John Farnham's You’re the Voice song becomes Yes referendum campaign ad
September 10, 2023 8:57 PM Subscribe
John Farnham's You’re the Voice song becomes Yes referendum campaign ad. The ad looks at several key Australian historical/cultural events from the 1967 Australian referendum onwards to the present day. The upcoming referendum (which this ad is for the Yes campaign) is to ask people to vote Yes or No on 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?
More information here at the official website of the Yes campaign.
"When we listen to people about the decisions that affect them, we get better results. For the past 250 years, we haven’t properly listened to the people who have been here for 65,000. It’s time we did. When Parliament or the Government want to improve outcomes for Indigenous Australians in areas like health and education, they'd ask the Voice to come up with the best solutions that will actually work and make a real, practical difference.
Parliament and Government can choose to listen to that advice, or not - and ultimately make the final decision. It’s a simple and practical way that this referendum can create a better future - together."
More information here at the official website of the Yes campaign.
"When we listen to people about the decisions that affect them, we get better results. For the past 250 years, we haven’t properly listened to the people who have been here for 65,000. It’s time we did. When Parliament or the Government want to improve outcomes for Indigenous Australians in areas like health and education, they'd ask the Voice to come up with the best solutions that will actually work and make a real, practical difference.
Parliament and Government can choose to listen to that advice, or not - and ultimately make the final decision. It’s a simple and practical way that this referendum can create a better future - together."
It boggles the mind that the formation of an advisory group of indigenous people, with no statutory power beyond that group existing is causing such konniptions - necessitating the use of AWESOME FUCKING MUSIC to sell its sensible-ness?
Is there any serious analysis as to why polling (wiki) has swung to No?
The wiki on "reasons for No from Serious People" does not seem to justify this swing.
posted by lalochezia at 9:38 PM on September 10, 2023 [2 favorites]
Is there any serious analysis as to why polling (wiki) has swung to No?
The wiki on "reasons for No from Serious People" does not seem to justify this swing.
posted by lalochezia at 9:38 PM on September 10, 2023 [2 favorites]
It's a brilliant ad. I hope it influences some of the current "no" supporters to vote "yes."
Prof Marcia Langton, one of the key figures behind the development of the Voice, recently spoke before the National Press Club of Australia; her speech is a must-watch for anyone interested in this issue. The book she recently co-authored on Indigenous law is also well worth reading. It helped me link the patchy knowledge I had on the topic into a much more cohesive whole. Just wish I had been taught some of this stuff when I was at school back in the 70s and 80s.
posted by mydonkeybenjamin at 9:39 PM on September 10, 2023 [2 favorites]
Prof Marcia Langton, one of the key figures behind the development of the Voice, recently spoke before the National Press Club of Australia; her speech is a must-watch for anyone interested in this issue. The book she recently co-authored on Indigenous law is also well worth reading. It helped me link the patchy knowledge I had on the topic into a much more cohesive whole. Just wish I had been taught some of this stuff when I was at school back in the 70s and 80s.
posted by mydonkeybenjamin at 9:39 PM on September 10, 2023 [2 favorites]
Is there any serious analysis as to why polling (wiki) has swung to No?
The No vote seems to be comprised of
a) racists;
b) people who are confused by all the scare-mongering;
c) people who think The Voice does not go far enough, and are planning on voting NO in the hope of getting a treaty instead. (I think if the YES vote loses, it will be 10 years or 20 years before there are more options put on the table, so I absolutely do not support voting NO in the hope of a treaty.)
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 9:48 PM on September 10, 2023 [14 favorites]
The No vote seems to be comprised of
a) racists;
b) people who are confused by all the scare-mongering;
c) people who think The Voice does not go far enough, and are planning on voting NO in the hope of getting a treaty instead. (I think if the YES vote loses, it will be 10 years or 20 years before there are more options put on the table, so I absolutely do not support voting NO in the hope of a treaty.)
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 9:48 PM on September 10, 2023 [14 favorites]
Is there any serious analysis as to why polling (wiki) has swung to No?
This has happened for one reason and one reason only, a reason so blindingly obvious as to require no analysis, serious or otherwise, and that reason is self-satisfied ex Queensland cop and ambulatory potato Peter Dutton.
