YES23 CAMPAIGN’S LATEST INSTALMENT VIA CLEMENGER BBDO AIMS TO MAKE ‘NO’ ACCOUNTABLE
Clemenger BBDO has followed up its official campaign launch work for the Yes vote in the Voice Referendum with an integrated campaign of national TV, press, OOH, radio, digital and social media for Yes23.
The campaign aims to send a strong message to all Australians highlighting what they believe are indisputable facts that have become lost in the debate.
Airing from this week leading up to the referendum on Saturday 14 October, the work was created to bring home the message of what is at stake for Australia and to make “no” accountable, using the line: “A no vote means no progress.”
Yes 23 Campaign Director Dean Parkin said it was important to highlight to Australians the facts about the differences in outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
Says Parkin: “This advertisement simply points out that many Indigenous Australians live with entrenched disadvantaged when it comes to outcomes in health, education and employment.
“A Yes vote is a once in a generation opportunity to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. A No vote will mean no progress.”
Says Clemenger BBDO CEO Dani Bassil: “Let’s be clear. We are about playing an active role to help win this referendum. As part of that we have been working on different ways to inform, engage and debunk. We are not mucking around. This has only been possible with the incredible minds, collaboration and energy of our Yes23 agency team, our partners, consultants and the Yes23 organisation.”
The yes campaign resulted from the Uluru Statement From the Heart, which was a call by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for real and practical change in Australia by establishing a Voice in Australia’s 122 year-old constitution. This came about at the 2017 First Nations National Constitutional Convention at Uluru, when Indigenous delegates from a cross section of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from around Australia came together and adopted the ‘Uluru Statement from the Heart’ with a standing ovation.
Agency: Clemenger BBDO
ECD – Richard Williams
CD – Brodie King
Senior Creatives – Ellie Dunn and Hugh O’Connor
Strategy Partners – Brigitte Bayard and Mike Ronkoske
Business Management – Georgie Winton, Steph Cheung, Tyler Ronaldson
Director – Michael Gupta
Film Production – Photoplay | Playtime
Photographer – Adam Ferguson
Stills Production – Photoplay Photography
Exec Producers – Florence Tourbier & Alison Lydiard
Sound Post – Rumble Studios
106 Comments
I think a ‘no’ vote is the best thing that can happen to indigenous people. It will force them to realise that they’re going to need to solve the problems this campaign highlights on their own. No-one is coming to save them. They are going to need to work at the grassroots level to make things better for themselves. I see it as a moment of deep opportunity and I wish them every success. I genuinely mean that.
about time someone said this. at what point do you move on and try and fix things for yourself, stop relying on everyone else
The Yes vote literally is “them working at grassroots level to make things better”. This literally is that.
Really hope you take some time to read up on it, and think about your priorities champ.
This referendum is NOT about helping the Aboriginals in remote areas and those who need it. It is ALL about the power and money hungry activists ( the elites) getting their greedy little mits on our rule book, the constitution and making us pay!
Don’t get succored into thinking that if we vote no, we are doing the Aboriginals an injustice. NO! We are actually doing them a favour!
People, wake up to the REAL reason for this!
Vote NO!!!
It’s hard to imagine how this campaign could be any more tone-deaf.
This is exactly what the yes vote needs right now, poisoning the ‘no’ camp. Beautifully crafted too.
JaseR that is about the naivest comment I’ve ever read on this blog. Read a history book you dunce.
This might be the roughest comment I have ever read on CB. Please take time to read and reflect on the impact European settlement has had on our Indigenous people. And that this referendum is the result of their own study and consultations. That they are asking for us simply to recognise them and to listen to them. And that is all this is about. It is a Human Rights issue, and if we say No (which is likely), we are denying them recognition and a voice. I find that horrifying. Further, the No campaign is a construct which came from USA MAGA Think tank. After the hammering the LNP got in the last election they needed a wedge and they chose the rights of our First Nation people to build a path to the next election. ie Dutton & Co were on board until it suited them politically. As this campaign illustrates succinctly: Voting No means No Progress. #VOTEYES. Esther Clerehan.
