Carlton Supporters Club

The Lidia Thorpe resignation has me thinking that there will be a number of issues that will crop up in the discussion of the up coming referendum.
Rather than getting mixed up with other topics in the "General Discussion" thread it probably deserves a thread of it's own

I'd suspect the majority of indigenous people support the proposal but there is some dissent.
Some like Thorpe want to see a Treaty first, others would prefer that issues of disadvantage should take precedence....to me, these all seem interconnected.

The problem with referendums though is that they are often lost in the fog.
If they are too vague they don't succeed.
Often it's the opponents who create that fog, but the job of the proposers is to keep it simple.

Thorpe is one of those who seems disingenuous when it comes to seeking resolution.

To some she comes across as a sort of treasure hunter, like she has she found a profitable political movement to attached her name to, a bit like Winston Peters across the ditch. They profit more from conflict not resolution, so they tend to cause issues rather than solve them!

Thorpe looks like she is happy enough to profit off the back of society's misery!

Thorpe looks like she is happy enough to profit off the back of society's misery!

Too true

My question is why do we need a referendum for this, its the right thing to do, just bloody well do it.

I don't think this 'Voice' will improve aboriginal lives one iota.
It will not improve indigenous education outcomes.
It will not get alcohol out of indigenous affairs.
It will not make indigenous families more stable.
It won't improve indigenous chances of getting a job.
It won't improve anything but to allow the politically active few to get higher profiles.
I can't see why people would waste their time on something like this. There are a lot of problems, but an extra talk fest isn't going to provide money, train people or anything else constructive.

There are models for the 'Voice' to look at: a number of Scandinavian states and Canada have similar things. Not one of them has actually made a significant difference for the native people involved. What they have done is try to gather more power unto themselves, so they can veto decisions made by their governments. They are trying to become another form of government for the states involved.
The ABC showed a number of these in action in 'Foreign Correspondent' episodes over the last couple of years. Not one has improved the life of the native people they supposedly represent by any measure they could show. But they have been involved in actions to stop developments, particularly of green energy sources (Norway's Sami Parliament, for example is trying to stymie government investment in the far north in the 'green energy' systems the Norwegian state is desperate to produce.)
If these are the models our indigenous people are looking at, then they are wasting a lot of time and money.

We need, as a nation, to improve the lot of our indigenous people. But I don't think this is a good way of doing it.

The Voice is far more about recognition than it is about legislative influence. 

You are probably right, Crash - in itself, it won't change too many things.  The problems you mention are so big that trying to tackle them will be a monumental task.  For years now, successive governments have implemented programs to address these issues, with limited success.  The one common thread to these programs has been the Indigenous people being told what is best for them. 

I think the Voice will be the first step in a long process.  Many Aboriginal leaders have suggested that if this first step was to fall over, the whole process is doomed, that change will never be possible. 

Opponents to Referenda spend much of their time scaremongering about what will happen if the change is implemented - in this case I think it is more imperative that we appreciate the consequences if the referendum fails.

Thorpe is one of those who seems disingenuous when it comes to seeking resolution.

To some she comes across as a sort of treasure hunter, like she has she found a profitable political movement to attached her name to, a bit like Winston Peters across the ditch. They profit more from conflict not resolution, so they tend to cause issues rather than solve them!

Thorpe looks like she is happy enough to profit off the back of society's misery!

No, LP, you've misread Thorpe completely (and Winston Peters for that matter).

Lidia is one of a small but significant group of Indigenous Australians who believe that sovereignty was never conceded, and there's quite a solid argument to back up their argument.  For them, accepting the Voice would mean conceding sovereignty so a treaty has to come first.

I have spent far too long debating their beliefs and it's clear to me that it's an entrenched cross-generational philosophical position that is unlikely to change.  It's not about profit and there's probably no coherent plan or shared vision of what a resolution would look like.  That puts them at odds with more pragmatic folk who are more concerned about addressing disadvantage.  That's not to say that Thorpe and her compatriots aren't about addressing disadvantage, they just see a different way to bring about change.

I'm gobsmacked that the Greens couldn't see that Thorpe's philosophical position would conflict with the party's policies.  I guess that they felt that the advantage to be gained from having an Indigenous senator was worth the risk but it has exposed them for the rabble they are.

Interestingly, the two Indigenous politicians openly opposed to the Voice are from opposite sides of the political divide.  For many Australians, the idea that Indigenous Australians reflect the broader population in their political views is quite novel and different Indigenous views about the Voice is perplexing. 

As for Winston Peters, he's one of the most pragmatic yet principled politicians going around. 

No, LP, you've misread Thorpe completely (and Winston Peters for that matter).

Lidia is one of a small but significant group of Indigenous Australians who believe that sovereignty was never conceded, and there's quite a solid argument to back up their argument.  For them, accepting the Voice would mean conceding sovereignty so a treaty has to come first.

I think you have confused her ability to identify a profitable cause with having genuine interest in it.

I have spent many years travelling to and working in NZ, and I've seen Peters up close and I can identify the very same actions in Thorpe. Remove the money and fame from the issue, and just like Peters you will find Thorpe evaporates, the issue becomes something for subordinates to deal with. Leaving behind a trail of shattered little people who thought they might actually get some help.

You think it was some great philosophical insight that prompted Thorpe's altruistic move, while I pretty sure without the financial windfall the switch would never have happened. I pretty sure that many taxpayers, philanthropists and benefactors who sponsored Thorpe's green ticket aren't feeling the love today, they would almost feel defrauded!

I think you have confused her ability to identify a profitable cause with having genuine interest in it.

I have spent many years travelling to and working in NZ, and I've seen Peters up close and I can identify the very same actions in Thorpe. Remove the money and fame from the issue, and just like Peters you will find Thorpe evaporates, the issue becomes something for subordinates to deal with. Leaving behind a trail of shattered little people who thought they might actually get some help.

You think it was some great philosophical insight that prompted Thorpe's altruistic move, while I pretty sure without the financial windfall the switch would never have happened. I pretty sure that many taxpayers, philanthropists and benefactors who sponsored Thorpe's green ticket aren't feeling the love today, they would almost feel defrauded!

Of course you’re right LP, no-one ever does anything for a cause or principles. It always has to be for financial gain.  Knowing the Thorpes for over 40 years and listening to them espouse their beliefs obviously blinded me to their real motivation 🙄

Lidia dumping the Greens smacks of impropriety but Blind Freddy could see that it was going to happen.

Peters has been Deputy PM (twice), Treasurer, and Foreign Minister over his long parliamentary career.  He is a member of the establishment and comfortable with government and parliamentary conventions.  Thorpe is a very different kettle of fish and the only thing they have in common is being guided by strong beliefs.

I’m starting to come around to this point of view.

My question is why do we need a referendum for this, its the right thing to do, just bloody well do it.

Just do it!
We don’t need a referendum.
Just set it up in consultation with indigenous leaders. That’s a uniting process.

I think the Voice will be the first step in a long process.  Many Aboriginal leaders have suggested that if this first step was to fall over, the whole process is doomed, that change will never be possible. 

Opponents to Referenda spend much of their time scaremongering about what will happen if the change is implemented - in this case I think it is more imperative that we appreciate the consequences if the referendum fails.

Yep.
Let’s look ahead to possible results. If it’s an overwhelming ‘Yes’ vote to the Voice, say 80% to 20%, we’ll have no real issues. Much as with the same -sex marriage vote. Just on stated positions you would expect some resistance, but the people will have spoken.

But if it’s a 60% to 40%, a 50-50 result or the referendum is defeated the people will also have spoken but it will leave a pretty divided nation. For the indigenous people a loss will mean there will be sadness, but also a lot of anger and frustration.

The argument against legislation v referendum is that... ‘down the track a future government can just overturn such legislation.’
No they won’t.
If the process is working well, and advancing and helping with indigenous issues a government won’t scrap it. They may modify it, but unless the structure is clearly set out and voted on in the refererendum (and it won't be) that's open to future governments anyway.
If some non-indigenous people, who at the moment are feeling a bit uncertain, can see that it doesn’t really impact there will be few complaints and no pressure on a government to repeal it.
I suspect overturning the Voice will be very low on the list of priorities of any future government.

Use the money set aside for the referendum to establish the Voice and divert the remaining money into indigenous programs.

Of course you’re right LP, no-one ever does anything for a cause or principles. It always has to be for financial gain.  Knowing the Thorpes for over 40 years and listening to them espouse their beliefs obviously blinded me to their real motivation 🙄

There are plenty of people to act on principles and demonstrate it, I have no issue with them so I don't have to discuss them, they are numerous I suppose because they are the vast majority of society so they blend into the background of public affairs.

It's the one's who seemingly act in a way that is less than genuine that get discussed the most, so perhaps if you are that close you best give Thorpe some friendly advice then on how not to burn good will by appearing disingenuous.

As an aside, there have been several suburban councillors replaced / removed over the last few months, having been elected on false pretences or hidden agendas that were latterly exposed. We don't blink about that, we accept that is their fate and resigning or falling on their own sword is the right thing to do, so why is it different for an Indigenous Senator?