Dutton made the political calculation that furthering the same culture war that he and the Murdoch press between them have been pushing hard in this country since Trump came to power in the US would shore up his support base, so fuck the good of the nation, let's wreck this shit.
After getting weeks and weeks of press coverage by waffling and obfuscating about "seeking further clarification" about the detailed operation of the Voice - decisions that the proposed Constitutional amendment properly defers to future Parliaments - he finally came out in opposition to it, as everybody watching him was already almost certain he would do; the man has been doggedly and consistently on the wrong side of history for his entire political career.
His main line was that establishment of the Voice would be "divisive". Which would be just another piece of obliviously hilarious conservative hypocrisy were it not for the fact that unifying this country behind any process that has any hope of nudging the Australian supertanker in the direction of treaty is so urgently, heartbreakingly necessary.
History suggests that an Australian referendum without bipartisan support will fail. But this history of this referendum has yet to be written, and I'm hoping as hard as I've ever hoped for anything that Dutton will prove yet again to have been on the wrong side of it.
posted by flabdablet at 10:27 PM on September 10, 2023 [10 favorites]
This has happened for one reason and one reason only, a reason so blindingly obvious as to require no analysis, serious or otherwise, and that reason is self-satisfied ex Queensland cop and ambulatory potato Peter Dutton.
Dutton made the political calculation that furthering the same culture war that he and the Murdoch press between them have been pushing hard in this country since Trump came to power in the US would shore up his support base, so fuck the good of the nation, let's wreck this shit.
After getting weeks and weeks of press coverage by waffling and obfuscating about "seeking further clarification" about the detailed operation of the Voice - decisions that the proposed Constitutional amendment properly defers to future Parliaments - he finally came out in opposition to it, as everybody watching him was already almost certain he would do; the man has been doggedly and consistently on the wrong side of history for his entire political career.
His main line was that establishment of the Voice would be "divisive". Which would be just another piece of obliviously hilarious conservative hypocrisy were it not for the fact that unifying this country behind any process that has any hope of nudging the Australian supertanker in the direction of treaty is so urgently, heartbreakingly necessary.
History suggests that an Australian referendum without bipartisan support will fail. But this history of this referendum has yet to be written, and I'm hoping as hard as I've ever hoped for anything that Dutton will prove yet again to have been on the wrong side of it.
posted by flabdablet at 10:27 PM on September 10, 2023 [10 favorites]
The No campaign is essentially content-free, just classic Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Hell, its actual slogan is "if you don't know, vote No" and that literal slogan features prominently in the official bumf mailed out by the AEC outlining the "cases" for and against.
There is no coherent No case, which is why Dutton's flying monkeys have been forced to take the line that they have. The naked emotional manipulation of this fist-pumping sports-driven feel-good Strayans All Let Us Rejoice rah rah is exactly the right counter to the JAQ horseshit that No has been getting on with spreading for months now, assisted and enabled by Australia's lazy and complacent press. Who, like press everywhere, seem much more concerned with looking fair and balanced than serving anything resembling the truth.
posted by flabdablet at 10:48 PM on September 10, 2023 [4 favorites]
There is no coherent No case, which is why Dutton's flying monkeys have been forced to take the line that they have. The naked emotional manipulation of this fist-pumping sports-driven feel-good Strayans All Let Us Rejoice rah rah is exactly the right counter to the JAQ horseshit that No has been getting on with spreading for months now, assisted and enabled by Australia's lazy and complacent press. Who, like press everywhere, seem much more concerned with looking fair and balanced than serving anything resembling the truth.
posted by flabdablet at 10:48 PM on September 10, 2023 [4 favorites]
I wouldn't say there's no coherent No case. There is a substantial Indigenous opposition to the Voice, as it's weak as an advisory body only, and meaningless without Treaty first, that it's a further entrenchment of colonial mindset to ask the white majority to kindly give a dainty, non-binding advisory position in the foundation document of a bastard country build on stolen land, further legitimising that theft. They consider that the Constitution is inherently invalid.
I've heard some very tired activists tell me its no different than all the other piss-weak half hearted acknowledgements that allow white people to pat themselves on the back, and to say they're doing something to make amends for what the colony has done to Indigenous people since settlement when all it's likely to do is give the Indigenous community another way to politely ask Parliament things and then be ignored. No teeth.
And the sheer amount of effort that the Yes campaign has put in courting voters by emphasising that it's toothless and non-binding and largely powerless, advisory only - I can see their point, they're doing that part of the No campaign's work for them. It's written for white-fellas to feel like they're doing something when there's no guarantee it'll have any impact. And there's a real danger that the Voice will be installed, and then fucking nothing else for decades, the logic being that well, we did that thing for you, why are you complaining about how little has changed?
It's personally excruciating watching those very reasoned Indigenous voices be whipped out by full on bigots who are all "even the [insert slur here] think this is a bad idea" with zero reflection on why that might be.
But as a queer person I remember how this shit actually goes down in the minds of voters, and how it stops being about the vote itself and more about whether the people central to the vote are worth a place in Australian society. "Are X Group okay? Can we handle X Group participating in Society?"
I have such deja vu from the same sex marriage plebiscite, the same tired, bigoted, reactionary shit from the No campaign that they whipped out for us. It'll be divisive, it'll change the meaning of the thing (marriage, constitution), it'll give special powers to people who aren't the dominant majority and we'll all be native titled out of our backyards/married to drag queens at gunpoint the minute the Yes vote passes.
Like I even had radical queer activists tell me they would be voting No on the plebiscite because they thought that the legal framework around prioritizing married couples should be dismantled, not that queer people should be brought into it. Like it legitimised the hetero-patriarchy by inviting queer people to fit themselves into the format, and it was meaningless if it didn't leave room for people outside the binary or in plural relationships or other unconventional family structures, and that we should be focusing on more important issues than just a ring and a certificate.
They are so similar, how they are being processed by the majority and by the stakeholders. Plenty of folks within that community who want to get it done, others with legitimate concerns and counterpoints, and the bigot No vote just farting into the wind as loudly as they can, drowning out and appropriating as they see fit.
It stops being about technicalities of constitutional law and representation and starts to be about "should Indigenous people be allowed to participate in the governance of Australia", just as the plebicite stopped being about the legal framework around marriage and started to be about "can we accept queer people as normal, participating members of Australian society?"
I don't think a Yes vote will be as big as step forward as it should be. It should be more binding, and include Treaty first. At least the Voice gets a foot in the door.
But a No vote is a definite step backwards. All a No does is give legitimacy to the people who want to close Indigenous voices out of active participation in legislation in Australia. We won't get a second chance and there will be no political will to push for Treaty if a simple non-binding advisory won't take. It'll be generations before Government will try again, and I think we've fucked around long enough.
Anyway. The fact that my white arse needs to have an opinion on this at all is a farce. It should be given to include Indigenous perspectives and voices, and not something that needs any special vote. Just as it was nobody's business who I marry but my own. Instead we get a second round of giving bigots air time and brand new opportunities to vilify minorities. What a joy it is to be Australian sometimes.
posted by Jilder at 11:10 PM on September 10, 2023 [31 favorites]
I've heard some very tired activists tell me its no different than all the other piss-weak half hearted acknowledgements that allow white people to pat themselves on the back, and to say they're doing something to make amends for what the colony has done to Indigenous people since settlement when all it's likely to do is give the Indigenous community another way to politely ask Parliament things and then be ignored. No teeth.
And the sheer amount of effort that the Yes campaign has put in courting voters by emphasising that it's toothless and non-binding and largely powerless, advisory only - I can see their point, they're doing that part of the No campaign's work for them. It's written for white-fellas to feel like they're doing something when there's no guarantee it'll have any impact. And there's a real danger that the Voice will be installed, and then fucking nothing else for decades, the logic being that well, we did that thing for you, why are you complaining about how little has changed?
It's personally excruciating watching those very reasoned Indigenous voices be whipped out by full on bigots who are all "even the [insert slur here] think this is a bad idea" with zero reflection on why that might be.
But as a queer person I remember how this shit actually goes down in the minds of voters, and how it stops being about the vote itself and more about whether the people central to the vote are worth a place in Australian society. "Are X Group okay? Can we handle X Group participating in Society?"
I have such deja vu from the same sex marriage plebiscite, the same tired, bigoted, reactionary shit from the No campaign that they whipped out for us. It'll be divisive, it'll change the meaning of the thing (marriage, constitution), it'll give special powers to people who aren't the dominant majority and we'll all be native titled out of our backyards/married to drag queens at gunpoint the minute the Yes vote passes.
