I will be voting with a firm NO!  The whole thing is a monstrosity, in addition they are going to set back recognition years if not decades. I think this is a clear example of overreach. The public mood was sympathetic to the concept of a Voice, which around 80% public support. The proponents got greedy and saw it as an opportunity to expand the Voice's scope, to not only one of influencing indigenous affairs but one with practically no limits. The public was awaken to the trojan horse and public support has withered, and now Voice proponents are quickly backtracking and spreading their disinformation campaign, that the voice will be small in scope and practice.
It doesn't matter how sincere the Voice architects are working with governments, at some point they will be swept aside and it would be hijacked by people like Lidia Thorpe, who will make all kinds of crazy wild demands and when governments fail to enact it they will clog up the high court.

Im with you. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. 

If you want to end racism, you have to stop treating people differently based on their race.

I know right. Men can even have babies, and children can have their balls removed. Total insanity.

it will not change my life one iota so I could not care less what the vote is - my choice would be on if it made someone else's life better. 

Voice archtiect Mr Mayo, said a “Blak rep body” enshrined in the Constitution — as called for in the Uluru Statement — would have the “resources and structure needed to unite on the priorities we collectively determine”.

“Reparations, land back, abolishing harmful colonial institutions, getting ALL our kids out of prisons and into care, respect and integration of our laws and lore, speaking language, wages back — all the things we imagine when we demand,” he wrote.

You're right it won't affect your life one iota. :laugh:

A native representational body will not change my life at all. So yes it will not change one iota 

Yes it will change your life. It may change it a little bit, or a lot. We don't know. I suspect the latter. But it will definitely change it. Your head in your ass if you think it wont. Just like female representative body change your life. Climate representative body change your life. Workers representative body change your life. Sometimes the change is direct and obvious, sometime it is not, but it will definitely 100% change your life.

Unrelated but how about this.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/sustainability/canning-river-tree-planting-halted-after-aboriginal-corporation-demands-25-million/news-story/5714acecd1d6fe530af16272ff9b206c

https://twitter.com/7NewsPerth/status/1680521323674763264?s=20

NO

The Voice will make a big difference to Aboriginals' lives.

For The Voice to be enshrined in the constitution means it is  permanent  fixture. Various other bodies have been cancelled with a stroke of a pen by governments. If The Voice is enshrined in the constitution it can't be annulled.

The Voice is a direct advisory body from grass roots Indigenous peoples to the Federal government of the day. If any government ignores the advice on an issue, it becomes an election issue at the next subsequent federal election.

Why The Voice?

Aboriginals have struggled in education and health. The Voice hopes to achieve solutions  for Indigenous peoples to close the gap - directly from First Nations groups.
There are too many Indigenous Australians in jails. First Nations comprise 3% of the population, yet there are much higher percentages who are incarcerated. There will be a move for young offenders to be counselled and mentored by Elders to prevent reoffending.

From the Uluru Statement from the Heart, 250 Aboriginal groups attended. The Voice to Parliament was conceived by this group.

82% of Indigenous Australian  support Yes for The Voice.  In my home state of Tasmania, it is even higher 86% for Yes. A minority want a Treaty first.

I'm very involved in the Yes 23 Campaign. I've done heaps of door knocking, attended rallies/marches and participated in car honking/wobbleboarding/placard waving actions with Yes corflutes on busy traffic intersections.  

Knocking doors the Baby Boomers (my age) tend to be totally inflexible. They've already up their mind Yes or No and the majority  can't be changed. Ditto the Silent Generation - an older generation again.

The under 50s,  Generation X (40 and over) and the younger Millennials, are far keener to be informed, engage and listen. I've persuaded heaps to vote Yes on October 14th. Ditto many of my fellow door knockers.

In Tasmania we are killing it on the doors. Most of the  time, it is about 66% to 34% in favour of Yes. Possibly 70% per Yes at times. Particularly after a conversation. This is collated directly from circa 10 000 voters door knocked in the 5 Tassie federal electorates across the state.

Speaking to the national and state coordinators for Yes 23, the door knocking figures across Aus are much better than most of the mass media is reporting. Even our local ABC TV is reporting inaccurately. The Guardian seems to be belatedly pushing the Yes case in the last few weeks. Of course the media   doesn't have access to the direct door knocking info. At best they'd ring people at home. They are low sample sizes too.

