Should there be an Aboriginal voice to parliament? (4 Viewers)

[carrotsss]

6. what the fuck is qanda. a quick search shows it's something on twitter ? no thanks.

Qanda is a bad politics show on the ABC

 

[Bob99]

So? If we let even 1% of Indians have the "opportunity" of living in Australia, it would completely destroy the country.


Australia already has too many people, and if Indians had a positive impact on a country, India would be a good country. There's nothing magic about Australian soil - Australia's historical majority since founding is the reason it became so, so much better of a country than India. Australia is a much, much younger country than India, it's always had a tiny fraction of the people, most of the land in uninhabitable desert, less of it's land is suitable for agriculture, etc. And yet in the space of a century or two, during most of which only white people were allowed to immigrate here, it grew to be richer than India did in thousands of years. The people make the different.



Because they're one of the largest sources of immigration to Australia? And like a majority of immigrants to Australia, they're not refugees.



Yes, I mean the people who have made up the overwhelming majority of the country's population since its founding.



Why on earth do you thinks this prove anything? A department staffed by 'diversity' lovers, part of a government that is extremely pro-immigration, says that 'diversity good'. OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO SAY THAT.

There's no unifed Australian identity or culture. It's literally called 'multiculturalism'. It's different cultures living together, with no expectation of assimilation.



Yes, just ignore all of the non-whites constantly calling australia "racist" and "white supremacist" and claiming that white people stole the land from aborigines (while being fine with living on this "stolen" land themselves).



Because you made the foolish claim that australia has a "multicultural identity", when most non-whites have different culture and values and identity to white australians (the ones who have ancestry in this country usually dating back a century or more).

And im breaking it into white and non-white because multiculturalism means non-whites living in a white majority country, ultimately.



I see it all the time. Qanda is the most obnoxious form of this, but I see articles on the topic on a weekly basis.

Pretty sure india was one of the richest countries before britain took over, correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[carrotsss]

Just to get this thread back on topic, recent polls in April 2023 and early May 2023 show support for the Voice has fallen. The most recent Roy Morgan Poll from late May 2023 shows this has stabilised a bit. Any thoughts on what caused the fall and is this just a speedbump or perhaps a trend that will continue?

For me, I was shocked to see how the Yes vote has fallen - I thought we were heading for a landslide. The Federal Liberals deciding to go No had a much bigger impact than I thought. I think it has given people "permission" to vote No and not feel so bad about it. The polls definitely open some opportunities for the "No" campaign. If they can focus on just three states as opposed to the overall vote, they can cause a real upset later in the year.

Queensland I feel is shaping up to be a solid "No". Unfortunately, with the youth crime crisis in Queensland I think there is palpable community anger. To put it bluntly, I think given what Queenslanders are seeing on a daily basis, the desire to vote "Yes" there isnt likely to be very high (obviously, Im not endorsing these views or the logic, however it is a factor whether racist or not). I also think there could be a huge hidden No vote in NSW as we saw with the SSM Plebiscite. As with that vote, I think the immigrant community will break significantly for the "No" vote and again, I feel Labour will underestimate this much like they did last time.

I think it could be a bumpy few months for the Yes campaign.

I think that the no campaign ramping up and having more presence in the media has definitely been a factor - anecdotally I know a lot of people have just felt a barrage of minor arguments against the voice, which have made them a lot more uneasy about the yes vote.

New South Wales seems surprisingly supportive of the voice, I think that the most likely states to vote no are Western Australia and Queensland - the latter of which I’d agree is pretty much a lost cause for the yes vote at this point. For the third state, it’s hard to say - the data on Tasmania is very patchy due to low sample sizes, though I don’t really see it voting no unless there’s a very strong targeted no campaign. Because the most populous states favour a yes vote, a state loss seems much more likely than a popular vote loss, it’ll be interesting to see how the polling progresses from here and whether the yes vote manages to maintain a lead despite the downward trend.

 

[[ ]]

I'm surprised about how much attention you guys pay to SylviaB

 

[enoilgam]

I think that the no campaign ramping up and having more presence in the media has definitely been a factor - anecdotally I know a lot of people have just felt a barrage of minor arguments against the voice, which have made them a lot more uneasy about the yes vote.

New South Wales seems surprisingly supportive of the voice, I think that the most likely states to vote no are Western Australia and Queensland - the latter of which I’d agree is pretty much a lost cause for the yes vote at this point. For the third state, it’s hard to say - the data on Tasmania is very patchy due to low sample sizes, though I don’t really see it voting no unless there’s a very strong targeted no campaign. Because the most populous states favour a yes vote, a state loss seems much more likely than a popular vote loss, it’ll be interesting to see how the polling progresses from here and whether the yes vote manages to maintain a lead despite the downward trend.

It looks like the downward trend continues, the latest Newspoll has it 46% to 43%. To be honest, the Yes campaign looks like it is floundering - they have all the gear and no idea so to speak in terms of funding. From what I'm reading, they are pretty much spreading their campaign across the country, even in places like the ACT (which doesnt count towards the majority of states and lets be honest, there is no way in hell ACT votes no). The No campaign is focusing on key states such as Queensland, WA and now SA (if those states all vote no then the referendum fails). You can also see it in the ads, the Yes ad is very vague and plays on sentiment, whereas the No ad goes straight to the issue (not saying I agree with the contents of either ad, just commenting on effectiveness). Despite being outspent 7 to 1, the No campaign is vastly outperforming Yes right now.

I still dont think No will prevail, but there is the possibility of an upset. From the data Im seeing, this vote is shaping up to be more like Brexit as opposed to SSM. Essentially, it could come down to young educated, inner city voters vs older, less educated voters in the outer suburbs and regions. I also think the polling strongly suggests that immigrants could be a huge sleeper group for No and again, I think the Yes campaign is slow on the uptake here.

 

[carrotsss]

It looks like the downward trend continues, the latest Newspoll has it 46% to 43%. To be honest, the Yes campaign looks like it is floundering - they have all the gear and no idea so to speak in terms of funding. From what I'm reading, they are pretty much spreading their campaign across the country, even in places like the ACT (which doesnt count towards the majority of states and lets be honest, there is no way in hell ACT votes no). The No campaign is focusing on key states such as Queensland, WA and now SA (if those states all vote no then the referendum fails). You can also see it in the ads, the Yes ad is very vague and plays on sentiment, whereas the No ad goes straight to the issue (not saying I agree with the contents of either ad, just commenting on effectiveness). Despite being outspend 7 to 1, the No campaign is vastly outperforming Yes right now.

I still dont think No will prevail, but there is the possibility of an upset. From the data Im seeing, this vote is shaping up to be more like Brexit as opposed to SSM. Essentially, it could come down to young educated, inner city voters vs older, less educated voters in the outer suburbs and regions. I also thing the polling strongly suggests that immigrants could be a huge sleeper group for No and again, I think the Yes campaign is slow on the uptake here.

To be honest after seeing that news poll I’ve pretty much lost hope of the yes vote succeeding, they just seem to be making no ground and making their case really poorly - there are a ton of really important arguments for the voice which I’ve barely heard at all. The undecided vote almost always swings against referendums, and beyond that it only takes a few percent more votes (very possible at this rate) until the no campaign wins on popular vote, and I’m almost certain they’d win on states even earlier.

 

[enoilgam]

To be honest after seeing that news poll I’ve pretty much lost hope of the yes vote succeeding, they just seem to be making no ground and making their case really poorly - there are a ton of really important arguments for the voice which I’ve barely heard at all. The undecided vote almost always swings against referendums, and beyond that it only takes a few percent more votes (very possible at this rate) until the no campaign wins on popular vote, and I’m almost certain they’d win on states even earlier.

The latest Resolve poll shows the trend continuing, with the No campaign overtaking the Yes campaign (49% to 51%). The poll also shows No leading in WA, SA and Queensland. Most concerning of all though is Resolve is saying that No voters are more firm in their decision, whereas Yes voters are likely to waiver. For some reason though a Guardian Essential poll released today shows Yes leading by 60% to 40% which I think is unreliable especially in the context of the trend over May and June.

