39
Tens of thousands of Australians hit the streets in support of the October 14 referendum (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/brisbane@aussie.zone
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

While polling for Brisbane has suggested the majority will vote No, one supporter of the Yes campaign, Nathan Appo said the large crowd was an indication of strong support.

Gotta say, I think it's going to be a fairly conclusive "NO" result unfortunately.

It's not really something that gets brought up in conversation all that often, but when it does I'm still kinda surprised at how many people plan on voting no. It's always the same arguments too... typical "no" talking points that have been parroted all over the major news channels and what not.

Bit disheartening to be honest, but I've kind of accepted we live in a pretty backwards part of Australia (let alone the world) in so many ways.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

One of the Yes arguments is that if they made the Voice legislatively instead of via a referendum, a future government might undo it

This is literally my reason for voting yes.

If the NBN taught me anything, it's that the Liberals will make decisions to the detriment of an entire generation of Australians for the sake of votes. They will not hesitate to throw a minority group under a bus for the chance at an extra marginal seat.

I don't know enough about The Voice to know if it's truly a good idea or not, but people far more qualified than me have spent a lot of time coming to the conclusion that it is. Therefore I've decided to trust in their credentials-backed advice.

Whereas with the NBN, I did know enough about it to know it was a great idea... and had to watch equal air time get given to people with malicious intent tell blatant lies to convince people with no idea how to vote. Then those same people posted on Facebook with great authority about why they were voting the way they were voting using the lies they'd heard.

I have no doubt that if this was some temporary or easily removed thing, the Liberals would just campaign on removing it regardless of it "working" or not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I can't argue with your reasoning there. But I would like to think that if it actually worked, at least a future government could hold the referendum to make it permanent and everyone would know exactly what they're getting, because they'd already seen how it was going to work. There's too much uncertainty around at the moment to convince most No people to change their mind, so I think the Yes crowd are facing an uphill battle.

    One of the problems I see with the Yes arguments are that they often claim some part of the Voice will work in a certain way, so there's no need for alarm, but the problem is the No crowd can see it going wrong ten different ways and there aren't any reassurances coming from the Yes side showing how none of those problems could happen. The Yes side seems too focused on the one way things might work if everyone plays by the rules and nobody does anything bad, but it means they aren't addressing the No concerns about people taking advantage of the system, as politicians typically do. So without actually addressing those issues they're going to have a hard time changing the minds of the No people I think. It might be possible but they'd have to change tactics.

    I do find it interesting and somewhat ironic how between the two of us, the same things are causing us to vote differently - specifically the permanent nature of the legislation, and that we are both hearing convincing points from people we respect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I kind of feel this is false. Not only has there been advisory bodies and committees in the past regarding other issues, but all the detail you need is in the constitutional amendment.

    1. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
    2. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
    3. 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 its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

    The biggest concern that No has is some sort of High Court challenge in which the Voice could be allowed some sort of enumerated legislative capacity, the second is that it could provide "cover" to a government to introduce bills.

    The first one is explicitly denied in the amendment; Government has the ability to make laws subject to the current constitution, and retains all ability to make laws regarding the composition and powers of the Voice. There's a potential that a High Court ruling could one day decide on such things as minimum standards for composition (such as being composed of Aboriginals) and representation (can't force them to fax only documents).

    The second is true, but ignores the 10s of major think tanks, the media, public opinion and reactions, foreign representations and every other excuse under the sun a politician can use as cover for their decisions.

    A lot has been said about lack of detail, but the important thing is looking at the constitutional amendment, all the cards are in Parliament's hands. If the Liberals think the Voice as it stands is bad, all they need is a simple majority to change the composition etc. Truly, they think a voice is a bad deal entirely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent