … Fair Australia’s soft, it’s calming.”

The script states: “I’ve also heard that some of the people who helped design the Voice proposal are campaigning to abolish Australia Day and want to use the Voice to push for compensation and reparations through a treaty. All of these things raised a few questions in my mind and made me wonder if there was more to it all than meets the eye”.

Inglis told supporters that phone canvassing – using a tool called CallHub employed by successful campaigns in Europe and the United States – was integral to Advance’s efforts.

If 250 people attend a phone calling session, Inglis said, they could reach 15,000 so-called “soft” voters yet to make a firm decision.

Inglis, a former ACT Liberal staffer, said in the briefing that he had worked on state and federal election campaigns for about 12 years.

His briefing outlined Advance’s “three-wave plan” through Fair Australia to defeat the Voice.

The strategy was first deployed in autumn, when No campaigners started raising awareness of the Voice as an issue of concern.

In winter, the conservative activists began talking about the “Voice of division”.

As referendum day nears, the Fair Australia campaign has begun discussing the consequences of voting Yes and asking Australians to act by rejecting the proposal.

A Fair Australia spokesman said the volunteer briefing was standard practice across all sides of politics and the campaign’s messaging reflected the actual concerns of voters.

“We make no apologies for our volunteers being as persuasive as they possibly can be,” he said.

“Every single volunteer is asked to identify themselves as calling from Fair Australia, and any suggestion to the contrary is a flat-out lie.

“Yes campaign supporters have nothing better to do but deceptively infiltrate our campaign and provide potentially illegal recordings to left-leaning news outlets. We will be referring the matter to the federal police and taking further advice.”

Price’s office was contacted to comment on Advance’s strategies.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s office declined to comment.

This masthead previously reported that senior members of the Liberal Party are wary of Advance’s ability to radicalise the party’s membership base. The Liberals have made sure the party’s databases and resources are not shared with Advance during the Voice campaign.

Last month, The Australian detailed a cheat sheet for Yes volunteers seeking to shift sentiment through phone calls, instructing them to “name the villain, or unfair barrier, including who or what is harming us and why – pick a villain that most people dislike or distrust”.

Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney said in June that she feared the No campaign had imported “American-style Trump politics to Australia”.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/no-campaign-s-fear-doubt-strategy-revealed-20230910-p5e3fu.html

Got the mail-in voting applications in the mail today.
Also in the envelope was the usual bullshit from Dutton & the local federal member here. I’m disgusted, such things should be completely apolitical.

Spiny Norman said:

Got the mail-in voting applications in the mail today.
Also in the envelope was the usual bullshit from Dutton & the local federal member here. I’m disgusted, such things should be completely apolitical.

You’d somewhat assume something going to a referendum has a far greater chance of failing than succeeding even if the naysayers do little

Witty Rejoinder said:

No campaign’s ‘fear, doubt’ strategy revealed

By Paul Sakkal
September 12, 2023 — 4.17am

The campaign to sink the Voice has instructed volunteers to use fear and doubt rather than facts to trump arguments used by the Yes camp.

In an online training session, the national campaigning chief for leading No activist group Advance, Chris Inglis, detailed the anti-Voice movement’s core strategy of playing on voters’ emotions.

Inglis instructed volunteers not to identify themselves upfront as No campaigners as they make hundreds of thousands of calls to persuadable voters, but instead to raise reports of financial compensation to Indigenous Australians if the Voice referendum were to succeed.

“When reason and emotion collide, emotion always wins. Always wins,” he said as he displayed the same quote from US psychology professor Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain.

The No case is now leading in several national polls ahead of the October 14 referendum. The latest RPM poll, published on Monday, shows support for the Indigenous Voice slumping to 43 per cent, with voter sentiment swinging against the constitutional amendment in every state except Tasmania.

Inglis explained at the meeting on Monday, August 28, that the No camp’s job was to make people suspicious of the Voice and its backers, while the Yes campaign continued to cite academic arguments and documents such as the Uluru Statement.

“This is the difference between facts and figures or the ‘divisive Voice’,” the long-time Liberal Party staffer said. “That feeling of uncertainty, of fear or doubt, that stays. That lasts for a very, very long time.

“I’m going to hammer in a lot of this emotive language.

“If you took everything that I had just said and turned it into one little thing, this is what you should write down and remember forever so you can tell your kids, tell your grandkids, tell your nephews and nieces: that people vote based on how they feel.”

Advance runs the leading No campaign Fair Australia, which is aligned with the Coalition’s Indigenous Australians spokeswoman, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.

Advance was started in 2018 as a conservative counterweight to GetUp and counts former prime minister Tony Abbott on its advisory board. It claims it has a 250,000-strong supporter base fighting “woke politicians and elitist activist groups … taking Aussies for a ride with their radical agenda”.

It is not suggested that either Price or Abbott endorses the coaching methods outlined in the training session run by Inglis.

Scripts used by Advance’s 10,000-strong network of phone campaigners show how they are taught not to introduce themselves as calling from “the No campaign”.

Instead, they are asked to sound as if they were concerned citizens associated with Fair Australia who “heard” the Voice would push for financial compensation for Aboriginal people.

“It’s been designed purely for soft voters. If we had put in the opening line … that in itself will scare people, right?” Inglis told volunteers.

“It’s not from the ‘No campaign’ … Fair Australia’s soft, it’s calming.”

The script states: “I’ve also heard that some of the people who helped design the Voice proposal are campaigning to abolish Australia Day and want to use the Voice to push for compensation and reparations through a treaty. All of these things raised a few questions in my mind and made me wonder if there was more to it all than meets the eye”.

Inglis told supporters that phone canvassing – using a tool called CallHub employed by successful campaigns in Europe and the United States – was integral to Advance’s efforts.

If 250 people attend a phone calling session, Inglis said, they could reach 15,000 so-called “soft” voters yet to make a firm decision.

Inglis, a former ACT Liberal staffer, said in the briefing that he had worked on state and federal election campaigns for about 12 years.

His briefing outlined Advance’s “three-wave plan” through Fair Australia to defeat the Voice.

The strategy was first deployed in autumn, when No campaigners started raising awareness of the Voice as an issue of concern.

In winter, the conservative activists began talking about the “Voice of division”.

As referendum day nears, the Fair Australia campaign has begun discussing the consequences of voting Yes and asking Australians to act by rejecting the proposal.

A Fair Australia spokesman said the volunteer briefing was standard practice across all sides of politics and the campaign’s messaging reflected the actual concerns of voters.

“We make no apologies for our volunteers being as persuasive as they possibly can be,” he said.

“Every single volunteer is asked to identify themselves as calling from Fair Australia, and any suggestion to the contrary is a flat-out lie.

“Yes campaign supporters have nothing better to do but deceptively infiltrate our campaign and provide potentially illegal recordings to left-leaning news outlets. We will be referring the matter to the federal police and taking further advice.”

Price’s office was contacted to comment on Advance’s strategies.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s office declined to comment.

This masthead previously reported that senior members of the Liberal Party are wary of Advance’s ability to radicalise the party’s membership base. The Liberals have made sure the party’s databases and resources are not shared with Advance during the Voice campaign.

Last month, The Australian detailed a cheat sheet for Yes volunteers seeking to shift sentiment through phone calls, instructing them to “name the villain, or unfair barrier, including who or what is harming us and why – pick a villain that most people dislike or distrust”.

Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney said in June that she feared the No campaign had imported “American-style Trump politics to Australia”.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/no-campaign-s-fear-doubt-strategy-revealed-20230910-p5e3fu.html

We are in a conservative area here (Wannon electorate, Dan Tehan is our member of parliament, used to be Malcolm Fraser’s electorate). We may get a call. My initial impulse would be to hang up on them. But I have suggested to Mr buffy that we engage them for as long as possible, draw them out, go along with them. The longer we can keep them on the phone, the fewer other people they can phone. Waste their time.

Spiny Norman said:

Got the mail-in voting applications in the mail today.
Also in the envelope was the usual bullshit from Dutton & the local federal member here. I’m disgusted, such things should be completely apolitical.

We have so far received two mailings from our local member (Dan Tehan) with exactly the same No “information” that is in the official booklet. I’ve got both of the mailings on the table at the moment. I will be going in to Hamilton tomorrow to do the shopping, so I am going to go into Dan Tehan’s office and tell them not to waste the electorate money on repetition and return their mailouts to them.

Witty Rejoinder said:

No campaign’s ‘fear, doubt’ strategy revealed

../..cut by me, I, master transition../..

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/no-campaign-s-fear-doubt-strategy-revealed-20230910-p5e3fu.html

skimmed some was all

just so long as there isn’t leftist-style activist politics involved, I didn’t provoke that thought, the content did by mentioning trump-style whatever

anyways, it’s crossing my mind that a lot of people might have a sense the referendum is unnecessary, that could be it, lot of them i’d expect may vote no, have an inclination that way, so no is yes the referendum is unnecessary, not much else to it

I guess a person could assume the referendum is necessary because it’s going to happen, their business, what they assume

whatever, assume whatever

buffy said:

Spiny Norman said:

Got the mail-in voting applications in the mail today.
Also in the envelope was the usual bullshit from Dutton & the local federal member here. I’m disgusted, such things should be completely apolitical.