Like I even had radical queer activists tell me they would be voting No on the plebiscite because they thought that the legal framework around prioritizing married couples should be dismantled, not that queer people should be brought into it. Like it legitimised the hetero-patriarchy by inviting queer people to fit themselves into the format, and it was meaningless if it didn't leave room for people outside the binary or in plural relationships or other unconventional family structures, and that we should be focusing on more important issues than just a ring and a certificate.
They are so similar, how they are being processed by the majority and by the stakeholders. Plenty of folks within that community who want to get it done, others with legitimate concerns and counterpoints, and the bigot No vote just farting into the wind as loudly as they can, drowning out and appropriating as they see fit.
It stops being about technicalities of constitutional law and representation and starts to be about "should Indigenous people be allowed to participate in the governance of Australia", just as the plebicite stopped being about the legal framework around marriage and started to be about "can we accept queer people as normal, participating members of Australian society?"
I don't think a Yes vote will be as big as step forward as it should be. It should be more binding, and include Treaty first. At least the Voice gets a foot in the door.
But a No vote is a definite step backwards. All a No does is give legitimacy to the people who want to close Indigenous voices out of active participation in legislation in Australia. We won't get a second chance and there will be no political will to push for Treaty if a simple non-binding advisory won't take. It'll be generations before Government will try again, and I think we've fucked around long enough.
Anyway. The fact that my white arse needs to have an opinion on this at all is a farce. It should be given to include Indigenous perspectives and voices, and not something that needs any special vote. Just as it was nobody's business who I marry but my own. Instead we get a second round of giving bigots air time and brand new opportunities to vilify minorities. What a joy it is to be Australian sometimes.
posted by Jilder at 11:10 PM on September 10, 2023 [31 favorites]
the official bumf mailed out by the AEC outlining the "cases" for and against.
I read through the No case in said pamphlet and one of the points was "This opens the door for ACTIVISTS who want to abolish AUSTRALIA DAY and move Australia to the LEFT". Don't threaten me with a good time!
posted by solarion at 11:11 PM on September 10, 2023 [6 favorites]
I read through the No case in said pamphlet and one of the points was "This opens the door for ACTIVISTS who want to abolish AUSTRALIA DAY and move Australia to the LEFT". Don't threaten me with a good time!
posted by solarion at 11:11 PM on September 10, 2023 [6 favorites]
The conservatives are also trotting out the mother of all "Affirmative action is the REAL discrimination!" arguments, by claiming that the Voice will enshrine racial division in the constitution.
posted by other barry at 11:46 PM on September 10, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by other barry at 11:46 PM on September 10, 2023 [1 favorite]
The conservatives are also trotting out the mother of all "Affirmative action is the REAL discrimination!" arguments, by claiming that the Voice will enshrine racial division in the constitution.
They took that one from NZ; the swivel-eyed racist parties in NZ are currently running billboards with END RACIAL DIVISION in the lead up to their election - when of course, they want nothing more than to oppress Maori.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:29 AM on September 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
They took that one from NZ; the swivel-eyed racist parties in NZ are currently running billboards with END RACIAL DIVISION in the lead up to their election - when of course, they want nothing more than to oppress Maori.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 12:29 AM on September 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
as a queer person I remember how this shit actually goes down in the minds of voters, and how it stops being about the vote itself and more about whether the people central to the vote are worth a place in Australian society
This.
No Australian Government is going to enter into a treaty with any of this continent's hundreds of pre-invasion nations until most of its current population is behind that move. And we're currently a long way from that place. The No case in the AEC info pamphlet makes specific reference to the absurdity of a Government entering into a treaty with a "group of its own citizens", blithely and insultingly ignoring the demonstrable historical fact that no Aboriginal sovereignty has ever been ceded here; the entitlement on display is just breathtaking, but this is where we still are as a nation.
Obviously there should be no let-up in demands for treaty, but the only way those demands are actually going to be met is if Australians in general are prepared to acknowledge the status quo as the illegal occupation it always has been.
To that end, it is vital for the assimilationist cultural extinguishment project not to be allowed to succeed. Even putting aside questions of justice, there is a depth of knowledge about how to live on this continent that continues to be passed down through its Aboriginal families and that we are all much worse off for the ongoing erosion of. Recognizing the unique status of this continent's indigenous peoples and cultures in its constitution is long overdue.
