Linda Burney says there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by supporting the Voice (www.abc.net.au)

submitted 1 year ago by Ilandar@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] quicken@aussie.zone 19 points 1 year ago

The no campaign is split between: It does too much and it doesn't do enough. I'll vote yes.

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 8 points 1 year ago

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.

[+] almightyolive@aus.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[deleted]

[-] Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Ilandar@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Ilandar@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] cuppaconcrete@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Voice design principles say that local groups will be asked to provide input.

https://theconversation.com/10-questions-about-the-voice-to-parliament-answered-by-the-experts-207014

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.

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] morry040@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

It could be argued that they were given that protected seat at the table in 1962 when all Indigenous Australians were given the right to vote. That gives them the same level of voice and representation as that of every Australian citizen.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Silviecat44@vlemmy.net 10 points 1 year ago

Why not support the voice?

[-] Ilandar@aussie.zone 8 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Silviecat44@vlemmy.net 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] skribe@lemmy.one 11 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

You write that like they don't both exist . And anyway, recognising the actions and policies of a political figure as being a polar opposite to your belief system is still a valid call.

[-] billytheid@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

spite is a powerful motivator.

[-] Longmactoppedup@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago

My guess is the reverse is true also in that Dutton supporters will vote no because he is.

[-] billytheid@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

The simple truth is this is how modern politics works, you take the wins you can and keep scraping and clawing away for more, it's why the desperately avaricious are drawn to it.

[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah they keep saying there is a sound progressive case for no, but even Thorpe had a mouthful of nothing when asked to elaborate.

Saying you have reasons that you then won't state isn't the same as an actual argument

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Affidavit@aussie.zone 9 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] phonyphanty@pawb.social 8 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] seananigans@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The coalitions entire thing has been sewing doubt by lying about what the voice is and how it was started. I’m disappointed because their efforts most likely will result in nothing happening. And for what? They gain nothing from knocking the voice back.

[-] billytheid@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

That's the part I don't understand, supporting this could have been a watershed moment for the coalition, and right when they desperately need to appeal to a mainstream audience.

[-] seananigans@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I agree! I also really can’t understand that either. It seemed obvious. What happened to the “good long look at ourselves” they promised after the federal election? Maybe they’re done looking and saw only perfection haha.

[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

They gain a maintenance of status quo and a liiitle bit more fearmongering

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] minkshaman@lemmy.perthchat.org 5 points 1 year ago

To be bluntly honest, if Lidia Thorpe is against it, it’s probably a good move.

[-] billytheid@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

i mean, she raises valid concerns, but on balance they don't outweigh the net gain. I'm reticent to just dismiss her concerns as they kind of highlight why this is so vital, the cultural cynicism and distrust in Australian politics takes on a far more visceral and personal bent for Indigenous Australians after all(rightly so).

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] UnfortunateDoorHinge@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

There is nothing stopping her making a Voice right now, and showing what it can do. I'm really afriad Linda Burney is in an echo chamber and doesn't see the massive flaws.

[-] phonyphanty@pawb.social 7 points 1 year ago

Not sure what you mean by that. How would she go about making a Voice on her own?

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

Through parliament without a constitutional change. Or by making representation to the government on behalf of the aboriginal and Torres strait Islander peoples independently, as a unified body.

I disagree. I think there are too many competing bodies to have one organically represent all. I think having it in the constitution adds gravitas and says that we as a society and country are listening.

[-] morry040@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

By engaging with the existing representative body that has already been established - The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA).
It employs 1,023 full time staff and manages a budget of $285M each year specifically for the purpose to "lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them."
https://www.niaa.gov.au/who-we-are/the-agency