|
I am out doorknocking again this afternoon, the conversations are going to be interesting, probably a lot of depressed inner city folks.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
i voted yes but one of the incredibly stupid things about this was that it still could have been easily wound back by conservatives. the make-up of the voice was to be determined by legislation, so a future coalition government could have just replaced any democratic representative structure set up by labor with one where the minister hand-picks the members. hardly much different to just abolishing a representative body all together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
lih posted:i voted yes but one of the incredibly stupid things about this was that it still could have been easily wound back by conservatives. the make-up of the voice was to be determined by legislation, so a future coalition government could have just replaced any democratic representative structure set up by labor with one where the minister hand-picks the members. hardly much different to just abolishing a representative body all together. Eh, yes they could, but something being in the constitution makes it harder to get rid of and replace with a weaker form, even if the exact structure isn't described by the constitutional amendment. Institutions have a "stickiness" and the more formalised their existence, the stickier they are. A constitutionally enshrined Voice would have had some Libs be reluctant to replace it wholesale. Whether a hypothetical Dutton government would be able to overcome this barrier is a difficult question to answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 04:02
|
|
|
all they'd have to do is find some hint of scandal as a pretext, just like when they abolished atsic. if you really think that some hypothetical dutton government wouldn't do what it wanted with the voice, just because its existence is in the constitution, then that's incredibly naive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 04:12
|
|
|
lih posted:all they'd have to do is find some hint of scandal as a pretext, just like when they abolished atsic. if you really think that some hypothetical dutton government wouldn't do what it wanted with the voice, just because its existence is in the constitution, then that's incredibly naive. Yep, and even the little baby steps proposal is too far for the Australian public.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 04:21
|
|
|
lih posted:if you really think that some hypothetical dutton government wouldn't do what it wanted with the voice, just because its existence is in the constitution, then that's incredibly naive. The entire point of this long, long exercise was to get something into the constitution. It started way way back in 2010 when Gillard appointed the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, which lead to the 2012 Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, which lead to the 2015 Referendum Council, which lead to the 2017 First Nations National Constitutional Convention who issued the Uluru Statement from the Heart which proposed the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum ..... which Turnbull pretty much immediately shot down. Morrison actually refloated it but only as a legislative change and not a constitutional change (which, remember, was the entire point) but then Albanese promised to bring it to referendum if he was elected, which brought us to yesterday. 13 years of committees following committees following committees and endless bureaucratic bullshit, all leading to exactly nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 04:29
|
|
|
lih posted:all they'd have to do is find some hint of scandal as a pretext, just like when they abolished atsic. if you really think that some hypothetical dutton government wouldn't do what it wanted with the voice, just because its existence is in the constitution, then that's incredibly naive. Then I guess we can't do anything as Dutton can just legislate it away. Might as well lie down and wait to die. No improvement is possible apparently!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 04:40
|
|
|
they could have proposed something that would more strongly entrench the voice in the constitution, a provision ensuring that the voice is democratically elected by the indigenous people of australia or whatever i don't think that would have changed the result, but it is evidence of how flawed this whole thing was, that even if yes won it wouldn't even really accomplish the stated goal of preventing the coalition messing with the voice
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 04:43
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:
you dont say
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
GoldStandardConure posted:I am out doorknocking again this afternoon, the conversations are going to be interesting, probably a lot of depressed inner city folks. you're meant to do it before the vote. just a tip for next time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 04:54
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:13 years of committees following committees following committees and endless bureaucratic bullshit, all leading to exactly nothing. The system works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
hambeet posted:you're meant to do it before the vote. god drat it now you loving tell me Doorknocking for local govt elections as a friend of mine is running for city council, have been out doorknocking for them the last 4 or 5 weeks. Didn't have anyone ask me about the voice, but it was a topic that came up a bit with some of the other doorknockers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 05:06
|
|
|
lih posted:they could have proposed something that would more strongly entrench the voice in the constitution, a provision ensuring that the voice is democratically elected by the indigenous people of australia or whatever Then we’d get the “Oh but I’d support X Voice, not the Y Voice we’re voting on”. I mean, this was something which was discussed prior to the referendum!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 05:13
|
|
|
Also, that's not how our constitution works, and never has. It doesn't lay out that much detail for any of its provisions, that's for parliament to describe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 05:24
|
|
|
Budzilla posted:The system works. We'll have to start the process all over again. Yesterday was a terrible day for Indigenous peoples but a real red letter day for committee aficionados
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 05:46
|
|
|
I think the worst part of this whole thing is that progressives had to pretend as if the misinformation that the right was peddling about landback and a third house of parliament with veto powers were wild and crazy, unconscionable ideas. Those are much better proposals than what we were going to get and should have been defended to the hilt, even if irrelevant to the referendum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 05:50
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I think the worst part of this whole thing is that progressives had to pretend as if the misinformation that the right was peddling about landback and a third house of parliament with veto powers were wild and crazy, unconscionable ideas. Those are much better proposals than what we were going to get and should have been defended to the hilt, even if irrelevant to the referendum. Lol completely unelectable, mistah speakah
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 05:53
|
|
|
I never backed down on it at work, and most of the other machinists I work with are loving Boers. I just don't see the point of trying to moderate demands for fascists when convincing progressives the correctness of radical ideas is far more important. So you lose now, but next time the minimum demand might not be limp-dicked advisory bodies.
WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Oct 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 05:58
|
|
|
Even amongst strong union circles in nursing I've had to tell people to shut the gently caress up about their dumb as gently caress No views because they have no idea how many of thier colleagues are Aboriginal. I've had more than a few reach out to me upset about it and worried about identifying at work to people now because th general mood has changed. It's really sad. Unsurprising. But still sad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
One Nation already saying they will be introducing legislation to repeal the SA state voice. State Govt has already responded saying they won't be doing that but gonna be a truly hosed few months now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 06:33
|
|
|
^^^ - Oh good the entirely predictable result of the no vote empowering and embolding the open racists. gently caress me.Snowglobe of Doom posted:The entire point of this long, long exercise was to get something into the constitution. It started way way back in 2010 when Gillard appointed the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, which lead to the 2012 Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, which lead to the 2015 Referendum Council, which lead to the 2017 First Nations National Constitutional Convention who issued the Uluru Statement from the Heart which proposed the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum ..... which Turnbull pretty much immediately shot down. Morrison actually refloated it but only as a legislative change and not a constitutional change (which, remember, was the entire point) but then Albanese promised to bring it to referendum if he was elected, which brought us to yesterday. Well... not exactly nothing. First Nations people got the hear again loudly and clearly how little the Australian public is interested in them having any representation or being listened to in any way at all. But I'm pretty sure that every person lamenting this utter failure in this thread knew that already. Anidav, change it you coward. Auspol 2023- Task Failed Successfully
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 06:37
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:One Nation already saying they will be introducing legislation to repeal the SA state voice. State Govt has already responded saying they won't be doing that but gonna be a truly hosed few months now. This is exactly why constitutional changes were asked for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 07:02
|
|
|
Gorfob posted:Even amongst strong union circles in nursing I've had to tell people to shut the gently caress up about their dumb as gently caress No views because they have no idea how many of thier colleagues are Aboriginal. One of my friends is an indigenous nurse in regional Australia, they're having a rough loving time today. Oh and they're also trans and the LNP have announced that trans rights are their next big target  quote:Coalition frontbencher, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, says scrutinising gender affirming treatments and protecting the rights of women and girls will be on her “list of priorities” after the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum next month.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 07:10
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:one ethnic group This elision is doing a lot of work, racistly
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 07:24
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Then we’d get the “Oh but I’d support X Voice, not the Y Voice we’re voting on”. I mean, this was something which was discussed prior to the referendum!! this isn't about setting out a specific model (which they really should have done, given the complete inability of the yes campaign to explain the voice to the public without any model being proposed), this is just about enshrining more than just 'the voice exists' in the constitution - at least something about it being a democratic representative body to mean it being in the constitution actually has some purpose
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 07:28
|
|
|
Coalition frontbencher, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, says scrutinising gender affirming treatments and protecting the rights of women and girls will be on her “list of priorities” after the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum. Oh goodie
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 07:45
|
|
|
lih posted:this isn't about setting out a specific model (which they really should have done, given the complete inability of the yes campaign to explain the voice to the public without any model being proposed), this is just about enshrining more than just 'the voice exists' in the constitution - at least something about it being a democratic representative body to mean it being in the constitution actually has some purpose Yes but that’s not how our constitution works - the idea was that a simple, small target “this exists” had the highest chance of passing. Like it’s easy to start needling the actual proposal but I think the process was solid to generate the question for the referendum. There’s no way that a more ambitious proposal would’ve gotten up - I think that this will be parked in the near future and the real concern will be whether the Victorian and South Australian Voices stay around. I’d say there’s strong momentum to park these concepts for the near future now, especially in SA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 07:48
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Yes but that’s not how our constitution works - the idea was that a simple, small target “this exists” had the highest chance of passing. Yeah, our constitution deliberately has a lot of flexibility built into it. The common example is that even the role of PM doesn't actually exist in it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 07:51
|
|
|
ColtMcAsskick posted:Don't want to discount the obvious racism but the polling from NT is currently emphatically No, to the point I don't think you can wave it away as racism... lih posted:the mobile booths for the remote communities haven't reported back yet & they're where about 40% of the nt indigenous population is. Remote NT communities almost all voted strongly for yes https://twitter.com/AntonyGreenElec/status/1713353768706928912 NT only has two electorates, Solomon (includes Darwin and Palmerston) which voted 65% no and Lingiari (Alice Springs, Katherine and pretty much all the rural/remote regions, with around a third of the votes being remote communities) which voted 55% no. If you looked at just the votes from the non-remote parts of the territory I think the no vote would be the highest in the entire country, even worse than Queensland