I am fully on board with treaty and truth telling, and I agree with people like Michael Mansell who decry the proposed Voice as grossly insufficient to the point of being insulting, correctly pointing out the vital necessity for far more than yet another toothless advisory body. But as a person raised inside the colonialist culture, I am thoroughly aware of just how deep the attitude of European and specifically British superiority runs here.
The majority culture in this country needs to be allowed to pat itself on the back for every tiny baby step it takes toward where we need to go, sick-making though it is to watch it doing that, or it's simply never going to be bothered altering itself in the ways it absolutely must.
posted by flabdablet at 1:55 AM on September 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
This.
No Australian Government is going to enter into a treaty with any of this continent's hundreds of pre-invasion nations until most of its current population is behind that move. And we're currently a long way from that place. The No case in the AEC info pamphlet makes specific reference to the absurdity of a Government entering into a treaty with a "group of its own citizens", blithely and insultingly ignoring the demonstrable historical fact that no Aboriginal sovereignty has ever been ceded here; the entitlement on display is just breathtaking, but this is where we still are as a nation.
Obviously there should be no let-up in demands for treaty, but the only way those demands are actually going to be met is if Australians in general are prepared to acknowledge the status quo as the illegal occupation it always has been.
To that end, it is vital for the assimilationist cultural extinguishment project not to be allowed to succeed. Even putting aside questions of justice, there is a depth of knowledge about how to live on this continent that continues to be passed down through its Aboriginal families and that we are all much worse off for the ongoing erosion of. Recognizing the unique status of this continent's indigenous peoples and cultures in its constitution is long overdue.
I am fully on board with treaty and truth telling, and I agree with people like Michael Mansell who decry the proposed Voice as grossly insufficient to the point of being insulting, correctly pointing out the vital necessity for far more than yet another toothless advisory body. But as a person raised inside the colonialist culture, I am thoroughly aware of just how deep the attitude of European and specifically British superiority runs here.
The majority culture in this country needs to be allowed to pat itself on the back for every tiny baby step it takes toward where we need to go, sick-making though it is to watch it doing that, or it's simply never going to be bothered altering itself in the ways it absolutely must.
posted by flabdablet at 1:55 AM on September 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
Is there any serious analysis as to why polling (wiki) has swung to No?
Personally, I think it's the worsening economy...
Firstly, I feel like I've been inconsistent. We all roundly criticized the Liberals over their plan in 2022 to spend $25 mil to fly the Aboriginal flag on the Sydney Harbor Bridge, particularly Perrotet's response that he "wasn't sure why it cost so much" but it was "an important step toward reconciliation"
A Falcon 9 Booster capable of flying cargo into literal space over and over costs less than this one Aboriginal flag...
Now Labor is spending $365 million on just the referendum itself to determine if we want the Voice or not, which is just staggering. They couldn't have just added this as an extra question during a regular federal election, as has been done in the past, and spent the money, on, say, desperately needed doctors and teachers where I live? There are only enough teachers for every other grade level (you basically downgrade kids one year and combine them with the class below) and the local GP clinic turns away 50 requests for appointments per day during bad weeks. How much more do they want to spend on this Voice if it goes ahead, and who is receiving that money?
There isn't a coherent "no" case. But people are deeply unhappy right now, for various reasons, and they're going to vote "no" because of that. Maybe if they ran the Voice referendum during a rosier economic period you'd find people more open to change (and more open with their wallets) but during an interest rate crunch, rental crisis, high inflation, wages stagnation, "record" immigration - at least preceived so - further worsening the rental crisis and worsening wage stagnation - people are going to be voting against the current government, and they're going to vote "fuck you, I'm protecting mine", and they'll want to punish the government for spending $365 mil on something they were going to lose anyway during a time many families are doing it tough.
posted by xdvesper at 1:58 AM on September 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
Personally, I think it's the worsening economy...
Firstly, I feel like I've been inconsistent. We all roundly criticized the Liberals over their plan in 2022 to spend $25 mil to fly the Aboriginal flag on the Sydney Harbor Bridge, particularly Perrotet's response that he "wasn't sure why it cost so much" but it was "an important step toward reconciliation"
A Falcon 9 Booster capable of flying cargo into literal space over and over costs less than this one Aboriginal flag...
