Play Nice Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Link to the proposed Referendum, from the Referendum Working Group:

(Edited 6 April 2023)

These are the words that will be put to the Australian people in the upcoming referendum as agreed by the Referendum Working Group (made up of representatives of First Nations communities from around Australia):

"A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

As well as that, it will be put to Australians that the constitution be amended to include a new chapter titled "Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples".

The details would be:


View attachment 1636890

The Prime Minister has committed to the government introducing legislation with this wording to parliament on 30 March 2023 and to establishing a joint parliamentary committee to consider it and receive submissions on the wording, providing ALL members of Parliament with the opportunity to consider and debate the full details of the proposal.

Parliament will then vote on the wording in June in the lead up to a National Referendum.

The ANU has issued a paper responding to common public concerns expressed in relation to the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice here:

Indigenous Voice to Parliament | Australian National University

Responding to common concerns about an aboriginal and torres strait islander voice First Nations portfolio Background

www.anu.edu.au

Summary details of the key points from this paper may be found in Chief post here:

The Uluru Statement from the Heart:

Not specifically No. In any case it does not form part of the Referendum proposal.

View attachment 1769742

Seeing as things have gotten a bit toxic in here, let's try to return things to a more civil tone.

The following will result in warnings to begin with, and if said behaviour continues will be escalated:

• referring to another poster as racist without direct provocation.
• dismissing or deriding another poster's lived experience.
• personal attacks or one line posts designed solely to insult or deride.

You might notice that the final rule is from the board rules. Thought we should probably remember that this is against the rules in case it's been forgotten.

Let's play nicely from here, people.

 

[GreyWind]

Are you among the irrelevant voters by choice ?

I wasn't aware that being a swing voter affected a referendum.

 

[Not Important]

The actual processing time is pretty much the same as an election.
--------------------------------------------
"Are you entitled to vote early in this referendum "? " My dog ate my carkeys, i cannot get to the polling place on saturday "
"So that would be a yes"? "Yes ".
"Surname please" "Sabadatjhajarus Maklubmoblius "
"Um can you spell that " "SABADATJHAJARUS MAKLUBMOBLIUS , its spelt the normal way "
"Um....... " "Fine here is my drivers license "
Initial paper.
"Have you voted before in this referendum " "Yes "
"You voted before ...in this referendum " ? "ohhh in this one ...No "
"Now you just need to put a YES or a NO in this box, then place it in the ballot box near the door on the way out"
"Can i put an X in the box "? "No"
"Thank you"
-----------------------
Its really the same except only one sheet of paper needing an initial.

Obviously the counting process after the polls close on Saturday will be a lot faster and easier.

that wasn't the point i've been making.

 

[kalex6251]

Take a deep breath. Trump isn't Australian and isn't even in power half way across the globe lol

house republicans have just nominated a maga-loving, jan-6 stolen election advocate for the speaker role

and this has only happened because a maga-loving, jan-6 stolen election advocate moved a motion to remove the previous house republican speaker - who happened to be a weak-willed trump apologist

and you question whether trump still wields influence in american politics? you may chose not to believe it, but changes of any magnitude in american politics has global ramifications - even here in little ol' australia

[edit] ...... lol

 

[Kwality]

Can you please support your claim that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament would create a racial divide in Australian citizenship, or please delete that claim.

Or at the very least, walk it back.
Your claim is not true, so you cannot support it.

See:

Yes.
See here: Australian citizenship equality is at stake in the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum, writes Chris Merritt | Rule of Law Institute of Australia

I am happy for you to disagree, not for you simply deny./attempt to cancel.

 

[phantom13]

See:

I am happy for you to disagree, not for you simply deny./attempt to cancel.

Did you read that link?

It is emotive hogwash. I get that its written by someone with suitable credentials but its not even using them, its just alarmist bullshit.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The problem I have with this view is that it justifies each and every question one can ask, regardless of merit, motive or - realistically - harm.

Within the last week, someone in the Hamas thread asked the question 'Why can't palestinians just leave?'

Do you think that's a reasonable question, even knowing that Palestinians have cultural, ethnic and familial history linking them to their country, their town, their people? Do you think that telling Palestinians that these things don't matter - inbuilt into the question as assumption - is an unharmful act?

To what extent does the right to ask questions trump someone else's right not to have their trauma poked at due to ignorance if not outright malice?

You're missing the broader view of my point.

What I personally don't want is undecided voters pushed to a no vote because they've asked questions in good faith and then to have been criticized because someone else has viewed that question as bad faith.

Ok, that undecided voter who will now vote no because of that is rather petulant, none the less it reduces the chances of the Voice getting up, which is what I want.

Now to your question on the shall we say 'the right to call out out' if you will, your example.

Within the last week, someone in the Hamas thread asked the question 'Why can't palestinians just leave?'

^ This is probably not a good example (not a jab), as there are obvious reasons why palestinians can't just leave, to most this would seem an unreasonable question and probably asked in bad faith. Even then one just needs to be civil and constructive in their critique, not an emotional labeling.

A lot different to *'who will decide who will be on the board?'

* Personally I have faith that whoever decides and whoever is selected will be the correct person / people. None the less others might view this as important and should not be denied to view it as important.

I'm not saying don't call out at all if one views what might be a genuine question if it is viewed as bad faith, but at least be civil about it, leave the insults and denigration at the door and explain why one thinks that the question is a bad faith one.

This shouldn't just apply to these boards either, should be followed in all forms of media and out in the real world.

After all, personal attacks and insults are supposedly not allowed on these boards right?

 

[MrKK]

The pooch has been screwed by going straight for the constitutional route for the Voice. If that was the end game then the prospects for success would have been far greater if legislated first.

Albanese could have had this referendum during an expected second term where there would be a few years of real experience about how it was working. That experience would disarm most of the No arguments.

 

[Kwality]

sometimes i think the no voters or the undecided saying they don't know what they are voting for are just playing dumb. the information is out there ffs.

Unwilling to want to debate their privately held opinion, because there are plenty of nutters out there: 'thanks, not today ' as you close the front door.

 

[phantom13]

You're missing the broader view of my point.

What I personally don't want is undecided voters pushed to a no vote because they've asked questions in good faith and then to have been criticized because someone else has viewed that question as bad faith.

Ok, that undecided voter who will now vote no because of that is rather petulant, none the less it reduces the chances of the Voice getting up, which is what I want.

Now to your question on the shall we say 'the right to call out out' if you will, your example.

Within the last week, someone in the Hamas thread asked the question 'Why can't palestinians just leave?'

^ This is probably not a good example (not a jab), as there are obvious reasons why palestinians can't just leave, to most this would seem an unreasonable question and probably asked in bad faith. Even then one just needs to be civil and constructive in their critique, not an emotional labeling.

A lot different to *'who will decide who will be on the board?'

* Personally I have faith that whoever decides and whoever is selected will be the correct person / people. None the less others might view this as important and should not be denied to view it as important.

I'm not saying don't call out at all if one views what might be a genuine question if it is viewed as bad faith, but at least be civil about it, leave the insults and denigration at the door and explain why one thinks that the question is a bad faith one.

This shouldn't just apply to these boards either, should be followed in all forms of media and out in the real world.

After all, personal attacks and insults are supposedly not allowed on these boards right?

I suspect there might be a handful (and i do mean a handful) who ask stuff like 'who will decide who will be on the board?' in good faith.

I think the VAST majority arent doing that and more so if this was answered and was part of the referendum question then those same people would say "well what if that doesnt work, then its in the constitution and cant change, thats bad, im voting no".

Ultimately well never know.

 

[CM86]

See:

I am happy for you to disagree, not for you simply deny./attempt to cancel.

Your link doesn't seem to work for me.

Can you please screenshot, or quote the part that supports your claim?

Your claim being that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament would create a racial divide in Australian citizenship, or please delete that claim.

If you can't screenshot or quote the part of your link that supports your claim, why would you link it?

 

[evolved2]

We should never forget that Australia is the one and only English-speaking country that enforces compulsory voting. I support it. But I think compulsory voting means that the large portion of people who don't follow politics are prone to parroting political talking points. The binary yes/no question has highlighted that very well.

It seems to be why three-word slogans work. People repeat them in conversation and become free, sometimes unwitting volunteers for the campaign. When you throw the seeds of catchy slogans into the soil of a compulsory voter base, they grow into votes and spread.