Please stop with the virtue signalling. The aboriginal community is supposed to look after their people so don’t blame me.
wow such an incredible insight – let one of the most disadvantaged communities in the world just figure out their problems for themselves? you really do not understand the issue. I genuinely mean that.
New week, new ad. Can anyone follow?
Such a shame, whoever ran this campaign has much to answer for.
Change the constitution NO!
This thinking only reinforces the disparity between Indigenous peoples and white Australians. These disadvantages are systemic. To make progress requires the system to change. Vote Yes.
Just kill it with No.
It’s been amateur hour trying to get this up.
It’s been the most divisive, disturbing and dishonest campaign ever.
Orwell would have had a field day with this.
I’m naïve, apparently.
If you honestly think some sort of ritualised talk fest to a national parliament is going to make any tangible difference to the lives of the most disadvantaged in the remotest of communities, you’re way more naïve than me. It will be little more than a forum for the indigenous self-promoting political class to offer up motherhood statements and to have their photos taken. I guarantee it.
Are the problems these communities face incredibly difficult to solve? Sure. Have they been comprehensively done over by the white man for 200+ years? I won’t argue with that. Does that mean the Voice will make an iota of tangible, positive difference to their lives? I don’t think so.
Indeed, it could make things even worse. It could create new and deeper divisions within indigenous communities and between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. It could also be a repository of bad advice. Maybe the real answers are unpopular among loud sections of the indigenous community – like stronger law & order policies or tighter welfare control or stricter bans on alcohol. I don’t know. But as if any of those prescriptions will get up – even if they’re desperately needed.
Believing something is going to help – however well intentioned – doesn’t mean it necessarily will. I believe that the answer to fixing these incredibly intractable issues best lies directly within these communities themselves – not in Canberra and certainly not by appeasing the perceived guilt of the overwhelmingly white, highly educated, professional classes in Australia’s capital cities.
I genuinely mean that.
I wouldn’t say you’re naive. But you don’t have one single sound argument for accepting the status quo/voting no. I genuinely mean that.
Why is voting no accepting the status quo? A vote for no means, for most, that the proposal is flawed. Not that we don’t want change. That it is fundamentally flawed and backing a political class of ‘indigenous’ Australians and not those who need it most. It’s ATSIC 2.0, but twice as bad.
@JaseR Now there’s an idea! Stronger law enforcement and tighter welfare! Why has no-one tried that before? (Aside, of course, from the last 200 years of various law enforcement and ‘welfare’ measures.)
Such a shame – the previous work was actually the kind of thing soft ‘No’ voters could come around to. This is just another “this is your fault” which we all know categorically won’t work to convert this audience.
Did everyone working on this donate their time? Also, it’s a HUGE NO from me.
Dig up stupid
“A Yes vote is a once in a generation opportunity to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. A No vote will mean no progress.”
How many millions $$$$$$$$ is poured into ‘Helping’ Indigenous community groups across Australia, only to be wasted.
BIG NO from me.
…NO!
As will Australia.
No.
We have been voting YES for years and nothing has changed. Stop wasting money.
Please, please read up on what the Voice actually is. There’s a lot of misinformation out there. At it’s core, the referendum is about letting Indigenous people give advice on the issues that affect their community. Decisions will be made by the government either way, but the Voice will ensure that the people making the decisions understand the perspective of the people who will be affected by them. The advisory group will be made up of Indigenous people from every state, territory and island, selected by the communities and relaying the wishes of the communities at large. They don’t have veto power over any laws, they don’t vote on any decisions, they just advise on how to best serve these underrepresented and disadvantaged communities.
More than 80% of the Indigenous community wants this. They want us to listen. That’s why I’m voting yes.
Dear ‘For those voting no’,
I acknowledge you hold your POV on The Voice sincerely. Please accept I hold my POV on The Voice sincerely as well. To state The Voice is an opportunity for indigenous communities to give advice on the issues that effect their communities, is to suggest that is not the case already. You need only talk to anyone in the public service, whether state or commonwealth, to understand that no decision is made on matters effecting indigenous Australians without consultation with the indigenous communities who may be effected by as specific initiative. Can you imagine any State Labor government, or a Federal Labor Govt not doing that? [Nor will all the representatives be selected by their communities. In many communities indigenous women play no role in decision making].