Also, from the Yes Wobbleboarding events, there has been an overwhelming support for Yes. Cars honk or wave for support. Every hour we've had about a total of 10 -15 yell abuse or give thumbs down, but that is a tiny minority. We receive hundreds of honks or waves of support in the same period.

There are at least 30 000 - 40 000 volunteers  campaigning for Yes too. A significant number are battle hardened, very experienced political activists, like me, used to working together in protracted political  campaigns. The Noalition is struggling to get any volunteers on the ground. In the next few weeks, those doors knocked, and to a lesser extent, phones rung, will  increase support for Yes.

The Labor Party and the powerful union movement are working flat out on supporting Yes. The Greens are joining in too. Even the Tas Liberal Government supports Yes, plus the Jacqui Lambie Network. Most of my climate activist/environmental comrades are campaigning  too. Ditto the political activists in civil liberties movements. most of the migrant groups are supporting Yes as well. Not to mention a growing number of businesses.

 The churches and NGOs ( ACOSS) are also onside. They don't provide thousands of trained activists, but they provide a lot of moral authority in the media.  

Jacinta Price and Mundine from the Libs, plus Dutton,  and Lydia Thorpe, have had disproportionate media coverage to date for No, but the thousands of Yes 23 volunteers will be making inroads into public opinion  from now until the referendum on October 14th. 

.

The fear is that is that the "advisory body" is, in effect, as you admitted, not just advice. The definition of "advice" is that the receiver can take it or leave it. But something that comes with the threat that, "If you ignore our ADVICE, we're going to force you be judged by this in an election". That's not advice. That is a powerful demand that falsely masquerades as advice. That is the biggest concern, that this so-called advisory body is not that. It is an advisory body in name only. In reality, it is giving enormous power to a segment of Australians entirely based on the colour of their skin, or the DNA of their heritage.

Calling it "advice" is just PR spin to try to fool the masses - because it has a lot more clout and power than mere advice. You yourself are telling us it is more than "advice". (If you know that, then you are intentionally trying to dupe people. If you cannot see that, then you are duped).

You yourself said that this so-called advice will come with the power to force a government, that ignores it, to become an election issue. Hence, the danger is that this "advisory body" can become inhabited by people with extreme views.

There will be people too scared to go against "the advice" of the council for fear of being called racist.

I ask you a direct two-part question - and if you cannot give me a straight yes/no answer, then you should stop attempting to influence people with rubbery arguments. The question is, if the "advisory body" becomes inhabited by extreme activists, and they so-called "advise" the government:
(a) to acknowledge that all land owned by other Australians is actually wrong-fully acquired, and that henceforth all land titles should list the original owners of the land as the rightful property owners, and
(b) that all Australians who live on a piece of property (i.e. all of us) have to pay a perpetual tax to the original land owners

my question is - and please answer yes/no -- are you prepared to pay a perpetual, annual or monthly tax -- And not just a fizzer percentage like Medicare - but something like akin to a rental amount owing to a landlord ... are you willing to abide with that?

You say this can never happen? But you, with your own words, acknowledge that if any government ignores the council's "advice" - then it will be forced to reckon with at an election. And if any government refuses, you can see they would be branded racist for going against the council.

What about what's happening in California, where Democrats are bringing in legislation so that everyone with African-American DNA gets $1million. (Do a search for - democrats California reparations million).

Remember, activists often don't just propose "reasonable" legislation. It is extremely common for extreme activist politicians to submit Bills where they know there's no chance of getting it through, but they do it to gain publicity and/or to make a point. Imagine if those activist get the power of the Australian Constitution where a Federal Government would not dare oppose it, for fear - as you said - that it would be forced to an election on that issue, or seen as racist.

I am a migrant to Australia, and I know hundreds of migrants, many Asian migrants. We migrants want a country where all people are equal, no matter the colour of their skin or their ancestry.

It is telling that the younger generation - who support the Voice - no longer advocate Martin Luther King's dream - and what they do is re-interpret it -- his dream: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today."

Tell that MLK dream to many young people, and they will attack it, saying it doesn't mean what it says.

This is my final point to you: that the trait of human is to go from one extreme to the other. Yes, Australia's history was that it was once stacked in favour of white-skinned people. Somewhere in the 1990's I felt that the pendulum had come to centre, where Australians truly were getting colour-blind.

But what has happened in the past two decades is that activists are now swinging the pendulum to the other extreme, where it is being stacked against white-skinned people. And we see this activism particularly in the U.S. with the Democrats.