I'm not convinced that compulsory voting makes a difference to the effectiveness of catchy 3 and 4 word slogans.

Look at the US: Yes we can/MAGA.

 

[Kwality]

I call bullshit.

If you dont know what the referendum is about at this point then youve actively avoided engaging with it.

You either want to vote no but dont want to admit why or youve done everything possible to avoid having the questions you might have answered.

That is of course your right, but hiding behind the excuse is piss weak.

The poster did not express his own opinion on the issue.

 

[tandino]

how many legislations that are passed have you personally looked into all the details on, or is it just the fact you have to vote that you're suddenly interested in details?
"Constitutions are not detailed documents that anticipate every possible circumstance. On the contrary, they are by nature short and incomplete documents. They inherently contain large gaps.”

Constitutionally enshrined institutions are primarily shaped by legislation passed by parliament and the proposal for the Voice is similar to other clauses.

For example, the Constitution has little detail about the High Court and how it should operate, not even detailing how many justices should sit on the court.

The relevant part of the Constitution reads: “The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other justices, not less than two, as the parliament prescribes.”

The Judiciary Act 1903 set the High Court’s powers and jurisdiction and there have been several amendments passed since that have seen it further evolve.

“For instance, the court has increased in size from three to seven justices in order to handle its increasing case load, which many in the early 20th century thought would be very light,” Associate Professor Partlett said."

You have to base your decision on the information that is there, that this is an advisory body providing feedback on legislation based on first nations issues. just like anything else in our constitution. The details all the no voters are looking for aren't going to be there but are no voters really concerned about the details or just using this an excuse to simply vote no.

The voters set the parameters of the debate ultimately, by definition. They define their own requirements, and if they seek information that can't/won't be given, then you're not winning many referendums.

 

[phantom13]

The poster did not express his own opinion on the issue.

EDIT - Apologies, i though you were responding to my comment about your link. Have now edited.

I didnt say the poster was bullshitting, i was saying the "punters" the poster was referring to were bullshitting.

 

[evolved2]

why not?

It suggests yes voters are disadvantaged compared to no voters. That part makes no sense.

 

[Kwality]

Your link doesn't seem to work for me.

Can you please screenshot, or quote the part that supports your claim?

Your claim being that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament would create a racial divide in Australian citizenship, or please delete that claim.

If you can't screenshot or quote the part of your link that supports your claim, why would you link it?

I have no idea why you cannot open the link. Perhaps ask someone who might know your problem.

'Those who see the coming referendum as a question of morality are right. The legal detail is important. But even more important is the fact that this debate is about a single principle.

We must all answer this question: do we still believe in equality of citizenship? Or should we say yes to a new system of government that puts racial preference in the heart of our Constitution?

This Indigenous voice to parliament referendum has inflicted enormous damage and threatens to cause more. It is killing the idea of reconciliation and has replaced it with distrust, bitterness and personal abuse.
But if that is the price of defending equality of citizenship, it is a price worth paying. There is no room for compromise on this principle. It is fundamental to what it means to live in a democratic society.

Those, like me, who believe the Constitution should recognise this continent’s first inhabitants need to accept that the proponents of this referendum are treating us like fools.

We are being asked to constitutionalise an institution that would destroy equality of citizenship. The con is we are being told that this amounts to constitutional recognition.
This is nothing but a cynical ploy aimed at persuading us to surrender one of the most important elements of a form of government that people on the other side of this planet are defending with their lives.

It comes down to this: if you believe everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of those who make and administer the law, this referendum must be rejected.

Consider what this country would look like if this referendum succeeds.

Those with the right genetic inheritance – and their descendants for all time – would gain an additional method of influencing politicians and officials that would surpass the normal rights of citizenship.

Unless the wording of the proposed constitutional provision is changed, a new institution to be known as the Indigenous voice would be empowered to make race-based representations about all areas of public administration and all new laws.

Public servants would be in a truly dreadful position.

Instead of making decisions according to law and the instructions of their superiors, they would need to consider representations from an institution of state whose only purpose would be to inject racial preference into public administration.

Many public officials would consider decision-making on such a basis to be reprehensible, if not immoral.