Please, stop your white guilt from clouding your judgement. How do I know you’re white? You use the words ‘They want us to listen’. There is no us and them. The 80% you’re talking about comes from a very small pool of people surveyed. It won’t give the majority of ‘indigenous’ (such a cruel word) people a say over what’s happening in their local community. It will appoint a body of elites, who have majored in Aboriginal Studies, who are also activists the power to create a new chapter in the constitution, that is yet unwritten. And if you have any inkling of the history of these activists, including the enormous sum one is suspected of failing to pass on to his community, you’ll know it won’t be good for whitefellas or blackfellas alike.
I’m disgusted. @JaseR, that comment was actually putrid. Im going to call you what you are. Racist.
Horrifying comment section tbh. I had thought that the advertising industry tended to lean heavily towards a more progressive stance but seeing this section has made me query that. ‘Yes’ may not be a silver bullet but why not give it a try? Can’t hurt anymore than 200+ years of bigotry, racism and stacking the deck against indigenous Australians.
It hasn’t been 200+ years of bigotry, racism and stacking the deck against indigenous Australians. We’ve had many years of extra welfare, extra uni places, extra help from the Government, to the point non-indigenous are discriminated against. That clearly isn’t enough. Here’s a tip. The world doesn’t owe anybody a favour.
What are the 5 x state departments and 1 x federal department of Indigenous Affairs doing with the billions of dollars of funding they receive every year to help these people? And why isn’t it working to fix the disadvantages that this campaign points out?
Surely we need to know that first – before we add yet another layer of bureaucracy and cost to our already bloated governments? Good money after bad isn’t going to help these people. A government that takes the time to understand the problems and how to fix them will. A divisive argument full of half truths on both sides is not helping anyone. This is the real problem with our country – we’d rather grandstand, theorise and put each other down than actually be effective. Than actually help the Australians that need it most.
Currently, initiatives for indigenous Australians receive $31 billion [some claim $40 billion] in taxpayer funding.
That’s $31 billion for less than 3% of the population.
Taxpayers funding for ALL of Medicare for ALL Australians [including indigenous Australians] is $33 billion.
So, before we start creating the next ATSIC, let’s review where the money is going and why it isn’t working first.
For example.
Noel Pearson has received over $550m in state and federal funding for entities and policy initiatives he, and/or the
Cape York Partnership has been associated with [not suggesting he has done anything illegal].
Yet the same issues facing many indigenous Australians continue to be faced by many communities under Cape York
Partnership’s remit.
Is anyone suggesting Noel Pearson hasn’t had a voice, or the ear of federal and state governments of all persuasions?
They’re unfixable
Isn’t it healthy to see that there is a diversity of views beyond your strongly held opinions?
Not here to bash the ‘no’ supporters, but the “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps” sentiment in some of these comments in pretty alarming.
NO
It’s a worrying sign we can’t have a civilised discussion around different opinions in today’s social-onlymyopinionmatters-age.
A poignant article in the SMH a few days ago: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/fyles-attack-and-mundine-threat-suggest-australians-have-lost-the-ability-to-disagree-20230926-p5e7td.html
These comments are diabolical. Vote yes, spread love and take a chill pill. ❤️
Firstly, Clemenger should be happy with both set of ads they’ve produced. Gets the message across far clearer, quicker & cheaper than the ~3-minute ‘You’re the Voice’ effort. These Clemenger ads should have been the first to go live.
It’s a shame how disorganised the Yes23 campaign has been throughout this campaign, though. In a referendum of this size & scale, the fact that ‘lack of detail’ is still a major concern for undecided & No voters is shocking. Questions need to be asked as to why this misinformation hasn’t been snuffed out.
It doesn’t help that there’s no detail provided on the Yes23 website bar its advisory committee status; the ‘more detail’ dropdown on the About page sends you back up to the summary.
Solely relying on the Uluru Statement may have been a mistake as well; not only in the 1-page vs. 26-page argument, but also that statements in the dialogues like, “[there] was a concern that the proposed body would have insufficient power if its constitutional function was ‘advisory’ only”, might pull people away from what’s on the table right now.
What the campaign has needed for months is an integrated approach built around clearly outlining what the Voice is, and what it isn’t.