Now Labor is spending $365 million on just the referendum itself to determine if we want the Voice or not, which is just staggering. They couldn't have just added this as an extra question during a regular federal election, as has been done in the past, and spent the money, on, say, desperately needed doctors and teachers where I live? There are only enough teachers for every other grade level (you basically downgrade kids one year and combine them with the class below) and the local GP clinic turns away 50 requests for appointments per day during bad weeks. How much more do they want to spend on this Voice if it goes ahead, and who is receiving that money?
There isn't a coherent "no" case. But people are deeply unhappy right now, for various reasons, and they're going to vote "no" because of that. Maybe if they ran the Voice referendum during a rosier economic period you'd find people more open to change (and more open with their wallets) but during an interest rate crunch, rental crisis, high inflation, wages stagnation, "record" immigration - at least preceived so - further worsening the rental crisis and worsening wage stagnation - people are going to be voting against the current government, and they're going to vote "fuck you, I'm protecting mine", and they'll want to punish the government for spending $365 mil on something they were going to lose anyway during a time many families are doing it tough.
posted by xdvesper at 1:58 AM on September 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
A Falcon 9 Booster capable of flying cargo into literal space over and over costs less than this one Aboriginal flag
Yeah, no.
The price SpaceX currently charges to launch one of these things is still well over US$60M. Elon Musk is "highly confident" that this will come down to $10M within "two or three years" but Elon Musk is a strong contender for world's greatest bullshit artist.
posted by flabdablet at 2:17 AM on September 11, 2023
Yeah, no.
The price SpaceX currently charges to launch one of these things is still well over US$60M. Elon Musk is "highly confident" that this will come down to $10M within "two or three years" but Elon Musk is a strong contender for world's greatest bullshit artist.
posted by flabdablet at 2:17 AM on September 11, 2023
Also, the cost of this referendum is petty cash next to that of the upcoming stage 3 tax cuts.
Anybody who is genuinely angry with the Albanese Government for pissing vital funding up against the wall needs to be gently encouraged to put that resentment where it needs to be instead of using it to further punish Aboriginal communities that have already been bearing the brunt of spurious colonialist resentments for centuries.
posted by flabdablet at 2:25 AM on September 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
Anybody who is genuinely angry with the Albanese Government for pissing vital funding up against the wall needs to be gently encouraged to put that resentment where it needs to be instead of using it to further punish Aboriginal communities that have already been bearing the brunt of spurious colonialist resentments for centuries.
posted by flabdablet at 2:25 AM on September 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
We all roundly criticized the Liberals over their plan in 2022 to spend $25 mil to fly the Aboriginal flag on the Sydney Harbor Bridge, particularly Perrotet's response that he "wasn't sure why it cost so much" but it was "an important step toward reconciliation"
The amount of money quoted included the cost of bridge repairs that would have been needed ANYWAY in order to continue flying the NSW state flag and the Australian flag, which was very spurious accounting.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 2:27 AM on September 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
The amount of money quoted included the cost of bridge repairs that would have been needed ANYWAY in order to continue flying the NSW state flag and the Australian flag, which was very spurious accounting.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 2:27 AM on September 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
Flabdablet, I'm talking about the one time cost to build a F9 booster, not the revenue generated per launch which is the $60 mil you're quoting - vastly different things.
Currently the F9 booster itself is $15 mil to build, with a $1 mil refurb cost each time it's reused.
SpaceX director of vehicle integration Christopher Couluris is on record saying the per-launch cost is $28 mil (so at a launch revenue of $60 mil they're earning decent margin)
Obviously there are way more costs per launch than just the hardware, there's fuel, testing, the second stage, pad costs. Just comparing the booster itself as a piece of hardware.
https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-elon-musk-falcon-9-economics
posted by xdvesper at 2:40 AM on September 11, 2023
Currently the F9 booster itself is $15 mil to build, with a $1 mil refurb cost each time it's reused.