The right thing to do for Thorpe is to resign and run at the next election under her new banner.

I’m starting to come around to this point of view.

Just do it!
We don’t need a referendum.
Just set it up in consultation with indigenous leaders. That’s a uniting process.

I think its so those in charge don't lose 'votes' by people who may oppose.
If it goes to a vote, those in charge have no blood on their hands.
If they just did it, they would.....in some peoples eyes.

Those fear mongering are only able to sustain their argument because it's contains an element of potential truth, even in the absence of intent those doubts remain.

If those for and against amend their position to remove the ambiguity that exists, it will go a long way with the majority of people. Trusting people won't in some way misuse a quorum in the future isn't enough, it should be unambiguous in it's formulation and implementation. But it seems some still actively pursue a desire for things to remain vague, is that a cornerstone of change for the good, or the thin end of the wedge!

Thorpe has the problem faced by previous politicians who have had a predominately one item agenda: when surrounded by a group of like-minded people they misread the room.

Her never ending call for a treaty before the Voice is playing right into the hands of conservative federal politicians - especially the Nationals.

Her enthusiasm for a treaty knows no bounds but she refuses to provide any details as to what it would look like.  All she is doing is confusing people who have little interest in either a treaty or the Voice and could vote No  in the referendum because of competing opinions on its merits.

If the Voice is defeated then Lidia's call for a treaty will be just a pipe dream.



 

Thorpe has the problem faced by previous politicians who have had a predominately one item agenda: when surrounded by a group of like-minded people they misread the room.

Her never ending call for a treaty before the Voice is playing right into the hands of conservative federal politicians - especially the Nationals.

Her enthusiasm for a treaty knows no bounds but she refuses to provide any details as to what it would look like.  All she is doing is confusing people who have little interest in either a treaty or the Voice and could vote No  in the referendum because of competing opinions on its merits.

If the Voice is defeated then Lidia's call for a treaty will be just a pipe dream.

I’m not sure that Lidia and those who share her views know exactly what it is they want.  She is opposed to the Victorian treaty process and I suspect that’s because those elected to the assembly don’t share her views, but then, very few do.

Sadly, Lidia and Jacinta Price are considered more newsworthy than the likes of Jana Stewart, Marcia Langton, Tom Calma and Noel Pearson (except when he’s kicking heads literally).

If the Voice doesn’t get up, the gap will get considerably wider.

How funny is this. :))

Pauline and Lidia at the same desk in school ;D

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/furious-on-sitting-next-to-lidia-thorpe-in-parliament-pauline-hanson/ar-AA17hT1I?cvid=f6c2af09a7134faca68dd610153c5d24

How funny is this. :))

Pauline and Lidia at the same desk in school ;D

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/furious-on-sitting-next-to-lidia-thorpe-in-parliament-pauline-hanson/ar-AA17hT1I?cvid=f6c2af09a7134faca68dd610153c5d24

Oh dear. Well this will get interesting.

How funny is this. :))

Pauline and Lidia at the same desk in school ;D

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/furious-on-sitting-next-to-lidia-thorpe-in-parliament-pauline-hanson/ar-AA17hT1I?cvid=f6c2af09a7134faca68dd610153c5d24

The teacher would be faced with lots of fierce hand raising and not one correct answer.

If it was up to me, I'd lock them in a room together  :)

The teacher would be faced with lots of fierce hand raising and not one correct answer.

If it was up to me, I'd lock them in a room together  :)

Give them a week together and they'd sort out all the issues. :D

Thorpe has the problem faced by previous politicians who have had a predominately one item agenda: when surrounded by a group of like-minded people they misread the room.

Her never ending call for a treaty before the Voice is playing right into the hands of conservative federal politicians - especially the Nationals.

Her enthusiasm for a treaty knows no bounds but she refuses to provide any details as to what it would look like.  All she is doing is confusing people who have little interest in either a treaty or the Voice and could vote No  in the referendum because of competing opinions on its merits.

If the Voice is defeated then Lidia's call for a treaty will be just a pipe dream.



 

When people like Thorpe, Hanson, Palmer, Meedick just to name a few are labelled "politicians", it's a sad indictment on Australian Politics.

When people like Thorpe, Hanson, Palmer, Meedick just to name a few are labelled "politicians", it's a sad indictment on Australian Politics.

I guess one should distinguish between career politicians and opportunistic or single-issue “politicians”.  You’d have call Hanson a career politician though, and that is an indictment.

I think you could lock Meddick and Palmer in the room with Thorpe and Hanson 🤔

Interesting article in today's Age about Thorpe, the Greens, sovereignty and the Voice.  Sadly, the online version only has about half the content of the print version:

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/thorpe-s-exit-from-the-greens-the-biggest-bait-and-switch-in-politics-20230206-p5ci9d.html

Is The Voice the same as Anti-Trans, can somebody Please Explain?

Watch the feet for a better perspective on what is going on in that Lydia Thorpe moment.

These semi-stage events, where a protestor does something they know will force the police to react only to throw themselves around to make things look more dramatic, are just click bait.

PS: Was Thorpe actually asserting that protesting on the grounds of Parliament House is not permitted?

Is The Voice the same as Anti-Trans, can somebody Please Explain?

Watch the feet for a better perspective on what is going on in that Lydia Thorpe moment.

These semi-stage events, where a protestor does something they know will force the police to react only to throw themselves around to make things look more dramatic, are just click bait.

PS: Was Thorpe actually asserting that protesting on the grounds of Parliament House is not permitted?

Just finished watching the footage, Spotted One. I have absolutely no doubt that the headlines in both major papers are at best, exaggerations -- re police intervention/violence -- and at worst pure sensational bullshizen. The Thorpe performance was a childlike tantrum that will only harm her image and message. For Thorpe to claim she was 'pulverized' by the police is pure histrionics, based on the footage available. Pity, because protesting against the guest 'speaker' was justified.

Pity, because protesting against the guest 'speaker' was justified.

Lydia Thorpe is self-serving.

Club statement on the voice.

https://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/1353791/club-statement-voice-to-parliament

Club statement on the voice.

https://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/1353791/club-statement-voice-to-parliament

Prefer the club kept any comments on the plethora of current social matters to themself  - personally I’m not interested in my clubs views on anything that is not football related.
I don’t pay my membership to hear the clubs opinion on political matters.

STFU and put every ounce of time into making our club better instead of being a laughing stock year in year out.

We are currently sitting in the bottom 6 FFS and making these sorts of statements makes you wonder where our focus is.

Prefer the club kept any comments on the plethora of current social matters to themself  - personally I’m not interested in my clubs views on anything that is not football related.
I don’t pay my membership to hear the clubs opinion on political matters.

STFU and put every ounce of time into making our club better instead of being a laughing stock year in year out.

We are currently sitting in the bottom 6 FFS and making these sorts of statements makes you wonder where our focus is.

Shawny I though the same thing but thought it might be seen as insensitive to comment. If only our footy dept was as good as the dept in charge of social issues, we would win more games than we lose.

I doubt issuing that statement had much to do with the football department, and I doubt it would create any kind of distraction for the players, or divert any energy away from winning games of footy. Seems like a pretty mild and open ended piece from the marketing department.

I doubt issuing that statement had much to do with the football department, and I doubt it would create any kind of distraction for the players, or divert any energy away from winning games of footy. Seems like a pretty mild and open ended piece from the marketing department.

I thought it was too.
States a club postition, but doesn't dictate how folks should vote.

The Club also respects every Australian’s right to make their own informed decision in relation to the upcoming referendum and ultimately cast their own vote in accordance with their personal views.

I doubt issuing that statement had much to do with the football department, and I doubt it would create any kind of distraction for the players, or divert any energy away from winning games of footy. Seems like a pretty mild and open ended piece from the marketing department.

I agree, but perceptions are funny.  Easternhealth re branded during the pandemic.  It came across as tone deaf and a waste of money and time when we should have been focussing on other issues.

In reality what you say applied but it served only to alienate people further at the time.

We haven't been travelling well on the park for quite some time now and the perception amongst fans is that the social commentary our club pours any energy into is wasted when we haven't put the requisite energy into making our footy club better.

Whether or not that perception is accurate is another matter.

Largely I saw it, didn't read it, got annoyed and still haven't read it and have already dismissed it as ultimately what the club states is irrelevant to me.

When the club can demonstrate competence in its core business,  i.e. football,  then maybe we may listen to its views on other matters.

Shawny I though the same thing but thought it might be seen as insensitive to comment. If only our footy dept was as good as the dept in charge of social issues, we would win more games than we lose.

I thought the same then thought hang on a this is a football club who’s sole purpose when selling memberships is winning premierships and considering they have failed to deliver in their core business for closing in on 30 years I’m entitled to provide my opinion which is get your core business in order then and only only spend time and energy on any other non football matter.  Don’t expect all to agree and that’s perfectly fine but that’s my view on it.

