• @abhibeckert@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    0
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    they said it would be racist to include specific powers to a specific race in the Constitution

    But the voice doesn’t do that.

    It gives the government specific powers to advise itself on an important issue that needs to be worked on.

    It doesn’t give indigenous people any powers at all. Look, the proposed constitutional amendment is a few short paragraphs. Show me the line of text that gives special powers to a specific race. It’s not there.

    I got another pamphlet in my letterbox today claiming there are things “on the agenda” that are clearly not on the agenda at all. The proposed change to the constitution is very short, very simple, and the No campaign has consistently and repeatedly making things up and claiming a Yes vote will do things that it simply will not do. Frankly it sounds like you’re someone who believes some of their miss-information, which is sad.

    I encourage you to go back read the actual legal text that we are about to vote on. Fuck the yes and no campaigns and anything people are saying here (even what I’m saying). Just read the actual proposed amendment to the constitution. Have a good think about what it means, it’s clearly written.

    Also look into how much we are already spending on this issue without good results — spoiler: it’s estimated at 3% of our GDP. That’s about $1,500 per capita per year… except per capita is the wrong way to look at it since that includes children, elderly people, unemployed people, people who are in prison, or suffer a mental or physical disability. If you are someone who pays taxes then you’re probably spending several thousand dollars per year on this issue already and you have been your entire working life. Ask yourself, do you want to continue spending all that money even though it’s not working? No, of course not. Lets get this advisory body in place so parliament can start making better decisions and all that money can actually start getting results hopefully (it’s worth a try at least).

    PS: Yes/No are not the only options. You could just leave the ballot paper blank when you vote. Seems like a waste though, might as well decide where you fall on the issue and select that one.

    • @Affidavit@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      I have commented on this post explaining my issue with how the ‘Yes’ camp are using their own creative interpretation of what words mean to argue that the ‘No’ camp are spreading ‘misinformation’. I’m not interested in having further dialogue on what ‘special’ means, nor ‘race’, nor ‘power’, nor ‘represent’. If you are interested in my thoughts on the matter you may read my other comments here.

      I don’t mind taxpayer funds supporting people in need. I do mind taxpayer funds being wasted on a lengthy campaigns and pointless referendums. I am angered that there are so many people struggling to stay in shelter and feed themselves and this is what the government has deemed the priority.

      I can’t see myself voting ‘Yes’. I do not agree with inserting (more) race based language into the Constitution and I think it inappropriate to have a body dedicated to supporting a specific race. I will likely vote ‘No’ rather than leave the ballot blank. It looks like the proposal will fail, and it’s my hope that the numbers will be devastating enough that this pointless and divisive issue doesn’t come up again for at least a couple of decades, and our useless representatives can focus their attention on matters of importance.

      Who am I kidding… It’s going to be that dumb republic crap next, isn’t it?