Thread by @ozcrimenews

Let's look at some cold hard facts. #TheVoiceAustralia

1. Australians are being asked to vote on a concept that has not yet been put into action. A political idea in other words.

2. Voters are being encouraged to grant politicians an open mandate to implement the plan.

3. The financial implications of the proposed initiative, known as "The Voice," have not been assessed.

4. Full impact studies on individuals and society has not been fully investigated.

5. Lack of representation: There is a risk that the voices being selected or elected may not truly represent the diverse perspectives and interests of the entire community, leading to certain groups or viewpoints being marginalized or excluded. #PoliticalHijacking

6. Potential for bias: The process of selecting the voices may be susceptible to political biases or influence, potentially leading to certain individuals or groups with specific agendas dominating the decision-making process. #VoiceBIAS

7. More voices, more noise - We have a minister already. We have local councils, State and Federal government running most things past local indigenous. That DOES NOT need constitutional change.

8. How can indigenous voters vote for something they've never ceded to in the first place? ie. the Australian Constitution.

9. Albo has not been clear which document is being updated. Is it the Constitution of 1901 or is he referring the The Australia Act 1986? #VoteNOinAugust

10. Accountability: Without a clear framework for accountability, it may be challenging to ensure that the voices are acting in the best interests of the community. Checks/balance is absent, decisions may not align with the majority's wishes or that favour specific interests.

11. Unclear decision-making process: The lack of transparency/clarity abt. how the voices will be involved, raises questions about their actual impact and influence. Without well-defined procedures, there is a risk that their input may routinely be disregarded or overridden.

12. Potential for inefficiency: Introducing additional layers of decision-making and consultation could result in slower and more cumbersome processes, potentially hindering timely and effective governance. at all levels. Local, State, Federal.

13. Financial implications/sustainability: Costings or financial plans are absent. No concerns abt long-term financial viability of implementing the initiative. Clarity or understanding of financial burden and funding sources, sustainability of the initiative may be in question.

14. #AlboTheNutter is proposing constitutional change. If there are problems with this uncertain concept plan that is merely a political idea not yet in existence e.g.. with Point 13. That's it. It is hard, if not impossible to unwind.

15. Lack of tested outcomes: Since the initiative has not been implemented or tested, there is uncertainty about the actual outcomes and benefits it will deliver. This makes it challenging for voters to assess its potential impact and make an informed decision.

16. Divisiveness and polarisation: The introduction of the voice vote initiative may lead to further division and polarization within the community. Differing opinions and interests could create conflict and hinder effective decision-making processes.

17. Lack of defined objectives: Without clear objectives or goals for the initiative, it becomes difficult to measure its success or impact. The absence of specific benchmarks may result in ambiguity and a lack of accountability for achieving desired outcomes.

18. Potential for political manipulation: Risk that the voice vote initiative could be exploited by politicians for their own political gain. Selectively listening to certain voices or manipulate the process/support own agendas, undermining intended purpose of the initiative.

19. Limited expertise and knowledge: The voices representing the community may lack the necessary expertise or understanding of complex policy issues. This could result in uninformed decisions or recommendations that do not adequately address the challenges at hand.

20. Lack of broad public engagement: The voice vote initiative may not effectively engage a broad cross-section of the community. This could lead to limited participation, excluding important perspectives and resulting in a skewed representation of the community's interests.

21. Potential for unintended consequences: Without comprehensive impact studies/thorough understanding of potential consequences = risk of unintended negative outcomes. Decisions made based on emotional responses, incomplete information unintended &adverse effects on community.

22. Overlapping or conflicting voices: If multiple initiatives or bodies exist concurrently to represent different voices, it may create confusion and inconsistency in decision-making. This could result in a lack of coherence and coordination in addressing community issues.

23. Burden on resources and time: Implementing and sustaining the voice vote initiative may require significant resources, including funding, staffing, and time. This burden could strain existing systems and divert resources from other pressing priorities.

24. Politicisation of process: The voice vote initiative may b/c tool for political parties/politicians to gain favour/secure support from specific interest groups. Could lead to the instrumentalization of community voices for political gains vs gen. address'g community concerns.

25. Fragmentation of decision-making: With the inclusion of additional voices in decision-making process, RISK: increased fragmentation/difficulty reaching consensus. Cld. lead to gridlock /inefficiency in governance, hindering the ability to address pressing issues effectively.

26. Potential for long-term instability: Introducing significant changes to the decision-making process, such as constitutional amendments, without a clear and widely accepted plan, could create long-term instability. #VoteNoAustralia

26.1 and uncertainty in the political system. This may result in frequent revisions, disputes, and challenges, ultimately impacting governance effectiveness.