Remember how the club got bashed around for not making a strong enough statement about diversity etc....kicking the CFC in the guts when they're down is the country's most popular participation sport ATM.  The club can't win on any front right now.

Footy clubs don't exist in a vacuum. 

What are Lisa Wilkinson's thoughts on the voice? She is well qualified as she mentioned she has a black cleaner.

What are Lisa Wilkinson's thoughts on the voice? She is well qualified as she mentioned she has a black cleaner.

What?

What?

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/audio-reveals-former-project-host-lisa-wilkinson-joking-about-the-preselection-of-indigenous-senator-jacinta-nampijinpa-price/news-story/c35297bef00d5a3d4dc3cdae27953738

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/10/lisa-wilkinson-apologises-to-jacinta-nampijinpa-price-over-leaked-audio-recording

That leaked 5hr Higgins - The Project interview tape revealed what a grub Wilkinson truly is.

The voting patterns turned out to be pretty interesting, both sides post the vote are spinning like crazy to run their preferred agendas.

As far as I can tell, it seems inner city and academia was Yes, and pretty much everywhere else in the country was No.

A couple of odd standouts;

 - The NT which holds the highest percentage of indigenous population strongly voted No.

 - Inner City Melb which apparently has one of the countries lowest Indigenous populations, voted strongly Yes.

Overall, it seems to indicate just how wrong the referendum was, a niche question that was seen by the vast majority as waste of time and money.

The voting patterns turned out to be pretty interesting, both sides post the vote are spinning like crazy to run their preferred agendas.

As far as I can tell, it seems inner city and academia was Yes, and pretty much everywhere else in the country was No.

A couple of odd standouts;

 - The NT which holds the highest percentage of indigenous population strongly voted No.

 - Inner City Melb which apparently has one of the countries lowest Indigenous populations, voted strongly Yes.

Overall, it seems to indicate just how wrong the referendum was, a niche question that was seen by the vast majority as waste of time and money.

If there was a election tomorrow and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price was running for PM, I'd vote for her in a heat beat. I'd not  heard much about her prior to the Voice debate, what a breath of fresh air, the future of Australian politics I reckon. Thoughts?

Waste of time and money. Should have had another republic referendum which would have got up then we could make larger, more meaningful changes.

If there was a election tomorrow and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price was running for PM, I'd vote for her in a heat beat. I'd not  heard much about her prior to the Voice debate, what a breath of fresh air, the future of Australian politics I reckon. Thoughts?

It's hard to judge politicians on a single agenda.

When we elect officials we elect them to perform as general purpose administrators. In recent years there have been some disastrous elections across local, state and federal politics, because social media tends to drive interest in myopic agendas. My own region is suffering badly with over half the local representation either elected on a single agenda platform, without disclosure of a myopic agenda or without disclosure of a political allegiance.

The voting patterns turned out to be pretty interesting, both sides post the vote are spinning like crazy to run their preferred agendas.

As far as I can tell, it seems inner city and academia was Yes, and pretty much everywhere else in the country was No.

A couple of odd standouts;

 - The NT which holds the highest percentage of indigenous population strongly voted No.

 - Inner City Melb which apparently has one of the countries lowest Indigenous populations, voted strongly Yes.

Overall, it seems to indicate just how wrong the referendum was, a niche question that was seen by the vast majority as waste of time and money.

Not sure it's the 'vast majority'.  If 10% of the swinging voters would have seen a different outcome.  The 'If you don't know, vote no' catch-cry was well and truly on display where I voted, and I would suggest that many of the people walking in to vote had only that message ringing in their ears, because many people (I use my 4 adult children as exhibits) couldn't be bothered finding out what this referendum was about.   Perhaps that explains why the inner-city academics voted yes, while the outer-suburbanites voted no?

Interesting to read the take on the outcome in the international media.  Pretty much universally suggested that the campaign was hijacked for political purposes and the electorate was by and large conned with a barrage of half-truths and fabrications.  Of course, Albanese should have been smarter and read the mood of the room, because referenda never pass unless they have bi-partisan support.

Funny now to hear all the local politicians saying we must now 'work together to get real improvements for Indigenous peoples', or words to that effect (we've done well on that one for the past 122 years, haven't we...?)  Why do I find it hard to believe that will be the case when it comes to voting on legislation....?  

It's hard to judge politicians on a single agenda.

When we elect officials we elect them to perform as general purpose administrators. In recent years there have been some disastrous elections across local, state and federal politics, because social media tends to drive interest in myopic agendas. My own region is suffering badly with over half the local representation either elected on a single agenda platform, without disclosure of a myopic agenda or without disclosure of a political allegiance.

In a world seemingly devoid of common sense, compassion, empathy and integrity, she comes across (from what Ive seen) as possessing these qualities. I could be wrong, that's the impression I get.

If there was a election tomorrow and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price was running for PM, I'd vote for her in a heat beat. I'd not  heard much about her prior to the Voice debate, what a breath of fresh air, the future of Australian politics I reckon. Thoughts?

Impressive though she has been, she has as much chance of being the leader of the Coalition as I have of lining up at full-forward in the first game next year.  She has served her purpose, and the Libs will ensure that normal service is resumed as soon as possible.

Impressive though she has been, she has as much chance of being the leader of the Coalition as I have of lining up at full-forward in the first game next year.  She has served her purpose, and the Libs will ensure that normal service is resumed as soon as possible.

Well they need to read the room then.

Well they need to read the room then.

The room has just told them that when it comes to Indigenous affairs, much of the country is either against it or doesn't want to know.  All the more reason why the thought of a female indigenous leader in charge of the Liberal party would be electoral suicide.  

You can certainly quibble about whether such a referendum was necessary at this point, but once the decision was made, the opportunity should've been taken. We seem to lack the confidence, ethics and maturity to deal with adult issues in an adult way, so the end result is that we are once again hostage to inertia, ostrich behaviour, political opportunism and all the rest.

Besides this very thread, i don't think i've come across any talk about this in my everyday life apart from at home.

I don't watch regular TV, listen to morning radio or AM stations and avoid the paper and news like the plague.
I am not alone in that. I think thats why the vote of No got up.

The government simply let too many people 'slip through the cracks' in their 'marketing'.
They expected people to seek out information, rather than bombard them at every turn. People are lazy and simply did not.
The No vote was a vote of ignorance, nothing else. The government is to blame for that IMO.

The room has just told them that when it comes to Indigenous affairs, much of the country is either against it or doesn't want to know.  All the more reason why the thought of a female indigenous leader in charge of the Liberal party would be electoral suicide. 

I disagree, I think the is plenty of drive to reduce "the gap", we just have to bloody well listen to the right people for a change, people like Jacinta Price. Don't need a constitution change for that, Albanese could make changes tomorrow.

The room has just told them that when it comes to Indigenous affairs, much of the country is either against it or doesn't want to know.  All the more reason why the thought of a female indigenous leader in charge of the Liberal party would be electoral suicide. 

Why so you say that?  Because no won?  This doesn't make the country against indigenous affairs or for it.  It makes the nation unconvinced that the yes no referendum would make any difference and would simply lead to another mouth feeding at the trough of politics. 

You can certainly quibble about whether such a referendum was necessary at this point, but once the decision was made, the opportunity should've been taken. We seem to lack the confidence, ethics and maturity to deal with adult issues in an adult way, so the end result is that we are once again hostage to inertia, ostrich behaviour, political opportunism and all the rest.

Another one who seems to think that the outcome of a poorly articulated and scoped referendum not getting up says more about the public than those in parliament proposing this rubbish.

What were we actually voting for?  The answer is nothing. It's wel known that the indigenous people don't have one united voice.  They have multiple languages, tribes, and people.  One voice was never going to be sufficient but i heard from the minister of Indigenous affairs last week, and instantly thought to myself should this seat not be our indigenous voice to parliament?

What about the democratic process means the indigenous people have no voice?

What is stopping the indigenous people from forming a party for this reason and running for election?

We are currently in the midst of one of the poorest economic situations the country has seen during my lifetime, and we have just thrown 100s of millions away on a referendum that has no scope.

That is political suicide.

Good to see Victoria leading the way with the yes vote, with NSW not far behind. As for Queensland, red necks to the bitter end.

Why so you say that?  Because no won?  This doesn't make the country against indigenous affairs or for it.  It makes the nation unconvinced that the yes no referendum would make any difference and would simply lead to another mouth feeding at the trough of politics. 

Another one who seems to think that the outcome of a poorly articulated and scoped referendum not getting up says more about the public than those in parliament proposing this rubbish.

What were we actually voting for?  The answer is nothing. It's wel known that the indigenous people don't have one united voice.  They have multiple languages, tribes, and people.  One voice was never going to be sufficient but i heard from the minister of Indigenous affairs last week, and instantly thought to myself should this seat not be our indigenous voice to parliament?

What about the democratic process means the indigenous people have no voice?

What is stopping the indigenous people from forming a party for this reason and running for election?

We are currently in the midst of one of the poorest economic situations the country has seen during my lifetime, and we have just thrown 100s of millions away on a referendum that has no scope.