We have so far received two mailings from our local member (Dan Tehan) with exactly the same No “information” that is in the official booklet. I’ve got both of the mailings on the table at the moment. I will be going in to Hamilton tomorrow to do the shopping, so I am going to go into Dan Tehan’s office and tell them not to waste the electorate money on repetition and return their mailouts to them.

Good.

transition said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

No campaign’s ‘fear, doubt’ strategy revealed

../..cut by me, I, master transition../..

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/no-campaign-s-fear-doubt-strategy-revealed-20230910-p5e3fu.html

skimmed some was all

just so long as there isn’t leftist-style activist politics involved, I didn’t provoke that thought, the content did by mentioning trump-style whatever

anyways, it’s crossing my mind that a lot of people might have a sense the referendum is unnecessary, that could be it, lot of them i’d expect may vote no, have an inclination that way, so no is yes the referendum is unnecessary, not much else to it

I guess a person could assume the referendum is necessary because it’s going to happen, their business, what they assume

whatever, assume whatever

I assume racism and bigotry.

sarahs mum said:

transition said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

No campaign’s ‘fear, doubt’ strategy revealed

../..cut by me, I, master transition../..

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/no-campaign-s-fear-doubt-strategy-revealed-20230910-p5e3fu.html

skimmed some was all

just so long as there isn’t leftist-style activist politics involved, I didn’t provoke that thought, the content did by mentioning trump-style whatever

anyways, it’s crossing my mind that a lot of people might have a sense the referendum is unnecessary, that could be it, lot of them i’d expect may vote no, have an inclination that way, so no is yes the referendum is unnecessary, not much else to it

I guess a person could assume the referendum is necessary because it’s going to happen, their business, what they assume

whatever, assume whatever

I assume racism and bigotry.

just so long as wandering powers of assumption find it exactly where it is, aren’t looking for it anywhere and anywhere, even perhaps generating some of what it is looking for

“The Voice this season has been full of amazingly talented contestants, we’ve gotten to know them and we started to root for our favourites.
The unfortunate thing is, that there can only be one winner and we have to say goodbye to more and more contestants.”

sarahs mum said:

transition said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

No campaign’s ‘fear, doubt’ strategy revealed

../..cut by me, I, master transition../..

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/no-campaign-s-fear-doubt-strategy-revealed-20230910-p5e3fu.html

skimmed some was all

just so long as there isn’t leftist-style activist politics involved, I didn’t provoke that thought, the content did by mentioning trump-style whatever

anyways, it’s crossing my mind that a lot of people might have a sense the referendum is unnecessary, that could be it, lot of them i’d expect may vote no, have an inclination that way, so no is yes the referendum is unnecessary, not much else to it

I guess a person could assume the referendum is necessary because it’s going to happen, their business, what they assume

whatever, assume whatever

I assume racism and bigotry.

not sure about that.. I think there are a lot of people that simply see this as broadly unnecessary and of no consequence to their own life, or the lives of the people they know. I wouldn’t call that racist; ignorant maybe, but not racist.

diddly-squat said:

sarahs mum said:

transition said:

skimmed some was all

just so long as there isn’t leftist-style activist politics involved, I didn’t provoke that thought, the content did by mentioning trump-style whatever

anyways, it’s crossing my mind that a lot of people might have a sense the referendum is unnecessary, that could be it, lot of them i’d expect may vote no, have an inclination that way, so no is yes the referendum is unnecessary, not much else to it

I guess a person could assume the referendum is necessary because it’s going to happen, their business, what they assume

whatever, assume whatever

I assume racism and bigotry.

not sure about that.. I think there are a lot of people that simply see this as broadly unnecessary and of no consequence to their own life, or the lives of the people they know. I wouldn’t call that racist; ignorant maybe, but not racist.

okay. I will add ignorance to my list. But I think that is just being kind.

sarahs mum said:

diddly-squat said:

sarahs mum said:

I assume racism and bigotry.

not sure about that.. I think there are a lot of people that simply see this as broadly unnecessary and of no consequence to their own life, or the lives of the people they know. I wouldn’t call that racist; ignorant maybe, but not racist.

okay. I will add ignorance to my list. But I think that is just being kind.

The vast majority of Australian have no personal connection to this debate and I think that’s the reason that it will fail. I’m not sure it’s either true, nor constructive, to call someone racist because they choose to vote ‘no’ in the referendum.

diddly-squat said:

sarahs mum said:

diddly-squat said:

not sure about that.. I think there are a lot of people that simply see this as broadly unnecessary and of no consequence to their own life, or the lives of the people they know. I wouldn’t call that racist; ignorant maybe, but not racist.

okay. I will add ignorance to my list. But I think that is just being kind.

The vast majority of Australian have no personal connection to this debate and I think that’s the reason that it will fail. I’m not sure it’s either true, nor constructive, to call someone racist because they choose to vote ‘no’ in the referendum.

Nothing to lose by voting yes then

LPITW, I don’t think Australians have become more racist in the last eight months but on that interval the support for YES has dropped from about 60% to about 40%.

dv said:

LPITW, I don’t think Australians have become more racist in the last eight months but on that interval the support for YES has dropped from about 60% to about 40%.

LPITW = Look people in truth wait?

dv said:

LPITW, I don’t think Australians have become more racist in the last eight months but on that interval the support for YES has dropped from about 60% to about 40%.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

LPITW, I don’t think Australians have become more racist in the last eight months but on that interval the support for YES has dropped from about 60% to about 40%.

Hmm, submitted too early there.

I think it’s a combination of the existing racism and just a dumb receptiveness to scare tactics.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

LPITW, I don’t think Australians have become more racist in the last eight months but on that interval the support for YES has dropped from about 60% to about 40%.

Hmm, submitted too early there.

I think it’s a combination of the existing racism and just a dumb receptiveness to scare tactics.

Or they are playing with the minds of the polling people…(Wishful thinking runs in my family)

Dutton’s numbers are improved, now 28% in the preferred prime minister game in yesterday’s Resolve Strategic poll.

Speaking of which, just checked my letterbox and there’s a nasty racist letter from the Tas Liberal “Senate Team”, on this topic, which is going straight in the bin.

Bubblecar said:

Speaking of which, just checked my letterbox and there’s a nasty racist letter from the Tas Liberal “Senate Team”, on this topic, which is going straight in the bin.

Channeling my mother: Put it in a plain envelope addressed to the Liberal “Senate Team” and drop it into a post box without a stamp.

Coco Gauff won the open as Coco Vandeweghe retired so perhaps there is a Rule of One in tennis Cocos.

Not aware of any other women called Coco except for Coco Austin who married Ice-T. They have one child together who I assume is called Milo.

dv said:

Coco Gauff won the open as Coco Vandeweghe retired so perhaps there is a Rule of One in tennis Cocos.

Not aware of any other women called Coco except for Coco Austin who married Ice-T. They have one child together who I assume is called Milo.

chanel. as in coco chanel i presume.

Heading off to archery.

buffy said:

Bubblecar said:

Speaking of which, just checked my letterbox and there’s a nasty racist letter from the Tas Liberal “Senate Team”, on this topic, which is going straight in the bin.

Channeling my mother: Put it in a plain envelope addressed to the Liberal “Senate Team” and drop it into a post box without a stamp.

I’ve certainly done that before.

a conversation onfacebook:

person 1: the voice is about allowing a consultive party not about losing land etc etc
person 2 : it is about losing land or might be if we allow the changes .. it could just be legislation rather than constitutional.. why won’t the yes party tell me exactly what’s going to happen
Person 3: you can read all about it here (adds link to document)
Person 2: not reading 270 pages.

and so it goes….

I think The Voice is dead.

party_pants said:

I think The Voice is dead.

Takes skill to munt it that good.

poikilotherm said:

party_pants said:

I think The Voice is dead.

Takes skill to munt it that good.

I suppose if the 40% of Australia’s population who believe in reconciliation decide to fight gutter politics with more of the same and decide to cancel Australia Day the chickens would really come home to roost.

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

party_pants said:

I think The Voice is dead.

Takes skill to munt it that good.

I suppose if the 40% of Australia’s population who believe in reconciliation decide to fight gutter politics with more of the same and decide to cancel Australia Day the chickens would really come home to roost.

It’s everyone else’s fault…

It was a sure win a few months or so ago in the polling, now, probs not.

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

party_pants said:

I think The Voice is dead.

Takes skill to munt it that good.

I suppose if the 40% of Australia’s population who believe in reconciliation decide to fight gutter politics with more of the same and decide to cancel Australia Day the chickens would really come home to roost.

Should go to protesting for Treaty and reparations to spite them all.

poikilotherm said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

poikilotherm said:

Takes skill to munt it that good.

I suppose if the 40% of Australia’s population who believe in reconciliation decide to fight gutter politics with more of the same and decide to cancel Australia Day the chickens would really come home to roost.

It’s everyone else’s fault…

It was a sure win a few months or so ago in the polling, now, probs not.

well I guess people change their minds when they get more information. whether it is good or bad. not really odd. it is hard to counter a fear campaign.

Bogsnorkler said:

poikilotherm said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I suppose if the 40% of Australia’s population who believe in reconciliation decide to fight gutter politics with more of the same and decide to cancel Australia Day the chickens would really come home to roost.

It’s everyone else’s fault…

It was a sure win a few months or so ago in the polling, now, probs not.

well I guess people change their minds when they get more information. whether it is good or bad. not really odd. it is hard to counter a fear campaign.

chucking children overboard again.

Bogsnorkler said:

poikilotherm said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I suppose if the 40% of Australia’s population who believe in reconciliation decide to fight gutter politics with more of the same and decide to cancel Australia Day the chickens would really come home to roost.

It’s everyone else’s fault…

It was a sure win a few months or so ago in the polling, now, probs not.

well I guess people change their minds when they get more information. whether it is good or bad. not really odd. it is hard to counter a fear campaign.

Poiky was in parliament in his white coat for the most benevolent of reasons.

Bogsnorkler said:

poikilotherm said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I suppose if the 40% of Australia’s population who believe in reconciliation decide to fight gutter politics with more of the same and decide to cancel Australia Day the chickens would really come home to roost.

It’s everyone else’s fault…

It was a sure win a few months or so ago in the polling, now, probs not.

well I guess people change their minds when they get more information. whether it is good or bad. not really odd. it is hard to counter a fear campaign.

Quite spectacular really. Wording released in July 2022.

The idea that parliament would give too much power to indigenous people is kind of hilarious. This Voice is such a minimalistic step.

dv said:

The idea that parliament would give too much power to indigenous people is kind of hilarious. This Voice is such a minimalistic step.

One of my first comments was that I did not think it went far enough.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Ouch.

Paul Bongiorno: The vibe is killing the Voice … just as Peter Dutton intended

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/2023/09/12/paul-bongiorno-the-vibe/

Bogsnorkler said:

I wonder if Peter Grace has permission to use Pearson’s image?

Indigenous Voice to Parliament Yes campaigner Marcia Langton will seek legal advice if Peter Dutton refuses to take down an Instagram post, accusing her of branding No voters “racist” and “stupid”.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/marcia-langton-to-seek-legal-advice-over-peter-dutton-instagram-post/ol186pot6

——-

No, That was me.

sarahs mum said:

Indigenous Voice to Parliament Yes campaigner Marcia Langton will seek legal advice if Peter Dutton refuses to take down an Instagram post, accusing her of branding No voters “racist” and “stupid”.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/marcia-langton-to-seek-legal-advice-over-peter-dutton-instagram-post/ol186pot6

——-

No, That was me.

Go SM , self professed citizen of the world .. I believe you self identify as…

monkey skipper said:

sarahs mum said:

Indigenous Voice to Parliament Yes campaigner Marcia Langton will seek legal advice if Peter Dutton refuses to take down an Instagram post, accusing her of branding No voters “racist” and “stupid”.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/marcia-langton-to-seek-legal-advice-over-peter-dutton-instagram-post/ol186pot6

——-

No, That was me.

Go SM , self professed citizen of the world .. I believe you self identify as…

a left wing looney.

sarahs mum said:

monkey skipper said:

sarahs mum said:

Indigenous Voice to Parliament Yes campaigner Marcia Langton will seek legal advice if Peter Dutton refuses to take down an Instagram post, accusing her of branding No voters “racist” and “stupid”.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/marcia-langton-to-seek-legal-advice-over-peter-dutton-instagram-post/ol186pot6

——-

No, That was me.

Go SM , self professed citizen of the world .. I believe you self identify as…

a left wing looney.

everyone has a niche to fill!

Bogsnorkler said:

I really don’t understand the “Progressive No” vote.. I mean I hear their argument but do they honestly believe that a “No” result will provide some form of springboard for an even more radical change?

diddly-squat said:

Bogsnorkler said:

I really don’t understand the “Progressive No” vote.. I mean I hear their argument but do they honestly believe that a “No” result will provide some form of springboard for an even more radical change?

I don’t think the “progressive no vote” exists in that form. It seems to me that the no vote falls into 2 distinct categories:

Firstly the non progressives who fear radical change, or who fear that The Voice (TV) is just the first step along the path to the sort of radical change they fear.

And secondly the radical change vote, who see TV as not going far enough. They do not wish to embark on a journey of incremental change through various steps. They want it all now.

—-

I see parallels in the Republic vote. The No vote was made up of monarchists who wanted no Republic, and radical republicans who wanted a HOS elected directly by popular vote. The latter voters were not prepared to go along the incremental path of indirectly elected president as the first step. So they joined the No camp and sank the referendum. With their support it might have got over the line. I think the radicals joining the No camp sways the undecided voters. I see the same happening with TV.

In fairness, Mundine and Price don’t claim to be progressives.

In case you were wondering what happened to the previous elected indigenous body.

—-For some time after Clark’s appointment, the Howard government had been expressing doubts as to the value of continuing to have ATSIC at all. Following Mark Latham’s election to the leadership of the (Labor) Opposition in December 2003, Labor agreed with the government that ATSIC had not worked. In April of election year 2004, both parties pledged to introduce alternative arrangements for Indigenous affairs, with Labor proposing a new elected national body.

The government’s plan was to abolish ATSIC and all of its regional and state structures, and return funding for Indigenous programs to the relevant line departments. Labor’s view was that ATSIC itself should be abolished, but many of the regional and state sub-organisations should be retained, to continue to give Indigenous people a voice in their own affairs and within their own communities. It rejected the notion of merging Indigenous funding into funding for Australians generally as “tried and failed”, but had not announced its alternative proposals.

Howard announced the agency’s abolition on 15 April 2004, saying that “the experiment in elected representation for Indigenous people has been a failure”. On 28 May 2004 the government introduced into the Federal Parliament legislation to abolish ATSIC. The Bill finally passed both houses of Parliament in 2005, and ATSIC was formally abolished at midnight 16 March 2005.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-15/fact-check-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-already-33-billion/102856660

dv said:

In case you were wondering what happened to the previous elected indigenous body.

—-For some time after Clark’s appointment, the Howard government had been expressing doubts as to the value of continuing to have ATSIC at all. Following Mark Latham’s election to the leadership of the (Labor) Opposition in December 2003, Labor agreed with the government that ATSIC had not worked. In April of election year 2004, both parties pledged to introduce alternative arrangements for Indigenous affairs, with Labor proposing a new elected national body.

The government’s plan was to abolish ATSIC and all of its regional and state structures, and return funding for Indigenous programs to the relevant line departments. Labor’s view was that ATSIC itself should be abolished, but many of the regional and state sub-organisations should be retained, to continue to give Indigenous people a voice in their own affairs and within their own communities. It rejected the notion of merging Indigenous funding into funding for Australians generally as “tried and failed”, but had not announced its alternative proposals.

Howard announced the agency’s abolition on 15 April 2004, saying that “the experiment in elected representation for Indigenous people has been a failure”. On 28 May 2004 the government introduced into the Federal Parliament legislation to abolish ATSIC. The Bill finally passed both houses of Parliament in 2005, and ATSIC was formally abolished at midnight 16 March 2005.

Oh. Latham.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

In case you were wondering what happened to the previous elected indigenous body.

—-For some time after Clark’s appointment, the Howard government had been expressing doubts as to the value of continuing to have ATSIC at all. Following Mark Latham’s election to the leadership of the (Labor) Opposition in December 2003, Labor agreed with the government that ATSIC had not worked. In April of election year 2004, both parties pledged to introduce alternative arrangements for Indigenous affairs, with Labor proposing a new elected national body.

The government’s plan was to abolish ATSIC and all of its regional and state structures, and return funding for Indigenous programs to the relevant line departments. Labor’s view was that ATSIC itself should be abolished, but many of the regional and state sub-organisations should be retained, to continue to give Indigenous people a voice in their own affairs and within their own communities. It rejected the notion of merging Indigenous funding into funding for Australians generally as “tried and failed”, but had not announced its alternative proposals.

Howard announced the agency’s abolition on 15 April 2004, saying that “the experiment in elected representation for Indigenous people has been a failure”. On 28 May 2004 the government introduced into the Federal Parliament legislation to abolish ATSIC. The Bill finally passed both houses of Parliament in 2005, and ATSIC was formally abolished at midnight 16 March 2005.

Oh. Latham.

Trail of destruction.

sarahs mum said:

:)

Because Youtube knows all about me from all the stuff they collect about me and so they know I have never clicked on skynews before. I must be making some sort of mistake.

sarahs mum said:

Because Youtube knows all about me from all the stuff they collect about me and so they know I have never clicked on skynews before. I must be making some sort of mistake.

I was just looking through some youtubes, and that ignorant traitorous sock puppet showed up.

I stupidly clicked on one of sky “news” articles about her and in the comments was a litany of lies, and idiots.

How do we counteract this bullshit?

Kingy said:

sarahs mum said:

Because Youtube knows all about me from all the stuff they collect about me and so they know I have never clicked on skynews before. I must be making some sort of mistake.

I was just looking through some youtubes, and that ignorant traitorous sock puppet showed up.

