The government has not shared a draft of the voice model, and says concrete details about how many people sit on it, how they are selected and how the voice would interact with parliament would be decided first through further consultation with Indigenous communities after the referendum, and then changed or amended over time by the parliament of the day.

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.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 5 points 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.

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’re not wrong, but the effectiveness of their opposition would be lessened a fair bit if Labor were smarter about their messaging.

[–] spiffmeister@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You might be right, but when you don't care at all about truth, you can say anything you want. Most claims they're making can be easily fact checked, but they also rely on most people not having the time or the energy to actually read anything in detail.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Right, but my point isn't aimed so much at the people doing the lying, it's at the people they would be lying too. If they have to stretch even further from the known truth, there'll be fewer people buying into the lie.

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Those details can't be locked into the constitution - if they were we'd need a fresh referendum every time a minor detail needs to be changed.

Publicised details that haven't been worked out yet would allow the fear campaign to focus on Labor proposing changes to the constitution that don't line up with what they've said, which would be a disaster for the Yes vote. 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 it will tarnish the LNP. Younger Australians, a 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 never recover from that. The cynic in me wonders of Labor deliberately brought this referendum upon us a little too early. If it fails, they can just repeat it in a few years when there will be more support (if only because a higher percentage of voters will from the generation of Aussies that clearly support The Voice)

[–] NorthofReality@aussie.zone 2 points 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.

[–] Usualdeskfire@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 concerns 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.

[–] Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Posting this for parity as I saw the no fact-check article was also posted.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone -1 points 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 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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 spent two years meeting thousands of indigenous people from all over Australia to discuss the issue. The indigenous nations were inspired by that and got together separately, sending 250 of their delegates (mostly Elders) to Uluru where they had a four day meeting and produced the Uluru Statement from the Heart which includes these two lines:

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 was in power and ignored it. They did nothing at all. For years, they did nothing.

As soon as the Labor party won an election they acted, and here we are, about to vote on a 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 disagree but the overwhelming majority asked for The Voice, so clearly they think it's a good idea.

[–] alex@agora.nop.chat 7 points 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 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the explanation.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think you will get a good answer here, you need to decide that for yourself

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think I answered it pretty well.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

I stand corrected, certainly a very good response

load more comments