This is truth: that if person-A does something against person-B that is racist, then if person-B does it to person-C that is equally racist. Every race is capable of racism. Racism against blacks is racism. Racism against whites is racism.

Whereas, I spoke to a young person, and they are being taught at Australian universities that black people are incapable of being racist. That's rot. I've lived in Asia, and Asian people tell me of Asians being racist to other Asian races. Racisms is not limited to a certain race. The core of racism is the capacity for evil in every human heart. If we think that only whites can be racist, then that blindness will guarantee racism being imprinted again in Australian politics, except under a different guise.

I submit that you, by your arguments, are bringing the pendulum, away from centre, towards the other extreme.

X2 

This is a lot to respond to, JS.

The good news for my side of Yes 23, is I can  strongly surmise that you aren't part of the Noalition knocking on doors, phone banking, Wobbleboarding, or letter boxing (not as effective) to actively persuade voters how to vote given the aforementioned info.  The Noalition can't galvanise people to be active and support the No case, because it is based on fear and cynicism. Hence, fear mongers and cynicism  comprise  No's support base.

 So in effect, you are having  no influence on the election. The Noalition is relying on money from the likes of Advance Australia to advance their arguments to the public. 

The Yes 23 team has 40 000  volunteers across the country. Even in Hobart it has exceeded 1000  - and is increasing fast.

The arguments you use have been borrowed by the Noalition from the Trumpian right wing  propaganda groups.  There is no way farmers are being targeted to have  land right claims placed on their land. 

The premise for the Uluru Statement is predicated on the fact there is a massive gap between First Nations, and other Aussies in education,  and health outcomes.

Also, incarceration is more likely to  occur to an Indigenous person than pursuing tertiary education. The Voice will advocate tribal elders to mentor  young potential offenders, or recidivist offenders. 

.

There are 250 groups who have signed the Uluru Statement.

 Like other organisations, including  the current Liberal Party, which has been taken over by religious extremists, any organisation can potentially be subject to takeovers. The former small L liberal leaders, John Hewson, Mal Turnbull, Andrew Peacock, etc, feel they've lost their party to the religious right, led by the likes of Dutton, Morrison and Abbott.

I doubt it.

The current Liberals, under Dutton, had launched attacks falsely  on fabricated  African gangs. This is totally irresponsible. It was done for expedient reasons - which backfired. They lost the election!

Any government which repudiates advice from The Voice, should be able to  prepare a cogent argument for the position they've taken.  The government of the day   should have an adequate amount of time to prepare a defence  case to be prepared before any subsequent  election after the ignored advice. 

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Conservatives use   similar arguments prior to any plebiscite or referendum - gay marriage or the republic referendum in 1999.

There are only 3 - 4% of the Aus population who are Aboriginal.

The Voice is the first stage before any Treaty.

Ludicrous!

What the Plebiscite has done by legalising gay marriage,  has stopped  the persecution  of a large swathe of the population.

I'm as heterosexual as they come, but  one can't  help who they fall in love with.

First Nations have been greatly disadvantaged based on outcomes.

The Voice is an attempt to close the gap.

 

For which reasons are you voting No, LFC?

Lydia Thorpe is campaigning for No.

He's taking the piss. You've misread what he said.

I might have misread your previous post!

Looks like you are Yes then.

There are some amazing stories on the doors. People stating they  intend to do what one wouldn't expect.

The numbers are still looking good in Southern Tas on the doors and wobbleboarding at busy traffic intersections. Overall the state is looking good for over 20 000 doors knocked. One might get 2 out of 3 home in public housing unit blocks, but on suburban streets the average is 1 out of 3, or 4, voters at home.

I had my worst day doorknocking  a few days ago with 60% or a ratio of 3:2 favouring Yes (after convincing a few householders) and 40% intending to vote No. Most days it is a ratio of 3:1 or 2:1 in favour of Yes.

The state Yes 23 leaders are still compiling favourable stats.

Every house we knock we record the responses -

Yes,  Undecided or No;  

the address;

age;

 and gender of the voter.

Then they go into a state data base. Finally,  they are entered into a national data base.

I'm gobsmacked at the media's polls. The Guardian has started backing the Yes Campaign, so I assume that their  data used in articles taken from polling companies   are accurate, even though the methodology may be dodgy. However, the reputable Australia Institute, which I've had bit to do with, is ostensibly getting a majority of No which surprises me. Aus Inst is a progressive organisation.