27. Dan Andrews is a c unt.

28. Refer also to this thread - The Philippines enshrined the Bangsamoro people into their constitution creating a defacto state. The area is impoverished, poor and also still faces conflict between armed groups.

https://twitter.com/ozcrimenews/status/1641598307490471936?s=20

29. What will be the impact of the global Unidroit agreement?

https://twitter.com/ozcrimenews/status/1641679288050266115?s=20

30. The "Yes Vote" is about emotions. They have a weak position but good emotional marketing and manipulation. Decisions should be based on facts and implications.

31. Concerns about the voice vote initiative go beyond emotion, focusing on key issues like lack of costings, untested outcomes, potential bias. A well-planned system is needed for transparency, accountability, and fair representation before even a referendum can be considered!

32. There is no solid evidence other than #AlbosDreamVote - Let's address the concerns and provide evidence for a more informed decision-making process. The Yes side lacks a strong argument, relying mainly on emotions and populism to get this referendum up.

33. Australians are expected to vote on a 'voice' without actually hearing the voice itself explain the framework or details. How innovative! A game of charades, where we're supposed to guess rules, objectives. Who needs transparency/informed decision-making? #VoteNOinAugust

Have you heard the Voice?

Ahhh - No?

How can you vote on something you haven't seen or heard?

It's all a dream in Albos head. We will find out about it later if it gets through.

Remember. Once it is in the constitution, there is no going back.

#VoteNo #VoteNOinAugust

34. If politicians are worried about misinformation and disinformation - it is probably the result of their own lack of transparency. Esp. on the framework, inability to articulate outside emotions, costings, expectations and many other aspects covered above.

35. There has been an overwhelming underrepresentation by Aboriginal Groups (you know, not the politically funded and manipulated ones) that are the supposed beneficiaries - as to their opinions on this or are the wheels that squeak the most, getting some promo funds.

Here's a 1 pager that enshrines this dream into a constitution? The red boxed statements are all covered and are waffle. We have electoral laws, discrimination laws, but it states "consider" steps for implementation following a successful referendum. What are you voting on again?

All this first bit is just meaningless waffle #voteno #VoteNoAustralia

"is accountable and transparent" -Waffle
"Works alongside" Uncosted
"Does not have veto power" Why not talk to the Minister for indigenous Affairs?
"Advice" - aka made aware, then something happened, therefore, what is liability scenario - knowingly ignoring.
"chosen" Elections?!

Curious about the role of the UN post-voice initiative? What will be the ramifications considering their involvement in creating Autonomous areas in Mindanao, Philippines between the government and the Bangsamoro people when recognised by constitution.

https://twitter.com/ozcrimenews/status/1641598317191905281?s=20

[From an old tweet] A lady in Sydney donated money to a NT community. Am sure they had been screaming to the government for a long time before that happened. Do people really think the voice will help indigenous communities?

"First Ministers" 🤨🤔
They call it a 'voice,' but apparently, it comes without any actual power or influence. It's like being handed an empty megaphone. So, we're supposed to get excited about a voice that speaks but has no impact? Brilliant strategy #AlboPM! #VoteNOinAugust

Referendum Working Group - directory.gov.au/portfolios/pri…

36. The Referendum Working Group is co-chaired by the Hon Linda Burney MP, Minister for Indigenous Australians and Senator Patrick Dodson, Special Envoy for Reconciliation and the Implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and includes a broad cross-section

37. of representatives from First Nations communities across Australia. The Referendum Working Group will provide advice to Government on successfully implementing a referendum within this term of Parliament on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice enshrined /..

38. in the Australian Constitution including timing to conduct a successful referendum, refining the proposed constitutional amendment and question, and the information on the Voice necessary for a successful referendum.

39. Current Referendum Working Group Members
Last Updated 20 December 2022 - Currently 20 May 2023
Source: tinyurl.com/2h5hcxm9

40. The Australian Governments page about the Voice Referendum - voice.gov.au is worth reading - The expected referendum date is between October and December 2023.

#Australia

41. Judicial Independence: The voice, as a potential right to be heard ranking alongside judiciary in the constitution - what threat to independence and impartially, rule of law and the protection of individual rights may impact by the Voicers exercising constitutional rights?

42. Reference to 41 (above) needs investigation. voice.gov.au/advisory-group… There is a constitutional expert group comprising a doubling up of members from the Voice working group eg. Noel Pearson. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Pear…

43. The Voice concept lacks framework:
- Expertise, credibility, and biases of Voice representatives are uncertain. Who decides the committee members? The operating framework remains undefined, relying solely on promises of purpose.

44. Transparency matters. Concerns arise as there's no clarity on what issues will be addressed or excluded. Who sets the priorities? Will political interference overshadow fair representation? Decision-making processes remain unclear. Guards against undue influence.

45. Voting System: The referendum considers a voting system for appointing voice panellists. Will it resemble the preferential system used in Australia? What of concerns eg. candidates benefiting from donkey votes, informal votes, preferences like #DickHeadAndrews

@threadreaderapp
unroll