As one possible option: ‘The Voice IS: [one-liner for what the Voice is; advisory committee et al.] | IS NOT: [insert presiding argument]. Vote YES.”
Insert the top 20 arguments from the ‘lack of detail’ argument, spend your $4 million on getting that everywhere, and you both define your argument & take down the other. Sadly, it seems that it’s too long gone for that.
What a shitshow from Yes23. Still, good job from Clemenger.
Yes, generally I welcome a diverse set of opinions; but i’d rather those opinions were based on alternative views on what progress could/should look like rather than railing against what seems like the only ‘positive’ step on the table and being angry about what may have been tried/done previously. There’s always a role for ‘personal responsibility’ but doesn’t society/government have a role for ensuring that everyone is, at least, starting from a level playing field.
This whole voice referendum shouldn’t have to be advertised and SOLD to the Australian people.
We live in democratic society and we are all being asked to vote YES or NO. Full stop.
Virtue signalling your intent and calling out anyone going against the ‘popular opinion’ and point of view is straight out bullying and divisive.
I’m voting NO and I don’t have to justify WHY or shouldn’t be chastised for it either.
Essentially, what you’re saying is that you are in favour of diverse opinions that you broadly agree with.
If you did, you’d know that talking about Aboriginal people like they’re not human is painful.
You’d know this whole referendum is painful – and made more so by the sell-outs running the No campaign and uninformed Australians trolling online comments sections everywhere we look.
You’d know that Aboriginal disadvantage was created by English colonists and has never been righted because Aboriginal people haven’t had a voice in how public policy affects their lives.
And you’d know that your cheap shots here are read by kids and adults who are impacted by the dehumanising tone of your words.
Time to know more, I say.
And there’s no time like right now.
First, yes. And if you did, you wouldn’t use the word ‘Aboriginal’. Second, the people I know are against it. They’re worried that their community will not be represented by the ‘Redfern mafia’ as they call it. There are many divisions within indigenous Australia, and it’s been seen before, with Land Council and ATSIC that smaller communities are affected by those with more of a voice diverting funding away from them. It’s a complex issue. Do I want to end inequality? Yes. Will this create more? According to my friends, yes.
Clemenger have done a very good job.Their work is simple,the messaging is clear and factual and never accusatory while delivering just the right amount of emotion.Its a real pity this work didn’t launch the Yes campaign rather than the very confusing You’re the Voice TVC which relied on the PR generated by the involvement of John Farnham-well intentioned as it was.There are certainly lessons to be learned for those who might be given responsibility for any future referendum campaigns.In case you are wondering I am still uncomfortably sitting on the fence but leaning heavily to the Yes side.
I don’t think anyone here has remotely referred to Aboriginal people as not human. That’s really a baseless slur, in my view.
The way I read your comment, you are engaging in stereotypes. You seem to be suggesting that Aboriginal people are all the same and equally disadvantaged. I just don’t believe that is the case. There are a great many Aboriginal people who are successfully navigating their lives like everyone else. They are highly educated, own businesses, have families and so on. That’s not to deny the sense of historical trauma they may carry with them or to deny that they may face racism as part of their everyday life. But they are not all down on their luck and in need of special treatment.
Are there problems? Absolutely. Have past efforts necessarily helped turn things around? Seemingly not. Does that mean you therefore have to think ‘The Voice’ is a good idea? I don’t. Finally, putting forward one’s honestly held beliefs about the referendum on a public forum is not trolling.
If you know that Labor is hiding the important and potentially dangerous details behind the voice.
If you know that changing the constitution for a minority group (3% of population) is wrong.
If you know that a Yes vote could potentially lead to treaties, reparations and compensation.
If you know that this is the most divisive question ever asked of the Australian people.
If you know, say NO.
You should move to America and vote for Trump.
Would you mind enlightening us to these “important and potentially dangerous details” that you know about?
You’re very clearly not in the know, nor have you read into about what the voice is and what the referendum is actually about.
Way to miss the point and twist words. You should work for the Liberal party. Hey, I bet you do.
Looks like you can’t handle the truth.
Another truth that you need to know is that the vast majority of Australians will not be voting for Albanese after he loses his voice.
“If you know that a Yes vote could potentially lead to treaties, reparations and compensation.”
