Prime Minister announces 14 October as Voice to Parliament referendum date

Wow. Not helping the Yes vote at all. Imagine being so angry and hateful that you put down people who may vote No for justifiable reasons.

You ought not mistake the arrogance of moral righteousness for being well informed. And sorry to say, clearly you are not. 1) nobody sensible is “denying them a voice”. It’s about the strong inadequacies of this particular proposal. 2) just today Bess Price (do you know who she is? Do you believe she’s evil because that’s what your activist friends told you?) wrote her reasons for voting no. Oh, in Quadrant (cue massive, poorly informed, freakout). Are you now to lord it over her and say all the usual racialist stuff like that she’s a self-hating Aboriginal? Or get into some real hate-fuelled racial vilification of her? You need to accept that people have their own reasons, their own agency, not that they’re simply evil, as you’ve more or less argued in your post. Then, when you’ve gotten off your high-horse moral arrogance, you can try argue “yes” from a more humble and informed standpoint. Meantime, you’re an advertisement why to vote “no”.

Hi Rusty, so saying no to a Voice is not denying First Nations people a Voice. Hmm – that’s a bit of stretch. And the “strong inadequacies”? Well, we’d all like to hear what these are because constitutional lawyers don’t agree wth you. There is certainly nothing inadequate about giving First Nations people an advisory body on matters that affect them. There really is nothing radical or scary about that. A little knowledge of our history will show you that this is something that has not been done well to date. Regarding your point about some Indigenous people not supporting a Voice to Parliament, I guess this may come as a surprise to you that Indigenous people, just like European Australians (and Australians from other backgrounds), may differ in their opinions. That’s how our democratic system works. Despite an alternative view though, between 80 to 83% of First Nations people support a Voice to Parliament.

Astro,
Not going into the rest of your comment because it’s been well covered elsewhere, just a fact check on your claimed level of Indigenuous support being between 80-83%.

These figures were based on two polls (300, 700 people) conducted in March commissioned by pro Voice organisations.

They are significantly out of date (all other polls, support has dropped 15-20% since then) and contain serious methodology flaws due to the known inherent difficulty in getting good representative samples of Indigenuous Australians. Along with the fact that the referendum question and proposal wasn’t known at the time.

Any claim to definitively knowing figures on this is not accurate. Although as we’ve already established, that hasn’t stopped you elsewhere.

Even RMIT Fact Check, who have been accused of bias in support of the Voice and recently suspended from Factchecking for Facebook because of it, has urged caution over the use of those figures.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-02/fact-check-indigenous-australians-support-for-the-voice/102673042

This continual appeal that the plebs (unlike the anointed enlightened classes) should disreard their own faculties and always genuflect to “the experts” is a symptom of the overall push by the latest generation of the professional-managerial class to eliminate all opinions that aren’t part of their narrow conformist groupthink narratives. There’s plenty of cases where “the experts” have been proven wrong. Not of course that you yourself would know, because for those such as yourself, it’s all “the experts” v “far right wing conspiracy theorists”. And that view of the world comes from being indoctrinated into prejudice against all but your own class/ideological interests, and an arrogant lack of curiosity driven by a pompous belief that it’s impossible by definition for politically allied “experts” to ever be wrong. Such a simplistic childlike view of a complex world. Far from the old ideal of viewpoint tolerance and the old uni student’s catchcry of “question everything”.

Hi chewy14, the polls were conducted by IPSOS and YouGov, both well recognised objective pollsters. The article you’ve cited agrees that these are the most accurate poll results showing Indigenous support for the Voice. If you have any evidence of other polls showing a different result please feel free to cite them. Notably : “…experts endorsed the methodology of the YouGov poll in particular and said that both polls were the best available evidence of Indigenous Australians’ attitude to awards the Voice.” . Further information on Indigenous support for the Voice comes from the University of NSW article “Ten questions about the Voice to Parliament – answered by the experts” (refer q 1 “Do Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people support the Voice?”). It’s interesting that the article you cited raises the issue of the difficulty in getting a representative sample from Indigenous communities. Sounds like yet another good point about why we need an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, to address these difficulties.

Hi Astro,
Thanks for repeating my own evidence showing why your claims don’t reflect any kind of definitive evidence of indigenuous support and should be viewed with caution for the very reasons outlined, even noting the inherent “Yes” bias in the source.

The UNSW article simply rehashes the same unreliable polling data.

It’s a standard tactic used by activists, though easily seen through by those who actually understand the data.

You’re the one making the claim around the level of indigenuous support, if you have evidence showing better or more recent numbers that have addressed the clear polling inaccuracy issues, I’d love to see it. Until then, we’ll have to take your claims as unverified speculation based on weak evidence.

Although I do find it amusing for you to attempt to grasp these polling numbers whilst brushing off the far more extensive polls run by numerous different organisations now showing that the majority of Australians oppose the Voice.

Happy to continue if you’ve got any relevant links to evidence to present supporting your claims otherwise have a nice day.

Hi Chewy14, appreciate your gratitude mate, just thought that what you said needed clarification. You obviously don’t like the results of these two verifiable surveys showing that 80 – 83% of Indigenous people support the Voice. They clearly don’t support your strong activist beliefs. However that doesn’t change the outcome. In regards to the other survey results that you refer to, yes, they look like the 2019 pre-election survey results, all of which said that Labor would romp home – we all know the results….be careful what you wish for.

“In regards to the other survey results that you refer to, yes, they look like the 2019 pre-election survey results, all of which said that Labor would romp home – we all know the results….be careful what you wish for.”

Astro,
Glad you agree with me that poorly designed polling using unrepresentative samples like the claimed indigenuous support for the Voice is fraught with danger although you must have forgotten to add the links I asked for. Here’s one about those 2019 results.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/11/opinion-poll-failure-at-australian-federal-election-systematically-over-represented-labor

Although I’m not sure why you think the current Voice polling is similar, surely they couldn’t be overestimating the ALP backed position by that much again?

Based on the data I don’t think the Yes vote can go much lower, no need to be so despondent.

Hi Chewy14, good that you acknowledge that surveys aren’t always a predictor of electoral (or referendum) success. As to “ALP-backed”, that’s inaccurate as the Independents, Greens, Tasmanian Liberals Government, other state-based Liberal opposition parties and a number of Federal Liberals back the Referendum (including the former Minister for indigenous affairs Ken Wyatt, Julian Leeser, Julie Bishop, etc etc). 80 – 83% of Indigenous support though does suggest that our First Nations people would like to have a Voice and are simply asking to be listened to in making policy and programs that affect them. i’m sure you agree that this is just common sense. The younger demographic supports the Voice, a demographic which will gradually take over the reins of power so I’m not despondent about that are you?

This comment was meant for astro2, under my original post. That person asserted the Voice has “checks and balances”, and that it’s certain to never be anything more than mildly “advisory”.

Hi Rusty, to answer your question, the checks and balances are in our parliamentary system. The Voice cannot make or approve legislation or spend money. And, by the way, “we” are not writing a blank cheque. In regards to your claims that the advisory body is not an advisory body, obviously that is an unfounded belief that you have. Unfortunately it isn’t backed up by fact but you’re welcome to believe in fairies in the bottom of the garden if you wish. It’s not down to “street smarts” which you obviously don’t have. If you want to believe in conspiracies no one can stop you. The poor schmucks that were conned into trying to take over the Capital in Washington obviously believed in what they were doing too. Didn’t make it true though.

Your assertion holds no more water than mine. The details are being kept away from the run-up to the vote, presumably because they’d be damning to the Yes case. People are being deliberately kept in the dark. Its anyone’s guess what the actual form of the Voice will be, including its powers and its “checks and balances”.

I listen to what the activists say, and they say they aren’t interested in anything except complete restoration of Aboriginal sovereignty under traditional Law. Progressives are in thrall to that. So it’s pretty clear the Voice will maximalise caste-based power to the fullest extent possible.

My assertion is they’ll take as much power as they can get by whatever means possible, because that’s how I assess the field in lieu of a proper detailed proposal. Your assertion is they’ll generously hold out their hand in a purely symbolic gesture of reconciliation, and wouldn’t dream of playing hardball.

The rest of your post is just standard ad-homs, because you don’t have effective arguments, but is also a kind of bullying which underlines my point about “by whatever means possible”. Bullying is totally on the table for “Yes”. Simply observing your verbal behaviour, obviously none of “Yes” is about bringing people together. It’s about creating a power divide.

Hi Rusty, the details aren’t being “kept away” by anyone. Refer to the Constitution Part 5 ‘Powers of the Parliament’ section 51 (ii) “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of this Commonwealth in relation to ….(ii) taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of the States;. “As you can read here in the Constitution there is no detail of how this taxation will be undertaken – was this being “kept away” from anyone? -no, of course not. That is because it is the purpose of the Constitution to confer a power to do something; not to describe in detail how it is done as that is in the legislation drawn up and approved by both Houses of Parliament. That is how our system works. It’s sad that you are accusing the ‘Yes’ side of bullying without any evidence. Your point about “activists” isn’t correct as there is no power conferred in the proposed recognition and Voice to allow for the claims you are making. If you would like to read more about the recognition and Voice I’m happy to send some links.

Oh, a civil response. But the evidence of bullying is: the standard level of debate from Yes. Racism, conspiracy, fascism, illiteracy, basic idiocy, etc., are the go-to accusations for “Yes”. It’s all aggressive, demeaning, offensive personal attacks and very little substance. And here, you’ve only provided very general, generic constitutional clauses, hoping I’ll be kowtowed (lest I be drubbed with further bullying ad-homs) into accepting that’s equivalent to actual detail on this particular proposal. But of course it’s not equivalent. The closest “Yes” actually has is “Document 14”, the one that last year Megan Davis suggested we all read, but now she states isn’t part of the proposal, and that “Yes” is running around calling a conspiracy theory, desperate to disown it. It’s all turning into a farce of your own fault, and that’s reflected in the latest dismal polling for “yes”. If only you’d approached this with integrity instead of relying on deception and bullying.

Astro attempting (poorly) to play both sides of the street here.

On one hand claiming that he can definitively say (not speculate) that the Voice will improve outcomes for Indigenuous Australian, yet at the same time claiming the referendum only conveys a power and the government cannot provide any detail on the form and how it will work because that will be up to parliament to decide.

Which one is it? Because they both can’t be true.

Just highlighting more of the weak and hypocritical logic Astro is applying, with one rule for the yes side and another for the no.

No actually, the point is that the Voice is developing policy based around what Indigenous people have asked for. That definitely makes for better outcomes, although no one is saying that it will be a silver bullet nor will it immediately change outcomes that have been going on for many years. It would obviously be disingenuous to claim that it would. This isn’t playing both sides of the street, just putting forward a balanced view of the facts around this issue. In regards to your claim that detail must be provided in the Constitution it’s surprising that you would not be aware of the process of a referendum conferring a power to do something and then the Parliament developing the legislation once the authority has been conferred by a referendum. This is pretty clear. It’s sad that you have to start calling people hypocrites, not the way to win an argument Chewy14, you should know that by now.

Astro,
“That definitely makes for better outcomes”.

So you double down , then weirdly attempt to justify your continued speculation.

Again, you cant possibly know this any more than the people on the No side outlining the risks and potential negatives that could occur can.

Because as you say, it’s up to the Parliament to decide the form and function of the Voice after the referendum, which we currently have little detail on.

I’m simply agreeing with your point on that.

Along with highlighting the inconsistencies in claiming definitive things around the Voice’s effectiveness whilst name calling others for doing the same.

I thought you would know that type of hypocrisy and name calling isn’t the way to win an argument by now?