That is political suicide.

There was plenty of material out there if you care to look, that gives careful and considered explanations on all matters relating to the Voice. I certainly don't blame the politicians. That's a total cop out in my view.

The Voice was intended to be the first step in a multi step process that addressees issues relating to First Nations people. I cannot think of one single good reason to vote no. I can think of several bad ones with very little effort.

There was plenty of material out there if you care to look, that gives careful and considered explanations on all matters relating to the Voice. I certainly don't blame the politicians. That's a total cop out in my view.

The Voice was intended to be the first step in a multi step process that addressees issues relating to First Nations people. I cannot think of one single good reason to vote no. I can think of several bad ones with very little effort.

The majority of Australians disagree Paul.

I based most of my decision making listening to last week's televised show where Lydia Thorpe and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price were chatting with Ray Martin about indigenous affairs, and the referendum including all the bells and whistles.

I have to say, that they made a lot more compelling points on reasons to vote no, and the yes vote had no substance to add to the debate.

My first feeling, when it was obvious the 'No' had won, was one of sorrow; a feeling that we shrank a little as a nation.

Those who sowed the seeds of fear, doubt and confusion won the day... except in geographical areas of higher education. But they were aided by a 'wobbly' approach from the affirmative side.

Seemed to me, and I did comment on this at the time, that the 'Yes' campaign relied on slogans, sound bites and lovely PR. Big mistake, as it played right into the stronghold of the other side who then hijacked the campaign with aplomb, making it political. Even the lead slogan 'The Voice' - very 70s campaign style - was too nebulous and open to all manner of interpretation and manipulation ... should have been something like, 'Inclusion,' (if you're going the slogan road) something that encapsulated the 'spirit' of the proposed change.

Anyway, much learned from many angles about our people and **cough, splutter** leaders! Here's to a better, more informed and effective crack at it next time.

The majority of Australians disagree Paul.

I based most of my decision making listening to last week's televised show where Lydia Thorpe and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price were chatting with Ray Martin about indigenous affairs, and the referendum including all the bells and whistles.

I have to say, that they made a lot more compelling points on reasons to vote no, and the yes vote had no substance to add to the debate.

The majority of Australians have shown their hand, and I'll leave it that.

I've listened to the Indigenous speakers on the no side, and whilst I can see some of the points they make, I think their overall strategy is wrong, and their ends would have been better off with a yes vote.

Fair dinkum...there is some absolutely absurd judgements being made.

The reasons for voting 'No' were widespread and diverse.
There is no intellectual superiority in the 'Yes' case.
That's purely a personal opinion, and perhaps that arrogance is arguably one of the reasons the case was lost.

If the question had been...."Do you think first nations people should be recognised in the constitution?... it would have romped in".

The fact is that indigenous folks have a Voice.
It's a strong voice.
It's heard often.
You only have to look at indigenous input on both sides of the debate.
It was impressive...yes, even Lydia Thorpe (who may be a bit out there, but who is a strong and commited advocate for her people)
But it is a diverse voice.

Many government departments at both a state and federal level have an indigenous input...its especially so in things like education and health
If you think governments aren't aware of the problems indigenous folk face you're mistaken.
They're well aware of issues and locations.

The Voice isn't the problem...it's the Ears.
The voice is loud and clear.
It needs to be listened to, and there need to be a willingness by governments to close that gap.
...and we've just wasted a heap of money that could have been better spent

Mostly right Lods.

There was geographical data that showed the further away from the capital cities you got, the more votes the NO side got.
Thats a pretty clear example of intellectual lines.

Sure, its not that cut and dry, but the data shows it.

From my own experiences it rings true as well.

On my 4000km road trip from Melbourne to Brisbane (via sydney) and back you were exposed to all kinds of different people.
For the large part, in cities you would see "Yes" signage. Either the old board in the front yard, or a flyer on a shop window, all pointed to yes.

THen you get out into the countryside, you see graffitied  bridges with "Vote No" everywhere. Some bed sheets tied up to a fence saying similar. Opposite messages, and a little more crudely written than the bigger cities.

Back to the next major city and the cycle repeats.

Thats not painting everyone with the same brush, and i never made this statement to begin with, but i do believe it to be true.

Fair dinkum...there is some absolutely absurd judgements being made..............................

Don't worry Lods. You're one of the "good" Queenslanders lol.

I'm not sure you can overstate the importance of a constitutionally recognised Voice. It's not just words on a piece of paper. Having Indigenous groups advising at state and local level is all well and good, but it's not the same as the Voice. The Voice provides a way to have some coordination of diverse indigenous issues, and a way to really have a seat at the table.

So, how about that Treaty that's been on the agenda for decades ? All those in favour......

Don't worry Lods. You're one of the "good" Queenslanders lol.

I'm not sure you can overstate the importance of a constitutionally recognised Voice. It's not just words on a piece of paper. Having Indigenous groups advising at state and local level is all well and good, but it's not the same as the Voice. The Voice provides a way to have some coordination of diverse indigenous issues, and a way to really have a seat at the table.

So, how about that Treaty that's been on the agenda for decades ? All those in favour......

You know in some ways this referendum may have some positive effects.

One of my main concerns was the level of disappointment that a 'No' vote would have on many first nations people who will be naturally be disppointed by the result.

But it's now firmly on the agenda.
I can see Voice committees being established at various levels of government.
Even those politicians advocating a 'No' vote were at pains to say that whatever the result there were indigenous issues that need addressing.
We'll see how their words will translate into actions.

Again....the important thing is not the voice...it's listening to it, and acting on it.

Fair dinkum...there is some absolutely absurd judgements being made.

The reasons for voting 'No' were widespread and diverse.
There is no intellectual superiority in the 'Yes' case.
That's purely a personal opinion, and perhaps that arrogance is arguably one of the reasons the case was lost.

If the question had been...."Do you think first nations people should be recognised in the constitution?... it would have romped in".

The fact is that indigenous folks have a Voice.
It's a strong voice.
It's heard often.
You only have to look at indigenous input on both sides of the debate.
It was impressive...yes, even Lydia Thorpe (who may be a bit out there, but who is a strong and commited advocate for her people)
But it is a diverse voice.

Many government departments at both a state and federal level have an indigenous input...its especially so in things like education and health
If you think governments aren't aware of the problems indigenous folk face you're mistaken.
They're well aware of issues and locations.

The Voice isn't the problem...it's the Ears.
The voice is loud and clear.
It needs to be listened to, and there need to be a willingness by governments to close that gap.
...and we've just wasted a heap of money that could have been better spent

No one is saying there is an intellectual superiority in voting yes - far from it, if people consider the facts and vote 'No', then that is democracy at work, and I have no doubt that many 'No' voters are in that category.

But if people voted 'no' simply because they didn't know what the issues were (or couldn't be bothered finding out), then that is ignorance at its best.  And the fact that the 'No' campaign legitimised the fact that remaining ignorant was acceptable, is, in my book, the biggest shame of this whole process.  

Einstein said the true definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  So something has to change in the relationship between First Nations peoples and our elected leaders, or we will be talking about the same issues in 20 or 30 years' time.

As for needing 'Ears' - ears can listen, but it doesn't mean they understand.  It's the last bit we need to get a better handle on. 

 

You know in some ways this referendum may have some positive effects.

One of my main concerns was the level of disappointment that a 'No' vote would have on many first nations people who will be naturally be disppointed by the result.

But it's now firmly on the agenda.
I can see Voice committees being established at various levels of government.
Even those politicians advocating a 'No' vote were at pains to say that whatever the result there were indigenous issues that need addressing.
We'll see how their words will translate into actions.

Again....the important thing is not the voice...it's listening to it, and acting on it.

Well, I guess we'll know in the next decade or so. I'm not hopeful, because I think all these committees you refer to are essentially a way of dragging the discussion on and on, to ensure that nothing actually gets done. Just constantly delaying any action for as long as humanly possible. Traditionally Labor governments are reform governments, and history in our country shows very clearly that people don't like reform.

As for needing 'Ears' - ears can listen, but it doesn't mean they understand.  It's the last bit we need to get a better handle on.

Yep
It's not like these issues aren't there in front of our eyes.
As someone who worked in Juvenile Justice I spent just about every day of my 40 year career working with indigenous young people....with added contact from parents, elders, teachers, aides.
The disproportionate rate of incarceration of young indigenous boys and girls, and the knowledge of the influences that led to those rates of incarceration isn't rocket science.
It's well known and understood.
The educational gaps in terms of school missed often presented as fourteen and fifteen year old kids unable to read.
Add to that the health issues that were often more apparent in young indigenous kids... hearing and eyesight issues that weren't addressed until their incarceration
And those were the ones that were in  a custodial situation
Now translate to an adult population and you can understand the very real issues.

Governments have a huge task and responsibility...but in the end it comes down to a willingness to tackle those issues.
They don't need to be told...they know!