If I were the Yes campaign, Id be extremely concerned about the Resolve poll. If they don't start turning things around I think they could be in real trouble. I feel that the tighter polls become, the better it will be for "No" as it is a snowballing effect. A lot of people will feel bad voting No, but as they see others doing it, I think it will give them "permission" to vote against the referendum.

 

[carrotsss]

The latest Resolve poll shows the trend continuing, with the No campaign overtaking the Yes campaign (49% to 51%). The poll also shows No leading in WA, SA and Queensland. Most concerning of all though is Resolve is saying that No voters are more firm in their decision, whereas Yes voters are likely to waiver. For some reason though a Guardian Essential poll released today shows Yes leading by 60% to 40% which I think is unreliable especially in the context of the trend over May and June.

If I were the Yes campaign, Id be extremely concerned about the Resolve poll. If they don't start turning things around I think they could be in real trouble. I feel that the tighter polls become, the better it will be for "No" as it is a snowballing effect. A lot of people will feel bad voting No, but as they see others doing it, I think it will give them "permission" to vote against the referendum.

Yeah I don’t see the yes vote winning at this point. Even if that Resolve poll is an outlier (it likely is), the trend is still pretty clear, and unless something significantly changes, I think it will continue downwards unfortunately.

You’re right about the snowballing effect though, anecdotally I know a lot of people didn’t feel like they could vote no but now that they’ve seen the numbers they feel like they have permission to vote no, and given the current polling numbers, if even a small portion of voters are like that it will completely erode any remaining margin for the yes campaign.

 

[cosmo 2]

im surprised the polls have dropped this low

i had this pegged as winning just based on the hunch that i didnt think anyone would vote against it or care enough to

the 'no' campaign is pathetic but the voice premise is so retarded it seems like increasingly no one is buying it

i wonder if this keeps looking worse and worse albo will shelve it lol

would look absolutely terrible but going into this with an obvious lose on his hands would be even worse

 

[SylviaB]

part of me thinks is may actually be better if yes wins

if the voice doesn't pass, I think you'll see the left basically lose their minds and become hyperfocused on indigenous issues. You'll have the media and corporations turn the propaganda and virtue signalling up to 11, kids being taught that australia is a 'white supremacist' country and albo will be looking for all kinds of ways to increase the power of these causes without relying on a referendum

if this happens, maybe this will be all just noise and they won't actually achieve much of anything, maybe not

 

[SylviaB]

part of me thinks is may actually be better if yes wins

if the voice doesn't pass, I think you'll see the left basically lose their minds and become hyperfocused on indigenous issues. You'll have the media and corporations turn the propaganda and virtue signalling up to 11, kids being taught that australia is a 'white supremacist' country and albo will be looking for all kinds of ways to increase the power of these causes without relying on a referendum

if this happens, maybe this will be all just noise and they won't actually achieve much of anything, maybe not

LMAO maoris get priority for surgery over white NZers

Auckland surgeons must now consider ethnicity in prioritising patients for operations

Health officials said it was an important step in reducing historical health inequities.

www.nzherald.co.nz

how long until the analogous policy gets introduced here (it probably already exists de facto I guess)

 

[enoilgam]

im surprised the polls have dropped this low

i had this pegged as winning just based on the hunch that i didnt think anyone would vote against it or care enough to

the 'no' campaign is pathetic but the voice premise is so retarded it seems like increasingly no one is buying it

i wonder if this keeps looking worse and worse albo will shelve it lol

would look absolutely terrible but going into this with an obvious lose on his hands would be even worse

Honestly, the truth is the average Joe Bloggs doesnt really care about indigenous issues beyond a few nice sentiments. If the Voice loses it will be a major embarrassment for Albo and nothing more. Most people are worried about cost of living/the economy and that will determine his trajectory for the next election.

part of me thinks is may actually be better if yes wins

if the voice doesn't pass, I think you'll see the left basically lose their minds and become hyperfocused on indigenous issues. You'll have the media and corporations turn the propaganda and virtue signalling up to 11, kids being taught that australia is a 'white supremacist' country and albo will be looking for all kinds of ways to increase the power of these causes without relying on a referendum

if this happens, maybe this will be all just noise and they won't actually achieve much of anything, maybe not

I feel the opposite could happen, I think that a defeat may quiet debate a fair bit because then the Australian people have "spoken". It is really hard to rally people to a cause when they have rejected it clearly in a compulsory referendum.

