Referendum

[Brookie Bob]

Based on nothing but my own views I do not believe polling is representative anymore / as accurate as it used to be due to the way the data is now collected. As an example Newspoll is owned by News Limited (first danger sign!)

Their polls are run by yougov. For interest I signed up to see the process..interestingly when it came to gender there were only two options....which instantly alienates a large amount of "youth" voters.

To sign up all I had to provide was year of birth, gender, postcode and an email address. I can not participate in election polls and be rewarded with gift cards after a certain time.

Methods and Accuracy of Political Polls in Australia - Zee Feed

Are political polls in Australia worth paying attention to? We explain the basics of how they work, why they exist and if you should care.

zeefeed.com.au

This is not to discuss the merits of the voice (I am all yes and if you are in doubt look it up - everyone did their "research" for COVID surely you can do the same here) rather to say I would not place all my trust in polls no matter what they are saying...let alone full disclosure of all the questions asked

Time will tell.

 

[Eagle Eyed]

I am undecided.

I'm disappointed with how divisive this has become and that some well educated people that I know have been aggressive enough to infer that a no vote is driven by racism. The aboriginal people themselves are divided over this issue and historically different tribes were during history at war with one another. Who is the voice really to be given to? Will it be unified voice or a voice that at least represents the majority of the aboriginal people? Where will that majority come from? Will they come from the tribes and elders of our remote Aboriginal communities where the most help is needed?

Is the purpose of this exercise sought as another form of further reconciliation or is it really a tool that will help to fix the existing problems?

It certainly won't change the awful mistakes our governments and bureaucrats made historically.

For mine the question really is - Do we really need to amend our constitution in order to fix the long standing problems that have existed? Or should it be as a result of the actions taken by our elected governments in concert with one another with a common goal to achieve the improvements and outcomes desperately needed. What are the sources of the current problems that exist and how can they be addressed effectively? It is complex to say the least. I agree that these issues require the consideration of Aboriginal views.

Is this referendum going to suffer the same fate as the 1967 referendum by not achieving not nearly as much as was hoped. Australians voted ‘yes’ because they thought that by voting ‘yes’, they were going to give Aboriginal Australians a better chance at a life within Australia, that they were going to be given the capacity to be able to live in Australia at a standard that wouldn’t make us ashamed. Well here we are.

There is already significant government funding for Aboriginal people, a lot of that money actually isn’t about spending to develop capacity and improving indigenous services, it’s about processes that relate to indigenous people. The funding to date is absorbed by poor decision making, fractured approaches between Federal and State Governments and Territories with heavy handed interventions that have not been successful as the social issues are complex.

Some aboriginal communities have become dysfunctional with atrocities being committed by aboriginal people upon aboriginal women and children.

I don't expect the majority of Australians have read the constitution nor understand what the impact of the proposed change will really be. I heard on the ABC this morning that experts have concluded that the proposed changes are not risky to the constitution - what on earth does that mean?

I am undecided and not impressed by the campaign.

A very serious matter is changing our constitution and frankly the campaign has not been informative enough. The majority of people I have spoken to don't feel they understand the goals and benefits that will follow a "Yes" vote. If the outcome is in effect "No" it doesn't mean that a majority of Australians are racist. It doesn't mean that they accept that our Governments have done enough to date to address the very serious issues that exist within some of our remote aboriginal communities. It will be as a result of people not being satisfied that changing our constitution will really change outcomes. However there will be those within our communities that will label such an outcome as a form of racism. What to vote? Was this referendum really a good idea?

Absolutely well said and thank you

 

[BOZO]

Feathered friends
4 days to go
It will be what it will be
We will all respect the outcome of our great democracy
and keep living together ebony and Ivory peacefully and free

By the way I was at the servo today and saw Anthony Mundine filling up next to me
Anthony lives on the South side of the bridge not far away from where I live
Anthony off course is a No voter same as his uncle and Indigenous leader Mr Warren Mundine .
I gave him my usual Go Manly and he gave me his usual humble smile
Anthony in person and away from the media is always very friendly soul .