If there was a election tomorrow and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price was running for PM, I'd vote for her in a heat beat. I'd not  heard much about her prior to the Voice debate, what a breath of fresh air, the future of Australian politics I reckon. Thoughts?

Follow her a bit closer… she is incapable of reaching any type of consensus, she’s trump like.
Constantly verbally brawling and tossing mud/accusations left, right and centre.
I expect my politicians to represent everyone, whether they are supporters or not.

Why so you say that?  Because no won?  This doesn't make the country against indigenous affairs or for it.  It makes the nation unconvinced that the yes no referendum would make any difference and would simply lead to another mouth feeding at the trough of politics. 

Another one who seems to think that the outcome of a poorly articulated and scoped referendum not getting up says more about the public than those in parliament proposing this rubbish.

What were we actually voting for?  The answer is nothing. It's wel known that the indigenous people don't have one united voice.  They have multiple languages, tribes, and people.  One voice was never going to be sufficient but i heard from the minister of Indigenous affairs last week, and instantly thought to myself should this seat not be our indigenous voice to parliament?

What about the democratic process means the indigenous people have no voice?

What is stopping the indigenous people from forming a party for this reason and running for election?

We are currently in the midst of one of the poorest economic situations the country has seen during my lifetime, and we have just thrown 100s of millions away on a referendum that has no scope.

That is political suicide.

I voted no for most of the reasons you’ve just expressed, particularly the new group of snouts in the trough, the last thing this country needs.
I also agree that Aboriginal people of the NT have plenty of opportunity to get representation by voting.

On a side note, I have actually been blocked by ABC Darwin on fb, it would seem that my suggestion that gov can never be wholly responsible for people and their lives and that they as a community must accept personal responsibility for the alcoholism, rampant drug use and child neglect.

Probably a bad time for a referendum with a cost of living crisis and when Governments are asking voters to vote a certain away the natural reaction from many doing it tough would be to vote the opposite because Governments and Politicians are doing nothing for them and cant be trusted.
Doesnt help either when you have media like Ray Martin calling older folk Dinasours and Dheads if they cant understand the question or find the answers to questions. It was an expensive marketing fail and it should have been legislated in Parliament first where it could be tested, fine tuned, shown to be working and then taken to the people at a later date for constitutional recognition where it would have had more chance of being successful imho.

For me, the 250 representatives that formed the Uluru Statement that suggested the Voice was a sign of indigenous unity.  I think the LNP pretty well said no straight away. (Except for the Indigenous Affairs Minister of the day.)

The indigenous unity didn't exist during the campaign - where did it go or was the Uluru statement not representative?

From this base, it was easy for the no campaign.  Hard for the yes, particularly as they needed to be very precise and articulate about what the voice is and the benefits of it and weren't that at all.

As bipartisan support was really required for success,  it was probably doomed early on.

Be interesting to see what action will now be taken to help close the gap - which the latest report shows a few outcomes improving, a few going backwards, a number without measurement (higher education/ employment) and some neutral.  A number are not on track to meet goals by 2030.

I wait with bated breath.

Discussions around constitutional recognition for our First Nations people were happening 100 years ago. And what’s the result of a century of stop start, on off discussions ? A resounding no vote. Well, you can’t rush these things I guess. We clearly need a few more select committees, another dozen or so advisory groups, a parliamentary committee or two, and then, most importantly, some thinking time. Maybe in 100 years we can have another referendum.

As watered down and wussy as the Voice was , it’s still better than nothing, and still better than what we have now.  A unique moment in history, and what do we serve up ? A swing and a miss. Well played.

I find it interesting that from June 10 to October 15, there was zero discussion on this topic here. Why is that? There are a lot of clever people on this forum and yet. Does it demonstrate the lack of interest on the topic? Or was it a tell that people were afraid to voice (no pun intended) their opinion? As EB has pointed out, I think given cost of living stress people are under, this could not have come at a worse time so perhaps peoples minds were elsewhere.
My wife and I did a fair bit of research on The Voice referendum, her way more than me as she was home for 12 weeks recovering from ankle fusion surgery. So I think we were well armed to make an informed decision. When the referendum was announced, I thought it would be a resounding YES, it seemed like a no brainer. The thing that surprised me most was the number of prominent First Nation peoples who were opposed to it. That for me was the biggest tell that this was not going to get up.

For me, GTC, sick of politicians not working together for the betterment of the country.  Can't generally be bothered with political - and unfortunately the voice was - discourse.  That, the well organised far left and right and lack of respectful debate (although this suite is pretty good) turn me right off.

Not sure it's the 'vast majority'.  If 10% of the swinging voters would have seen a different outcome.  The 'If you don't know, vote no' catch-cry was well and truly on display where I voted, and I would suggest that many of the people walking in to vote had only that message ringing in their ears, because many people (I use my 4 adult children as exhibits) couldn't be bothered finding out what this referendum was about.  Perhaps that explains why the inner-city academics voted yes, while the outer-suburbanites voted no?

Possibly, but I think the slogan effect was greatly overstated, perhaps that is being discussed because it's what many in political and academic circles want to be the truth.

Personally, I think by far the biggest impact came form those identified as Indigenous who publicly opposed the referendum, and that's an uncomfortable place to go for the politicians and academics because they can't offer something that will unify the very group they are trying help. We seen just in the last few days how the tone of the debate has changed, even before the result the shouting and finger-pointing started.

The left media are now publishing voting analysis booth by booth, that's a thinly veiled effort to label everyday Australian's as racist based on where the lived and voted. I's the very divisional thing Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine warned and rallied against, and it looks like they are now proven to be true.

I'm not sure how politicians and academia will explain that away because Price and Mundine made the bulk of their statements before the vote. I expect the left will now try it's best to smear them, so we will see more finger-pointing and personal attacks. Which leaves the "experts" from the Yes campaign coming across as "When you are wrong it's your fault, and when they are wrong it's your fault!"

They spent $500,000,000 on a referendum relating to a disadvantaged minority group that at last survey had 830,000 confirmed individuals in it's membership, how is that money well spent?

Albanese could have turned half the Indigenous population in millionaire$ and it would have actually saved money!

The indigenous unity didn't exist during the campaign - where did it go or was the Uluru statement not representative?

@dodge
As near as I can tell, a large swathe of the Indigenous community did not want a "Special Category" they just wanted to be recognised as Australian's equal with all others, not better or worse just one of the bunch. They viewed the referendum as creating a special class.

Oddly, I'd heard this from some Sth Africans and Timor-Leste friends, they identified The Voice immediately as divisive and racist by creating a separate / special category. But then they have lived this very model before, they don't want special seats on the bus!

Politically, I'm not sure The Voice made much sense either as it basically defined a minority interest, when in reality many of the shared issues should be for all Australians to ponder.

There were two surveys commissioned earlier this year (January and March I believe) canvassing First Nations people and their thoughts on The Voice. 80% in one survey and 83% in the other said they would vote yes. All surveys have limits, and these two are no exception. However big or small the sample spaces may be, they have to be more representative than what people are supposedly hearing. 

There were two surveys commissioned earlier this year (January and March I believe) canvassing First Nations people and their thoughts on The Voice. 80% in one survey and 83% in the other said they would vote yes. All surveys have limits, and these two are no exception. However big or small the sample spaces may be, they have to be more representative than what people are supposedly hearing. 

It'd be interesting to see if that vote held up.
A lot of non-indigenous people who were intending to vote 'yes' changed their minds during the course of the year.
I'm sure the majority of indigenous people still supported the yes  vote...but for those, if any, who changed their minds I wonder what caused that change.

It'd be interesting to see if that vote held up.
A lot of non-indigenous people who were intending to vote 'yes' changed their minds during the course of the year.
I'm sure the majority of indigenous people still supported the yes  vote...but for those, if any, who changed their minds I wonder what caused that change.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-02/fact-check-indigenous-australians-support-for-the-voice/102673042

For those interested, this piece does a bit of a deep dive into this question. As I often say, both God and the devil reside in the detail. At any rate, despite what the politicians say, we are essentially back to square one IMO.

Quite some layers to the 'failure cake' of the Yes campaign, as have been mentioned here.

The article from The Conversation, which PaulP posted under General Discussion, shone a very bright light on the media's -- none too impressive -- role.

This little black duck singled how the marketing/PR/slogan failures may also have contributed.

EB1 made a very salient point also, re timing during economic hardship, which reminded me of the psychological works by Prof Sheldon Solomon (outlined in his book, 'The Worm In The Middle') and Anthropologist, Ernest Becker (from his book, 'The Denial of Death') - in a crass, simplistic nutshell... people become more conservative during times of hardship. I'm not suggesting that the outcome would have been different but I do ponder had the referendum been held in December what the difference may have been.

And there are other layers as mentioned here and in the media... well, those who report without agenda, bias or prejudice.

I think the "times are tough" argument is pretty weak. To give one example among many, there are people around who spend hundreds of dollars on football memberships, tickets, merch, travel, hotels etc. if their team make finals in a different city. But somehow, standing in that booth on Saturday, with that dinky little pencil in your hand, you can't write the word "yes" because there's a cost of living crisis.

