The big problem for me after seeing these is that it seems the government is refusing to give us actual details on what the Voice to Parliament entails. Why are they being so secretive about it and asking us to vote on something that they won’t tell us what it is?
Very possible unfortunately. Not having an answer for basic questions like how many people are appointed, how they’re appointed, and for how long is pathetic.
The cynic in me goes straight to that there’s a reason why they’re not divulging these things and it’s because the yes voters wouldn’t like the answers.
Someone already answered this for you here. I have engaged with you in good faith previously, but it’s becoming increasingly clear you are completely full of shit and are simply attempting to spread doubt and fear.
I’m not a “conservative”. Have literally never voted for the LNP. I’ve voted for the greens more than I’ve voted for Labor in my 20+ years of voting.
Quit with the bullshit accusations.
What you call “answering the questions” is not what I consider an actual answer to the question being asked. The real answer as I know it now is “it’s up to the government post referendum, and can change whenever the government at the time wants”, but those aren’t the “answers” being thrown around.
You’re the person that said unless you’ve had a lived experience that makes you want to vote No, you should vote yes. That’s ridiculous. Automatically assuming it’s a good thing is dumb, though I’m not surprised with your “you’re an undercover conservative running a fud campaign” comment.
Read the responses others have already posted; you’ll find that your asinine bullshit has already been roundly disproved. You’re constantly posting content you know is false. Why?
Cheers for the Conversation article. Even though it’s clearly a “Vote Yes” PR article, it has good information in it.
The issues that I still have with it are that basically we could all vote Yes, have a voice put in the constitution, but then the government at any time can just completely change what the Voice actually entails and how it’s used. With so much handling of it left to the government of the time, it’s very hard to see how it’s not just going to be essentially ignored/reduced every time the LNP get in power for example.
I guess a “Yes” vote is really a vote for “It’s something at least, it’s a start”, which can definitely be a good thing.
Sure, but the way I equate it with is the NBN… sure the LNP NBN is far worse than what was planned, but some NBN is better than no NBN.
Sure, the Voice can be gutted, but there has to be a voice and it has to represent aboriginal people.
It’s not ideal policy, but I definitely don’t want to make the mistake the Greens did with the Carbon Tax… voted against something imperfect (Rudd tax) and now they get nothing as no majors want to touch it after the Gillard debacle.
The benefit of this proposal also makes the Voice flexible and can actually be improved upon, something that couldn’t be done if aspects were rigidly defined by the constitution.
Again, it ain’t perfect policy… but then again perfection is the enemy of good enough.
It would be so much easier if they just said that the Voice was going to adopt the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) or even just blatantly copy their documents.
The big problem for me after seeing these is that it seems the government is refusing to give us actual details on what the Voice to Parliament entails. Why are they being so secretive about it and asking us to vote on something that they won’t tell us what it is?
I don’t think it’s anything nefarious. More like Labor shooting themselves in the foot by running a shit campaign.
Very possible unfortunately. Not having an answer for basic questions like how many people are appointed, how they’re appointed, and for how long is pathetic.
The cynic in me goes straight to that there’s a reason why they’re not divulging these things and it’s because the yes voters wouldn’t like the answers.
More billshit, that assertion has already been directly disproven earlier in this thread. Why are you so committed to posting misinformation?
It was not disproven. If it is then you should be able to answer my questions in the comment you replied to then, right?
How many people are appointed?
How are they appointed?
How long are the terms of appointment?
Someone already answered this for you here. I have engaged with you in good faith previously, but it’s becoming increasingly clear you are completely full of shit and are simply attempting to spread doubt and fear.
I’m not “attemping to spread” anything. I’m undecided on how I’m going to vote and I’m trying to decide.
Why do some of you guys just attribute everything you don’t like to malice?
“Trying to decide”? Let’s review the evidence:
Repeatedly asks the same textbook conservative No campaign questions in every thread.
Refuses to read any of the replies - even when they directly answer the questions being asked.
Openly lies and says no one has answered the questions, even when there is clear evidence to the contrary.
Hmm, I’m gonna go with a [X] Doubt on that one bro.
I’m not a “conservative”. Have literally never voted for the LNP. I’ve voted for the greens more than I’ve voted for Labor in my 20+ years of voting.
Quit with the bullshit accusations.
What you call “answering the questions” is not what I consider an actual answer to the question being asked. The real answer as I know it now is “it’s up to the government post referendum, and can change whenever the government at the time wants”, but those aren’t the “answers” being thrown around.
You’re the person that said unless you’ve had a lived experience that makes you want to vote No, you should vote yes. That’s ridiculous. Automatically assuming it’s a good thing is dumb, though I’m not surprised with your “you’re an undercover conservative running a fud campaign” comment.
Read the responses others have already posted; you’ll find that your asinine bullshit has already been roundly disproved. You’re constantly posting content you know is false. Why?
Just pointing out that this claim has been debunked many times before.
The entire proposed amendment has been published - that is what we are voting on. This Government Resource may be useful
The implementation of the amendment is subject to Parliament and it can be changed by successive governments to suit the needs of their constituents. This article from The Conversation was posted here recently and helped a few people to better understand the amendment
I hope this clears it up a little bit for you. I’m not going to tell you to vote yes or no - just want to make sure you have the facts straight.
Cheers for the Conversation article. Even though it’s clearly a “Vote Yes” PR article, it has good information in it.
The issues that I still have with it are that basically we could all vote Yes, have a voice put in the constitution, but then the government at any time can just completely change what the Voice actually entails and how it’s used. With so much handling of it left to the government of the time, it’s very hard to see how it’s not just going to be essentially ignored/reduced every time the LNP get in power for example.
I guess a “Yes” vote is really a vote for “It’s something at least, it’s a start”, which can definitely be a good thing.
deleted by creator
It’s not, and that’s an issue. It shouldn’t be something that can be gutted by the government to the point of it being irrelevant.
Sure, but the way I equate it with is the NBN… sure the LNP NBN is far worse than what was planned, but some NBN is better than no NBN.
Sure, the Voice can be gutted, but there has to be a voice and it has to represent aboriginal people.
It’s not ideal policy, but I definitely don’t want to make the mistake the Greens did with the Carbon Tax… voted against something imperfect (Rudd tax) and now they get nothing as no majors want to touch it after the Gillard debacle.
The benefit of this proposal also makes the Voice flexible and can actually be improved upon, something that couldn’t be done if aspects were rigidly defined by the constitution.
Again, it ain’t perfect policy… but then again perfection is the enemy of good enough.
It would be so much easier if they just said that the Voice was going to adopt the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) or even just blatantly copy their documents.
Here’s the corporate plan, with its vision statements, purpose, performance measures, timelines, and deliverables.
Here’s the annual report on it’s performance so far.
Here’s the reconciliation action plan.