 

[manly al]

Would tend to think that the published polls on the Referenda outcome or likely outcome are fairly accurate .
Seems a big factor at least outside of the major population centers is some perception of even more land claims or again perceived indigenous privilege. Probably not helped recently by a bit of intransigence by a couple of indigenous elders not allowing what should be just reasonable access to a couple of national parks bordering designated native title areas .
Then in Queensland at least, quite a bit of underlining concern and resentment about youth crime and other anti social conduct largely by an indigenous element which may have been under better control in recent times but still a problem .
All these matters however have virtually zero relevance to the Referenda proposals but conflated and played on to pretty good effect and to a large degree to encourage a no sentiment .
Other reasons naturally why the Referenda will almost certainly go down also of course .
but never underestimate a crude scare campaign and crass political motives .
Of course some legitimate and understandable apprehension with constitutional related concerns and would say not the most effective and best conducted Yes campaign when all things are taken into account . Very difficult exercise and mission however at any time , trying to promote any type of change with so much negativity and fear mongering amped up
Even if it largely has approval from many conservative perspectives and Polies in relation to this proposal, .
Real shame in a big way when the whole purpose and intention with plenty of genuine goodwill and from the general political spectrum going back many years now was just. to manage some practical and positive processes and with some reasonable degree of authority and status to close the gap and encourage even more reconciliation . .
Aw well , back to the drawing board for the relevant authorities to try for better outcomes and with this recent attempt almost certainly going down

 

[Eagle 1]

An interesting stat out of today's official reports;

63% of young Australians are more likely to vote Yes, and thereby for change.

Only 25% of "old farts" (like me) being 55 + will vote Yes.

It shows that old prejudices, handed down from generation to generation still stick with that group. I will vote Yes, but I remember my Grandparent's racist attitude.

Fortunately my parents were better informed and educated me accordingly.

European interracial prejudices go back centuries, exacerbated by religious beliefs; hence the never ending conflict.

We are a New lucky country, by comparison and have an ideal opportunity to get out of that perennial problem by voting for the Yes proposition.

Wow, a tad sanctimonious there John... So you're virtually classifying all of us "old farts" over 55's less 25%, who are voting NO as having prejudices, ok, so what about the other age demographics ( mostly young Australians ) that have recently come on board over the last two weeks for the NO case, do they have prejudices as well ?. It's now looking more and more like a 65 - 35 probable split to the NO camp as we count down to Sat. To lump a big majority of the NO voters as having prejudices tells me more about you than it does us old farts tbh.

 

[John Nicholson]

Wow, a tad sanctimonious there John... So you're virtually classifying all of us "old farts" over 55's less 25%, who are voting NO as having prejudices, ok, so what about the other age demographics ( mostly young Australians ) that have recently come on board over the last two weeks for the NO case, do they have prejudices as well ?. It's now looking more and more like a 65 - 35 probable split to the NO camp as we count down to Sat. To lump a big majority of the NO voters as having prejudices tells me more about you than it does us old farts tbh.

You can tell many stories of yourself;

• I probably was racially prejudiced at one time when I was working within the First Nations community. It took a while before I realised their plight and tried to work with them rather than against. That was a long time ago.
• Today's society is led by social media, being more attractive to young Australians. Only they can take out of it what they feel is right.
• Smokers are no longer smokers and drinkers are no longer drinkers. The wheel turns on each personal axis.

To sum up in my sanctimonious mind I ask myself " Why are they voting No?", unless the argument has been successfully manipulated on Party Lines.

 

[Eagle 1]

You can tell many stories of yourself;

• I probably was racially prejudiced at one time when I was working within the First Nations community. It took a while before I realised their plight and tried to work with them rather than against. That was a long time ago.
• Today's society is led by social media, being more attractive to young Australians. Only they can take out of it what they feel is right.
• Smokers are no longer smokers and drinkers are no longer drinkers. The wheel turns on each personal axis.

To sum up in my sanctimonious mind I ask myself " Why are they voting No?", unless the argument has been successfully manipulated on Party Lines.

I'm sorry to know that you were once racially prejudiced at one time, just don't assume that everyone who'll be voting NO are all racially prejudiced. I'm not naive to know that there are racists amongst the NO camp, but unfortunately this comes with the territory. You would be surprised at how many want good outcomes for our First Nations people and not just from the YES camp.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I'm sorry to know that you were once racially prejudiced at one time, just don't assume that everyone who'll be voting NO are all racially prejudiced. I'm not naive to know that there are racists amongst the NO camp, but unfortunately this comes with the territory. You would be surprised at how many want good outcomes for our First Nations people and not just from the YES camp.

I think that's fair enough...but that also raises a question; When the voice is voted down on Saturday, what is the direction to get the outcomes for first nations people? If we can agree that something needs to be done, then what is that something if it's not the voice?

 

[Eagle 1]

I think that's fair enough...but that also raises a question; When the voice is voted down on Saturday, what is the direction to get the outcomes for first nations people? If we can agree that something needs to be done, then what is that something if it's not the voice?

Agree, I guess the spotlight has been shon onto the problem now, so that's a good thing. Just not the way that Albo and the Canberra elites want it tho.

 

[Brookie Bob]

Based on nothing but my own views I do not believe polling is representative anymore / as accurate as it used to be due to the way the data is now collected. As an example Newspoll is owned by News Limited (first danger sign!)

Their polls are run by yougov. For interest I signed up to see the process..interestingly when it came to gender there were only two options....which instantly alienates a large amount of "youth" voters.

To sign up all I had to provide was year of birth, gender, postcode and an email address. I can not participate in election polls and be rewarded with gift cards after a certain time.

Methods and Accuracy of Political Polls in Australia - Zee Feed

Are political polls in Australia worth paying attention to? We explain the basics of how they work, why they exist and if you should care.

zeefeed.com.au

This is not to discuss the merits of the voice (I am all yes and if you are in doubt look it up - everyone did their "research" for COVID surely you can do the same here) rather to say I would not place all my trust in polls no matter what they are saying...let alone full disclosure of all the questions asked

@John Nicholson and @Isz - how about the ABC? While I find that New Ltd tends to blow with the wind, the ABC can't be accused of being right-leaning, or anti-social justice:

Why is Tasmania the only state leaning towards a Yes vote in the referendum?

Tasmania's Liberal premier is urging a Yes vote in Saturday's referendum but the dominant Indigenous group says No. What is happening on the island state and why do polls say it is the only state tracking in favour?

www.abc.net.au

"One of the good signs for the polls in this case is that they are more widely spread out — they're not clustered around the same value," Dr Bonham said.

"When polls are all getting the same thing, it's more likely that they're not behaving independently of each other and they're wrong."

Dr Bonham also said polling around the referendum was likely to be more reliable, given the degree of interest it had garnered from pollsters around the country and even overseas.

"It's been one of the most richly polled things we've ever seen in Australia," he said.

 

[lsz]

@John Nicholson and @Isz - how about the ABC? While I find that New Ltd tends to blow with the wind, the ABC can't be accused of being right-leaning, or anti-social justice:

Why is Tasmania the only state leaning towards a Yes vote in the referendum?

Tasmania's Liberal premier is urging a Yes vote in Saturday's referendum but the dominant Indigenous group says No. What is happening on the island state and why do polls say it is the only state tracking in favour?

www.abc.net.au

"One of the good signs for the polls in this case is that they are more widely spread out — they're not clustered around the same value," Dr Bonham said.

"When polls are all getting the same thing, it's more likely that they're not behaving independently of each other and they're wrong."

Dr Bonham also said polling around the referendum was likely to be more reliable, given the degree of interest it had garnered from pollsters around the country and even overseas.

"It's been one of the most richly polled things we've ever seen in Australia," he said.