Yeah, not buying it.

The problem with polls is as the article suggests, that the result is biased by the methodology, the type of questions, the order in which they are asked.  Whether that is deliberate or not really depends on the organisation doing the polling.

Many polling organisations do conform to standards that require them to publish methodologies, but just because they are published and publicly available doesn't mean they are reliable or repeatable.

In any case, in retrospect the referendum itself was the ultimate arbiter, and when the Northern Territory ( Last survey 40% Indigenous ) says unambiguously "No", that is a difficult circumstance to be easily written off by supporters of the Voice.

I'd assert there is not much value pointing the finger at Albanese or Dutton, they had very little to do with the NT Voice result!

The next question to be answered regarding polling might be, will the organisations that run them change even if it doesn't suit their politics?

I think the "times are tough" argument is pretty weak.

Actually, the resistance to change is a characteristic of society under duress, it happens in the lead up to and during war. Under social duress the population opts for the status quo.

But, I'd assert that even under different circumstances the referendum would still have failed, because the question didn't offer the answer the wider general public wanted. The question was about as valid as Howard's Republic Referendum.

Was the question disingenuous?

The bias is alleviated to some degree by the fact that the 2 polls were conducted by 2 different outfits, Ipsos and YouGov. It's also worth noting the overall conclusions by those individuals quoted, who are experienced in understanding the numbers. Samples include :

More importantly, he said, when "even … a pretty small sample" produces a lopsided result of more than 70 per cent, for example, you can be "pretty confident" the real result is above 50 per cent.


However, they endorsed the YouGov poll in particular as the best available measure, and each agreed there was no scientific evidence to suggest anything other than broad support among First Nations Australians.

"So the sample is very consistent with the idea that Indigenous voters strongly supported the Voice at the time taken, and implies that they are likely to still do so."

Mr Bowe said the results of the two polls were "lopsided enough that we can say with confidence that the Indigenous Voice has strong Indigenous support," even if the exact figure was in question.

Actually, the resistance to change is a characteristic of society under duress, it happens in the lead up to and during war. Under social duress the population opts for the status quo.

But, I'd assert that even under different circumstances the referendum would still have failed, because the question didn't offer the answer the wider general public wanted. The question was about as valid as Howard's Republic Referendum.

Was the question disingenuous?

You can look through our history and see that we are resistant to change at the best of times.

When you spend 450 million on a referendum and people can't afford to keep the power on or pay the rent then they probably have other priorities than to follow the direction of a Government who they think should be helping all Australians..

When you spend 450 million on a referendum and people can't afford to keep the power on or pay the rent then they probably have other priorities than to follow the direction of a Government who they think should be helping all Australians..

Ironic that the rich white suburbs voted yes.

Ironic that the rich white suburbs voted yes.

You will find if you go through our history, the wealthiest among us are, more often than not, socially quite progressive.

You can look through our history and see that we are resistant to change at the best of times.

Quite possibly, but that doesn't negate the existence of other phenomenon.

When you spend 450 million on a referendum and people can't afford to keep the power on or pay the rent then they probably have other priorities than to follow the direction of a Government who they think should be helping all Australians..

Yes, and I fear the even tougher times ahead will only cause this waste to become a bigger and bitter issue. It's not going to be fun to be at either end of the spectrum, retirees self-funded or otherwise and those new to the workforce are really going to suffer.

I've associates in Peru who having just been slammed by the pandemic then coped it in the neck over industrial and social reforms coming out of what they describe as communist rule (Left Wing). What is / has happened there I believe is not so much a Peru specific issue but a precursor to what is about to happen to large portion of the global population. Peru is quite liberalist and as such it makes a good model for the west.

In some regard the referendum itself and it's fall is a failure of many to read the room!

Actually I do feel a bit sorry for Albanese, as a politician we are use to backflips, but he stuck by his word and took the Voice to the polls.

In hindsight his problem was listening to the wrong people, the loudest voices did not represent the wider majority, and it appears not even the minority majority.

It seems a select few loud voices possibly presented their personal opinions as those of the wider society, and these loud voices got hold of the ears!

Yes, and I fear the even tougher times ahead will only cause this waste to become a bigger and bitter issue. It's not going to be fun to be at either end of the spectrum, retirees self-funded or otherwise and those new to the workforce are really going to suffer.

I've associates in Peru who having just been slammed by the pandemic then coped it in the neck over industrial and social reforms coming out of what they describe as communist rule (Left Wing). What is / has happened there I believe is not so much a Peru specific issue but a precursor to what is about to happen to large portion of the global population. Peru is quite liberalist and as such it makes a good model for the west.

In some regard the referendum itself and it's fall is a failure of many to read the room!

Think they read the room with the polls giving a clear indication of the likely result but still wasted the money when they should have just legislated instead and at least had something working moving forward and not leaving this division we seem to have now due to politics being the priority rather than people. Albanese got voted in to Govern not throw responsibility and blame back to the Electorate and Dutton's only interest was getting political milage out of Labor fails so none of it was a recipe for success.
Everything major gets politicised in Aus which never leads to good outcomes......

For me, GTC, sick of politicians not working together for the betterment of the country.  Can't generally be bothered with political - and unfortunately the voice was - discourse.  That, the well organised far left and right and lack of respectful debate (although this suite is pretty good) turn me right off.

Yep. Couldn't generate bipartisan support during a global pandemic which killed thousands, you expect them to work together now? They are a joke.

Ironic that the rich white suburbs voted yes.

The Banks and Big Mining companies were also supporters of the Yes campaign which probably didnt do much for the Yes vote in the struggling mortgage belt areas either.

You can look through our history and see that we are resistant to change at the best of times.

We're a paradox in the area of change.

Deeply progressive, even far-sighted in some areas yet feverishly fearful and conservative in others. SA was one of the first  states in the world to give women the right to vote and our nation one of the first (just behind the Kiwis) globally, yet indigenous folks were not given the right to vote until the late 60s! And the White Australia Policy wasn't given the kibosh (in writing, ie) until almost the mid 70s!

Generally, we are near the front of the pack to embrace technological change but not so much EVs? Such a fascinating little box of contradictions are we.

At the risk of creation a furore, and feeling a gentle tap on the shoulder from the trunk of an elephant... I wonder what the % of the respective voting sides would be if you eliminated the racist vote? I bet no-one is surprised that the Qld Yes vote struggled to get close to a third (of the vote)? :o

We're a paradox in the area of change.

Deeply progressive, even far-sighted in some areas yet feverishly fearful and conservative in others. SA was one of the first  states in the world to give women the right to vote and our nation one of the first (just behind the Kiwis) globally, yet indigenous folks were not given the right to vote until the late 60s! And the White Australia Policy wasn't given the kibosh (in writing, ie) until almost the mid 70s!

Generally, we are near the front of the pack to embrace technological change but not so much EVs? Such a fascinating little box of contradictions are we.

I suspect we are like most countries, with forces, beliefs, views pulling us in different directions. Most countries, in times of relative stability, do develop a certain character, a certain way of behaving, certain ideas, that give those countries a certain identity. I think it's also worth noting the global trends to which many countries fall prey. We are at a point now where the left is pretty much dead. Most countries are drifting towards the right. And I don't mean the Murdoch idea of left, which is laughable. I mean a legit alternative to the corporate forces and ideologies which have dominated far too long. 

At the risk of creation a furore, and feeling a gentle tap on the shoulder from the trunk of an elephant... I wonder what the % of the respective voting sides would be if you eliminated the racist vote? I bet no-one is surprised that the Qld Yes vote struggled to get close to a third (of the vote)? :o

A question that is tempting to ask, but is for sure a dead end in terms of trying to get a genuine answer.

I bet no-one is surprised that the Qld Yes vote struggled to get close to a third (of the vote)? :o

Is that actually a 'Statist' generalisation. :D  :D  :D  :D

Is that actually a 'Statist' generalisation. :D  :D  :D  :D

Sprung!  :-[
Yes, we Statists are known to meet monthly, deep in darkly treed forests, wearing our white dust coats emblazoned with numbers praying to the gods, Divisionist, Plus, Multiply and Minus. The great god's name, Graph, is only whispered, with bowed heads.

Sprung!  :-[
Yes, we Statists are known to meet monthly, deep in darkly treed forests, wearing our white dust coats emblazoned with numbers praying to the gods, Divisionist, Plus, Multiply and Minus. The great god's name, Graph, is only whispered, with bowed heads.

Graph is but one of the minor supreme beings.  The true messiah is Correlation.......

That's OK.
Come the revolution, we'll need good Mathematicians ;)  :D

Everything major gets politicised in Aus which never leads to good outcomes......

This craps me to tears.  You get the feeling that if one party says "up" the other party just says "down" as a knee-jerk reaction.  doesnt get us anywhere.

The amount of playing the man rather than the issue during the pandemic was shameful.  as others have pointed out on here, it was more about point scoring, rather than any thought of saving lives

The Banks and Big Mining companies were also supporters of the Yes campaign which probably didnt much for the Yes vote in the struggling mortgage belt areas either.