Racial preference never ends well. It was a hallmark of South Africa’s apartheid era and it still blights Malaysia, where citizens of Indian and Chinese descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities that are available to Malays.

In this country, equality of citizenship is reinforced by the fact that the source of Australian sovereignty is the people of this nation – all of them, regardless of race or national origin, and regardless of whether they arrived yesterday or have antecedents who arrived 60,000 years ago.
This is a direct consequence of one of the most important initiatives of former prime minister Bob Hawke: the passage of the Australia Acts by the British and Australian parliaments. This put an end to the argument that Australian sovereignty derives from an act of the parliament at Westminster. This was made clear by Sir Anthony Mason, a former chief justice of the High Court.

In a 1992 decision known as Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth, Mason wrote: “The Australia Act 1986 (UK) marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the Imperial parliament and recognised that ultimate sovereignty resided in the Australian people.”

Hawke repatriated the source of Australian sovereignty and vested it in the Australian people – all of them, including those who pointlessly recite that their sovereignty was never ceded.

Entrenching racial preference, as proposed by the Albanese government, would make a mockery one of Hawke’s greatest achievements by inserting a racial divide.

The real tragedy is that we could have been on track for overwhelming approval of constitutional recognition.

There is a legitimate argument that Indigenous people should be heard before parliament makes special laws about them under the Constitution’s race power in section 51 (26). In practice, that power has only been used to make laws on Indigenous affairs.

So because Indigenous people are the only Australians singled out by race for special laws, there is a logical argument for matching that power with a requirement that they should be heard before that power is exercised. It would therefore make sense to establish a voice if it were limited to providing advice to parliament, not the executive, and only on laws enacted under section 51 (26) that relate only to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

Such an entity would not threaten equality of citizenship.

It might even be feasible to give it a flexible boundary so it could provide advice on matters that have a specific impact on Indigenous people that goes beyond the impact on the general community.

But even then, it should not be part of the Constitution.

If such a redesigned voice were statutory, it would not be permanent so it would not infringe the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. A permanent system of racial preference such as a constitutionalised voice, as proposed by the government, would appear to be a breach of the convention.'

You may not like that opinion- it does not make that opinion right or wrong AS YOU APPEAR TO INSIST.

 

[MP_]

It suggests yes voters are disadvantaged compared to no voters. That part makes no sense.

the crux of the image is to show that first nations are the most disadvantaged, regardless of the yes and no heights in the image, the symbolism is that indigenous people do not have equity.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I have no idea why you cannot open the link. Perhaps ask someone who might know your problem.

'Those who see the coming referendum as a question of morality are right. The legal detail is important. But even more important is the fact that this debate is about a single principle.

We must all answer this question: do we still believe in equality of citizenship? Or should we say yes to a new system of government that puts racial preference in the heart of our Constitution?

This Indigenous voice to parliament referendum has inflicted enormous damage and threatens to cause more. It is killing the idea of reconciliation and has replaced it with distrust, bitterness and personal abuse.
But if that is the price of defending equality of citizenship, it is a price worth paying. There is no room for compromise on this principle. It is fundamental to what it means to live in a democratic society.

Those, like me, who believe the Constitution should recognise this continent’s first inhabitants need to accept that the proponents of this referendum are treating us like fools.

We are being asked to constitutionalise an institution that would destroy equality of citizenship. The con is we are being told that this amounts to constitutional recognition.
This is nothing but a cynical ploy aimed at persuading us to surrender one of the most important elements of a form of government that people on the other side of this planet are defending with their lives.

It comes down to this: if you believe everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of those who make and administer the law, this referendum must be rejected.

Consider what this country would look like if this referendum succeeds.

Those with the right genetic inheritance – and their descendants for all time – would gain an additional method of influencing politicians and officials that would surpass the normal rights of citizenship.

Unless the wording of the proposed constitutional provision is changed, a new institution to be known as the Indigenous voice would be empowered to make race-based representations about all areas of public administration and all new laws.

Public servants would be in a truly dreadful position.

Instead of making decisions according to law and the instructions of their superiors, they would need to consider representations from an institution of state whose only purpose would be to inject racial preference into public administration.

Many public officials would consider decision-making on such a basis to be reprehensible, if not immoral.