“In regards to your claim that detail must be provided in the Constitution”

I haven’t claimed this anywhere, so the rest of your comment is moot.

Oh boy, I’ve got to stop using this tablet to write comments. It gets stuck and next thing shoots off the comment before I’m finished. Anyway, to continue:
Nobody is suggesting copy-pasting the legislation itself into the constitution. What is being suggested is to have the draft legislation prepared for review. Because otherwise, everything “yes” asserts is just that: unsubstantiated assertion.

StuartM has above pasted a link to “The Conversation” guide to “yes”. I dipped in. Again, it’s all pretty weak and flimsy.

This is the whole problem. We’re (disingenuously) being told the whole proposal is based on a one-page document. Who does that? Any grant proposal even, requires a good few pages of detail. And this is a constitutional amendment, to be just based on a brief “trust us” promissory note.

“So you double down” no apologies for doubling down on the truth. I’d be surprised if anyone thinks that not consulting with people affected by a policy, or developing a consultative mechanism based on what the affected group asked for, makes for effective policy. As to “outlining risks”, what are the risks? None have been identified by constitutional experts in developing the referendum. An advisory body on first nations issues – ooooh scary. If you are upset about not having enough detail on the Voice perhaps you could cite some passages in the Constitution where the model for implementation was set up before the inclusion in the Constitution. You could start with taxation perhaps, where’s the detail? As to your claims about name-calling, perhaps provide some – ah – detail?

@Rustygear
If people like you had their way in the late 1800s we would not even have a Constitution. “What do you mean you want us to give Parliament a blank cheque to make laws on things like taxation?”
Fortunately wiser heads ruled the day and we now have a Constitution that underpins the taxation laws which successive governments have introduced and amended over the years. Funny how that original lack of detail in S51 didn’t lead to the end of the world as early 20th Century Australians knew it.

Hmm, no. Taxation law was well understood in our legal system, and indeed essential to government. Plenty of precedent to work with. And the constitution was preceded by the convention, serious draft legislature, and common civilisational commitment. All quite different from the unprecedented Activism Studies late homework being served up now.

Funny, even the flaky foundation document (Doc 14) is now being treated like a radioactive t..d by its own authors, amid a welter of accusations of conspiracy theory and Albo doing his gormless best to say it’s totally unrelated to the one-pager of platitudes we’re supposed to buy. What an undignified spectacle it all is, like the circus tent collapsed with you all inside. Your position is routed, and it’s *all an own-goal*! You might as well go back to angry bitter activist mode and rant on about q-anon, since you’ve got nothing more to lose at this point. People are walking away.

@Rustygear
“Taxation law was well understood in our legal system …”
Really, Rustygear, back in 1898, they knew that, for example, almost 100 years later there’d be a GST?
As for the rest of your comment – I have no idea of your point but I’m sure it means something to you.

Justsaying,
Ironically a large part of the opposition to Federation and the referendums that occurred was from people claiming that it would result in increased taxation.

It’s hard to suggest that those people were wrong based on the recorded history of taxation law in this country.

Although as a power that wasn’t already able to be legislated by the parliament it is fundamentally different to the Voice which is currently already allowed for in the constitutional powers given to the federal government. They don’t need a referendum to enact it.

As for Astro’s claim above that detail is never provided to support constitutional change, he must not remember the last referendum on the republic in 1999. Where a very detailed proposal was put forward after a lengthy consultation process, constitutional convention and a specific republic model chosen prior to the referendum.

Something that many historians and researchers claim was deliberately chosen as a strategy by Howard to ensure the failure of the referendum.

Which as anyone following the Voice issue knows is part of the reason why the current government doesn’t want to provide detail on the proposal, or as Mr Albanese said himself in 2022:

“What I am not going to do, David, is to go down the cul-de-sac of getting into every detail. Because that is not a recipe for success.”

@chewy14
“It’s hard to suggest that those people were wrong based on the recorded history of taxation law in this country.”
As usual you proffer an opinion as if it’s fact. You obviously have an issue eith taxation – many of us so it as a means to an end, but of course you have the right to a different opinion.