I stupidly clicked on one of sky “news” articles about her and in the comments was a litany of lies, and idiots.

How do we counteract this bullshit?

IDK.

sarahs mum said:

Kingy said:

sarahs mum said:

Because Youtube knows all about me from all the stuff they collect about me and so they know I have never clicked on skynews before. I must be making some sort of mistake.

I was just looking through some youtubes, and that ignorant traitorous sock puppet showed up.

I stupidly clicked on one of sky “news” articles about her and in the comments was a litany of lies, and idiots.

How do we counteract this bullshit?

IDK.

But when all is said and done we will probably get to know the mechanisms of how we got brexitted.

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

Kingy said:

I was just looking through some youtubes, and that ignorant traitorous sock puppet showed up.

I stupidly clicked on one of sky “news” articles about her and in the comments was a litany of lies, and idiots.

How do we counteract this bullshit?

IDK.

But when all is said and done we will probably get to know the mechanisms of how we got brexitted.

I notice that while they are supporting her, they are not using her full name. Being a consumer of ABC and SBS predominantly, I know she has a real name.

buffy said:

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

IDK.

But when all is said and done we will probably get to know the mechanisms of how we got brexitted.

I notice that while they are supporting her, they are not using her full name. Being a consumer of ABC and SBS predominantly, I know she has a real name.

Likewise.

sarahs mum said:

Like.

:)

buffy said:

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

IDK.

But when all is said and done we will probably get to know the mechanisms of how we got brexitted.

I notice that while they are supporting her, they are not using her full name. Being a consumer of ABC and SBS predominantly, I know she has a real name.

Who is being discussed?

Michael V said:

buffy said:

sarahs mum said:

But when all is said and done we will probably get to know the mechanisms of how we got brexitted.

I notice that while they are supporting her, they are not using her full name. Being a consumer of ABC and SBS predominantly, I know she has a real name.

Who is being discussed?

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. Federal opposition spokesperson on Indigenous Affairs

Witty Rejoinder said:

Michael V said:

buffy said:

I notice that while they are supporting her, they are not using her full name. Being a consumer of ABC and SBS predominantly, I know she has a real name.

Who is being discussed?

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. Federal opposition spokesperson on Indigenous Affairs

Awful woman. Just another lie-at-any-cost ultra right-wing pollie, more interested in climbing the ladder than helping those less fortunate.

:(

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

Like.

:)

Yes
.

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Michael V said:

Who is being discussed?

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. Federal opposition spokesperson on Indigenous Affairs

Awful woman. Just another lie-at-any-cost ultra right-wing pollie, more interested in climbing the ladder than helping those less fortunate.

:(

She who hung around bikies?

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. Federal opposition spokesperson on Indigenous Affairs

Awful woman. Just another lie-at-any-cost ultra right-wing pollie, more interested in climbing the ladder than helping those less fortunate.

:(

She who hung around bikies?

No that was Lidia Thorpe, former Greens MP and their spokesperson on Indigenous Affairs.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

Awful woman. Just another lie-at-any-cost ultra right-wing pollie, more interested in climbing the ladder than helping those less fortunate.

:(

She who hung around bikies?

No that was Lidia Thorpe, former Greens MP and their spokesperson on Indigenous Affairs.

Ah.

The votes of people living in the ACT, the NT and any of Australia’s external territories count towards the national majority only.

Barry Jones
The Voice is our Brexit moment
From now until referendum day, we have removed the paywall on all Voice coverage. Read and share this article for free.
It is becoming clear the Voice referendum is our Brexit moment. The “No” case is being built around misinformation and fear. The basest anxieties are being stoked. As with Brexit, the choice made on October 14 will say a great deal about the country that made it.

A defeat would lead inevitably to a loss in international standing and influence – a perception, quite inaccurate, that Australia has not forsaken its racist past. As occurred in Britain, there will be, a few months hence, a severe case of buyer’s remorse.

Lord Acton, the great English liberal Catholic historian, famous for his aphorism about the corruption of power, wrote: “I exhort you never to debase the moral currency or to lower the standard of rectitude, but to try others by the final maxim that governs your own lives, and to suffer no man and no cause to escape the undying penalty which history has the power to inflict on wrong…”

We would do well to remember these words.

“No” campaigners in the current referendum, the first in Australia since 1999, are encouraged to concentrate on generating fear and doubt in voters, avoiding any discussion of evidence, history or statistics. In this appalling campaign, the “No” side just makes stuff up.

The “No” campaign slogan – “If you don’t know, vote no ” – is morally bankrupt. It encourages citizens not to engage with an important issue. Really, if you don’t know, you should find out. This is basic decency on a question of such importance.

Coalition politicians have been circulating material in their electorates that asserts various falsehoods. This, from Dan Tehan, is an example:

If the Voice is approved, it would be the biggest change ever to our Constitution (rule book), in our history…

They want the Voice to cover all parts of the government.

This would give the Voice a lot of power and control over everything, from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink.

It means there would be no issues, like the economy, national security, infrastructure, health, education, and more, that the Voice could not be involved in.

Instead of Parliament deciding the Voice’s powers, the High Court would decide. This could cause legal problems.

Do they really believe any of this stuff? Would any be prepared to sign an affidavit asserting that the claims are accurate?

The assertion that entrenching the Voice as an advisory body would represent the biggest change to the Constitution in our history is not only wrong but palpably absurd.

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia never operated as written.

“ No” is a confession of failure, of the belief that if we attempted anything new, we’d muck it up. So we remain prisoners of the past, back in Plato’s cave, surrounded by pessimism and apathy. “Yes” is a vote for optimism, confidence, a vote for the future …
From the first week of the Commonwealth’s establishment in 1901, executive power was in the hands of a prime minister and cabinet (not mentioned in the Constitution) and Australia operates as a democracy (a word missing from the Constitution). Aboriginal people are now counted in the census (1967), the High Court is no longer subordinate to British courts (1975) and the Australia Act (1986) provides that the British Parliament can no longer legislate for us. The royal veto over legislation is still preserved.

“No” campaigners assert the 1901 Constitution is a non-racist document and that a “Yes” vote would introduce a racist element, so much so that Australia would be adopting Apartheid. That is both wicked and silly.

The decades leading up to Federation in 1901 coincided with powerful arguments, internationally, about “scientific racism”, the concept of a hierarchy of races with Nordic types at the top, then people from the Mediterranean, Asians, Africans and, at the base of the pyramid, mainland Australian and Tasmanian Aboriginal peoples.

“Scientific racism”, often misnamed “social Darwinism”, led to the appalling doctrine of eugenics with the premise that unfit individuals, and even races, could be “culled”. Eugenics had powerful scientific supporters, both from the left and right. Until the 1970s, that support was especially strong in Australia and central to the White Australia Policy.

Charles Darwin, to his credit, had rejected the hierarchy of races, proposing that all humans had similar physical and intellectual potential, with differences not being innate but the result of climate, diet and disease.

Throughout the 19th century, Aboriginal skeletons were eagerly sought by European and American museums and it was assumed that “the passing of the Aborigines” was imminent.

There was more interest in Indigenous Australians as specimens than as people.

White Australia was a powerful driving force in the Federation movement, and Alfred Deakin, a liberal reformer on most issues, was a zealot on race.

When the Commonwealth of Australia was inaugurated in January 1901, the premier of New South Wales, William Lyne, observed: “Of the three great colonial possessions, Australia’s lot has been the happiest. Unlike Canada and South Africa, she has not had a race problem to solve.”

C. E. W. Bean, our pre-eminent war historian, asserted Australia was the only continent without racial mixture. He did not count Indigenous Australians, seeing them as marginal, irrelevant or headed for extinction. He shared these views with his collaborator Keith Murdoch, Rupert’s father.

The Australian Constitution was an artefact of the contemporary consensus about race and eugenics. First Nations people were dismissed as irrelevant – out of sight, out of mind.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are now estimated to number just 3.8 per cent of the Australian population. A third are below the age of 15.

In the campaign for constitutional recognition through an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, the burden of arguing the “Yes” case has fallen on Linda Burney, Patrick Dodson, Noel Pearson, Megan Davis, Thomas Mayo, Marcia Langton, Pat Anderson, Pat Turner, Tom Calma, Ken Wyatt, June Oscar and others.

This is a dangerous strategy. The referendum involves all Australians, not just First Nations people.

The “No” case asserts the “Yes” campaign promotes division, that it’s framed as special pleading from an elite minority: “This is what we demand.”

In reality, the case is far more modest: “Please listen to us.”

To succeed, the “Yes” campaign requires powerful advocacy from within the 96.2 per cent of non-Indigenous Australians. The argument needs to be: “This is the time to be honest with ourselves. First Nations people have a right to be heard.”

So far, advocates from the 96.2 per cent have adopted a “small target” strategy. Leaders of the Commonwealth government, from all six states – five Labor and one Liberal (Tasmania) – as well as from both territories, have been deferential and courteous, leaving the “Yes” case to First Nations people.

There probably could have been a bipartisan agreement to set up the Voice by legislation – but Anthony Albanese, to his credit, opted for the harder way, because entrenching the Voice in the Constitution was a central element in the May 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart.