If Im being honest, Im now moving towards a No vote. Notwithstanding my reasons above, the thing that has tipped me is the Cultural Heritage Act in WA. The Act basically states that if you own land greater than 1,100 sqm and propose to do any new works on that land, you need to get permission from the local Aboriginal land council. As someone who owns land larger than that, this would impact me and I am 100% against it. Im already against Councils telling me what to do on my land, let alone an unaccountable, unelected body.

What does this have to do with the Voice? The key argument of the Voice is that it will allow Aboriginals to have a greater say on laws that impact them. However, as demonstrated by the Cultural Heritage Act in WA, even Aboriginal-centric issues have impacts on others (land owners, farmers etc). If the Voice gets in, we will be giving Aboriginals a constitutional right to a greater say on issues than other stakeholders, which to me is out of place in a democracy. I have seen the No campaign touch on the Cultural Heritage Act, but it needs to be highlighted more as a potential indirect consequence of the Voice. Im all for supporting Indigenous Australians, but not when they get special rights which allows them to dictate what I do on my land.

 

[cosmo 2]

i see the value in yes winning too though for different reasons. i see it as accelerationism, it will permanently ensconce a dysfunctional cabal of abos in our govt that will increasingly demand more and more ridiculous shit and act like giant nuisances, but unlike every other boong advisory before it this one will be constintutionally enshrined and wont be removable. so things will steamroll into a giant pile of dog shit until people really get upset and start voting for someone who will actually make big changes in ways that could be beneficial

 

[cosmo 2]

Honestly, the truth is the average Joe Bloggs doesnt really care about indigenous issues beyond a few nice sentiments. If the Voice loses it will be a major embarrassment for Albo and nothing more. Most people are worried about cost of living/the economy and that will determine his trajectory for the next election.

don't agree with this the average person is not feeling any meaningful cost of living pinch at all, evidenced by the fact that inflation keeps rising. the only people who are being impacted are poorer people and non home-owners (non boomers) and the govt doesn't care about them at all, which-ever party is in power

the boomers have all the cash and they're not being slugged in any way, a few extra bucks here and there on groceries is like 2% of their PPOR per month capital gains appreciation lmao

the whinging from mortgage holders about their rates going up a bit is marginal imo, these people are mostly just idiots who dont want to sell their ford f-150 raptor or cut back on the uber eats 5 nights a week, piss, ice, multis & vet bills for their pit bull but if they did so they could easily (mostly) pay the relatively modest increases in debt repayments

 

[carrotsss]

If Im being honest, Im now moving towards a No vote. Notwithstanding my reasons above, the thing that has tipped me is the Cultural Heritage Act in WA. The Act basically states that if you own land greater than 1,100 sqm and propose to do any new works on that land, you need to get permission from the local Aboriginal land council. As someone who owns land larger than that, this would impact me and I am 100% against it. Im already against Councils telling me what to do on my land, let alone an unaccountable, unelected body.

What does this have to do with the Voice? The key argument of the Voice is that it will allow Aboriginals to have a greater say on laws that impact them. However, as demonstrated by the Cultural Heritage Act in WA, even Aboriginal-centric issues have impacts on others (land owners, farmers etc). If the Voice gets in, we will be giving Aboriginals a constitutional right to a greater say on issues than other stakeholders, which to me is out of place in a democracy. I have seen the No campaign touch on the Cultural Heritage Act, but it needs to be highlighted more as a potential indirect consequence of the Voice. Im all for supporting Indigenous Australians, but not when they get special rights which allows them to dictate what I do on my land.

A primary component of the voice is that it will encourage more consistent, informed and reasonable reforms by actually getting opinions and information from Indigenous Australians in an organised manner, unlike current policies which are typically inconsistent, unreasonable (like the Cultural Heritage Act) and are a more of a Canberra-designed virtue signal which isn’t adequately informed and consulted to ensure that it is actually effective in improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous people. The voice won’t force any more legislation - but it will ensure that any legislation that does pass is actually effective and correctly targeted, which I see as a net positive.

