Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, red750 said:

Secret government documents the National Indigenous Australians Agency was forced to release 

That very first line indicates it is BS. The NIAA is not part of the government, so why would it have, or be forced to release them under FOI, and not the relevant government department.

 

The rest is BS because the Voice can't make a decision.. and I hate to break it to everyone, if it would electoral suicide to do it now (which the government can do), it will still be electoral suicide to do it after the voice

 

( @red750 - I know you are just pasting it from whatever news source or feed or email you have received)...

[willedoo]

9 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

The NIAA is not part of the government

It's not part of the executive government. It's an Australian Public Service agency of the Australian Government. It's attached to  the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and answers to the  Minister for Indigenous Australians. Set up by Scotty from Marketing originally.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Yes, agreed. as many other agencies are not part of the executive government. So why would the NIAA have government documents and be requested to hand them over. Most reputable media organisations draw a clear line between them (or at least, did)... The way the first sentence reads is to conjure an impage of the exectuve government, as only they have the capability (and via the legislature) to give effect to any of those claims, so, I would have said in this case it was intentional  rather than sloppy jounalism.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, willedoo said:

I say misinformed because only a percentage of No voters are racist and would vote No to anything to do with Aboriginals. I think the majority of No voters have other reasons behind their vote preference.

I sort of agree, but, I am going to be controversial, and somewhat disagree. It depends what you mean by racist (or any other forms of discrimination). I agree that the bulk of the population are not actively racist in that they don't think how they hate different races, that they refuse to engage with them, that they would deny any particular individual something purely on race. But I am leaning towards passive racism - an almost subconscious reaction based on conditioning and even culture. Some would call it unconscious bias. I am not saying it is the majority, but I am asserting it is larger than a tiny minority.

 

Why am I saying it? Well, because there is a lot of poop flying around the Voice, and most of it on the No camp is misinformation. You couild argue on the Yes camp, that it is fluffy gestures of warmth and what could be that is unproven and has no guarantees as well.. and I would agree with that.

 

But a lot of people I see regurgitate the lies to justify their No. I have a friend based in Melbourne who I would not normally call racist in a million years. However, on linkedin, he is reposting a lot of crap that somone is posting, still claiming a third chamber, that it will have power to make decisions and there are words that have special legal meaning that make it very dangerous. I have pointed him to the retirign Cheif Justive of the High Court, who has spend many years ruling on constitutional questions, but my mate doesn't want a bar of it.

 

It is at least unconscious bias, which is, in this case, a passive form of racism.

 

I am not saying everyone is racist, but I am saying a lot seem to be buying and living the lies - the same way the stolen election lies of Trump have been bought.. and thaty is because they play to the narrative of the people who buy them - it gives them the justification they are looking for...

 

[old man emu]

The method by which a referendum is decided almost makes it a certainty that any referendum will fail. To be successful, the referendum question must be passed by 

1. The Majority of the States, and

2. The  Majority of the voters

 

The Northern Territory and the ACT are not States, so it comes down to WA, SA, Tas, Vic, NSW and Qld.

 

WA, SA, and Tas have small populations, so only a small number of NO votes, compared to the bigger States, is required to knock them out. It had been calculated that that number, combined for the three States is about 1.2 million. When the number of voters in the six States required for a majority is calculated, it comes to about 9 million. The votes of the NT and ACT will be included in that voter total

 

So, the majority of votes of the People are most likely to be Yes, but the decision of the States might be NO. The Amendment is rejected despite the majority of voters wanting it.

 

Have we heard which way Qld will go? Based on old southern prejudices of the "Deep North" one might think it will go NO.

[facthunter]

You NEED Bipartisan agreement to achieve a referendum, HERE. It's  totally politicised. IF it fails, Dutton will be demanding Albanese resign,  even though it was an election promise, and is a plainly ridiculous proposition. People who deliberately create Confusion based on lies are hardly of good intent and should be exposed and fact checked. Like the BS Red just put up. All THAT information has been publicly  available for years, and nothing to do with any FOI request.  Sussan Ley has been running that LIE for the last 6 months. Nev

[spacesailor]

Jerry

Not as '' racist '' as old England ,

Were in the 60s & 70s , were five ' whites ' ( English, Welsh , Hungarian , Polish and a ' white Pakistani .were sacked , to give their job to five

'' Black '' Pakistani's .  ( laboure's )

Then those ' ignoble ' bosses asked the '' Whites to return & train the '' labourers '' .

NO takers for that shiit job.

spacesailor

[spacesailor]

AND NOW !

NO advertising inside '' voting stations '' .

Unless your ABORIGINAL .