It would have been cynical for him to have said, “We’ll listen to you up to a point, but ultimately we reject what you ask for. We will take one step, but not the second – adopting tactics, not principles, emphasising the brutal short term of politics not the unforgiving long term of history.”

The questions in Australian referendums are almost invariably very short, only about principle. There are never any details about how a “Yes” will be implemented.

The composition, size, mode of election and terms of reference for the Voice will be determined by the parliament, not by the prime minister or the government, and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton should acknowledge that he would have to share in its creation.

Since the Albanese government does not have a majority in both houses of parliament, the composition and function of the Voice will require negotiation and compromise, in which Dutton and senators Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Kerrynne Liddle and Lidia Thorpe could play a constructive role.

This should have been clearly stated, and repeated, from the outset.

Unhappily, the disinformation, gross exaggeration and Trumpian appeals to fear and anger shown by some “No” advocates have gone unchallenged. Powerful advocacy for “Yes” is hard to identify outside the Indigenous community.

It’s time to recognise, and reject, racist elements in our history, which are embedded in the Constitution. It’s time to break down barriers and share knowledge and experience, to act decently and recognise that life itself involves risk, every day.

Apart from the 1967 referendum, when there was no official “No” case, and an assimilation policy was broadly accepted by all major political parties, every subsequent change to the status of First Nations people has aroused bitter but unjustified fear and anger.

Every time there has been a change to the status of Indigenous people – Mabo, Wik, the Apology – there have been cries of havoc and alarm. None have had any justification.

Given its unpromising beginnings in 1788, settler Australia has been a country of remarkable achievement, outstandingly successful in most areas. But we could achieve far more for ourselves and humanity generally if we came clean about our past.

We have so much to be proud of. There are about 190 nations on Earth and Australia ranks in the top 10 on most social indicators.

“No” is a confession of failure, of the belief that if we attempted anything new, we’d muck it up. So we remain prisoners of the past, back in Plato’s cave, surrounded by pessimism and apathy.

“Yes” is a vote for optimism, confidence, a vote for the future, an assertion that we are capable of great things, of acting with decency, courage and generosity.

Surely the choice is simple.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2023/09/16/the-voice-our-brexit-moment#mtr

From sm’s link:

>>The “No” campaign slogan – “If you don’t know, vote no ” – is morally bankrupt. It encourages citizens not to engage with an important issue. Really, if you don’t know, you should find out. This is basic decency on a question of such importance.<<

My mother lives!! I read that in her voice!

buffy said:

From sm’s link:

>>The “No” campaign slogan – “If you don’t know, vote no ” – is morally bankrupt. It encourages citizens not to engage with an important issue. Really, if you don’t know, you should find out. This is basic decency on a question of such importance.<<

My mother lives!! I read that in her voice!

:)

I agree with everything in that piece sm. I thought it was very well put together. He is not always as succinct as that.

buffy said:

I agree with everything in that piece sm. I thought it was very well put together. He is not always as succinct as that.

I’ve always been a fan. I always thought it sad that the Labor party kept him as a numbers man.

buffy said:

I agree with everything in that piece sm. I thought it was very well put together. He is not always as succinct as that.

I’ve always been a fan. I always thought it sad that the Labor party kept him as a numbers man.

(apparently he was good at being able to chat to all sides.)

sarahs mum said:

buffy said:

I agree with everything in that piece sm. I thought it was very well put together. He is not always as succinct as that.

I’ve always been a fan. I always thought it sad that the Labor party kept him as a numbers man.

Barry has always been too smart for the Labor party. So smart that they consider him to be dangerous. They gave hims tasks to keep him involved, even interested, but for decades they’ve taken care to let him anywhere near the levers of power.

He’s far more intelligent than just about anyone we’ve seen in Australian politics for a long time, and both sides of the House know that. He could have really done some damage to the status quo if he’d achieved more power than he did, so they liked to keep him where they could keep an eye on him.

captain_spalding said:

sarahs mum said:

buffy said:

I agree with everything in that piece sm. I thought it was very well put together. He is not always as succinct as that.

I’ve always been a fan. I always thought it sad that the Labor party kept him as a numbers man.

Barry has always been too smart for the Labor party. So smart that they consider him to be dangerous. They gave hims tasks to keep him involved, even interested, but for decades they’ve taken care to let him anywhere near the levers of power.

He’s far more intelligent than just about anyone we’ve seen in Australian politics for a long time, and both sides of the House know that. He could have really done some damage to the status quo if he’d achieved more power than he did, so they liked to keep him where they could keep an eye on him.

…to NOT let him anywhere near the levers of power…

sarahs mum said:

buffy said:

I agree with everything in that piece sm. I thought it was very well put together. He is not always as succinct as that.

I’ve always been a fan. I always thought it sad that the Labor party kept him as a numbers man.

(apparently he was good at being able to chat to all sides.)

Well, he opened one of our optometry conferences many years ago and was boring as….I was disappointed. He must have prepared at short notice because he didn’t seem to know what optometrists did. But I guess you have to allow him the occasional bad day. In general he’s a very interesting person.

buffy said:

sarahs mum said:

buffy said:

I agree with everything in that piece sm. I thought it was very well put together. He is not always as succinct as that.

I’ve always been a fan. I always thought it sad that the Labor party kept him as a numbers man.

(apparently he was good at being able to chat to all sides.)

Well, he opened one of our optometry conferences many years ago and was boring as….I was disappointed. He must have prepared at short notice because he didn’t seem to know what optometrists did. But I guess you have to allow him the occasional bad day. In general he’s a very interesting person.

I heard an opinion expressed of Barry that ‘he could talk a hole through a reinforced concrete wall, and keep you interested while he did it’. It must have been a bad day for him, indeed.

Still don’t know how I’m going to vote.

sarahs mum said:

Barry Jones
The Voice is our Brexit moment
From now until referendum day, we have removed the paywall on all Voice coverage. Read and share this article for free.
It is becoming clear the Voice referendum is our Brexit moment. The “No” case is being built around misinformation and fear. The basest anxieties are being stoked. As with Brexit, the choice made on October 14 will say a great deal about the country that made it.

A defeat would lead inevitably to a loss in international standing and influence – a perception, quite inaccurate, that Australia has not forsaken its racist past. As occurred in Britain, there will be, a few months hence, a severe case of buyer’s remorse.

Lord Acton, the great English liberal Catholic historian, famous for his aphorism about the corruption of power, wrote: “I exhort you never to debase the moral currency or to lower the standard of rectitude, but to try others by the final maxim that governs your own lives, and to suffer no man and no cause to escape the undying penalty which history has the power to inflict on wrong…”

We would do well to remember these words.

“No” campaigners in the current referendum, the first in Australia since 1999, are encouraged to concentrate on generating fear and doubt in voters, avoiding any discussion of evidence, history or statistics. In this appalling campaign, the “No” side just makes stuff up.

The “No” campaign slogan – “If you don’t know, vote no ” – is morally bankrupt. It encourages citizens not to engage with an important issue. Really, if you don’t know, you should find out. This is basic decency on a question of such importance.

Coalition politicians have been circulating material in their electorates that asserts various falsehoods. This, from Dan Tehan, is an example:

If the Voice is approved, it would be the biggest change ever to our Constitution (rule book), in our history…

They want the Voice to cover all parts of the government.

This would give the Voice a lot of power and control over everything, from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink.

It means there would be no issues, like the economy, national security, infrastructure, health, education, and more, that the Voice could not be involved in.

Instead of Parliament deciding the Voice’s powers, the High Court would decide. This could cause legal problems.

Do they really believe any of this stuff? Would any be prepared to sign an affidavit asserting that the claims are accurate?

The assertion that entrenching the Voice as an advisory body would represent the biggest change to the Constitution in our history is not only wrong but palpably absurd.

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia never operated as written.

“ No” is a confession of failure, of the belief that if we attempted anything new, we’d muck it up. So we remain prisoners of the past, back in Plato’s cave, surrounded by pessimism and apathy. “Yes” is a vote for optimism, confidence, a vote for the future …
From the first week of the Commonwealth’s establishment in 1901, executive power was in the hands of a prime minister and cabinet (not mentioned in the Constitution) and Australia operates as a democracy (a word missing from the Constitution). Aboriginal people are now counted in the census (1967), the High Court is no longer subordinate to British courts (1975) and the Australia Act (1986) provides that the British Parliament can no longer legislate for us. The royal veto over legislation is still preserved.

“No” campaigners assert the 1901 Constitution is a non-racist document and that a “Yes” vote would introduce a racist element, so much so that Australia would be adopting Apartheid. That is both wicked and silly.

The decades leading up to Federation in 1901 coincided with powerful arguments, internationally, about “scientific racism”, the concept of a hierarchy of races with Nordic types at the top, then people from the Mediterranean, Asians, Africans and, at the base of the pyramid, mainland Australian and Tasmanian Aboriginal peoples.

“Scientific racism”, often misnamed “social Darwinism”, led to the appalling doctrine of eugenics with the premise that unfit individuals, and even races, could be “culled”. Eugenics had powerful scientific supporters, both from the left and right. Until the 1970s, that support was especially strong in Australia and central to the White Australia Policy.