You’ve let the fear campaign get to you. No government in their right mind will agree to this. It’s political suicide.
What they might agree to is new policy around healthcare, education, community services. Human standard of living stuff.
But every racist will be voting no.
What dangerous details are the labor govt hiding? Please, enlighten us.
But I liked CB when we talked about the ads and everyone was just a bit jealous and a little competitive.
Goodbye until all this has passed.
No not at all, I’m sorry if that’s the impression I gave. I was trying to express that yes there are multiple paths to achieving a goal but at the moment the debate on this page is centred on why we shouldn’t take, what seems, like the only option that actually is a path forward. Because the alternative option – ‘no’ – seems to be a vote to maintain a status quo that hasn’t worked for indigenous Australians thus far. Like I said; regardless of reservations (much of which I’m sure or at least hope don’t come from a racist place) – why not give this a go? Can’t be worse than doing nothing and hoping for the best.
Why is it a bad thing to amend a constitution (intended as a living document that embodies the values of the day) to help some of the most vulnerable people?
It’s not a simple amendment. It’s saying yes to a whole new chapter that is yet to be written, the details of which we are kept in the dark on. And it will be ‘enshrined’ – important language.
This YES – NO vote is so divisive.
Approx. one more week of this, then we can move on with our lives.
So your answer is do nothing? Or don’t let government do it? What a weird stance. I imagine you have no faith in government then, the government that gives you free healthcare every day among others things?
Being a white settler and voting on the rights of people who were here first is wrong to begin with. But here we find ourselves. The least we can do is listen to the wishes of the 80% of indigenous people who want this.
Well done Clemenger.
I think Lydia Thorpe nailed it. Don’t bother responding here unless you are indigenous. All the rest of you conflicted ad-landers hijacking the debate to make yourselves feel good, get back to nailing those briefs for brands that deep down disgust you but keep the lights on.
I remember when I used to want to work at Clems.
If the Aboriginals were conquered or subjugated, then they can join the club of almost every group in human history. The whole of history is the story of peoples rolling into other peoples’ neighbourhoods, and either succeeding or failing to conquer them. It happens to be the story of Aboriginal culture as well, where Aboriginal groups subjugated, subdued and slaughtered each other. I know that it is now de rigueur to refer to the origins of the Aboriginal communities as Dreamtime. But there was nothing Dreamlike about Aboriginal societies. They were violent, poverty-stricken and woefully unadvanced even for their time.
Clems might become the agency incarnation of the phrase “Go woke, go broke”.
What’s scary is your reaction to others’ opinions outside your own Leftist hyper-indoctrinated echo chamber. I guess anyone who doesn’t tow the line is just a “racist” though right? Why allow facts to enter a debate when we can just keep it to blind emotion?
‘Hyper indoctrinated echo chamber?’ My brother in Christ I’m just saying that it’s a surprise to see that instead of the debate being pointed at how to improve life for people indigenous Australians there are comments raging about how too much is being done already. Why are you so angry, dude?
So which points aren’t true?
So many name-calling bed-wetters who hate anyone with a differing opinion. VOTE NO
So, let’s cancel democracy, then. Let’s cancel free speech. Is that the plan?
Looks like I rattled a few Woke cages by saying what the vast majority of Aussies are feeling.
Can’t wait for the final NO vote to win and then hear you all go silent.
When this referendum fails it will go down in history as one of the most poorly managed political campaigns in Australian history.
Total arrogance in not seeking to work together and compromise to build bipartisanship from the beginning.
The vast majority of Australians think indigenous Australians should be recognised in the constitution and want to see the gap closed between the quality of life between indigenous Australians and non-indigenous Australians, however there is almost no evidence as to why the creation of a Voice to parliament enshrined in our constitution is the solution to this problem.
Albanese will be held accountable for the division created by this whole exercise.
Essayer 100% correct
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-06/open-letter-constitutional-law-university-voice-to-parliament/102937352
It is widely agreed on that past and current policies and programs to close the gap have not worked.
It is also widely agreed that most Australians want the gap closed.
We’ve simply been asked to listen to our Indigenous people about where to direct assistance.
Unless you’re Indigenous, life will not change for you if Yes wins.