I hadnt realised this, until did a bit of reading recently.  does make sense they would be worried about this (even if no effect on them in the short term) - and now makes a lot of sense as to the deep pockets (and long reach) of the No campaign

Ill just add two more cents worth:
1. When there is debate, people seem to forget this country is made up of many diverse cultures, backgrounds, varying education levels, ideologies so on and so forth. Some people need to be spoon fed more than others. I felt like there was too much "why would you vote No?" commentary and not enough "here's why you should vote Yes" (if that makes sense). When it's all said and done, the democratic process of the day resulted in a decision that is representative of the entire country, like it or not. By the way, I found the whole "silence for a week thing" extremely childish given how much work there is to do, poor leadership IMO. Imagine Vossy and Crippa sooking it up after loss and not speaking to anyone. We all dust ourselves off, roll up the collective sleeves again and get to work in making this country better, pedal to the metal.
2. As for playing the man, I felt the "Yes" campaigners were far more aggressive, intimidating, arogant and dismissive. I think these are also factors that went against the "Yes" vote.

I found the whole "silence for a week thing" extremely childish given how much work there is to do, poor leadership IMO. Imagine

I get it. They have put in years of hard work of trying to get a solution, one presents and it is not accepted by the public.  This is a big knock back for them.  They need some time to digest, process and think about 'what next'.

They could have presented it in a better way than they did.

Quote from: Gointocarlton on October 17, 2023, 10:28:42 am

I found the whole "silence for a week thing" extremely childish given how much work there is to do, poor leadership IMO. Imagine

I get it. They have put in years of hard work of trying to get a solution, one presents and it is not accepted by the public.  This is a big knock back for them.  They need some time to digest, process and think about 'what next'.

Certainly hasn't stopped Peter Dutton getting straight onto the front foot and whacking it back over the sightscreen. 

His true colours are back on show for all to see.  No new referendum , no treaty, give 'em nothing!

I actually think this whole referendum is showing how people are failing to appreciate how much has already been achieved in the name of indigenous rights in this country, and that some of the arguments put up for the yes vote are actually out dated, and out of touch (like our politicians generally are).

I saw an interesting meme on social media.

It shows an indigenous person stating they are not oppressed, and before they finish speaking, a social justice warrior puts a hand over their mouth to silence them, and states "SHH.  Yes you are.  You just aren't aware and need me to whitesplain your oppression for you.  You are feeble and lower than me, and need me to be your saviour.  You cannot get by without me."

I thought it interesting from a social commentary perspective as with all things, an element of truth to go with the satire.

The public voted no, and the people on here as a small sample size are using the following reasons why no got up.

1.  Fear of change.
2.  Racism
3.  Lack of progressive society.
4.  Lack of education.
5.  Lack of empathy.
6.  Conservatism and the rise of right wing politics in lower social demographic areas.
7.  Our spend on the referendum seems to be an excuse, not a reason to vote no.
8.  The campaign was hijacked for political purposes and the electorate was by and large conned with a barrage of half-truths and fabrications.
9.  When it comes to Indigenous affairs, much of the country is either against it or doesn't want to know (apathetic).
10.   We seem to lack the confidence, ethics and maturity to deal with adult issues in an adult way, so the end result is that we are once again hostage to inertia, ostrich behavior, political opportunism and all the rest.
11.  The No vote was a vote of ignorance, nothing else.

The thing is, is it possible that most of these arguments display simply a rising class division in our society?
Those who are more affluent believe they know better, suffer from myopia, and an inability to appreciate that there are more and greater proportions of people out there with a differing opinion.  Its arguable, that the inner city types are less likely to come across indigenous communities and indigenous people in society purely by token of where they reside and the type of social groups they revolve in, their demographics, their background and have benefited from the systemic racism that they are wanting to show they now regret and oppose, and also, believe that the rest of Australia have an under current of racism that they still practice which is why they want to make ammends and vote yes.  Noble, but out of touch.

Looking at the above arguments, its a laundry list, that are hard to argue against because they actually are undefined but have a basis in a truth that will always be opinion and based on emotion and are subjective not objective.  You will find elements of proof for all of the arguments without that being a reason why people voted No but just another factor that stirs up peoples emotions.  It dismisses that people in our current society, as a majority, actually believe that the progress being made for indigenous communities is varying degrees of deemed to be adequate vs what struggles the every day person contends with.  There is actually a bit of a truth, because the initiatives implemented and the progress being made inst a big bang and its fixed, its only measurable over time.  We could do nothing for 50 years and end up with continued ongoing reform and improvement in indigenous communities without the voice for parliament which inherently seeks to create separation of the indigenous communities embedded in the constitution when we simply already want to include them and have given plenty of initiatives to help close the gap. 

I'm 41.  The change in attitude in our society during my lifetime is palpable in every day life for indigenous Australians.  Its a far cry from where things were when I was a child growing up, and from where they were before I was even born.  The stigma of being indigenous was once to be feared.  Thing is, even at a catholic primary school, we had indigenous speakers come to us, and talk to us of the rainbow serpent, and all the other stories associated with dream time, and the dreaming.  Indigenous culture the use of the didgeridoo, boomerang, and what was important in indigenous ways of life including spirits, the elders, and smoking ceremonies.   People my age who were born here, have seen generations of migrants come, setup a life, struggle to speak the dominant English language, yet still work really hard to forge a life for themselves and their kids without the benefits of Abstudy which is still relevant to ensure that higher education is affordable for young indigenous people.  I remember when I was applying for Austudy, that it was highlighted it was means tested and I wasnt elligible.  I also remember there being information on the form that if selected this wouldnt be a negative for an indigenous person which spoke of their mistrust which comes from a historic place of oppression and understandable.   This helped me understand that whilst I wasnt elligible, I was one of the lucky ones who was deemed not to need it.

Picked up our part time jobs, and then made our way into society and full time work.  Ive been lucky enough to work in government organisations which for the last 20 years have been celebrating NAIDOC week, promoting the work of health care services in indigenous communities.  The council offerings for the indigenous people, and advocating for the protection of local fauna and flora.  The ongoing welcome to country we all participate, and the living in suburbs where traditional indigenous names are used on street signs.  The health care services and their indigenous liaison team, the poppy seed muffins, the indigenous people we speak to and hear from in various walks of life.

Things are continuing to progress for indigenous people.  I work with a guy who is Italian by background and his wife is indigenous.  The shame that would have been there to state this 40 years ago, isn't there anymore and the conversation tends to be more of curiosity.  What does this mean for you, your kids, is it difficult to forge these two cultures together etc.  People are moving on, have moved on, and they are tired of being told how racist they are because relics of a bygone era keep telling us how racist we are.  Things continue to move eb and flow, and the under current of the few yelling and screaming racist jibes doesn't mean they are prevalent everywhere.

Its becoming more racist to continue telling us all how racist we are.  Creating a special category in the constitution to recognise indigenous people when we simply refer to them as Michael, Steve, deadly or what not.  We are doing that in all walks of life already, and arguably the constitution changing is a mere formality and legality that many people don't want to see continue to drive in seperation of the indigenous from everyday Australians via an official government legislation. 

The debate I've referenced once on this forum already had 78 year old Ray Martin, telling us all what he thought needed to happen, Malandirri Barbara McCarthy at age 53 telling us all how things are and how they need to be, yet alternatively we had Lydia Thorpe age 50, and Jacinta Price age 42 telling us about how this isnt necessary and better outcomes can be achieved in different ways.  Is it possible the younger people of my vintage are right, and have bigger fish to fry?

Things are continuing to change.  The next generations have much different challenges.  My cousins children, who are a bit younger than me by about 10 years are now looking at their future of health care being paid for out of pocket, private schooling being necessary, affordability of property and life being at the very edge of their tether, and then looking at something like this where the affluent are spending loads of money to achieve a constitutional reform, without spending the money to give the people better outcomes and are getting really irritated by the complete lack of care that our government seems to continually show.  Particularly on the back of a pandemic that has crippled us financially. 

I even saw a reference to spending money on travel and footy games, yet still voting no.  Its not the point.  Those of us who invest a bit of money in enjoying these things in life, dont do so flippantly.  Its calculated and comes with a cost that will be worn in other ways.  Personally, Id prefer getting less judgement and more understanding, rather than seeing the same old same old toys being thrown out of the cot, because people dont agree.

All that being said (and thankyou for indulging me whilst I write a thesis) I recognise that a lot of good still needs to be done to avoid the needless tragedy that continues to occur in indigenous populations.  To avoid the outcomes for people like Kumanjai Walker (apologies if this is the incorrect spelling) and dieing in custody.  We need to avoid them ending up in custody to begin with, but if they do end up in there prevent these things from happening.  No one should die in jail. 

I think the majority of people made up their minds many months ago as to how they were going to vote, and spent the rest of the time either not giving it any thought, or looking for reasons to justify their vote.