SpaceX director of vehicle integration Christopher Couluris is on record saying the per-launch cost is $28 mil (so at a launch revenue of $60 mil they're earning decent margin)
Obviously there are way more costs per launch than just the hardware, there's fuel, testing, the second stage, pad costs. Just comparing the booster itself as a piece of hardware.
https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-elon-musk-falcon-9-economics
posted by xdvesper at 2:40 AM on September 11, 2023
The Sydney Harbour Bridge is much, much bigger than a F9 rocket. That it costs twenty times as much to repair that bridge after a decade of typical Coalition neglect as it does to refurb a rocket strikes me as completely unsurprising.
And I fail to see what any of this has to do with the referendum question, except insofar as any kind of resentment renders people susceptible to the kind of disingenuous bad-faith PR that's always been the Coalition's preferred modus operandi.
If Dutton had gone against type to do the decent thing and get behind the Voice, insted of doing the predictable thing and using it as his personal political football, the fact that referenda are expensive to run would have had very nearly zero effect on the way the vote goes.
posted by flabdablet at 2:57 AM on September 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
And I fail to see what any of this has to do with the referendum question, except insofar as any kind of resentment renders people susceptible to the kind of disingenuous bad-faith PR that's always been the Coalition's preferred modus operandi.
If Dutton had gone against type to do the decent thing and get behind the Voice, insted of doing the predictable thing and using it as his personal political football, the fact that referenda are expensive to run would have had very nearly zero effect on the way the vote goes.
posted by flabdablet at 2:57 AM on September 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
The cost of using the Aboriginal flag is down to the copyright being held by a specific individual who has a contentious history of licensing the flag for use. It's since been bought by the Commonwealth and is now free to use.
posted by Jilder at 3:00 AM on September 11, 2023
posted by Jilder at 3:00 AM on September 11, 2023
Also, the cost of this referendum is petty cash next to that of the upcoming stage 3 tax cuts.
Tax cuts aren't a "cost" - no money is being spent, it's just being returned to the owners - taxpayers contribute money to the government, and they get it back either in services or tax refunds, one way or another.
You could reasonably have a voter base which says, I want services, or I want my money back so I can buy my own services (private healthcare, private schools) since you refuse to fund the public system adequately, but we don't want us to spend $365 mil for a referendum.
The amount of money quoted included the cost of bridge repairs that would have been needed ANYWAY in order to continue flying the NSW state flag and the Australian flag, which was very spurious accounting.
Nah, they just fudged the numbers completely.
"officials revealed they had little idea how much it would have actually cost to install a third flagpole, and that the proposed $25 million budget included a “healthy contingency”
Cynically, it sounds like "label it as Aboriginal stuff and bulldoze it through" and you can throw millions at it to your contractor friends with "healthy contingency" with minimal oversight because you can usually shutdown anyone who dares criticize it.... Except it didn't work this time...
posted by xdvesper at 3:00 AM on September 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
Tax cuts aren't a "cost" - no money is being spent, it's just being returned to the owners - taxpayers contribute money to the government, and they get it back either in services or tax refunds, one way or another.
You could reasonably have a voter base which says, I want services, or I want my money back so I can buy my own services (private healthcare, private schools) since you refuse to fund the public system adequately, but we don't want us to spend $365 mil for a referendum.
The amount of money quoted included the cost of bridge repairs that would have been needed ANYWAY in order to continue flying the NSW state flag and the Australian flag, which was very spurious accounting.
Nah, they just fudged the numbers completely.
"officials revealed they had little idea how much it would have actually cost to install a third flagpole, and that the proposed $25 million budget included a “healthy contingency”
Cynically, it sounds like "label it as Aboriginal stuff and bulldoze it through" and you can throw millions at it to your contractor friends with "healthy contingency" with minimal oversight because you can usually shutdown anyone who dares criticize it.... Except it didn't work this time...
posted by xdvesper at 3:00 AM on September 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
Tax cuts are absolutely a cost from the point of view of the Government itself. Whether the government spends amount X or decides not to collect amount X makes no difference at all to the unavailability of amount X for other potential uses.
The stage 3 cuts, which overwhelmingly benefit the already well-off because a Coalition Government designed them, are also inflationary due to their contribution to wealth inequality.
posted by flabdablet at 3:15 AM on September 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
The stage 3 cuts, which overwhelmingly benefit the already well-off because a Coalition Government designed them, are also inflationary due to their contribution to wealth inequality.
posted by flabdablet at 3:15 AM on September 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
I think the strongest argument for "No" is one made by the radical left and by the cleverer conservatives - the contradiction that if the Voice will have real power, then it's disingenuous to tell people that it won't affect them. But, if it doesn't have any real power, then what's the point?
