• maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ll be voting Yes. If over the coming months we were to find out that somehow the Voice to Parliament will have a negative impact on demands for Treaties, truth telling, sovereignty among other things then I might change my mind but I find that unlikely. Who knows.

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it’s anything nefarious. More like Labor shooting themselves in the foot by running a shit campaign.

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • billytheid@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            More billshit, that assertion has already been directly disproven earlier in this thread. Why are you so committed to posting misinformation?

            • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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?

                • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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?

              • billytheid@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

      • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • morry040@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.