To me it is all about the methodology - as people change the way they interact and consume media I just believe it is harder to get a representation of what is actually going on

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

OK it’s nearly voting day! I’m on record as being for Yes, and here’s a quick recap on some No points that have come up, with my response. Ignore or reject at your leisure


Q - top point is the Voice will be divisive.
A - Division already exists in Australia, the referendum campaign has shone a light on it that is pretty impossible to miss


Q -It’s no longer their Lands? I'm sorry but that was a very long time ago. I can't control and am not responsible what happened in the past.
A -True but the vote is not till Saturday, we’ve all now seen the division, and we all will be responsible for what happens in the future


Q - The Voice is touted as the most important priority Australia has at present. But This is not borne out by recent polls:
A – yeah but that’s irrelevant as to whether to vote Yes or No!


Q - You've got the land claims popping up everywhere, one in Nth Sydney too I believe that ruffled the well to do. Also you've got the hardcore "we want repatriation" "we want you to pay rent for our land
A – so when they have a referendum on reparations, vote No … but this one is just for a Voice, so vote Yes


Q - What happens if yes wins and a topic comes up and the Voice panel say no and the government say yes?!
A – the government wins of course, because the Voice won’t have any power aside from ‘making representations’ (ie, suggestions)


Q - the aboriginal people themselves are divided over this issue
A – Not really, 80% of First Nations people support the Voice, an overwhelming majority, but all we see is Mundine and Price quoted daily in the media daily for months, which gives a false impression


Q - who is the voice really to be given to? Will it be unified voice or a voice that at least represents the majority of the aboriginal people? Where will that majority come from?
A – that will all be decided by the govt of the day and hopefully by First Nations communities themselves, but the current govt proposal is to include the views of all First Nations people including in remote communities


Q - is it really a tool that will help to fix the existing problems?
A – great question, 80% of First Nations people think it is an important step in getting better decisions made affecting their communities, but … what would they know?


Q - the question really is - Do we really need to amend our constitution in order to fix the long standing problems that have existed? Or should it be as a result of the actions taken by our elected governments in concert with one another
A – No, and changing the constitution doesn’t guarantee fixing anything – but it will be a strong symbolic statement that First Nations people must always be acknowledged, and heard in relation to decisions about their communities, so it will hopefully produce better outcomes than “elected governments” have managed so far


Q - already significant government funding for Aboriginal people, he funding to date is absorbed by poor decision making, fractured approaches between Federal and State Governments and Territories with heavy handed interventions that have not been successful as the social issues are complex.
A – Good point, sounds like something significant needs to change


Q - Some aboriginal communities have become dysfunctional with atrocities
A – and yet some people are convinced there is no lasting harm from colonisation, Hey maybe they’re just barbaric people by nature


Q - A very serious matter is changing our constitution
A – no, a very serious matter is changing the way we listen to First Nations people - changing the constitution isn’t a serious matter, but it is a bloody difficult and costly matter (thanks to the bloody constitution!)


Q - majority of people I have spoken to don't feel they understand the goals and benefits that will follow a "Yes" vote
A – yes they forgot to google it


Q - How does the rule of Law apply without distinction or prejudice across Australia without having different sets of laws for indigenous versus non-indigenous people in the above scenario? And wouldn't that in and of itself be discriminatory?
A – the Voice is not a different set of laws, it is just to let First Nations people be heard in decisions affecting their communities, and by the way I haven’t heard No campaigners slamming the untold millions spent on lobbying by big mining companies, developers, the gambling industry, Qantas, tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceutical industries, etc etc etc to make sure big business can always get the ear of the govt decision-makers (but no, we better not listen to what First Nations people are thinking!)


Q - absolutely no information on how the body is set up, made up, powers etc... So basically vote YES and after success through consultation of various people blah blah blah the Voice body will be set up. You would think for such a momentus occasion they would have done their homework and presented something with substance we could understand
A – you aren’t voting for all that stuff, the elected govt of the day – the govt you helped elect - can change all that at any time, you are only voting on the referendum question


Q - All the murder, enslavement, dispossession etc that you're thinking of here in Australia - has been done everywhere the world over since the dawn of time,
A – yep, and it’s never hurt anyone, probably good for us really!

 

[Brookie Bob]

Q - the aboriginal people themselves are divided over this issue
A – Not really, 80% of First Nations people support the Voice, an overwhelming majority, but all we see is Mundine and Price quoted daily in the media daily for months, which gives a false impression
and
Q - is it really a tool that will help to fix the existing problems?
A – great question, 80% of First Nations people think it is an important step in getting better decisions made affecting their communities, but … what would they know?

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/anthony-albaneses-key-claim-about-support-for-the-voice-rubbished-by-new-poll/news-story/15a5d5340994fc18b25342184bf3be8e

Q - All the murder, enslavement, dispossession etc that you're thinking of here in Australia - has been done everywhere the world over since the dawn of time,
A – yep, and it’s never hurt anyone, probably good for us really!

Grabbing a statement and using it out of context - never seen that before.......

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Grabbing a statement and using it out of context - never seen that before.......

I just wanted some one-liner points really, didn't feel like writing a book about it all. From memory you were suggesting the fact many countries have been invaded, colonised, etc and this was somehow a reason to vote No? Or maybe I misunderstood your point, if so, sorry!

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Agree, I guess the spotlight has been shon onto the problem now, so that's a good thing. Just not the way that Albo and the Canberra elites want it tho.

'Elites'?? Come on Eagle, you do realise who is funding the No campaign don't you!
And, have you heard of the Uluru Statement from the Heart? That is where the Voice proposal comes from, not from Albo.

 

[BOZO]

OK it’s nearly voting day! I’m on record as being for Yes, and here’s a quick recap on some No points that have come up, with my response. Ignore or reject at your leisure


Q - top point is the Voice will be divisive.
A - Division already exists in Australia, the referendum campaign has shone a light on it that is pretty impossible to miss


Q -It’s no longer their Lands? I'm sorry but that was a very long time ago. I can't control and am not responsible what happened in the past.
A -True but the vote is not till Saturday, we’ve all now seen the division, and we all will be responsible for what happens in the future


Q - The Voice is touted as the most important priority Australia has at present. But This is not borne out by recent polls:
A – yeah but that’s irrelevant as to whether to vote Yes or No!


Q - You've got the land claims popping up everywhere, one in Nth Sydney too I believe that ruffled the well to do. Also you've got the hardcore "we want repatriation" "we want you to pay rent for our land
A – so when they have a referendum on reparations, vote No … but this one is just for a Voice, so vote Yes


Q - What happens if yes wins and a topic comes up and the Voice panel say no and the government say yes?!
A – the government wins of course, because the Voice won’t have any power aside from ‘making representations’ (ie, suggestions)


Q - the aboriginal people themselves are divided over this issue
A – Not really, 80% of First Nations people support the Voice, an overwhelming majority, but all we see is Mundine and Price quoted daily in the media daily for months, which gives a false impression


Q - who is the voice really to be given to? Will it be unified voice or a voice that at least represents the majority of the aboriginal people? Where will that majority come from?
A – that will all be decided by the govt of the day and hopefully by First Nations communities themselves, but the current govt proposal is to include the views of all First Nations people including in remote communities


Q - is it really a tool that will help to fix the existing problems?
A – great question, 80% of First Nations people think it is an important step in getting better decisions made affecting their communities, but … what would they know?


Q - the question really is - Do we really need to amend our constitution in order to fix the long standing problems that have existed? Or should it be as a result of the actions taken by our elected governments in concert with one another
A – No, and changing the constitution doesn’t guarantee fixing anything – but it will be a strong symbolic statement that First Nations people must always be acknowledged, and heard in relation to decisions about their communities, so it will hopefully produce better outcomes than “elected governments” have managed so far


Q - already significant government funding for Aboriginal people, he funding to date is absorbed by poor decision making, fractured approaches between Federal and State Governments and Territories with heavy handed interventions that have not been successful as the social issues are complex.
A – Good point, sounds like something significant needs to change


Q - Some aboriginal communities have become dysfunctional with atrocities
A – and yet some people are convinced there is no lasting harm from colonisation, Hey maybe they’re just barbaric people by nature


Q - A very serious matter is changing our constitution
A – no, a very serious matter is changing the way we listen to First Nations people - changing the constitution isn’t a serious matter, but it is a bloody difficult and costly matter (thanks to the bloody constitution!)


Q - majority of people I have spoken to don't feel they understand the goals and benefits that will follow a "Yes" vote
A – yes they forgot to google it


Q - How does the rule of Law apply without distinction or prejudice across Australia without having different sets of laws for indigenous versus non-indigenous people in the above scenario? And wouldn't that in and of itself be discriminatory?
A – the Voice is not a different set of laws, it is just to let First Nations people be heard in decisions affecting their communities, and by the way I haven’t heard No campaigners slamming the untold millions spent on lobbying by big mining companies, developers, the gambling industry, Qantas, tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceutical industries, etc etc etc to make sure big business can always get the ear of the govt decision-makers (but no, we better not listen to what First Nations people are thinking!)


Q - absolutely no information on how the body is set up, made up, powers etc... So basically vote YES and after success through consultation of various people blah blah blah the Voice body will be set up. You would think for such a momentus occasion they would have done their homework and presented something with substance we could understand
A – you aren’t voting for all that stuff, the elected govt of the day – the govt you helped elect - can change all that at any time, you are only voting on the referendum question


Q - All the murder, enslavement, dispossession etc that you're thinking of here in Australia - has been done everywhere the world over since the dawn of time,
A – yep, and it’s never hurt anyone, probably good for us really!

Thank you @SeaEagleRock8 for your Yes recap
and now it is time to balance things up and give all our feathered friends real reasons to vote NO
and here we GO ....
10 imperative NO vote points
1.This Voice is Legally risky
2.There are no details
3.It Divides us
4.It wont help Indigenous Australians
5.No issue is beyond its scope
6.It Risks Delay and Dysfunction
7. It opens the door for activists
8. It will be costly and boreoarctic
9. The Voice will be permanent
10.There are better ways to move forward


From the words of Ray Martin the Yes man ....
Dont be a Dinosaur or a D**head and read the below reasons on these 10 important points why it is SO imperative to Vote NO
https://origin.go.theaustralian.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/No-Case-pamphlet.pdf

Ebony and Ivory proudly standing together in perfect harmony supporting the No vote

 

[John Nicholson]

@John Nicholson and @Isz - how about the ABC? While I find that New Ltd tends to blow with the wind, the ABC can't be accused of being right-leaning, or anti-social justice:

Why is Tasmania the only state leaning towards a Yes vote in the referendum?

Tasmania's Liberal premier is urging a Yes vote in Saturday's referendum but the dominant Indigenous group says No. What is happening on the island state and why do polls say it is the only state tracking in favour?

www.abc.net.au

"One of the good signs for the polls in this case is that they are more widely spread out — they're not clustered around the same value," Dr Bonham said.

"When polls are all getting the same thing, it's more likely that they're not behaving independently of each other and they're wrong."

Dr Bonham also said polling around the referendum was likely to be more reliable, given the degree of interest it had garnered from pollsters around the country and even overseas.

"It's been one of the most richly polled things we've ever seen in Australia," he said.

I missed your question, orry Brookie Bob.

You are right bout the inclination of the ABC, however I find that each aspect of the discussion as handled by the ABC is given more time, more expansion.

This allows time for acknowledgment of alternative views vis a vis News Corp's quick "fact" bite of 30 seconds.

 

[rmd]

This referendum is an interesting one.

About half my extended family are claiming they'll be voting YES, while the other half claim they'll be voting NO. Those who claim to be voting YES, are either really passionate about it or think it's the right thing to do. Those who claim to be voting NO, are either really passionate about it, or claim to not know enough about it.

