From Sydney to Broome, to Burnie and Townsville, Australians have hit the streets in a show of support for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum.

While polling for Brisbane has suggested the majority will vote No, one supporter of the Yes campaign, Nathan Appo said the large crowd was an indication of strong support.

Gotta say, I think it’s going to be a fairly conclusive “NO” result unfortunately.

It’s not really something that gets brought up in conversation all that often, but when it does I’m still kinda surprised at how many people plan on voting no. It’s always the same arguments too… typical “no” talking points that have been parroted all over the major news channels and what not.

Bit disheartening to be honest, but I’ve kind of accepted we live in a pretty backwards part of Australia (let alone the world) in so many ways.

  • spiffmeister
    71·
    10 months ago

    The point of there not being an extremely precise definition of the voice in the constitution is that it can be changed if it’s not working. Most parts of the constitution are like this afaik.

    What you are being asked is if you support putting a passage in the constitution that would ensure a body with the express purpose of indigenous representation exists.

    • UnfortunateDoorHinge
      42·
      10 months ago

      Bloody hell he literally just said that by reiterating and simplifying the proposal, you not only don’t address his concern, but make him more distrustful of proposal.

      I don’t think the question “if the government is so eager to address indigenous affairs, why haven’t they road tested the voice and taken other funding stimulus measures in the 2023 budget?” Is a ludicrous question.

      You could increase the amount of senators in the NT! I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

      • spiffmeister
        5·
        10 months ago

        The government could do many things, but it’s not the question being asked by the constitutional amendment. It’s not hard to find the design principles for the voice, something I suspect people wouldn’t read even if this wasn’t going to referendum.

        Wanting to see something for two years first is kind of an excuse to never do anything. It’s also not really a good argument for voting no, because the idea is that the “shape” of the voice can be changed if it isn’t working. What people are voting on is the concept.

        I dunno what else to tell you, that’s the proposal and that’s where we are. If people are voting no because lack of details there’s not much to do to convince them. The government is hardly going to release more details now.

      • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻English
        4·
        10 months ago

        Alot of these arguments are good, however, not in the context of the referendum. The alteration to the constitution is just to guarantee that it exists, the rest is effectively up to the government that we have already elected. Don’t like it? Vote for someone else or “make a representation to parliament” by talking with your local member about it. At the end of the day we live in a democracy.