Australia @aussie.zone Mountaineer @lemmy.world 1 yr. ago

The Voice referendum official Yes/No pamphlets

www.aec.gov.au Referendum 2023

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is responsible for providing the Australian people with an independent electoral service which meets their needs and encourages them to understand and participate in the electoral process.

16 comments

I have yet to see a single rational reason to vote no. I just don't get it. How could you possibly be against consulting people before you make decisions that affect those people?

Do the No voters think that the government shouldn't listen to the AMA when making health policy? That they shouldn't listen to teachers and principals when they make education policy?
- I think some of the "No" reasons are valid questions to ask, so simply brushing them off as irrational is not going to win over anyone sitting on the fence. When I have spoken with family & friends, some of their uncertainty and concerns can be found amongst the ten No arguments.
  
  For example, the question of inequitable representation (point #3 of the No arguments) is a fair one. Shouldn't all Australians, regardless of their gender, race, or ancestry be represented equally in the Constitution?
  In 1962, all Indigenous Australians were given the fair right to vote, giving them the same level of voice and representation as that of any Australian citizen. This resolved the issue of equal voting rights, which allows all Australians to have their voice equally represented in parliament. The Voice would now add an additional representation above what voting provides to the average Australian and it will be mandated in the Constitution.
  Which personal factors determine if one can be awarded this additional amount of representation? Do you have to prove you are Indigenous by way of a blood test, a written exam, a form of ID, or just by stating that you identify as an Indigenous Australian? I even know of some people who have claimed benefits of Indigenous Australians (e.g. scholarships) when they themselves were Pacific Islander. How pure does your bloodline need to be in order to receive additional representation?
  
  Your argument is driven by racism. The same old tired racist arguments that have been floating around since time immemorial.
  
  “People are just claiming they are Aboriginal to get government handouts”
  
  “They’re not really asylum seekers they are economic migrants looking for government handouts”
  
  “They are going to create a new level of government so they can claim government handouts”
  
  They are not getting inequitable representation. They are effectively being given a constitutionally recognised lobby group. The Government of the day will be able to completely ignore them like they ignore climate scientists and environmentalists.
  
  Ok yes. “But then why does it need to be in the constitution” because the Coalition disbanded every non constitutionally recognised group that has ever been created.
RIKSY
UNKOWN
DIVISIVE
PERMANENT

You can tell you should be worried because they use scary words and CAPITAL LETTERS. I also love how they put "it opens the door to activists" like it's a bad thing. Personally I wouldn't mind if Australia Day were replaced with a Treaty Day if that came to pass. It's just an excuse to get absolutely pissed around a barbie anyway.
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.
- 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.
  
  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?
- I mean, there’s a 270 page report about the design of the thing here https://voice.gov.au/resources/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report
  
  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.
Very, very sick of the no campaign brigading every discussion with terrible arguments in bad faith.

I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed. Similarly, the law is my degree. I've spent five years of my life studying it, and although I'm not a graduate yet (two units to go), I'd think I'd know more about this shit than Joe from bumfuck nowhere on Facebook.

There is no case for a no vote. None whatsoever. The change would not grant special rights to Indigenous Australians. It has been repeatedly explained by both lawyers and politicians. You can read the change yourself. It has to be a constitutional change, because that protects it from being outright removed by successive governments, which is the very thing that happened to the previous body that performed this role. By definition, it is not racist, as racism refers to negative treatment on the basis of race or ethnic background, and not differing treatment. This is one of three steps proposed by Indigenous Australians towards reconciliation, and isn't the endpoint. If it fails, it will be the endpoint.

When the colonisers arrived, Indigenous Australians outnumbered colonisers. Now, they make up just 2.5% of the population. We are driving them to extinction. If this fails, by the time we get around to trying again, it is likely the genocide will have all but been completed.

Ethically and morally, a yes vote is the only choice. Legally, it is the best choice for change.

You've viewed 16 comments.