@ Thry
I can only speak for myself and in terms of Education and Juvenile Justice in NSW and what you say is correct.
The changes in both those areas from the time I began my career until I finished 40 years later was 'chalk and cheese' in terms of specific programming and educational opportunities for indigenous children.
Just about all of these programs are developed and delivered primarily by or in collaboration with indigenous people. (teachers, aides elders)
For many years schools in Juvenile Justice have had a specific Indigenous teacher's aides/consultants.
Cross curriculum areas have contained an indigenous perspective.

I suspect every state would have documentation similar to this....

https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/aec

Education is one of the core pathways in progressing the opportunities for young indigenous people.
That's not to say that there isn't still a long way to go in a whole range of areas.
Some problems will take an extra effort and resources.
But to say there has been no progress is not correct.

A large portion of my extended family is indigenous, mostly aunts, uncles, great-aunts and great-uncles many who are / were part of the stolen generation. Some grew up as orphans of the state, some evolved into and then out of the clergy, it wasn't uncommon for females in the stolen generation to take vows, particularly if they were the offspring of mixed relationships.

Oddly, they are not the ones complaining about their life, yet they are the generation frequently portrayed as abused and bitter and looking for remediation.

Many of the matriarchs in our family will tell you they weren't stolen but saved, saved from a lifetime of abuse under a strongly patriarchal culture that saw women and children as possessions. But their opinion is drowned out but screaming children.

The loudest voices of protest are not the victims but their children or grandchildren, who assert that they are abused or under-privileged in some way by their parents history. It's a constant source of angst between older family members and the youth.

How can this difference in perception exist?

I suspect a lot of the loudest protests and complaints grow out of circumstance, not everybody is guaranteed a happy existence, and much like the abuse by the church there will be those in indigenous society that have suffered at the hands of immigrants. They will always be the loudest voices and rightly so, but the volume of speak is not a proxy for the generalisation of circumstance.

In my opinion this is where the Voice failed, it was built on a generalisation that came from listening to the loudest voices.

@Thry...
The take home point appears to be that by acknowledging their 'differences' is bad because it highlights that they are 'different'.

At the same time you point out how things have changed, NAIDOC week etc. Is that a negative? Is it not acknowleding their 'differences'.

I think they can be celebrated and should be celebrated and should be encouraged to be in all parts of our society as much as possible. I'm aware that the reference of 'they' could deemed inappropriate in itself.

I was in the 'its ok to boo adam goodes camp because the person is a flog and people of a different skin colour can be flogs'. Which ultimately is about treating people as equal and not as 'different'. So i understand that side of the debate.

However, in this instance, the benefits far outweight the negatives from what i can tell in terms of a yes vote.
and
Alternatively, the opposing side of a no vote getting up is far more damaging to us as a country and its optics.

^^  Thats your opinion Kruddler.  Don't you get it?  Its there for all to see.  There is no right or wrong answer, and not even the indigenous people agree.

@LP

I think what you describe is not a cultural thing, but a generational thing.
IMO the younger 'millenials/xenialls' etc are very quick to cry foul and put their hand out and expect something for nothing.
Whereas the older gen x's or even boomers are more head down bum up and get the job done without whinging about it.

^^  Thats your opinion Kruddler.  Don't you get it?  Its there for all to see.  There is no right or wrong answer, and not even the indigenous people agree.

That was half my point, i don't think there is a 'right or wrong' answer that suits everybody. I do think there is a 'better' answer though.

There's nothing good to come out of the no vote. The architects of the Voice proposal put forward the wussiest, most timid, inoffensive thing possible, and we couldn't even give them that. It reflects poorly on us as a nation. 

@Thry...
The take home point appears to be that by acknowledging their 'differences' is bad because it highlights that they are 'different'.

At the same time you point out how things have changed, NAIDOC week etc. Is that a negative? Is it not acknowleding their 'differences'.

I think they can be celebrated and should be celebrated and should be encouraged to be in all parts of our society as much as possible. I'm aware that the reference of 'they' could deemed inappropriate in itself.

I was in the 'its ok to boo adam goodes camp because the person is a flog and people of a different skin colour can be flogs'. Which ultimately is about treating people as equal and not as 'different'. So i understand that side of the debate.

However, in this instance, the benefits far outweight the negatives from what i can tell in terms of a yes vote.
and
Alternatively, the opposing side of a no vote getting up is far more damaging to us as a country and its optics.

Nice. Love your use of the word, 'celebrate' rather than acknowledge. Massive difference.

Do we not celebrate indigenous culture though?

I walk through the gate of my grandson's school here in 'redneck' Queensland and the indigenous symbolism is prominent from the entrance all the way down to the classrooms. Posters, playground art, even some of the designs on classrooms. Enter the rooms and you don't have to look far to see more examples. Throughout the year there have been a couple of cultural performances.
Maybe it's a generational thing from this point.
Maybe it's these kids who will live in a country where race isn't a point of difference in terms of opportunity and living standards , but where they can still appreciate the culture of first Australians.
They're not mutually exclusive.

I walk through the gate of my grandson's school here in 'redneck' Queensland and the indigenous symbolism is prominent from the entrance all the way down to the classrooms. Posters, playground art, even some of the designs on classrooms. Enter the rooms and you don't have to look far to see more examples.

It's an interesting observation.

I've had some in education system fully support The Voice but complain that they are already drowning in Indigenous Culture in the workplace. They can barely tick a box without a smoking ceremony being conducted and they grow weary of it day after day, they also grow weary of it being used as an excuse for both students and associates. In one case they have been told on certain issues and activities they must comply, but that Indigenous staff and students have a choice so they do not have to comply. I've been told of similar situations in segments of the public service. At best that seems to be a bet each way! :o

Do we not celebrate indigenous culture though?

I walk through the gate of my grandson's school here in 'redneck' Queensland and the indigenous symbolism is prominent from the entrance all the way down to the classrooms. Posters, playground art, even some of the designs on classrooms. Enter the rooms and you don't have to look far to see more examples. Throughout the year there have been a couple of cultural performances.
Maybe it's a generational thing from this point.
Maybe it's these kids who will live in a country where race isn't a point of difference in terms of opportunity and living standards , but where they can still appreciate the culture of first Australians.
They're not mutually exclusive

Quote from: Lods on October 17, 2023, 01:39:34 pm

Do we not celebrate indigenous culture though?

I walk through the gate of my grandson's school here in 'redneck' Queensland and the indigenous symbolism is prominent from the entrance all the way down to the classrooms. Posters, playground art, even some of the designs on classrooms. Enter the rooms and you don't have to look far to see more examples. Throughout the year there have been a couple of cultural performances.

Maybe it's what the school is expected to do in order to retain their funding levels.....

Maybe it's what the school is expected to do in order to retain their funding levels.....

I'm more familiar with the NSW system but with State run schools it would have little to do with being tied to funding levels and more to do with curriculum requirements.
Indigenous perspectives would carry across all areas of the school curriculum.

The extent to which a school is 'decorated', the involvement of outside speakers, performers, elder speakers and additional indigenous teacher's aides would be determined by the Principal, teachers and school community.
They would certainly need to demonstrate that these areas are being covered, but it wouldn't affect their funding.

In my time, schools were given a set budget, but there was also extra money assigned that was to be used on designated targeted areas. Aboriginal education was one such area, but how we used that money was pretty much up to us....artists, performers, speakers etc. If we needed a bit of extra cash for things like NAIDOC week we could use some of the global budget.

Next time you're around a kid's or grandkid's schools have a look The cultural influences are genuine and part of the educational process for indigenous and non-indigenous students as well.

I'm more familiar with the NSW system but with State run schools it would have little to do with being tied to funding levels and more to do with curriculum requirements.
Indigenous perspectives would carry across all areas of the school curriculum.

The extent to which a school is 'decorated', the involvement of outside speakers, performers, elder speakers and additional indigenous teacher's aides would be determined by the Principal, teachers and school community.
They would certainly need to demonstrate that these areas are being covered, but it wouldn't affect their funding.

In my time, schools were given a set budget, but there was also extra money assigned that was to be used on designated targeted areas. Aboriginal education was one such area, but how we used that money was pretty much up to us....artists, performers, speakers etc. If we needed a bit of extra cash for things like NAIDOC week we could use some of the global budget.

Next time you're around a kid's or grandkid's schools have a look The cultural influences are genuine and part of the educational process for indigenous and non-indigenous students as well.

I work in Healthcare, and the cultural connection is everywhere.  And without trying to sound sanctimonious, it has given me a very different and positive appreciation of indigenous culture.

I work in Healthcare, and the cultural connection is everywhere.  And without trying to sound sanctimonious, it has given me a very different and positive appreciation of indigenous culture.

Likewise. And didn't interpret any sanctimoniousness, T.

There is significant irony in Lydia Thorpe labelling all ageing white males as racists, misogynists and fascists while she parades around the country preaching war and saluting Mussolini.

It's quite alarming how history get rewritten, now the raised fist is black power, back then it should have struck fear into anybody of African heritage!