My local radio presented some back-data on earlier Referenda held in Australia since earliest days. Of note were these snippets:-
1. There have been 44 Referenda since Federation. Of those, only 8 have passed successfully. Every one of those 8 had bi-partisan support.
2. Back in 1967 a referendum passed with over 90% affirmative re acknowledging Aboriginals as citizens.
3. In the recent plebiscite (similar to a referendum, but not mandatory to vote) re “Same sex marriage” over 60% were in favour.
4. And this year will be “the Voice” referendum, to be held later in the year.
Of particular interest re those mentioned in 2 and 3 were these comments:-
“In each case, the question put was simple. The more complex the referendum question(s), the more likely it is to fail.”
And THIS comment rang especially true for me – “Had the Same sex marriage plebiscite been a two-part question, the second part may well have read thus….
“Do you agree that the LGBTQI+ community should have (enshrined in the Constitution) a voice in Parliament to provide guidance and even veto powers re law-making involving their needs?”
Had that occurred, what is the likelihood that the same-sex plebiscite may have failed? I say quite likely !! Following on from that, what chance the Aboriginal Voice referendum? Hmmm? Keep it simple and transparent and there may be a good chance of success. In its present form, good luck !!
The current “Don’t worry about the details, but please vote Yes” monologue promotes doubt, confusion, and (frankly) scepticism. And, as one prominent Australian said a few weeks back “The Constitution should be for ALL Australians – having articles within it that favour one Australian over another should NEVER take place.”
That does it for me. NO, at least for now….
StevenParticipant@steven1982Join Date: 2017Post Count: 189
- This topic was modified 7 months, 3 weeks ago by Benny. Reason: A wee adjustment and addition
I don’t like how they are broadcasting loudly on this “voice” topic in main stream media every single day, and it makes headlines in news every single day and yet there is so damn little information on.
I was watching SBC news the other day where the journalists interviewed some remote aboriginal leaders and those aboriginal leaders said directly to the camera: Tell is what it means.
Pretty much sums up my thoughts…. there is very little explanation what it is and if someone asks me to explain what the “voice” is all about… then my reply would be “I have no f@#$ idea”.
So I cannot convince myself to vote “yes” to something that I do not understand.
Tonight’s the night, Josephine !!! We’ll know the result then… if we don’t already know, that is (nudge, nudge….).
The main question is “What’s next?”
If you’ll pardon my levity, the result came as “No” surprise !!! Many of the Yes protagonists are blaming it on the No voters (saying they are racist and other such nonsense). In fact, the Referundum contained so little detail as to be almost a blank cheque that our PM wanted us to sign. And now he is surprised we said no? Says a lot about him frankly.
Anyway, there is work to do, and it can proceed without the red herring of a Referundum to slow it down. Let’s start with an audit of the generous funding provided yearly to assist indigenous peoples. Someone is getting the largesse, but is it the right people? That’s where work needs to be done.
And as for a voice, isn’t that what NIAA is meant to be? I also heard we have 11 indigenous MP’s – their voices carry some weight. We didn’t need a voice in the Constitution, surely.