 

 

'' When Uncle Valentine Brown, an Indigenous elder, arrived at a polling center in Australia to cast an early vote, he was wearing a t-shirt promoting the Yes campaign in the Voice referendum. However, electoral officials informed him that he could not vote while sporting the shirt. He then reached out to the Australian Electoral Commission, who confirmed that he had not violated any regulations. Armed with this information, Brown returned to the polling center and successfully cast his ballot . ''

 

spacesailor

[octave]

If you are suggesting favouritism to one side, the AEC has clarified that you can wear a yes or no t shirt. They can't stop you but would rather people did not.  This is not a one sided rule.

 

 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/voting-in-a-campaign-t-shirt-the-aec-suggests-you-bring-a-cardigan-20231012-p5ebqf.html

 

"The same rules would apply to anyone wearing No paraphernalia."

 

[octave]

This is an interesting article about the two varieties in the "no" camp.  The conservative "no" and and the progressive "no". 

 

https://theconversation.com/there-are-two-sides-to-the-no-campaign-on-the-voice-who-are-they-and-why-are-they-opposed-to-it-212362

[facthunter]

Double for NO thing. Truth is a NO NO. . Nev

[old man emu]

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

It had been calculated that that number, combined for the three States is about 1.2 million. 

Just an update to correct the numbers as of enrollment on 21 September 2023:

Western Australia    1,826,521

South Australia        1,283,394

Tasmania                    407,018

              TOTAL         3,516,933

If 50% voted NO, then 1,738,467 votes would kill off the States' acceptance.

 

Add one vote to each State to get a majority and you have 3,516,936. That means that it would only take 1,758,468 people to vote "NO" to defeat the YES vote.

 

There are 17,767,347 total voters. That means the minimum number of YES votes to win the popular vote is 8,883,674 + 1

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, spacesailor said:

AND NOW !

NO advertising inside '' voting stations '' .

Unless your ABORIGINAL .

Jeepers, Spacey, you really will clutch any straw to justify your position... Octave beat me to it, but there is no discrimination of electoral laws between the Yes and No camp.

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, octave said:

This is an interesting article about the two varieties in the "no" camp.  The conservative "no" and and the progressive "no". 

 

https://theconversation.com/there-are-two-sides-to-the-no-campaign-on-the-voice-who-are-they-and-why-are-they-opposed-to-it-212362

And this is why I consider the conservative No camp the divisive.. They base virtually their whole argument on lies, knowing that many, if not most of the population will clutch straws rather than perform the simplest validation. I also think some of the Yes stuff is tenuous, but in a much more technical sense - for example, claiming The Voice will lead to better outcomes.. I don't think that is a given.

 

But the "progressive" No camp does not appear (to me) to be divisive. They are basing their argument on the fact that they don't believe the Voice goes far enough to ensure better outcomes, and they want constitutional change to go further. Whilst I don't agree that it is a reason to vote No, their position is a matter of fact and not in itself deceitful and disingenuous. You can have a decent debate with them on the merits on something real.

 

With the conservative No camp, it really is Trumpism coming to Australia. I don't recall anyone on here really supporting Trumpism in America, but for some reason, a few are taking the bait when it comes to the Voice.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[willedoo]

Re: Trumpism coming to Australia. Our old mate Muddoch is responsible for a lot of it. I don't see him as using his wealth, power and media influence to push his own view of politics. With him I think it's all about money. There's a huge market for the tripe he pushes. His web based news outlets rely on clickbait headlines to rope the punters in. Once the article is opened, the reader can see the headline has little relevance to the article, but by then it's another view which keeps the advertisers on the hook.

 

TV is no different. Sky News is just the TV version of the Web's clickbait. Again, there's an audience for that stuff, and more viewers, bigger ratings = more sponsors/advertisers = more cash for Rupert's empire. He couldn't give two hoots about the views and opinions of his readers/viewers and is just jerking their chain. The more he jerks their chain, the more the paranoid and gullible lap it up and the more money he makes. He found a lucrative niche in the market and went for it. That's all there is to Rupert; it's nothing complicated. Trumpism is money.

[pmccarthy]

A referendum cannot fail. There is no success or failure. A referendum is put to determine what the people want.

[spacesailor]

If that " referendum " does not achieve it's objective then !

It FAILED. 

To be passed into " constitution law " .

( hopefully)

spacesailor

[old man emu]

Here's an interesting possability arising from the current referendum process. The divisiveness that has been generated may result in Parliament never again putting a constitutional amendment to the electorate unless all sides within the Parliament support the aims of the amendment. I didn't think of that. It is the opinion of a Professor of Law who was involved in advising the Government on the wording of the amendment.

 

Basically you can say that the Dutton's antics have stolen a democratic right from the people. A lot of it comes down to what the opposition does when a referendum is called, not the government. If an opposition decides to oppose a referendum, then history shows it pretty much sinks it. Only referendums with bipartisan support have ever passed.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

51 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Basically you can say that the Dutton's antics have stolen a democratic right from the people. A lot of it comes down to what the opposition does when a referendum is called, not the government. If an opposition decides to oppose a referendum, then history shows it pretty much sinks it. Only referendums with bipartisan support have ever passed.