Really JS, they knew in the 1901 referendum there’d be a GST? Chortle, chortle, I win the internet today. As for the rest of your comment – I have no idea of your point but I sure it means so something to you. Because after all, habitual condescension fuelled my massive over-regard for my own intellect is my go-to speech tic.

Justsaying,
it’s recorded history on the arguments for and against federation and how the tax system has evolved since then.

https://treasury.gov.au/publication/economic-roundup-winter-2006/a-brief-history-of-australias-tax-system

See that little pretty graph there showing the massive growth in federal taxation over the 20th century? I mean, i’d suggest to read a book or do some basic research before commenting but clearly you aren’t interested in learning any factual information.

“You obviously have an issue eith (sic) taxation”

How on earth you’ve extrapolated a comment on the historic arguments used by people in the late 1800’s around federation into what you think my opinion on taxation is, I have no idea. But you do love your strawmen, so I’ll leave you to your opinion. For what it’s worth.

You’re partially right Bob, the Voice is certainly no “silver bullet” to fix centuries of Indigenous disadvantage. However it is a mechanism that the majority of Indigenous people and their representatives have asked for. Yes there have been other things tried before and many committed people have worked tirelessly, and will continue to do so, to address the gaps in education, health, housing, etc. The Voice will entrench these efforts in a consultative body and will also recognise First Nations people in our Constitution.

astro2
My point is that your side of the debate keeps saying that this is needed to fix these issues but have not managed to provide any explanation as to how exactly this is the case, why there is a need to provide different levels of political representation based on race and how this supposedly isn’t ridiculously divisive to do so.

One of the founding principles or liberal, western democracies for centuries now is the idea that we are all treated equally and have the same vote and representation regardless of gender, religion OR race. This has always been considered a good thing and one of the main differentiations between us and the many authoritarian systems that have existed throughout history.

You would have to have a VERY good justification to try and throw this system out the window to institute what you have proposed and it’s very clear to many, that you have failed to do so. If you are unable to explain exactly HOW this will help in any way apart from using fluffy, emotional language, it will always remain a no from the majority of reasonable people.

hi Bob, history tells us that, despite the noble protestations that we are all treated equally, in practice, we aren’t. One of our workplace First Nations representatives was telling us about her family in NSW and how, not so long ago, they had to pretend they were from India, to get a place to rent or work. Can you imagine having to tell an untruth about where you came from, simply to get something that those of us from a white European background, take for granted? To redress this imbalance isn’t throwing the system out the window, it is simply improving it as we did with the marriage equality laws. I agree with you – we have a good system of government and the ability to improve it is one of the reasons that it remains good. (And, sometimes, better.)

astro2, I am not talking about equality of outcome, I am not referencing the way that someone is treated by others, I am talking directly about equality under the law, equality of votes and political representation that is provided to everyone within society which has (rightly) been the bedrock of liberal western democracies since the start.

This absolutely is attempting to get rid of this principle as there will be a group inserted into the middle of the political process, guaranteed by the constitution who’s sole purpose is the advocacy for a single race… yet somehow people on your side of the argument don’t see that as divisive when we would literally be setting different levels of political representation based on race.

Thanks you for bringing up marriage equality issue, something for which I happily voted yes, for the very reason that I am now going to be voting no; The principle of equality.

If you honestly believe that granting members of one race political representation above and beyond that of members of any other race is “improving” the system, I vehemently disagree and doubt we would ever see eye to eye on that particular point.

