Posting this for parity as I saw the no fact-check article was also posted.
The yes pamphlet: campaign’s voice to parliament referendum essay – annotated and factchecked
Submitted 1 year ago by Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone to australia@aussie.zone
Comments
Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone 1 year ago
hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 year ago
The guardian is a left leaning media source. While I don’t disagree with their fact checks and am in favour of the voice, having both fact checks come from a source that is in favour of YES is not necessarily offering parity of discussion. The abc also fact checked.
yoz@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Guys, is it any good for Aboriginals aka The real Australians ? I feel really bad for what our ancestors did and to this day they are suffering. I really dont understand all these legislation/constitution stuff as I am only a bartender but it would really really if someone can legal can confirm if its good for not.
abhibeckert@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This whole thing started in 2015 as a joint effort between the Liberal and Labor government to investigate “Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples”.
They appointed 16 people who met spent two years meeting thousands of indigenous people from all over Australia to discuss the issue. The indigenous community got together and sent 250 of their delegates (mostly Elders) to Uluru where they had a four day meeting and produced a “statement from the heart” which includes these two sentences:
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard.
A couple months later, the advisory body created by the Liberal and Labor government produced their final report:
[we recommend] that a referendum be held to provide in the Australian Constitution for a representative body that gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations a Voice to the Commonwealth Parliament.
Even though it was a joint effort between the Liberal and Labor parties, the Liberal party ignored it and did nothing at all.
As soon as the Labor party won an election… they decided not to ignore it, and here we are, with the referendum that was called for by representatives of both indigenous Australia and by Australian politicians (both left and right wing politicians).
As for “is it any good for Aboriginals”… well, why not ask them? We have asked them, and they loudly and clearly said they want this. There might be a few individuals in the indigenous community who want something else, but the overwhelming majority think The Voice is a good idea and they want you to vote Yes.
alex@agora.nop.chat 1 year ago
This is very well written and gets to the core of the issue. The aboriginal people have already spoken - years ago. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is the only piece of documentation anyone should need as to whether the aboriginal people as a representative body want this.
yoz@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Thanks for the explanation.
unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 1 year ago
I don’t think you will get a good answer here, you need to decide that for yourself
abhibeckert@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I think I answered it pretty well.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 year ago
I honestly think this is one of the biggest strategic errors they’ve made. It plays right into the hands of the fearmongers, by letting them imagine a world where the Voice has more power than it really does, and by letting them wedge people who would otherwise be supportive by claiming it won’t adequately represent Indigenous people of all groups. It doesn’t matter if these claims are untrue; by not having a specific plan available, people on the fence are more likely to fill in the gaps with the worst image their imagination can conjure up.
abhibeckert@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Those details can’t be locked in the constitution - it’d make the constitution unnecessarily long and also force a fresh referendum every time a minor detail needs to be changed.
If the details were decided and publicised ahead of the vote, the fear campaign would focus on how those details aren’t actually in the constitutional change. Which I think would be even more effective.
I think Labor knows what they’re doing. Winning the referendum was never going to be a sure thing.
Also - if the referendum doesn’t pass I think there will be long term repetitional damage to the LNP. The younger demographic, where 85% of people are in favour of The Voice, will stop thinking of LNP as “conservative” and instead think of them as “racist”. The LNP might not recover from that brand for a full generation.
NorthofReality@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Even if it does pass the LNP have gone pretty hard to try and stop it. I’m sure that they are already the party for old racists in the eyes of many young people. Since the Millennials aren’t becoming more conservative as they age, this could end the LNP as a political force.
spiffmeister@aussie.zone 1 year ago
They would either a) lie and say it anyway or b) find something else to bitch about. The conservatives oppose the voice and no amount of reason or evidence will stop them from finding an issue or making one up.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 year ago
You’re not wrong, but the effectiveness of their opposition would be lessened a fair bit if Labor were smarter about their messaging.
Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Yeah, Labor’s strategy and messaging has been pretty bad. Though it’s always going to be difficult when your opponents are allowed to repeatedly and blatantly lie, even in official communication, without any consequences.
Usualdeskfire@aussie.zone 1 year ago
I would like to think the intent of the referendum is to show the majority of Australia wants to listen to what Indigenous Australians have to say on matters that corners them. Flexibility in how that happens is key. By enshrining the voice in our constitution we are saying, “I’ll listen even if I don’t like what is said because it’s important.” With enough leeway that governments can change how they listen but not silence the voice altogether.
I’d be happy for additional referendums focused on the specifics but I’d also be fine with the elected government choosing what the voice of the day looks like.
Nothing will change overnight and I agree with the sentiment that we can make things better without a voice.
That said, if someone is hurting, you ask them how you can help. So it makes perfect sense to me to listen to what 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Leaders have asked for and put the voice in the constitution.