In the second last  federal election when Scomo won, the polls were wrong. One of the  differences is  as doorknockers we persuade a lot of undecided overs to vote Yes when we  record stats at the end of each door knocked.

Many in the Yes 23 campaign are really vexed by the local ABC TV and SBS TV reporting. We think it is biased towards the No campaign.  I don't  even look at Rupert's media, but undoubtedly it will be supporting No. Although they surprisingly gave positive coverage for a local  Yes campaign launch.

If Yes doesn't get up I've never seen such a coalition of progressive forces working together as cohesively - Labor Party, union movement, Greens, Lambie Network,  climate and environmental activists, plus  civil liberties movement. These tend to be politically active.

There has also been support from churches, NGOs and business. However, these groups don't provide campaigners, but moral authority and money. Having said this, the  most seasoned political  activists knock doors, but often 70% won't.  Personally, I least favour phone banking!

The Indigenous leaders are overwhelmed with the support from non-indigenous  Aussies. They are also blown out by the enormous crowds in the Yes Walks last weekend. We got 5000 - 8000 in Hobart, which is large per capita head of population. There are only 3% of Indigenous Aussies. The Indigenous leaders addressing rallies have often been reduced to tears seeing so many Aussies  outside First Nations supporting them.

So rather than federal and state funded health and social housing programs targeted at rectifying the imbalance of some of these "outcomes"  you support an ambiguous "voice" to parliament for a very small minority of population, whose purpose is to represent Australian citizens who are somehow different than other Australia citizens because of their race? Or is it their colour, or maybe religion?

Everyone wants to help the least fortunate amongst us Decentric (at least those with a heart and conscious do) but Im afraid your referendum will fail simply because we are a progressive society and, mostly, see past the racist garbage of the past....  If the question on the ballot paper was more along the lines of "Do you agree to increase funding on health and housing programs and, crisis centres to combat alcoholism and child abuse issues affecting disadvantaged indigenous people: the answer would have been a resounding YES.... A bunch of doo-gooders telling us that they see "Indegenous Australians" as a different type of Australian is morally reprehensible... Huge NO vote from me. 

Great work being done collecting people's political's preferences and entering into a  database....  Cant decide if your' lot are preparing for Stalin's Great Terror or Khrystallnacht.... 

Think this is the first time Ive agreed with you Roosty..... 

In our churches, it is virtually 100% voting NO.

This video explains how to look past the propaganda-speak, and look to the basic core principles why some Christians will be voting NO.

When you click the link, it comes up with a Facebook login screen - but you don't have to log in. Just click the x to dismiss the login screen.

https://www.facebook.com/aussienewstonight/videos/1707463453104045/

The video is entitled, "A compelling Argument for the NO VOTE, and how the Government is attempting to deceive the Australian People by wording the.."

Even though the Noalition has argued the Voice is nebulous and not specific, they use the same tactics the conservatives have over any past plebiscite or referendum.

Once The Voice is enshrined in the Constitution, the shape of it can evolve from there. It is simply an advisory body.

I was reading in the New Daily yesterday the No campaign has employed an American  company who have campaigned a lot for Trump, whose name I can't remember, to  devise strategies for  the No campaign.

In terms of being a progressive society, many of my Indigenous  comrades I've met through the Yes 23 Campaign,  claim they suffer inadvertent racism all the time - still. There is also supposedly a differential depending on which part of Australia one lives in terms of latent and blatant  racism.

The fact that you intend do vote No augurs poorly for the Yes campaign succeeding.  Given your previous posts over the years, I would have predicted you would vote Yes.

 It shows that the Trumpian  company's tactics  is indoctrinating Aussies successfully.

My main hope is on the doors, and the Pre- Poll booths, in the last 3 weeks until October 14th. There will be a plethora of Yes volunteers on Pre - Poll booths  for the early voters and voters on the day booths. Many won't  take up their mind until walking into the booths. Yes 23 has decidedly more volunteers than the likes of Advance Australia and the Noalition.  We will have more volunteers trying gto preside voters to vote Yes on the booths.

More and more Liberal MPs are supporting Yes. 

Many volunteers won't door knock, which has a  significant  impact. I've persuaded heaps of vacillating voters  to vote Yes knocking doors.

  It isn't 'white do-gooders' who've conceived The Voice. Many of us are supporting, and acting on, what over 80% of First Nations want. The First Nations conceived The Voice at the Uluru Statement of the Heart.