Hi Bob, just to address your concerns about inequality under the law and equality of votes and political representation, that will still remain equal, (although i note that you don’t’ appear to be concerned about the obvious inequality that people in the ACT and Northern Territory experience under the referendum – a majority of votes and a majority of states – not territories, rendering Canberra votes not equal to those in Queanbeyan. It’s odd that you’re not concerned about that?). Could you explain how granting recognition of First nations people in the Constitution and allowing them a Voice about matters that affect them, affects you and renders you less equal than them because, to be honest, I can’t. The issue of marriage equality was also described as “divisive” at the time but it does show that we can always improve on our system though doesn’t it.

astro2 No, it most definitely won’t remain equal. The second you entrench a group who’s entire purpose is the advocacy for a single race into the middle of the political process, you have destroyed the principle of equal treatment of people of all races. Are you seriously attempting to state that affording a higher level of political representation for a single race over all others within our parliament does not do this? If so, I would love to know exactly how the math works in your head for that one.

I am interested in individual rights and representation. If the variance in treatment between the states and territories overly bothered me, I’d simply relocate to Queanbeyan, nice attempt to derail from the points at hand though.

This has NOTHING to do with recognition of the aboriginal people within the constitution and never did. As I have stated many times now, if they put forward the question of recognition, it would win hands down; your side however is dishonestly conflating two entirely separate issues which are 1) altering the constitution to recognise the aboriginal people and 2) Inserting a constitutionally guaranteed additional level of representation for the aboriginal people above and beyond all others into the political process.

It’s your side of this issue that is pushing for these changes so the burden of proof is on you if you expect to convince people that these changes will somehow fix the issues or be any different than all the other advisory bodies that have existed for decades now …as you have repeatedly stated they will. Based on the continual drop in support once people actually started to figure out what your side was pushing (a drop to 38% support as of today) it appears that you are failing …badly.

hi Bob, you haven’t clearly explained how there would be inequality imposed by the referendum. Exactly how will it impact you and make you feel less “equal” than some of the most marginalised in out country. And why are there such unequal outcomes continuing for First Nations people? (And, yes, outcomes do matter, particularly when you are the one that is experiencing those unequal outcomes.) At least you’ve admitted that there is a process that is clearly unequal in the way voters in territories are treated. Just “moving to Queanbeyan” doesn’t change the inequality though does it. You’re still unclear on how listening to First Nations people will improve policy development on Indigenous issues. Regarding polls (particularly Newspoll) results it’s sad that playing on fear and confusion can worry people about outcomes, however the more information that is disseminated to allay these fears then the better outcomes will likely ensue. The 2019 election polls didn’t look good for the Coalition either and we all know how that turned out.

I think Bob has taken time to explain his position quite well. Certainly well written. He’s made it clear that it’s about equality of formal democratic political representation. Of course, there’s more to power and society than that. But here the question is only about formal processes, and who gets to represent through them.

You’ve tried to substitute a different understanding of equality, relevant to the context but not the mechanics of the representational process. He’s already noticed you doing that and countered, but you’re trying again to obfuscate his point. So it’s just going around in circles.

Further, there’s no evidence he (or I) think that listening is unimportant. In my case, I’ve based a professional career on listening. I even wrote a book about consultation in government process. But that’s a whole different story from Bob’s point, that you don’t need constitutionally entrenched extra powers of formal representation unavailable to other citizens, to do that. He’s saying that, at the level of liberal democratic principle. I’d add that it’s an unproven policy hypothesis, without any compelling argument (one page of platitudes doesn’t cut it).

And that’s on top of my point, which is the “yes” camp refuse to spell out exactly what constitutionally entrenched legislative powers would be, beyond the vague platitudes, diversions, plenty of passionate but unfounded assertions, and ranty personal accusations.

Wow! A conspiracy theory. Quick – storm the Capital to stop the stolen election. Oh wait, that was somewhere else.

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating the shallowness and intellectual deficit of your cause.

“…It was because those founders trusted the common sense, of the common people, to protect the common interest”

Yes, which is why Australia will be voting no to this divisive garbage.

One of the best bits is where it states “we are not an innately criminal people”. Imagine Australia rocking up to the United Nations and in our address claiming we “are not an innately racist people”!

What a load of rubbish. We already know the words proposed for the Constitution – take the time to read the numerous published articles on it. The Uluru statement merely set the tenor for what is being proposed as an addition to the Constitution.