Charles Darwin, to his credit, had rejected the hierarchy of races, proposing that all humans had similar physical and intellectual potential, with differences not being innate but the result of climate, diet and disease.

Throughout the 19th century, Aboriginal skeletons were eagerly sought by European and American museums and it was assumed that “the passing of the Aborigines” was imminent.

There was more interest in Indigenous Australians as specimens than as people.

White Australia was a powerful driving force in the Federation movement, and Alfred Deakin, a liberal reformer on most issues, was a zealot on race.

When the Commonwealth of Australia was inaugurated in January 1901, the premier of New South Wales, William Lyne, observed: “Of the three great colonial possessions, Australia’s lot has been the happiest. Unlike Canada and South Africa, she has not had a race problem to solve.”

C. E. W. Bean, our pre-eminent war historian, asserted Australia was the only continent without racial mixture. He did not count Indigenous Australians, seeing them as marginal, irrelevant or headed for extinction. He shared these views with his collaborator Keith Murdoch, Rupert’s father.

The Australian Constitution was an artefact of the contemporary consensus about race and eugenics. First Nations people were dismissed as irrelevant – out of sight, out of mind.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are now estimated to number just 3.8 per cent of the Australian population. A third are below the age of 15.

In the campaign for constitutional recognition through an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, the burden of arguing the “Yes” case has fallen on Linda Burney, Patrick Dodson, Noel Pearson, Megan Davis, Thomas Mayo, Marcia Langton, Pat Anderson, Pat Turner, Tom Calma, Ken Wyatt, June Oscar and others.

This is a dangerous strategy. The referendum involves all Australians, not just First Nations people.

The “No” case asserts the “Yes” campaign promotes division, that it’s framed as special pleading from an elite minority: “This is what we demand.”

In reality, the case is far more modest: “Please listen to us.”

To succeed, the “Yes” campaign requires powerful advocacy from within the 96.2 per cent of non-Indigenous Australians. The argument needs to be: “This is the time to be honest with ourselves. First Nations people have a right to be heard.”

So far, advocates from the 96.2 per cent have adopted a “small target” strategy. Leaders of the Commonwealth government, from all six states – five Labor and one Liberal (Tasmania) – as well as from both territories, have been deferential and courteous, leaving the “Yes” case to First Nations people.

There probably could have been a bipartisan agreement to set up the Voice by legislation – but Anthony Albanese, to his credit, opted for the harder way, because entrenching the Voice in the Constitution was a central element in the May 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart.

It would have been cynical for him to have said, “We’ll listen to you up to a point, but ultimately we reject what you ask for. We will take one step, but not the second – adopting tactics, not principles, emphasising the brutal short term of politics not the unforgiving long term of history.”

The questions in Australian referendums are almost invariably very short, only about principle. There are never any details about how a “Yes” will be implemented.

The composition, size, mode of election and terms of reference for the Voice will be determined by the parliament, not by the prime minister or the government, and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton should acknowledge that he would have to share in its creation.

Since the Albanese government does not have a majority in both houses of parliament, the composition and function of the Voice will require negotiation and compromise, in which Dutton and senators Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Kerrynne Liddle and Lidia Thorpe could play a constructive role.

This should have been clearly stated, and repeated, from the outset.

Unhappily, the disinformation, gross exaggeration and Trumpian appeals to fear and anger shown by some “No” advocates have gone unchallenged. Powerful advocacy for “Yes” is hard to identify outside the Indigenous community.

It’s time to recognise, and reject, racist elements in our history, which are embedded in the Constitution. It’s time to break down barriers and share knowledge and experience, to act decently and recognise that life itself involves risk, every day.

Apart from the 1967 referendum, when there was no official “No” case, and an assimilation policy was broadly accepted by all major political parties, every subsequent change to the status of First Nations people has aroused bitter but unjustified fear and anger.

Every time there has been a change to the status of Indigenous people – Mabo, Wik, the Apology – there have been cries of havoc and alarm. None have had any justification.

Given its unpromising beginnings in 1788, settler Australia has been a country of remarkable achievement, outstandingly successful in most areas. But we could achieve far more for ourselves and humanity generally if we came clean about our past.

We have so much to be proud of. There are about 190 nations on Earth and Australia ranks in the top 10 on most social indicators.

“No” is a confession of failure, of the belief that if we attempted anything new, we’d muck it up. So we remain prisoners of the past, back in Plato’s cave, surrounded by pessimism and apathy.

“Yes” is a vote for optimism, confidence, a vote for the future, an assertion that we are capable of great things, of acting with decency, courage and generosity.

Surely the choice is simple.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2023/09/16/the-voice-our-brexit-moment#mtr

Good onya Barry.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

Barry Jones
The Voice is our Brexit moment
From now until referendum day, we have removed the paywall on all Voice coverage. Read and share this article for free.
It is becoming clear the Voice referendum is our Brexit moment. The “No” case is being built around misinformation and fear. The basest anxieties are being stoked. As with Brexit, the choice made on October 14 will say a great deal about the country that made it.

A defeat would lead inevitably to a loss in international standing and influence – a perception, quite inaccurate, that Australia has not forsaken its racist past. As occurred in Britain, there will be, a few months hence, a severe case of buyer’s remorse.

Lord Acton, the great English liberal Catholic historian, famous for his aphorism about the corruption of power, wrote: “I exhort you never to debase the moral currency or to lower the standard of rectitude, but to try others by the final maxim that governs your own lives, and to suffer no man and no cause to escape the undying penalty which history has the power to inflict on wrong…”

We would do well to remember these words.

“No” campaigners in the current referendum, the first in Australia since 1999, are encouraged to concentrate on generating fear and doubt in voters, avoiding any discussion of evidence, history or statistics. In this appalling campaign, the “No” side just makes stuff up.

The “No” campaign slogan – “If you don’t know, vote no ” – is morally bankrupt. It encourages citizens not to engage with an important issue. Really, if you don’t know, you should find out. This is basic decency on a question of such importance.

Coalition politicians have been circulating material in their electorates that asserts various falsehoods. This, from Dan Tehan, is an example:

If the Voice is approved, it would be the biggest change ever to our Constitution (rule book), in our history…

They want the Voice to cover all parts of the government.

This would give the Voice a lot of power and control over everything, from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink.

It means there would be no issues, like the economy, national security, infrastructure, health, education, and more, that the Voice could not be involved in.

Instead of Parliament deciding the Voice’s powers, the High Court would decide. This could cause legal problems.

Do they really believe any of this stuff? Would any be prepared to sign an affidavit asserting that the claims are accurate?

The assertion that entrenching the Voice as an advisory body would represent the biggest change to the Constitution in our history is not only wrong but palpably absurd.

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia never operated as written.

“ No” is a confession of failure, of the belief that if we attempted anything new, we’d muck it up. So we remain prisoners of the past, back in Plato’s cave, surrounded by pessimism and apathy. “Yes” is a vote for optimism, confidence, a vote for the future …
From the first week of the Commonwealth’s establishment in 1901, executive power was in the hands of a prime minister and cabinet (not mentioned in the Constitution) and Australia operates as a democracy (a word missing from the Constitution). Aboriginal people are now counted in the census (1967), the High Court is no longer subordinate to British courts (1975) and the Australia Act (1986) provides that the British Parliament can no longer legislate for us. The royal veto over legislation is still preserved.

“No” campaigners assert the 1901 Constitution is a non-racist document and that a “Yes” vote would introduce a racist element, so much so that Australia would be adopting Apartheid. That is both wicked and silly.

The decades leading up to Federation in 1901 coincided with powerful arguments, internationally, about “scientific racism”, the concept of a hierarchy of races with Nordic types at the top, then people from the Mediterranean, Asians, Africans and, at the base of the pyramid, mainland Australian and Tasmanian Aboriginal peoples.

“Scientific racism”, often misnamed “social Darwinism”, led to the appalling doctrine of eugenics with the premise that unfit individuals, and even races, could be “culled”. Eugenics had powerful scientific supporters, both from the left and right. Until the 1970s, that support was especially strong in Australia and central to the White Australia Policy.

Charles Darwin, to his credit, had rejected the hierarchy of races, proposing that all humans had similar physical and intellectual potential, with differences not being innate but the result of climate, diet and disease.

Throughout the 19th century, Aboriginal skeletons were eagerly sought by European and American museums and it was assumed that “the passing of the Aborigines” was imminent.

There was more interest in Indigenous Australians as specimens than as people.

White Australia was a powerful driving force in the Federation movement, and Alfred Deakin, a liberal reformer on most issues, was a zealot on race.

When the Commonwealth of Australia was inaugurated in January 1901, the premier of New South Wales, William Lyne, observed: “Of the three great colonial possessions, Australia’s lot has been the happiest. Unlike Canada and South Africa, she has not had a race problem to solve.”

C. E. W. Bean, our pre-eminent war historian, asserted Australia was the only continent without racial mixture. He did not count Indigenous Australians, seeing them as marginal, irrelevant or headed for extinction. He shared these views with his collaborator Keith Murdoch, Rupert’s father.