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 07:55
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Remote NT communities almost all voted strongly for yes Wow so the idea that remote First Nations communities don't even want the voice might have been a bit off base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 08:00
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Coalition frontbencher, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, says scrutinising gender affirming treatments and protecting the rights of women and girls will be on her “list of priorities” after the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum. oh for fucks sakes
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 08:05
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Coalition frontbencher, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, says scrutinising gender affirming treatments and protecting the rights of women and girls will be on her “list of priorities” after the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum. If you thought the progressive no voters were stupid wait till you see the progressive kill all trans people voters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 08:17
|
|
|
hip check please posted:If you thought the progressive no voters were stupid wait till you see the progressive kill all trans people voters. we’re familiar with the Greens, some of them even post in this thread!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 08:24
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Yes but that’s not how our constitution works - the idea was that a simple, small target “this exists” had the highest chance of passing. what i was suggesting wasn't even a more ambitious proposal, i was talking about a flaw with the proposal as it stood and suggesting they should have added a provision that means that the government of the day is more restricted in what it does to the voice, by ensuring it is still a democratic body, nothing more than that. there is no reason that can't have been in the constitution, and i don't believe it would have made any difference to the outcome so it is besides the point a bit. the thinking that the voice was a simple (it hardly was when the public barely seemed to understand it at all) small target proposal that had the highest chance of passing was completely wrong though. the concept of the voice was designed specifically in order to get bipartisan support, by noel pearson working with conservative legal academics to come up with something that they thought would be sufficiently non-threatening to get the coalition to support. that failed at the very first hurdle when turnbull of all people rejected it, which probably should have prompted some sort of reconsideration. oh well!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 08:26
|
|
|
NPR Journalizard posted:This will not result in the status quo. Racist fuckwits are going to use it as an excuse to be even more overtly racist fuckwits. Racism is the national elephant in the room. The 'mopping up' after the referendum should include conversations about racism and how we can address it, but that would require a level of intelligence, maturity and self-awareness the average punter just doesn't have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 08:45
|
|
|
lih posted:what i was suggesting wasn't even a more ambitious proposal, i was talking about a flaw with the proposal as it stood and suggesting they should have added a provision that means that the government of the day is more restricted in what it does to the voice, by ensuring it is still a democratic body, nothing more than that. there is no reason that can't have been in the constitution, and i don't believe it would have made any difference to the outcome so it is besides the point a bit. The reason why the extra restrictions weren't in the proposal was because that wouldn't have been consistent with the constitution - it's basically that cut and dry. Much like the constitution, the Voice was supposed to be a compromise on concrete action and making sure that it was beyond what was considered acceptable. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the Voice was too complex because people didn't understand it - I think that there was little motivation or requirement for. The fact that we had the conservatives already campaigning against the Voice prior to the wording being released was a definite omen that it was going to be shithouse. There's a lot thrown around regarding the Yes23 campaign strategy but I'd also say that it's harder to run a positive campaign than a negative one. Regarding the reconsideration part - I think the only positive (if it is one) that's come out of this referendum is now we know where we truly stand when it comes to First Nations affairs, for better but for mostly worse. I really get why a stack of "progressives" voted no, and I think we ought to aspire to the best version of our country, but the hard truth is that there were only two options, and a significant number of us joined up with some pretty racist and self-interested parties to vote this down. While I believe that if Yes was success that we'd still have reminders that we have a long way to go, I feel that we've not got so much longer to go now, and it will be much harder given that we've settled the issue on constitutionally enshrining a Voice to parliament.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 08:46
|
|
|
it’s pretty simple, there needed to be more Albo / Alan Joyce crossover events
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 09:06
|
|
|
I honestly hate Australia
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 09:16
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Yep, and even the little baby steps proposal is too far for the Australian public. Too little is too much while simultaneously too little is worse than nothing at alk. So nothing it is! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 09:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Animal Friend posted:I honestly hate Australia If you're native Australian the feeling is mutual.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2023 09:31
|
|