But the implications of it failing are sad for all of us.
VOTE YES.
Australians already do listen to indigenous Australians. Every state and commonwealth department listens. Every major company listens. Every council listens. The AFL and NRL listen. Everyone listens but things don’t improve because too much of what is listened to doesn’t work and too much of what is spent is wasted. We’ve tried listening and it hasn’t worked.
What a surprise – the AD industry votes NO. wankers.
🤮
Well considering the advertising industry is well known as being dominantly Left leaning I would say that yes, this is a surprise.
Which also appears to be testament to how badly Labor has handled this whole Voice fiasco along with the agencies and mega corporations involved.
LMAO – universities? You mean those shrines of Leftist indoctrination? 70 activist lecturers said the Voice isn’t risky huh? Ok you swayed me.
Hear. Hear.
The division this has caused has been a disaster.
A lot of people remain deeply unconvinced this is a good idea – certainly to just drop it straight into the constitution.
So, why force it to a vote? Who wins from that?
To not draft legislation, not get bi-partisan support before a referendum, to reject the Liberals commitment to look at a legislated voice after the referendum that’s not tied to the constitution claiming it as ‘spin’, and out right reject any chance of that being supported by labor, and to lean on a ‘they’re racist’ strategy once support dropped… Albo needs
The Libs were mainly pro-voice at a state level… where it should be. Labor want a non-elected group of 24 elites that they handpick to be a chapter II entity in our constitution where any decision made in parliament needs an ‘appropriate amount of time’ to be considered by them for it to be legally sound. It’s loose. It’s incredibly reckless and makes 24 people more powerful than every single citizen in Australia.
The fact is, this is a non-elected, non-representative committee claiming to represent our most vulnerable communities where the latest communications drive in their failing campaign (as of 6 Oct) is, ‘If we had control of the billions of dollars, we’d save you money’.
As we get closer to the pointy end of the stick – control of govt money with no oversight is the agenda of this group, and if you don’t agree with that, you’re a racist.
Albo needs to step down after this mess.
Please read up on the voice. Very little of what you’ve said in your post is true. You can find information on the government website including background, the issue in question and the actual process and powers of the advisory committee: https://voice.gov.au/
Yeah I’ve read it. It’s intentionally vague in its use of words and intentionally broad in its scope – because it has to be because it’s not even got a draft legislated. ‘The process of agreement making’ is what we’re voting on. It’s in the uluru statement. What’s that process is, is what people asked, including former yes voters – and have been verbally attacked and called racist for not doing so.
It was only when it was lost cause that Albo said a bipartisan committee will do the legislation after the win. Good one. Maybe should have committed to that at the start.
I know the ALP Socialist Lefts tactics… as soon as things don’t go to plan, they deflect and create as much carnage as possible to turn things into good people vs evil people so they can politicise the loss afterwards.
One of the ‘Voice’ tactics for volunteers that got leaked was ‘create and focus on an enemy’. Dismissed as not-official because a volunteer made that strategy deck…
Looked like a well crafted advertising/comms deck.
Ah well. nothing to see here.
Stop being so naive.
How can you read what the exact remit of The Voice will be if it’s not even legislated yet?
It ts just a collection of ‘motherhood’ statements that have no validity in law and cannot reflect what remit The Voice will have if a carried in the referendum.
Objecting to that is not being racist, it’s common sense.
There’s ZERO facts in your “arguments”; you’re just regurgitating Murdoch’s fear bullets like a good little soldier.
Okay comrade.
You don’t change the constitution on one page with no facts. What happened 200 years ago is not my fault stop putting the blame on everyone else we weren’t alive then.
Lol – the lack of any substantial information at all at https://voice.gov.au/ is what first started setting off alarm bells in my bed months ago. Hard no from me.
It’s gonna be close so get ready for some bad losers whatever the outcome.
I’m outta here.
Us European men need to stop thinking it’s our right to have all the power. That’s how many of these comments read.
I used to do campaigns aimed at Māori for better health outcomes etc. Now I don’t and of course I shouldn’t. It’s for Māori, by Māori. Less work for me, but at least I’m not being a dick.
Step back, empower them to make the decisions about what they need. You’ll still be rich and live a good life.
