0
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I still honestly don't know which way to vote. Most of my indigenous friends have been posting on socials saying to vote no, so I'll probably go that way, but part of me just thinks no matter how tokenistic and kinda "us white men good, help black fella have say" it comes across, surely having it would have to be better than not having it?

Why couldn't this just be like gay marriage where the only reason you'd vote no is because you're a religious nut or a bigot? (unfortunately, it seems 40% of our population fit into those categories)

The "yes" brochure arguments really sound like a lot of political fluff. "Recognition".....cool, but what does that get them? What does "being recognized in the constitution" mean? "Listening".........ok but are you actually going to do anything? Who are you listening to out of the hundreds/thousands(?) of indigenous tribes around the country? "Better Results"......so got any actual plans for those things? How does the voice help achieve those results?

Having now looked at the "no" brochure, they basically echo what I just asked above haha. The Government literally won't divulge the details of what the Voice actually entails. That seems super dodgy.

[-] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

I'll be voting Yes. If over the coming months we were to find out that somehow the Voice to Parliament will have a negative impact on demands for Treaties, truth telling, sovereignty among other things then I might change my mind but I find that unlikely. Who knows.

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

The big problem for me after seeing these is that it seems the government is refusing to give us actual details on what the Voice to Parliament entails. Why are they being so secretive about it and asking us to vote on something that they won't tell us what it is?

[-] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

I don't think it's anything nefarious. More like Labor shooting themselves in the foot by running a shit campaign.

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Very possible unfortunately. Not having an answer for basic questions like how many people are appointed, how they’re appointed, and for how long is pathetic.

The cynic in me goes straight to that there’s a reason why they’re not divulging these things and it’s because the yes voters wouldn’t like the answers.

[-] billytheid@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

More billshit, that assertion has already been directly disproven earlier in this thread. Why are you so committed to posting misinformation?

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It was not disproven. If it is then you should be able to answer my questions in the comment you replied to then, right?

How many people are appointed?

How are they appointed?

How long are the terms of appointment?

[-] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Someone already answered this for you here. I have engaged with you in good faith previously, but it's becoming increasingly clear you are completely full of shit and are simply attempting to spread doubt and fear.

[-] kerr@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago
[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

With zero answers for the main things people want to know, like how many parole are appointed, how they’re appointed, how long they’re appointed for, what powers they have, etc.

[-] kerr@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

As a result of this, and through careful deliberation, the final proposal for a National Voice is a 24-member model including 5 members representing remote regions, and one member representing the significant number of Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland. (p. 12)

Members of the Local & Regional Voices within each state and territory would collectively determine National Voice members from their respective jurisdictions. (p. 12)

Members would serve 4-year terms. These terms would be staggered, with half the membership determined every 2 years to ensure continuity. There would be a limit of 2 consecutive terms per member. (p. 108)

• The National Voice would be an advisory body to the Australian Parliament and Government. These relationships would be two-way interactions, with either party able to initiate advice or commence discussion around relevant policy matters... The National Voice would have no power to veto laws made by the Parliament or decisions made by the Australian Government. (p. 109)

this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Australia

3579 readers
225 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS