Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]

Who do we rent from if we can’t afford to buy a house in this alternate vision of the future?

The government. Also if the 10% of homes that were empty on the night of the last census were suddenly dropped onto the market it would cause a massive drop in prices so more people could afford homes.

Wow! this is some of the stupidest shit I have heard in days. There are more citizens of the USA and UK that own property in Australia than Chinese citizens.

Your “reportedly” statement is made up bullshit and the “ghost cities” were a lie. they are now full of people. Our backwards ass government can’t conceive of infrastructure until a decade after its needed and then they get bent over the barrel with budget blowouts that cost the taxpayers double the original stated costs. Meanwhile China spent a bunch of money during the financial crisis when materials and labor were cheap to build infrastructure and you act like it is a bad thing.

Reddit isn’t worth remembering a 8 character password these days.

Fanfiction illegalized in USA!

no you cant. Hamas is the name of Palestinians fighting against apartheid and genocide. If you are against Hamas you are against Palestinians. The Palestinian March of Return proved violence is the only way for Palestinians to end apartheid because nobody else will do anything to stop israel. If you want Palestinians to be non-violent you are asking them to let the zionists take their homes, nation, culture and lives.

anti Hamas and anti violence = pro genocide.

Its the feds! They are in here trying to guilt us because they know no other way to make us stop. May the redcoats end up in Davey Jones Locker!

We have all been raised in racist societies. We all have little racist worms in our brains. We owe it to ourselves to fight our internal racism as well as helping each other recognise when we are being bigots.

Arguing what you said isn’t racist is itself racist 99% of the time. If you think maybe what you said really wasn’t racist ask why it is racist don’t try to defend racism.

If someone starts giving excuses or justifications for why what they said wasn’t racist just say “The only correct response when someone tells you something you said was Racist is ‘Oh I’m sorry. I didn’t realize. I will try to watch out for that in the future. Thank you for helping me fight racism’”

If they keep arguing you just say “I guess you don’t wan’t to fight racism. You know what that makes you?”

“Yes” doesn’t go far enough.

A Yes vote manufactures consent. It is saying “this is good enough” It allows Racists cover. A No result opens the nation up to well deserved ridicule. Our government will never do what is right unless they are bullied extensively and made to feel shame. Half measures like this amendment allow them to skate along with no action. We need anti-Racists to be angry. We need a real movement that demands real change not a pacified voter base that accepts platitudes.

The makeup of the body is not defined clearly enough.

No it is defined perfectly well. It is explicitly defined as being subject to parliament which is NOT enshrined in the constitution. The amendment offers no protections beyond its existence. It is a underhanded insult to indigenous peoples who stated clearly that they want an Indigenous Voice to Parliament Enshrined in the constitution.

The “Journey together toward healing and reconciliation” was supposed to start 48 years ago with Gough Whitlam. It was supposed to start with the National Apology 24 years ago, with the closing the gap program 13 years ago. The colonial government will keep throwing ineffectual policy at voters as long as we keep gobbling them up.

The idea of the article in the constitution is to describe what the body is for, and the details can be adjusted as needed.

Sure but couldn’t they have at least put is some protections for the voice? Something like “it can only be modified once every 10 years” or “requires 2/3rds majority to change.” Something, anything that gives the voice an edge against our reactionary government?

The voice could have been legislated into existence first and then tweaked before making a constitutional amendment. This was a suggestion with lots of support before the referendum was called. If the voice was a concrete thing the referendum wouldn’t be subject to emotional debate based on speculation. Making the voice first and then enshrining it might take longer to get it enshrined but it would be quicker to get it started and once it was in the constitution the fight would be over. Doing the refferemdum first makes the fight last indefinitely because the legislation will always be under threat. This was a deliberate choice by the ruling class because they will give up the illusion of power but they will never give up their right to take the power back.

I disagree with your opinions they are vibes based and not based on historical evidence. Expecting members of the government to work against their own self interests is silly.

The Voice will be independent of the Government of the day.

Not True.

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.

I don’t disagree with most of what you said but if you think a Yes vote is going to change the status quo you are going to be disappointed. The referendum passing will do as much for the next generation as “Closing the gap” did for this one only the lack of action will be blamed on the Voice not on the government.

fair enough

The solution is simple. Do what the Uluru statement says. Make a voice for Indigenous Peoples that is enshrined in the constitution.

Don’t settle for a cardboard cut out version of the voice. Be angry that the racists running your country would try to lie to you to pretend that this will fix things. Be mad that they would waste so much money and time and effort to do a performative gesture. Tell them you are angry.

Do you expect Oil companies and Coal miners to stop pollution on their own? Why would you expect the colonial government operating on stolen land to actually force themselves to have accountability to the very people who they are stealing from? Voting Yes for the current amendment is just encouraging the poor behaviour. Its enabling the quiet racists and helping them hide.

Our government needs to be bullied and harassed until they have no choice to do what is right. They will not do it voluntarily. If they pass this referendum they will act like their last place participation ribbon in the anti-racism olympics is a world record setting gold medal and they will never strive anything better.

Lets just say he has some problematic ideas. He has been involved in professions prone to causing extensive brain damage. I’m not going to say his entire opinion is wrong but he uses buzz words and phrases that are common is far-right and conspiracy theory circles.

There are more qualified people who have good credibility like Lidia Thorpe who’s arguments are well formed and don’t inadvertently reference less reputable ideas.

I’ve explained extensively why the referendum rubbish elsewhere in the thread. I can’t enlighten you if you refuse to pull your head out of where the sun doesn’t shine.

I mean Mundie isn’t the greatest person to link to.

You can be pro-Voice and anti referendum. The issue is that the proposed amendment is offensively ineffectual.

Claiming that the progressive NO has no path forward is intellectually dishonest. Just because you don’t know what it is doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

“Everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a racist even the Aboriginal Australians”

So good to have people like you willing to debate in good faith using facts and reason.

‘May’ is used, (in addition to other reasons) because otherwise it creates a legal obligation on the Voice, to make representations.

It is up to the voice to make representations and the voice should want to make a representation on everything that effects Aboriginal Australians. Eve if the representation is “I don’t hate this” The word may means the government isn’t obligated to receive representations. As it is right now anyone “may” make a representation to parliament but it is up to parliament to accept or ignore such representations. The wording in the proposed amendment changes nothing.

And “shall receive” still puts the legal/constitutional obligation on the Voice to come up with and present those representations

If the voice wants to be heard it has to do the talking. (I feel stupid for having to say that) Who else should have the responsibility to make and present representations for the voice other than the voice?

The current wording doesn’t force them to make representations, and more importantly, doesn’t mean the creation and the Voice having to follow strict rules about when, how, and how often those representations are made.

Sure but the wording also doesn’t force Parliament receive the representations either. They could receive a single representation once a decade and claim to have done their duty. Because the powers and construction of the voice is left to the Parliament to legislate and future governments to modify the government ultimately decides when and how the Voice can speak. It is a soft form gag order.

And also importantly, can’t be closed down and discontinued through a legislative act of parliament.

The don’t have to close down the voice they can just defund and declaw it till it is inoffensive. Again the funding, composition, and powers of the voice are all subject to legislature and thus not enshrined in the constitution.