 

[SylviaB]

A primary component of the voice is that it will encourage more consistent, informed and reasonable reforms by actually getting opinions and information from Indigenous Australians in an organised manner, unlike current policies which are typically inconsistent, unreasonable (like the Cultural Heritage Act) and are a more of a Canberra-designed virtue signal which isn’t adequately informed and consulted to ensure that it is actually effective in improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous people.

LMAO on what planet do the people who will make up the voice advisory bodies oppose policies like the cultural heritage act

The voice won’t force any more legislation - but it will ensure that any legislation that does pass is actually effective and correctly targeted, which I see as a net positive.

No, it absolutely will not "ensure" this. There's no reason some group of city aboriginals making the calls means policy will be more effective. Fora ll you know, they could make it worse.

 

[SylviaB]

I feel the opposite could happen, I think that a defeat may quiet debate a fair bit because then the Australian people have "spoken". It is really hard to rally people to a cause when they have rejected it clearly in a compulsory referendum.

Nah, they don't need grassroots support for this stuff, it will be forced through Australia's hegemonic insitutions of government, media, businessa nd education

I mean, just read this kind of horseshit: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...w-australia-v-old-indigenous-voice-referendum

Indigenous Voice: Getting ready to explain to the world if Australia votes “No” | Lowy Institute

The referendum is a pivotal moment for global perceptions of Australia. Diplomats must be ready whatever the outcome.

www.lowyinstitute.org

People like this won't just pack it in if they lose. They (and people more powerful) will make it their mission to indoctrinate as many children as possible to try and eliminate any remaining opposition to this nonsense in future generations.

And albo will continue to flood the country with immigrants to ensure that labor dominates Australian politics in the future

 

[carrotsss]

LMAO on what planet do the people who will make up the voice advisory bodies oppose policies like the cultural heritage act



No, it absolutely will not "ensure" this. There's no reason some group of city aboriginals making the calls means policy will be more effective. Fora ll you know, they could make it worse.

The voice will have remote representatives, the idea that it’ll just be city aboriginals is just not true. I really struggle to see how having an actually organised council of Aboriginals could make anything worse - the worst case scenario is that they demand for too much and governments just ignore most of it, but the best case scenario is that this could legitimately contribute to more thorough and effective legislation for Indigenous people, which is good for everyone, because it reduces crime, they can contribute more to the economy and in general they deserve to get the same level of education and health outcomes as other Australians. Even if you don’t think the voice will do a perfect job, it will absolutely do better than the current disaster of random ineffective virtue signalling legislation, because that isn’t what Indigenous people actually want.

 

[SylviaB]

First of all, you said it will 'ensure' this. Now, you're saying this outcome is merely the 'best case scenario'.

And the remote represenatives are just token - we all know the city ones with political and institutional connections will be pulling all the strings.

And yes, they can make it worse. These people support things like the cultural heritage act. These people absolutely support virtue signalling - stuff like welcome to country (with those performing it being paid thousands of dollars for their services) absolutely comes from people like this.

 

[carrotsss]

And the remote represenatives are just token - we all know the city ones with political and institutional connections will be pulling all the strings.

And yes, they can make it worse. These people support things like the cultural heritage act. These people absolutely support virtue signalling - stuff like welcome to country (with those performing it being paid thousands of dollars for their services) absolutely comes from people like this.

The stated purpose of the voice is to work towards actually improving health and well-being outcomes for Indigenous people. The selection process hasn’t been determined yet so it’s really hard to say, if it’s selected by the government then I can absolutely see it ending up like that. Maybe I’m just being wildly optimistic, I like to hope that the voice will be filled with people who legitimately want to improve their people’s outcomes rather than a council of Lidia Thorpes, but I guess we can’t know that yet.

I can understand being pessimistic about the voice given the current track record of Indigenous legislation, it’s absolutely possible that it will not work, but I don’t understand how it will make things worse - all legislation will be passed through the normal government anyway, and that’s still democratically decided so they’re not gonna be able to force through some insane law anyway.