Racial preference never ends well. It was a hallmark of South Africa’s apartheid era and it still blights Malaysia, where citizens of Indian and Chinese descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities that are available to Malays.

In this country, equality of citizenship is reinforced by the fact that the source of Australian sovereignty is the people of this nation – all of them, regardless of race or national origin, and regardless of whether they arrived yesterday or have antecedents who arrived 60,000 years ago.
This is a direct consequence of one of the most important initiatives of former prime minister Bob Hawke: the passage of the Australia Acts by the British and Australian parliaments. This put an end to the argument that Australian sovereignty derives from an act of the parliament at Westminster. This was made clear by Sir Anthony Mason, a former chief justice of the High Court.

In a 1992 decision known as Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth, Mason wrote: “The Australia Act 1986 (UK) marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the Imperial parliament and recognised that ultimate sovereignty resided in the Australian people.”

Hawke repatriated the source of Australian sovereignty and vested it in the Australian people – all of them, including those who pointlessly recite that their sovereignty was never ceded.

Entrenching racial preference, as proposed by the Albanese government, would make a mockery one of Hawke’s greatest achievements by inserting a racial divide.

The real tragedy is that we could have been on track for overwhelming approval of constitutional recognition.

There is a legitimate argument that Indigenous people should be heard before parliament makes special laws about them under the Constitution’s race power in section 51 (26). In practice, that power has only been used to make laws on Indigenous affairs.

So because Indigenous people are the only Australians singled out by race for special laws, there is a logical argument for matching that power with a requirement that they should be heard before that power is exercised. It would therefore make sense to establish a voice if it were limited to providing advice to parliament, not the executive, and only on laws enacted under section 51 (26) that relate only to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

Such an entity would not threaten equality of citizenship.

It might even be feasible to give it a flexible boundary so it could provide advice on matters that have a specific impact on Indigenous people that goes beyond the impact on the general community.

But even then, it should not be part of the Constitution.

If such a redesigned voice were statutory, it would not be permanent so it would not infringe the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. A permanent system of racial preference such as a constitutionalised voice, as proposed by the government, would appear to be a breach of the convention.'

You may not like that opinion- it does not make that opinion right or wrong AS YOU APPEAR TO INSIST.

Its an indigenous voice, not an indigenous preference. It doesn’t exclude others from having a voice.

Where do you find this nonsense?

 

[CM86]

I have no idea why you cannot open the link. Perhaps ask someone who might know your problem.

'Those who see the coming referendum as a question of morality are right. The legal detail is important. But even more important is the fact that this debate is about a single principle.

We must all answer this question: do we still believe in equality of citizenship? Or should we say yes to a new system of government that puts racial preference in the heart of our Constitution?

This Indigenous voice to parliament referendum has inflicted enormous damage and threatens to cause more. It is killing the idea of reconciliation and has replaced it with distrust, bitterness and personal abuse.
But if that is the price of defending equality of citizenship, it is a price worth paying. There is no room for compromise on this principle. It is fundamental to what it means to live in a democratic society.

Those, like me, who believe the Constitution should recognise this continent’s first inhabitants need to accept that the proponents of this referendum are treating us like fools.

We are being asked to constitutionalise an institution that would destroy equality of citizenship. The con is we are being told that this amounts to constitutional recognition.
This is nothing but a cynical ploy aimed at persuading us to surrender one of the most important elements of a form of government that people on the other side of this planet are defending with their lives.

It comes down to this: if you believe everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of those who make and administer the law, this referendum must be rejected.

Consider what this country would look like if this referendum succeeds.

Those with the right genetic inheritance – and their descendants for all time – would gain an additional method of influencing politicians and officials that would surpass the normal rights of citizenship.

Unless the wording of the proposed constitutional provision is changed, a new institution to be known as the Indigenous voice would be empowered to make race-based representations about all areas of public administration and all new laws.

Public servants would be in a truly dreadful position.

Instead of making decisions according to law and the instructions of their superiors, they would need to consider representations from an institution of state whose only purpose would be to inject racial preference into public administration.

Many public officials would consider decision-making on such a basis to be reprehensible, if not immoral.

Racial preference never ends well. It was a hallmark of South Africa’s apartheid era and it still blights Malaysia, where citizens of Indian and Chinese descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities that are available to Malays.