Just tilt the power balance back a little. Stop acting like you’re their dad – I promise you, you’ll be okay.
a) it’s mainly white women in white agencies owned by white men who’ve made all the yes23 campaign ads and comms.
b) the comms have been incredibly condescending, haven’t addressed any of the key issues in testing/polling that have been widely circulated by various pollsters – worse than ineffective – they haven’t stemmed the shift at all.
c) your comment is condescending – elitist – and includes the weirdest arrogant woke humblebrag I’ve ever seen. You won’t work on campaigns that will help better the health of Maori’s because you’re not Maori? If you can’t see the inhumane racist element to that comment and how it’s a slippery slope – then you should read up on Zimbabwe.
I didn’t think the Voice was about power but just offering advice.
“What happened 200 years ago is not my fault stop putting the blame on everyone else we weren’t alive then.” Wow, really? It doesn’t matter if YOU weren’t personally involved in the genocide, the dispossession, the stolen generation, the stolen wages. Take some responsibility, we’re living in a country that hugely benefitted from colonisation, with our land theft and systemic discrimination — that is some white privilege right there if you think something in the past doesn’t affect you and your standard of living today. Glad to see a diverse range of opinions in the comments but let’s not ignore the significance of history on our lives today.
This vote on 3% of Australians will be determined by the 97% of Australians who don’t identify as Indigenous. Ask yourself, as a voter, do you think Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be able to speak on matters that affect them? For me the answer is a resounding yes.
To suggest aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people don’t have a say on matters effecting them is ridiculous.
Govts of all persuasions – even local councils – don’t do a thing that effects indigenous Australians without consulting them, or being advised by them.
To suggest otherwise is deceitful at best.
So you’re saying ‘Yes’ is about redressing dispossession, white privilege and reparations, not simply an advisory body? I had an inkling that’s what it’s about, and that’s why I’m voting no. As the yes campaign have said themselves, there is not a single issue in Australia that doesn’t affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Think about that statement.
Australia is so royally f*ed up.
The answer is simple.
Complex responses come from conflicted minds.
Without a voice, how can you call it a home.
Would the history of Australia have been better or worse if the Chinese had colonised it first? Or if the Persians had sent their prisoners to these shores? Would it have been better for America if Columbus had been a Mongol or a Hutu? We will never know because the experiment is impossible to run. But it is suggestive. And it allows us to add some context. Because when it comes to the case of Australia, as with America and Canada, it is context that is being most lost. And that context is everything.
Of course there is plenty of emphasis on the sufferings of Aboriginal Australians. Not all of which is inflicted by others. But I often marvel at how much non-Aboriginal Australians have been expected to put up with in recent years. Not least the endless guilt-tripping and the apologies without end. The Sea of Hands displays in which hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens sponsored and signed plastic hands in Aboriginal colours to sit on the lawn outside buildings such as Parliament House in Canberra. The creation of a National Sorry Day back in 1998 and the signing of “Sorry Books”. This all happened in the last century. Nevertheless, the apologies never stop coming.
I’d bet 99% of the anti comments here are guys. I could be wrong though, just looking at the industry head shots tells me I’m not.
And not a woke humblebrag. Just a logical realisation that people who live a culture are the ones who should be given proper power / tools to improve their lot. Because they understand, they care and it’s their future. It doesn’t mean I don’t or won’t help – but yes there is an element of being humble and it’s nothing to do with bragging. Just because you can make ads for fast food chains does not make you a cultural expert. It me a long time learn that. I was humbled by all the things I didn’t know.
I’m really just suggesting that there’s elements of these types of changes that can feel threatening but it works out okay.
So humble. Go you!
It’s funny that many are prepared to pay respect to elders past and present yet are super quick to denigrate their own. Seemingly insight based on life experience varies with skin colour.
…and Australia will say NO!
Vote NO to put accountability back into govt departments and the billions that get pumped into the gravy train.
Surprising that poorly informed politicians throwing money at the problem without getting adequate insight hasn’t worked in the past; you know what help make that money more effective? A VOICE! Great campaign team, let’s hope it’s a Yes, this campaign sheds a much needed light on the discussion.
Stakeholder management 101: engage with affected groups. No need to embed it into the constitution.