There's never been any heated debates, in our over 30 relatives chat site, just family discussing it for almost 15 months now, and people have been just expressing their views.

Some claim to have read the 28 page 'Uluru Statement From The Heart', most claim to have not, while some claim to have read the entire 28 page consitutional amendent, which in fact is not the case, it's 3 paragraphs, and rather, they've actually read the 'Uluru Statement From The Heart'. Some of them have Phd's and Masters Degrees, so let's just not go there!

Passion for either side, or ambivalence/indecision seems to be the norm.

The mood seems to have continually changed in our family group, and I guess from opinion polls, it seems to be following a similar trend, and decisions may well change at the polling booth compared to what was the initial intention. One family member who claimed to be definitely voting YES voted NO, while one who claimed to be definitely voting NO voted YES.

Whatever happens, if YES wins, let's hope it works to improve the health, law, education, health and wellbeing of our Indigenous communities through consultation, whereas if NO wins, let's hope the elected government/s can implement the same consultation systems to achieve exactly the same thing. And get rid of the damn beureaucrats who think they are doing the right thing and just continually 'stuff it up'.

Ultimately, whether YES or NO wins, I hope we find a suitable system.

And, if you've never visited remote indigineous communities, do yourself a favour and do so, as it will really open your eyes as to what's going on.

 

[BOZO]

This referendum is an interesting one.

About half my extended family are claiming they'll be voting YES, while the other half claim they'll be voting NO. Those who claim to be voting YES, are either really passionate about it or think it's the right thing to do. Those who claim to be voting NO, are either really passionate about it, or claim to not know enough about it.

There's never been any heated debates, in our over 30 relatives chat site, just family discussing it for almost 15 months now, and people have been just expressing their views.

Some claim to have read the 28 page 'Uluru Statement From The Heart', most claim to have not, while some claim to have read the entire 28 page consitutional amendent, which in fact is not the case, it's 3 paragraphs, and rather, they've actually read the 'Uluru Statement From The Heart'. Some of them have Phd's and Masters Degrees, so let's just not go there!

Passion for either side, or ambivalence/indecision seems to be the norm.

The mood seems to have continually changed in our family group, and I guess from opinion polls, it seems to be following a similar trend, and decisions may well change at the polling booth compared to what was the initial intention. One family member who claimed to be definitely voting YES voted NO, while one who claimed to be definitely voting NO voted YES.

Whatever happens, if YES wins, let's hope it works to improve the health, law, education, health and wellbeing of our Indigenous communities through consultation, whereas if NO wins, let's hope the elected government/s can implement the same consultation systems to achieve exactly the same thing. And get rid of the damn beureaucrats who think they are doing the right thing and just continually 'stuff it up'.

Ultimately, whether YES or NO wins, I hope we find a suitable system.

And, if you've never visited remote indigineous communities, do yourself a favour and do so, as it will really open your eyes as to what's going on.

Great read feathered friend and thank you for sharing .

I have persuaded all my family to vote NO
Some had their doubts but I told them we cannot live a life in doubt

 

[Brookie Bob]

I just wanted some one-liner points really, didn't feel like writing a book about it all. From memory you were suggesting the fact many countries have been invaded, colonised, etc and this was somehow a reason to vote No? Or maybe I misunderstood your point, if so, sorry!

My point was background and contextual. There are public figures - notably the 'Blak Sovereign' movement who couch statements in the vein of 'our people have been brutalized like no other by those genocidal invaders' type of thing.

Just pointing out that (unfortunately) brutality is everywhere, still going on, and holding up a brutality-measuring yardstick for your own agenda is unhelpful at best. Tell me any group of people that have not been brutally oppressed - they're aren't any.

I am wary of rhetoric - from all angles, and how language has changed over time to demonize certain ideas/people to fit an agenda, and deify others.

The truth tends to be complex and multifactoral, more times than not.

PS - last time I checked, 'Blak' is spelled 'Black'. Education............... let's not underestimate it.