Ocuk forums are life, we've literally spent years here. Your attempt at a smart arse comment failed.
Last edited:
Australian "The Voice" referendum gets a solid no vote to allow further indigenous representations.
- Thread starter Chris Wilson
- Start date
Some people are genetically pre-disposed to become addicts. Others are genetically pre-disposed to carry out genocide and 'colonisation'.
Don't go reading about the amount of female skeletons they dig up from before the European settlement days with head injuries of the accounts of early visitors horrified at the sight if heavily scarred aboriginal women.....
Might upset your delicate 'nobel savage' wallflower ideas....
The aboriginals were too dispersed and too low tech to wage war like of the rest of the world had being doing for millenia before the arrival of Europeans. That's all there is to it.
Last edited:
Blah, blah, blah
Caporegime
Australian here. Let's clear a few things up.
Wrong. This was not about Indigenous voting. Indigenous people have had voting rights in Australia since the 19th century, an d have been officially recognised in the Constitution since 1967. Land rights legislation over the past 47 years has granted Indigenous Australians ownership over 40% of Australia's entire land mass.
No. The last conservative government lost by a landslide, 5 of Australia's 6 states have Labour governments, the federal government is Labour, and Labour is still leading the conservatives 55%-45% in the two party preferred vote. In Western Australia and Victoria, the state conservative parties were wiped out so badly, they're barely hanging on by a thread.
Wrong.
The referendum was about establishing an Indigenous body called the Voice to Parliament, which would make representations on the behalf of all Indigenous people nationwide. This was to be an advisory body—not an executive or legislative body—aiming to cut through the usual red tape and ensure a more streamlined process.
80% of Indigenous Australians supported the Voice. My wife and I also voted in support of it. Unfortunately the No campaign had the power of the Murdoch media behind it, along with a tidal wave of money from billionaires and millionaires with industry connections and other special interests.
The results of the referendum showed that the Yes vote was strongest in capital cities, while the No vote was strongest in urban and regional areas.
(Source).
There was also strong opposition from Australia's immigrant community. Greater Western Sydney (home to home to 2.5 million Australians, comprising 60% of Australia's total immigrant population, and 35% of whom were born overseas) overwhelmingly voted No.
I was surprised by the strength of the No vote here in South Australia, which is typically regarded as a progressive state.
Wrong. This was not about Indigenous voting. Indigenous people have had voting rights in Australia since the 19th century, an d have been officially recognised in the Constitution since 1967. Land rights legislation over the past 47 years has granted Indigenous Australians ownership over 40% of Australia's entire land mass.
No. The last conservative government lost by a landslide, 5 of Australia's 6 states have Labour governments, the federal government is Labour, and Labour is still leading the conservatives 55%-45% in the two party preferred vote. In Western Australia and Victoria, the state conservative parties were wiped out so badly, they're barely hanging on by a thread.
Wrong.
The referendum was about establishing an Indigenous body called the Voice to Parliament, which would make representations on the behalf of all Indigenous people nationwide. This was to be an advisory body—not an executive or legislative body—aiming to cut through the usual red tape and ensure a more streamlined process.
80% of Indigenous Australians supported the Voice. My wife and I also voted in support of it. Unfortunately the No campaign had the power of the Murdoch media behind it, along with a tidal wave of money from billionaires and millionaires with industry connections and other special interests.
The results of the referendum showed that the Yes vote was strongest in capital cities, while the No vote was strongest in urban and regional areas.
(Source).
There was also strong opposition from Australia's immigrant community. Greater Western Sydney (home to home to 2.5 million Australians, comprising 60% of Australia's total immigrant population, and 35% of whom were born overseas) overwhelmingly voted No.
I was surprised by the strength of the No vote here in South Australia, which is typically regarded as a progressive state.
Last edited:
Biased then. The Brits, sorry, the White English, know better.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,609
I'm confused, don't the indigenous people already have the right to vote?
Or do they willfully choose not to engage in the system? I'm lost.... if they are not letting people who live there vote that's kind of messed up.
Edit: Australian cleared it up. Nevermind.
Or do they willfully choose not to engage in the system? I'm lost.... if they are not letting people who live there vote that's kind of messed up.
Edit: Australian cleared it up. Nevermind.
Last edited:
Is this a good moment to say that millions are spent every year on lobbying groups who have no executive or legislative power.
The very ability to guarantee a position at the front of the queue to get an audience with the executive has been worth hard cash since the dawn of time.
Caporegime
I have no idea what this was intended to convey.
Yes, and have done since the 19th century.
No. Voting is compulsory in Australia. You can be fined for refusing to vote.
That is not the case, and it is not what the referendum was about. See the post here.
Caporegime
More accurate to say that millions are spent every year by lobbying groups who have no executive or legislative power, with the goal of influencing those who do.
The Voice was not about guaranteeing a position at the front of the queue. It was about giving Indigenous people a single representative body that could take a place in the queue.
Culture and Empowering Communities | NIAA
Strengthening of Indigenous cultural expression and conservation and working with communities to set priorities and greater influence over decisions that affect them.
The people on here know more than you do about problems in your country, as evidenced by the comments made already by certain individuals.
Soldato
The Labour government said they'd hold one as part of their election promise.
Additionally, as this new body would be enshrined within the constitution, it needed to be a nationwide decision as, once enshrined, the "Voice" would be unable to be altered, changed, re-organised etc by anyone without a further nationwide referendum.
Saying that in reply to a post stating the opposition leader Peter Dutton remarking that it's "good for our country" suggests you believe the aborigines have more of a right to claiming Australia as "their country" than do those who have been born there but have not got the same depth of heredity as the aborigines.
I find that surprising from you of all people, as one has to assume you feel the same way about, for example, multi generation English having a greater claim to being English and on England than the children of those more recently arrived and given British nationality.
I suspect it's an opinion commonly held, but less frequently publicly stated.
Last edited:
Soldato
I'm not an Australian. But I've followed some of the debate. The main no points seems to be from 2 groups.
1. The first group had a fear that the voice would override the laws and future decisions.
2. While the second group of mainly indigenous people say the voice wouldn't do anything and prefer a full treaty.
It put people like Lydia Thorpe in the same no camp as leader of the right wing party, One Nation, Pauline Hanson.
It didn't help the yes campaign when it came out the Prime Minister of Australia, Albanese, seemingly didn't read the full document of what he was advocating.
1. The first group had a fear that the voice would override the laws and future decisions.
2. While the second group of mainly indigenous people say the voice wouldn't do anything and prefer a full treaty.
It put people like Lydia Thorpe in the same no camp as leader of the right wing party, One Nation, Pauline Hanson.
It didn't help the yes campaign when it came out the Prime Minister of Australia, Albanese, seemingly didn't read the full document of what he was advocating.
Soldato
It was a poor referendum, badly communicated to the public with not enough information for people to have an informed decision, held at a time when people are struggling to pay bills, loosing businesses (Especially in Vic), loosing houses, and dealing with massive increase in the cost of living.
It was never going to pass.
It was never going to pass.
Soldato
Part of the problem was that the government didn't know what it was.. there was no design or plan on how this would have all worked and been implemented. They stated that the design and the political changes would be decided AFTER the referendum was passed.
So you are voting on something that changes the constitution,. without knowing what the details are.
There are a LOT of comments in this thread from people outside the country, who don't have a clue what they're talking about.
So you are voting on something that changes the constitution,. without knowing what the details are.
There are a LOT of comments in this thread from people outside the country, who don't have a clue what they're talking about.