I largely agree with your post, but I don't believe Dutton and his mob have stolen the democratic right from people. Anyone living in Australia has a free mind, and a free vote. They can choose to swallow any side of any divide, or they can choose to lift the bonnet and take a bit of a peek. Not that it matters, but I don't begrudge anyone for voting No - it is their absolute right to vote how they want.

 

Again, not that it matters, but I do begrudge Dutton and his mob. Not for taking a stand to oppose the referendum - that is his absolute right, too. But to invent and propagate BS; and of course, for the predominantly Murcdoch media to amplify it, reveals a cancer on our democracy that is very hard to cut out without taking the patient with it.

 

But there was a glimmer of hope - and I begrudge Albo for not taking it - the bill to make intentionally lying in political advertising illegal. It does not attack freedom of speech - but it does intorduce accountability for misuse of that freedom.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

but I don't believe Dutton and his mob have stolen the democratic right from people.

What I said was a bit rhetorical and a bit prophetic. Rhetorical clickbait, but also an interpretation of current events.

 

What I meant was that Dutton has sown the seeds of the idea that unless a great majority (say, 80%+) of parliamentarians agree that an amendment would be beneficial, then whatever the question to be put to the people, those in the parliament opposing it will do everything, including using deceit, to promote an opposing vote. Therefore, the proposers of the amendment, however worthwhile it is, would not press on, believing the cause is already lost.

 

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I begrudge Albo for not taking it - the bill to make intentionally lying in political advertising illegal.

Does make a mockery of Labor's support for an anti-corruption body. If it is corrupt to do the wrong thing when employed by the Federal Government in any occupation from privy cleaner to Privy Counsellor, then it must also be corrupt to lie one's way into parliament.

[spacesailor]

" lift the bonnet & take a peek " .

BUT, NOT UNTILL IT IS PASSED

That's what we're told .

SO

If you don't know vote NO .

( it's a good catchphrase )

spacesailor

 

[red750]

Jerry, you've seen all the documents, have you? You've seen what's in them? Or are you taking what YOU'VE been told as gospel?

[Columbo]

Whilst it's easy to blame Dutton for many things, I'm not sure what effect if all he had on the referendum. Personally if this fails then the blame has to go to the Prime Minister.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Again, welcome to the forums, @Columbo

 

I think you're on the mark, and I too would blame Albo for what I would consider a defeat of the referendum. As I mentioned above, it is sad that there are so many of us that will just swallow whatever sits on the divide of whatever issue it is without peeking under the bonnet.  But Albo has been in politics long enough to know that, and that blood rush to the head on election night was its downfall. There has never been a referendum win  (i.e. resulting in a change to the constitution) without bi-partisan support that I know of,  anyway.

 

But, Dutton knows this as well, so in a way, I am angry at him for not playing fair. But anyone who thought he would had their head buried deeply in the sand...

 

2 hours ago, red750 said:

Jerry, you've seen all the documents, have you? You've seen what's in them? Or are you taking what YOU'VE been told as gospel?

What documents are you referring to? The No case in the referndum pamphlett - yes.. and all of their case has been verifiably debunked - even SMH/The Age, not exactly friends of a progressive agenda, are calling it out. Are you talking about the 20-odd pages claimed to have been the voice (again the BS amplified by Murdoch media) - freely availkable on the Voice website where you can see it is mainly notes.

 

Or maybe your referning the open letter from consitutional lawyers to dispell the BS (not taking sides...):  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-06/open-letter-constitutional-law-university-voice-to-parliament/102937352

 

Or mayube you're talking about the ANU's response to concerns of the Voice: https://www.anu.edu.au/files/corporate_message/Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice-FINAL-PRINT.pdf

 

Or maybe your referring to some of the verbal BS like the wording of the change to the consitution had some magic voodoo legal meaning.. Maybe you should watch this:

 

 

I don't know abnout you, but I would consider the cheif justice if the highest court in the country better placed to offer expert opinion than you or me. But I could be wrong..

 

Oh, and i Have read various flyers and posts of the No mob..

 

Out of interest, what documents have you read?

[Marty_d]

I have only received 2 flyers in the letterbox, and they're both from the No side. All these claims that the Yes side has more money and more advertising are, in my sample of 1 suburb at least, unproven. 

 

I'm heading out today to vote YES, but in the sad knowledge (If the polls are right) that it won't get up, and the true voices of division - the No camp - will most likely have their way. 

And if that's the case I can no longer laugh at Americans for electing Trump, as our people are no wiser.