The Voice referendum official Yes/No pamphlets

Very, very sick of the no campaign brigading every discussion with terrible arguments in bad faith.

I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed. Similarly, the law is my degree. I've spent five years of my life studying it, and although I'm not a graduate yet (two units to go), I'd think I'd know more about this shit than Joe from bumfuck nowhere on Facebook.

There is no case for a no vote. None whatsoever. The change would not grant special rights to Indigenous Australians. It has been repeatedly explained by both lawyers and politicians. You can read the change yourself. It has to be a constitutional change, because that protects it from being outright removed by successive governments, which is the very thing that happened to the previous body that performed this role. By definition, it is not racist, as racism refers to negative treatment on the basis of race or ethnic background, and not differing treatment. This is one of three steps proposed by Indigenous Australians towards reconciliation, and isn't the endpoint. If it fails, it will be the endpoint.

When the colonisers arrived, Indigenous Australians outnumbered colonisers. Now, they make up just 2.5% of the population. We are driving them to extinction. If this fails, by the time we get around to trying again, it is likely the genocide will have all but been completed.

Ethically and morally, a yes vote is the only choice. Legally, it is the best choice for change.

I’ll be voting Yes.

For those wanting more clarity, what do you mean? We have been given the proposed alteration to the constitution:

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: 1.There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; 2.The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; 3.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

RIKSY
UNKOWN
DIVISIVE
PERMANENT

You can tell you should be worried because they use scary words and CAPITAL LETTERS. I also love how they put "it opens the door to activists" like it's a bad thing. Personally I wouldn't mind if Australia Day were replaced with a Treaty Day if that came to pass. It's just an excuse to get absolutely pissed around a barbie anyway.

I'll be voting yes, if for no other reason than to encourage more referendums.

I think its insane that we need to vote people in to vote for us, who are statistically more likely to be psychopaths. The majority of Australians think weed should be legal, but it still isn't.

Giving people the power to vote on specific issues bypasses the bureaucratic bullshit.

"Oh no, it might open the door to more changes to the constitution" GOOD

I have yet to see a single rational reason to vote no. I just don't get it. How could you possibly be against consulting people before you make decisions that affect those people?

Do the No voters think that the government shouldn't listen to the AMA when making health policy? That they shouldn't listen to teachers and principals when they make education policy?

Those looking for detail will be disappointed. These pamphlets don’t provide clarity either way. I don’t think it’s the fault of the aec, but rather how something like this is inserted into the constitution.

I still honestly don't know which way to vote. Most of my indigenous friends have been posting on socials saying to vote no, so I'll probably go that way, but part of me just thinks no matter how tokenistic and kinda "us white men good, help black fella have say" it comes across, surely having it would have to be better than not having it?

Why couldn't this just be like gay marriage where the only reason you'd vote no is because you're a religious nut or a bigot? (unfortunately, it seems 40% of our population fit into those categories)

The "yes" brochure arguments really sound like a lot of political fluff. "Recognition".....cool, but what does that get them? What does "being recognized in the constitution" mean? "Listening".........ok but are you actually going to do anything? Who are you listening to out of the hundreds/thousands(?) of indigenous tribes around the country? "Better Results"......so got any actual plans for those things? How does the voice help achieve those results?

Having now looked at the "no" brochure, they basically echo what I just asked above haha. The Government literally won't divulge the details of what the Voice actually entails. That seems super dodgy.

Just a friendly reminder to keep discussions civil and respectful. It is important that we share a wide variety of opinions and debate around the topic is important. When responding to people who differ in opinion to you it is important not to respond with aggression or name-calling as it discourages these important conversations. If you notice the conversation getting off track please make a report so action can be taken if necessary.

The pamphlets are a waste of time because there was no legal obligation to make them truthful or factual.

The pamphlets have not helped me decide whatsoever. I was sortof leaning yes but....I just don't know.

I'm probably going to regret this but I'm a glutton for punishment so here goes.

At this stage I have some real reservations on the "The Voice" on both practical and philosophical grounds.

• In a liberal democracy, in principle everyone should be equal under the law, with no particular group being elevated in terms of representation above beyond anyone else, and certainly not on the basis of race. While it's true government may make policy targeted at different groups, the voice is a bridge too far for me, in essence setting up a third chamber of parliament. And while the Voice cannot block legislation directly I could foresee it doing so indirectly. Depending on the issue this could be bad or a good thing. If one doesn't agree with this and thinks it's powerless, then why bother?

• Having the voice as a permanent entity seems to suggest to me that the problems in some sections amongst the aboriginal community basically will continue on forever and hence putting the voice in the constitution, and I find this incredibly racist and insulting. Assuming they implemented the Voice and it did the trick and everything is all good in ten years time, I'm very skeptical a future referendum to disband it would ever fly. Once people get into power they will absolutely hang on to it.

• If we setup a voice for this particular minority group, what's next? an LGBTQIA+ voice, or some other minority voice? This could set a very unworkable precedence.

• I'm sure this is going to be an unpopular point of view, but at some point people do need to take responsibility for their own choices. Not everything is someone else's fault, and certainly not someone that's been dead for 200 years, or even 50 years. I have more sympathy for kids with fucked up parents (I've been there), and early childhood intervention involving kids from difficult homes needs to be looked at in general regardless of race. But we don't need the voice to point out this really patently obvious fact.

• There have been many aboriginal advisory and policy groups in the past that were dismantled due to dysfunction and corruption. To this day there is still a vast bureaucracy dedicated to aboriginal issues. What exactly is happening to all of their advice and their reports and all of their policy work? This doesn't seem to be fixing the problem. And for some reason we are supposed to believe, without any evidence, that another layer of bureaucracy is going to help? Parliament barely functions, let alone another bolted on elected body in the form of a voice. I'm skeptical, and I'd really want to see just a shred of empirical evidence it would make a difference. Let's say for arguments sake it would work. Great. Form the body today through legislation and stop dicking around in the constitution. If it's the best thing since sliced bread then it should meet with little resistance.

• This voice just seems like a really ham fisted and convoluted way of trying to implemented aboriginal recognition in the constitution. If that's the real goal, then there's got to be a better way to do it. Some suggest slipping in a bit of text into the constitution saying "Aborigines were here first" or words that effect. To me it seems quite ridiculous since this is history and it seems pointless to restate the historical facts in the constitution. If it makes someone feel better I'm not against it but I'm not sure it would change how people feel in the long run, aboriginals included.

• For aboriginals that are looking for real power (i.e. dedicated seats in parliament), this seems like a very watered down version of it. For aboriginals that only want aboriginals in this country and want everyone else to fuck off it's most definitely unsatisfactory. The more I think about it the more I think the "The Voice" is the absolute worst of all worlds.

• The way I see it is that we are all here in this country as a result of some type migration, even aboriginals. And each wave of migration has had impacts to the continent, Australian wildlife and it's inhabitants, good and bad. And there is good and bad in all of humanity. The way this debate is going, whoever is on the other side is automatically deemed bad and whoever agrees is good. And perhaps this is the problem with the modern era overall.