The Australian Constitution was an artefact of the contemporary consensus about race and eugenics. First Nations people were dismissed as irrelevant – out of sight, out of mind.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are now estimated to number just 3.8 per cent of the Australian population. A third are below the age of 15.

In the campaign for constitutional recognition through an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, the burden of arguing the “Yes” case has fallen on Linda Burney, Patrick Dodson, Noel Pearson, Megan Davis, Thomas Mayo, Marcia Langton, Pat Anderson, Pat Turner, Tom Calma, Ken Wyatt, June Oscar and others.

This is a dangerous strategy. The referendum involves all Australians, not just First Nations people.

The “No” case asserts the “Yes” campaign promotes division, that it’s framed as special pleading from an elite minority: “This is what we demand.”

In reality, the case is far more modest: “Please listen to us.”

To succeed, the “Yes” campaign requires powerful advocacy from within the 96.2 per cent of non-Indigenous Australians. The argument needs to be: “This is the time to be honest with ourselves. First Nations people have a right to be heard.”

So far, advocates from the 96.2 per cent have adopted a “small target” strategy. Leaders of the Commonwealth government, from all six states – five Labor and one Liberal (Tasmania) – as well as from both territories, have been deferential and courteous, leaving the “Yes” case to First Nations people.

There probably could have been a bipartisan agreement to set up the Voice by legislation – but Anthony Albanese, to his credit, opted for the harder way, because entrenching the Voice in the Constitution was a central element in the May 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart.

It would have been cynical for him to have said, “We’ll listen to you up to a point, but ultimately we reject what you ask for. We will take one step, but not the second – adopting tactics, not principles, emphasising the brutal short term of politics not the unforgiving long term of history.”

The questions in Australian referendums are almost invariably very short, only about principle. There are never any details about how a “Yes” will be implemented.

The composition, size, mode of election and terms of reference for the Voice will be determined by the parliament, not by the prime minister or the government, and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton should acknowledge that he would have to share in its creation.

Since the Albanese government does not have a majority in both houses of parliament, the composition and function of the Voice will require negotiation and compromise, in which Dutton and senators Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Kerrynne Liddle and Lidia Thorpe could play a constructive role.

This should have been clearly stated, and repeated, from the outset.

Unhappily, the disinformation, gross exaggeration and Trumpian appeals to fear and anger shown by some “No” advocates have gone unchallenged. Powerful advocacy for “Yes” is hard to identify outside the Indigenous community.

It’s time to recognise, and reject, racist elements in our history, which are embedded in the Constitution. It’s time to break down barriers and share knowledge and experience, to act decently and recognise that life itself involves risk, every day.

Apart from the 1967 referendum, when there was no official “No” case, and an assimilation policy was broadly accepted by all major political parties, every subsequent change to the status of First Nations people has aroused bitter but unjustified fear and anger.

Every time there has been a change to the status of Indigenous people – Mabo, Wik, the Apology – there have been cries of havoc and alarm. None have had any justification.

Given its unpromising beginnings in 1788, settler Australia has been a country of remarkable achievement, outstandingly successful in most areas. But we could achieve far more for ourselves and humanity generally if we came clean about our past.

We have so much to be proud of. There are about 190 nations on Earth and Australia ranks in the top 10 on most social indicators.

“No” is a confession of failure, of the belief that if we attempted anything new, we’d muck it up. So we remain prisoners of the past, back in Plato’s cave, surrounded by pessimism and apathy.

“Yes” is a vote for optimism, confidence, a vote for the future, an assertion that we are capable of great things, of acting with decency, courage and generosity.

Surely the choice is simple.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2023/09/16/the-voice-our-brexit-moment#mtr

Good onya Barry.

Barry will always have a lot to say about something simple.

Peak Warming Man said:

Still don’t know how I’m going to vote.

Are you sure?

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Still don’t know how I’m going to vote.

Are you sure?

I reckon he’s gonna vote NO. Just isn’t comfortable admitting it here.

sarahs mum said:

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Still don’t know how I’m going to vote.

Are you sure?

I reckon he’s gonna vote NO. Just isn’t comfortable admitting it here.

Yep, spot on.

sarahs mum said:

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Still don’t know how I’m going to vote.

Are you sure?

I reckon he’s gonna vote NO. Just isn’t comfortable admitting it here.

Seems like he doesn’t know so vote no?
I asked was he sure because
I’m sure he’d like to find out.

Kingy said:

LOL

sarahs mum said:

Good one.

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

Good one.

Also Rupert knows that division makes him money.

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine claims a treaty process will be more successful if No vote wins

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-17/warren-mundine-backs-treaty-process/102866444

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine has backed a treaty process, claiming it’s more likely to succeed if the No vote is successful.

dv said:

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine claims a treaty process will be more successful if No vote wins

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-17/warren-mundine-backs-treaty-process/102866444

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine has backed a treaty process, claiming it’s more likely to succeed if the No vote is successful.

I was not previously aware of the nuances of Mundine’s stance on this, and how he thinks the treaty process should proceed.

party_pants said:

dv said:

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine claims a treaty process will be more successful if No vote wins

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-17/warren-mundine-backs-treaty-process/102866444

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine has backed a treaty process, claiming it’s more likely to succeed if the No vote is successful.

I was not previously aware of the nuances of Mundine’s stance on this, and how he thinks the treaty process should proceed.

his role is the spaniard in the works.

party_pants said:

dv said:

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine claims a treaty process will be more successful if No vote wins

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-17/warren-mundine-backs-treaty-process/102866444

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine has backed a treaty process, claiming it’s more likely to succeed if the No vote is successful.

I was not previously aware of the nuances of Mundine’s stance on this, and how he thinks the treaty process should proceed.

(shrugs) I’m not Nostradamus but I think that if the Libs can successfully block this milquetoast advisory body they sure as shit will be able to block an actual Treaty.

dv said:

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine claims a treaty process will be more successful if No vote wins

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-17/warren-mundine-backs-treaty-process/102866444

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine has backed a treaty process, claiming it’s more likely to succeed if the No vote is successful.

One thing I just found out about him is that he’s from Bunjalung country, and that’s where we live.

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine claims a treaty process will be more successful if No vote wins

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-17/warren-mundine-backs-treaty-process/102866444

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine has backed a treaty process, claiming it’s more likely to succeed if the No vote is successful.

I was not previously aware of the nuances of Mundine’s stance on this, and how he thinks the treaty process should proceed.

(shrugs) I’m not Nostradamus but I think that if the Libs can successfully block this milquetoast advisory body they sure as shit will be able to block an actual Treaty.

He seems to be arguing for many dozens of separate treaties, rather than one treaty to cover everyone. So pretty much as long as his group gets a treaty to cover their own particular claimed territory the rest can get stuffed.

Nyunggai Warren Stephen Mundine AO (born 11 August 1956) is an Australian businessman, political strategist, advocate for Indigenous affairs and former politician. He was the national president of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), but quit the party in 2012. Mundine was appointed chairman of the Coalition government’s Indigenous Advisory Council by then-prime minister, Tony Abbott.

Mundine was the Liberal Party’s unsuccessful candidate for the marginal seat of Gilmore on the south coast of New South Wales in the 2019 Australian federal election.

snip

Other roles
Mundine maintained his interest in Indigenous advocacy in his role with Andrew Forrest’s Pilbara Mining Indigenous charity Generation One.

From 12 December 2017, Mundine co-hosted a 12-part program on Sky News Live, Mundine Means Business, focusing on successful Indigenous Australians in business. A second season debuted on 2 September 2018, supported by a grant totalling $220,000 from the Coalition government, running from 18 June 2018 to 1 August 2019, supporting 15 percent of the season’s production expenses. Mundine received legal advice that the grant would not preclude him from being a candidate for the next federal election under Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia.

Other roles have included:

Chair of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation (as of June 2022)
Co-founder (2008) and chair of the now apparently defunct Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, later incorporating the Yaabubiin Institute for Disruptive Thinking
Chairman of the board of Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Australia, a conservative political group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Mundine

dv said:

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine claims a treaty process will be more successful if No vote wins

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-17/warren-mundine-backs-treaty-process/102866444

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine has backed a treaty process, claiming it’s more likely to succeed if the No vote is successful.

Saw him on TV this morning.

I really don’t get his position on this.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that he’s only interested in making the party leaders happy.

In 1975, Mundine married his first wife, Jenny Rose, with whom he has two children. After separating from Rose, Mundine gained custody of their two children.

In 1983, he met his second wife Lynette Riley, marrying her in 1984. They raised seven children: two from Mundine’s first marriage, four of their own, and a foster child. They initially married at St Andrew’s Congregational Church in Balmain, and in 2003 renewed their vows at St Brigid’s Catholic Church in Dubbo. A devout Catholic, Mundine told The Catholic Weekly that he prayed every night. His marriage to Riley broke down during his presidency of the ALP, after he cheated on his wife more than once. Riley, a lecturer in Aboriginal education at Sydney University, remained largely silent about the disintegration of her marriage with Mundine but, in 2013 she gave a rare interview on the subject.

