The no campaign is split between: It does too much and it doesn’t do enough. I’ll vote yes.
Why not support the voice?
The ‘Progressive No’ movement has pretty valid reasons to be against it, though as a non-Indigenous Australian I find it very difficult to consider voting no myself. The fact that I actually get to vote on this is honestly ridiculous, particularly when my vote is worth twice that of someone who it is supposed to be benefiting.
I mean, the fact that Dutton is supporting No would be enough reason for me to vote Yes
Edit: I am not saying this is the only reason. I very much believe that the first nations peoples should have a Voice
Voting because someone else does or doesn’t vote this way or that is sport not politics. I would hope that most people take it far more seriously.
What do you mean by your ‘vote is worth twice that of someone who it is supposed to be benefiting’?
Is that in reference to the ‘double-majority’, where NT and ACT don’t count for the ‘majority of States’ count (because a large number of Aboriginal and Torrest Strait islander people live in the NT)?
Yes, that’s correct. I live in SA, so my vote counts towards both majorities. Technically there are more Indigenous Australians living in the states than the territories (according to the ABS), but the NT is where a lot of the remaining Indigenous communities (who government “help” is usually targeted towards) reside.
A few of my good friends are indigenous and their whole families are against it. I haven’t really heard a good reason why this “voice” will make any difference - can anyone enlighten me? It just doesn’t seem like it will have any actual power assigned with it. The elected person will say “You need to stop mining our land” and the government will go “lol no” and keep mining.
Based on how many indigenous groups our country was split up in, having a single voice representing them all doesn’t seem like it will work either.
I posted this down below, but my personal take on this is that the Voice is meant as a symbol. A symbol embedded right into our constitution. One that cannot be hidden away behind govt bureaucracy. One that isn’t beholden to the party machinery like so many aboriginal MPs are. The most important thing is that it gets aboriginal people a foot in the door. A lasting change that can be used as a stepping stone to Truth and Treaty. Something that will let them constantly be noticed by parliament instead of just having a bone thrown to them whenever a pollie needs to score political points.
The way the whole proposition has been framed (rightly or wrongly) is it’s a pet-project for Albo, and comes across again as white folks telling Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples "this’ll be good for you, and it’ll work this time ;) "
At the moment I don’t see how the voice proposal is any different to the plethora of government agencies and outreach groups that have ultimately failed to make a difference over the years. If the referendum was actually two questions - constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people, and a second one on the voice, there would probably be less resistance; I would hazard a guess that most people in the ‘No’ camp (except the actual racists) don’t have issues with constitutional recognition per se, but with the lack of detail around the Voice itself.
The way the whole proposition has been framed (rightly or wrongly) is it’s a pet-project for Albo, and comes across again as white folks telling Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples "this’ll be good for you, and it’ll work this time ;) "
I agree that Labor has been virtue signalling pretty hard and is basically playing the familiar white saviour role yet again, but don’t forget that the Voice was something put to them by Indigenous leaders themselves.
I would hazard a guess that most people in the ‘No’ camp (except the actual racists) don’t have issues with constitutional recognition per se, but with the lack of detail around the Voice itself.
At least in terms of the Blak Sovereignty Movement, they take issue with the constitutional recognition bit but their main concern, and the one that is leading them to vote No, is that the Voice ultimately has no power and is still completely at the whim of the government of the day. They want Treaty and something akin to the model used in New Zealand, where Indigenous representatives actually have real power within the established political system.
That was supposed to be the point of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, though. There is literally a quote on their website from the Adelaide dialogue that reads:
Out in the communities, they are the last people to be informed about what is going on. All of a sudden, legislation or something else is happening and they just don’t know anything about it.
The fact that there are still Indigenous communities that have literally never heard of the Voice, as has been reported in the last couple of weeks, is a concern. Obviously it’s unrealistic to expect everyone will be in the loop but it does feel like a step has been missed somewhere.
We had some cultural training at work the other day - a whole day session. It was really great and I think a few people came away with changed minds and hearts over a few things that they just never understood before.
The real shock of the day came when the person leading it announced that she would vote no. She explained that they are currently actively fighting a native title battle with one of the neighboring groups, and that this was extremely typical. That a single ‘voice to parliament’ is akin to the original sin of having herded thousands of different language groups into singular camps, far from home.
I hadn’t really thought of it like that. The facilitator is obviously out there fighting for representation but a singular voice to parliament sort of ignores the entire first nations culture, and grievances. It’s a very white solution to a very black issue.
The Voice design principles say that local groups will be asked to provide input.
These principles commit the government to a Voice that is chosen based on the wishes of local communities, is not appointed by government, reflects gender balance and youth perspectives, and all members must be Indigenous.
This article is really worth reading, it addresses a lot of the fears and misinformation out there.
Thanks for the article, will give it a read. I’m still undecided as yeh most indigenous people I’ve seen posting about it on my social media are against it, but surely giving them a protected seat at the table is better than not having one.
Put it this way: Imagine you’d been trying for fifty years to push a rock up a hill and failed. You’ve tried a different approach every five years and nothing seemed to work: sometimes it made it worse.
Then a committee of rocks representing the majority of rocks got together and volunteered to come up with new ideas for you. It wouldn’t cost you much, and it would make the rocks much happier knowing there’s a rock involved in the decision making.
What’s the harm? You’ve failed to push that rock for so long. You’ve tried everything. Maybe they will be right? And if they are not, you’ll be back where you started with sweet FA.
Sure, the rocks down the road are sceptical. But what are their ideas? Are they gonna do anything about it?
Either the Voice is successfully implemented and ends up being an utterly useless and expensive waste of time with no practical benefit, or it is not successfully implemented and it ends up being an utterly useless and expensive waste of time with no practical benefit.
I can’t wait for this nonsense to be over.
I think she’s right, it’s a fair and practical move. Not sure if I’d say that all No campaigns for the Uluru Statement use Trump-style politics like she says, but the Fair Australia one is certainly weak and uses the “pointing out racism creates division” thing that anti-CRT Americans like to use so much.