In this country, equality of citizenship is reinforced by the fact that the source of Australian sovereignty is the people of this nation – all of them, regardless of race or national origin, and regardless of whether they arrived yesterday or have antecedents who arrived 60,000 years ago.
This is a direct consequence of one of the most important initiatives of former prime minister Bob Hawke: the passage of the Australia Acts by the British and Australian parliaments. This put an end to the argument that Australian sovereignty derives from an act of the parliament at Westminster. This was made clear by Sir Anthony Mason, a former chief justice of the High Court.

In a 1992 decision known as Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth, Mason wrote: “The Australia Act 1986 (UK) marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the Imperial parliament and recognised that ultimate sovereignty resided in the Australian people.”

Hawke repatriated the source of Australian sovereignty and vested it in the Australian people – all of them, including those who pointlessly recite that their sovereignty was never ceded.

Entrenching racial preference, as proposed by the Albanese government, would make a mockery one of Hawke’s greatest achievements by inserting a racial divide.

The real tragedy is that we could have been on track for overwhelming approval of constitutional recognition.

There is a legitimate argument that Indigenous people should be heard before parliament makes special laws about them under the Constitution’s race power in section 51 (26). In practice, that power has only been used to make laws on Indigenous affairs.

So because Indigenous people are the only Australians singled out by race for special laws, there is a logical argument for matching that power with a requirement that they should be heard before that power is exercised. It would therefore make sense to establish a voice if it were limited to providing advice to parliament, not the executive, and only on laws enacted under section 51 (26) that relate only to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

Such an entity would not threaten equality of citizenship.

It might even be feasible to give it a flexible boundary so it could provide advice on matters that have a specific impact on Indigenous people that goes beyond the impact on the general community.

But even then, it should not be part of the Constitution.

If such a redesigned voice were statutory, it would not be permanent so it would not infringe the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. A permanent system of racial preference such as a constitutionalised voice, as proposed by the government, would appear to be a breach of the convention.'

You may not like that opinion- it does not make that opinion right or wrong AS YOU APPEAR TO INSIST.

OK

So it's a misleading opinion piece. That doesn't support itself.

How does that support your claim that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament would create a racial divide in Australian citizenship??


Unless this is an additional part of your claim, now?
That you are also claiming that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is comparable to "South Africa’s apartheid era and it still blights Malaysia, where citizens of Indian and Chinese descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities that are available to Malays"?
Is that your claim????

Are you claiming, like this opinion piece you've used to support your position is claiming... that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be permanent?
Using one of the slimiest lies told... that using a referendum to change the constitution, would somehow mean we can never change it again??

 

[evolved2]

The pooch has been screwed by going straight for the constitutional route for the Voice. If that was the end game then the prospects for success would have been far greater if legislated first.

Albanese could have had this referendum during an expected second term where there would be a few years of real experience about how it was working. That experience would disarm most of the No arguments.

Completely agree. I'll consider this a cross against Albo's leadership.

All we'll get out of this referendum is a divided nation.

 

[phantom13]

Completely agree. I'll consider this a cross against Albo's leadership.

All we'll get out of this referendum is a divided nation.

FFS.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Completely agree. I'll consider this a cross against Albo's leadership.

All we'll get out of this referendum is a divided nation.

Does every election divide the nation as well?

You’ve been jumping the shark quite a bit lately with these weird quips. Along the lines of Harold Bishop and/or Mrs Mangell.

 

[CM86]

People keep saying that. The information is vague at best

"seat at the table", "voice to be heard".

If we're voting on something, give us something tangible. What do you want in plain terms because both sides know 'seat at the table' isn't the end game

The ad running says this will help health outcomes and what not. Talk about misinformation, how?!

"right thing to do". More laughable nothingness. Literally no better than 'don't know, vote no'

- Donkey voter (or whatever the term is for no vote)

Have you tried to look anything up, yourself?

If not... Why not?

 

[evolved2]

Does every election divide the nation as well?

I can't think of an election that's been this divisive. Can you?

 

[phantom13]

I can't think of an election that's been this divisive. Can you?

Forgotten about the bullshit pulled in the SSM plebiscite pretty quickly.