In October 2013, Mundine married for a third time, describing it as the beginning of “a new life”. His third wife, Elizabeth Henderson, is the child of Anne and Gerard Henderson, directors of The Sydney Institute.

party_pants said:

dv said:

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine claims a treaty process will be more successful if No vote wins

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-17/warren-mundine-backs-treaty-process/102866444

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine has backed a treaty process, claiming it’s more likely to succeed if the No vote is successful.

I was not previously aware of the nuances of Mundine’s stance on this, and how he thinks the treaty process should proceed.

I think he is kidding himself. If we say no to recognition, we sure as hell are going to say no to treaty. How can you have treaty with people you don’t recognize.

buffy said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine claims a treaty process will be more successful if No vote wins

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-17/warren-mundine-backs-treaty-process/102866444

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine has backed a treaty process, claiming it’s more likely to succeed if the No vote is successful.

I was not previously aware of the nuances of Mundine’s stance on this, and how he thinks the treaty process should proceed.

I think he is kidding himself. If we say no to recognition, we sure as hell are going to say no to treaty. How can you have treaty with people you don’t recognize.

He’s a useful idiot.

buffy said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine claims a treaty process will be more successful if No vote wins

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-17/warren-mundine-backs-treaty-process/102866444

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine has backed a treaty process, claiming it’s more likely to succeed if the No vote is successful.

I was not previously aware of the nuances of Mundine’s stance on this, and how he thinks the treaty process should proceed.

I think he is kidding himself. If we say no to recognition, we sure as hell are going to say no to treaty. How can you have treaty with people you don’t recognize.

It does not need a national referendum for his plan to be carried out. It can be done at state level.

If I am reading his position correctly.

party_pants said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I was not previously aware of the nuances of Mundine’s stance on this, and how he thinks the treaty process should proceed.

I think he is kidding himself. If we say no to recognition, we sure as hell are going to say no to treaty. How can you have treaty with people you don’t recognize.

It does not need a national referendum for his plan to be carried out. It can be done at state level.

If I am reading his position correctly.

My point stands. Treaty with unrecognized people is pretty difficult.

buffy said:

party_pants said:

buffy said:

I think he is kidding himself. If we say no to recognition, we sure as hell are going to say no to treaty. How can you have treaty with people you don’t recognize.

It does not need a national referendum for his plan to be carried out. It can be done at state level.

If I am reading his position correctly.

My point stands. Treaty with unrecognized people is pretty difficult.

Treaty is probably the wrong word to use. I would prefer to call it a legal settlement instead. It would achieve the same end result, and not require any validation by the electorate. It could be done by state governments, especially seeing as the management of land and titles is under their control.

I think Mundine’s thoughts on this are flawed.

I see it to be very similar to the flaws behind not changing the legislations and laws around marriage equality, because saying you won’t lawfully agree that the first nations peoples of Australia ( to the best of our knowlege) are Aboriginal Australians … is the the same slap in the face to gay Australians.

When for the longest time on one hand we had the Anti-discrimination Act and the Anti-sexual discrimination laws supporting diversity and yet there was no lawful support of this for the gay community. By this , I mean the past limitations around the previous laws around the legal definition of marriage compared with access to equality.

Until those changes were made it was supporting that as a nation we did not agree that the gay community should have the same rights as the hetero-sexual community, and will be firm on that by refusing the update the legislation to support what the Anti-discrimination Act states we do agree with as a nation lawfully. The law was in essence , saying being gay was not okay.

Ignoring the truth about first nations people is so very similar. It is appalling how long it took to add the indigenous Australians to the census list. The change did not happen until the law changed , future changes are also unlikely to happen until lawful change happens.

I see it to be very similar to the flaws behind not changing the legislations and laws around marriage equality
—-

same people behind it..

sarahs mum said:

I see it to be very similar to the flaws behind not changing the legislations and laws around marriage equality
—-

same people behind it..

It is important at the top level of a nation, that the laws reflect what the baseline of what society should accept is this…..when we don’t, then the laws send the message of we covertly don’t but we will say that we do.

I don’t for one minute believe racism from any level of society will cease but at very least the idea that as the collective group, we will lead with the better foot forward. Society is molded by progressive law changes, when we think back to times when women could not even vote , for example.

Spiny Norman said:

dv said:

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine claims a treaty process will be more successful if No vote wins

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-17/warren-mundine-backs-treaty-process/102866444

Leading No campaigner Warren Mundine has backed a treaty process, claiming it’s more likely to succeed if the No vote is successful.

One thing I just found out about him is that he’s from Bunjalung country, and that’s where we live.

Bundjalung country comes right down to Grafton where he was born.

He’s all over the shop… a leading light in both Lib and Lab, devout Catholic, married to daughter of Gerard Henderson and cousin of Tony and Anthony Mundine… sounds about as punchy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Mundine

party_pants said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

I was not previously aware of the nuances of Mundine’s stance on this, and how he thinks the treaty process should proceed.

I think he is kidding himself. If we say no to recognition, we sure as hell are going to say no to treaty. How can you have treaty with people you don’t recognize.

It does not need a national referendum for his plan to be carried out. It can be done at state level.

If I am reading his position correctly.

couldn’t they just vote in parliament

monkey skipper said:

party_pants said:

buffy said:

I think he is kidding himself. If we say no to recognition, we sure as hell are going to say no to treaty. How can you have treaty with people you don’t recognize.

It does not need a national referendum for his plan to be carried out. It can be done at state level.

If I am reading his position correctly.

couldn’t they just vote in parliament

what?

party_pants said:

monkey skipper said:

party_pants said:

It does not need a national referendum for his plan to be carried out. It can be done at state level.

If I am reading his position correctly.

couldn’t they just vote in parliament

what?

“It does not need a national referendum”

————-

why can’t they vote at the parliament level ,to add something to the constitution?

monkey skipper said:

party_pants said:

monkey skipper said:

couldn’t they just vote in parliament

what?

“It does not need a national referendum”

————-

why can’t they vote at the parliament level ,to add something to the constitution?

Because the constitution itself stipulates that it can’t be changed without a referendum.

Bubblecar said:

monkey skipper said:

party_pants said:

what?

“It does not need a national referendum”

————-

why can’t they vote at the parliament level ,to add something to the constitution?

Because the constitution itself stipulates that it can’t be changed without a referendum.

fairy enough … it would be cheaper without one …but …if that is the rules ,…then that is the rules… I guess the difference was amending the marriage laws rather that creating one.

If the yes voters lose this election as a gesture of good will shouldn’t they donate 10 % of their wages / wealth every year to aboriginal causes ?

wookiemeister said:

If the yes voters lose this election as a gesture of good will shouldn’t they donate 10 % of their wages / wealth every year to aboriginal causes ?

Maybe they could simply travel to communities and hand over the money directly? I’m sure everyone would agree this would be the right thing to do. It’s settled then.

wookiemeister said:

If the yes voters lose this election as a gesture of good will shouldn’t they donate 10 % of their wages / wealth every year to aboriginal causes ?

perhaps the no voters should.

sarahs mum said:

wookiemeister said:

If the yes voters lose this election as a gesture of good will shouldn’t they donate 10 % of their wages / wealth every year to aboriginal causes ?

perhaps the no voters should.

Well no , if you vote yes you must have some very strong feelings, put YOUR money where your mouth is. If you want to plant some trees , it’s acceptable to hand over 2.5 million to someone in an aboriginal corporation

I think we should ALL get the same benefits, not one demographic

sarahs mum said:

wookiemeister said:

If the yes voters lose this election as a gesture of good will shouldn’t they donate 10 % of their wages / wealth every year to aboriginal causes ?

perhaps the no voters should.

to think that money is the driving force behind the voice is rather telling on one’s character.

wookiemeister said:

I think we should ALL get the same benefits, not one demographic

the only person you look down on , is the person you are helping get back up.

Bogsnorkler said:

sarahs mum said:

wookiemeister said:

If the yes voters lose this election as a gesture of good will shouldn’t they donate 10 % of their wages / wealth every year to aboriginal causes ?

perhaps the no voters should.

to think that money is the driving force behind the voice is rather telling on one’s character.

Heavens no, money can’t solve every problem but wouldn’t it be really nice to hand over some money help them out on the here and now – you shouldn’t wait. Transfer some money tonight. It would be so appreciated

monkey skipper said:

wookiemeister said:

I think we should ALL get the same benefits, not one demographic

the only person you look down on , is the person you are helping get back up.

We ALL should have the same benefits – dividing people by race, sexual orientation etc is bad.

People don’t like ot when I say the discrimination must stop but there you go

wookiemeister said:

I think we should ALL get the same benefits, not one demographic

i don’t believe how many chances the court system gave my nephew from the northern beaches.

sarahs mum said:

wookiemeister said:

I think we should ALL get the same benefits, not one demographic

i don’t believe how many chances the court system gave my nephew from the northern beaches.

If we are going to excuse behaviour, no I don’t mean being bitchy on the internet, then we have to accept everything that goes with it. Start handing out correct sentencing – take away the ability of magistrates to set the sentence. Coward punches disappeared in nsw because no one wanted to do a mandatory 10 years in gaol.