I would say that yes, it is meant to have power, and yes that will require Australians to listen to first nations people, and try and give them what they ask, which will include money and land. Because that would be the moral and just thing.
Centrists, on the other hand, will admit that sure it is powerless, and a symbolic way for colonial Australia to feel a bit better about itself but not give anything up for now.
And that really shows up the compromise of the Voice bare, and ignites a deeper partisan debate between progressives who did want redistribution and power sharing all along, and conservatives who will cling to their ill-gotten land and property to their final breath.
We'd have a better chance of passing the referendum if it was a proposal to put "Fuck you I got mine" into the constitution.
posted by other barry at 4:40 AM on September 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
I would say that yes, it is meant to have power, and yes that will require Australians to listen to first nations people, and try and give them what they ask, which will include money and land. Because that would be the moral and just thing.
Centrists, on the other hand, will admit that sure it is powerless, and a symbolic way for colonial Australia to feel a bit better about itself but not give anything up for now.
And that really shows up the compromise of the Voice bare, and ignites a deeper partisan debate between progressives who did want redistribution and power sharing all along, and conservatives who will cling to their ill-gotten land and property to their final breath.
We'd have a better chance of passing the referendum if it was a proposal to put "Fuck you I got mine" into the constitution.
posted by other barry at 4:40 AM on September 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
I'm voting yes because most people campaigning for No want me to die in a fire, but this is also essentially my take:
And the sheer amount of effort that the Yes campaign has put in courting voters by emphasising that it's toothless and non-binding and largely powerless, advisory only - I can see their point, they're doing that part of the No campaign's work for them. It's written for white-fellas to feel like they're doing something when there's no guarantee it'll have any impact. And there's a real danger that the Voice will be installed, and then fucking nothing else for decades, the logic being that well, we did that thing for you, why are you complaining about how little has changed, yeah exactly that
"People overseas will think we're racist" is somehow one of the more powerful arguments I seem to have when I talk to coworkers, except I don't have the heart to tell them we lost that one a while ago. It feels like this is all signalling, no consequence, except for increased racial vilification. I think the parallels to the gay marriage voluntary postal survey are not unwarranted.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:07 AM on September 11, 2023 [5 favorites]
And the sheer amount of effort that the Yes campaign has put in courting voters by emphasising that it's toothless and non-binding and largely powerless, advisory only - I can see their point, they're doing that part of the No campaign's work for them. It's written for white-fellas to feel like they're doing something when there's no guarantee it'll have any impact. And there's a real danger that the Voice will be installed, and then fucking nothing else for decades, the logic being that well, we did that thing for you, why are you complaining about how little has changed, yeah exactly that
"People overseas will think we're racist" is somehow one of the more powerful arguments I seem to have when I talk to coworkers, except I don't have the heart to tell them we lost that one a while ago. It feels like this is all signalling, no consequence, except for increased racial vilification. I think the parallels to the gay marriage voluntary postal survey are not unwarranted.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:07 AM on September 11, 2023 [5 favorites]
Tax cuts aren't a "cost" - no money is being spent, it's just being returned to the owners - taxpayers contribute money to the government, and they get it back either in services or tax refunds, one way or another.
While "possession is 9/10 of the law", your framing here is naive at best and nauseatingly simping at worst.
Where does the money COME FROM that the "owners" "have".
Some taxpayers also steal money from the commons, and the future of the human race, by externalizing costs on the rest of us. Redistributive taxation is one of the few ways that still works to remedy that injustice.
posted by lalochezia at 5:07 AM on September 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
if it doesn't have any real power, then what's the point?
If the Voice won't have any real power, then neither do any of the other lobby groups working Parliament House every day. Which is ridiculous, because of course they do.
It's not about power, not directly. It's about access and influence, and establishing networks of personal relationships that connect to power in meaningful ways.
But the real point is that it was asked for by some of the best people on this continent, and the campaign against it aligns with the interests of the absolute worst.
posted by flabdablet at 5:26 AM on September 11, 2023 [10 favorites]
If the Voice won't have any real power, then neither do any of the other lobby groups working Parliament House every day. Which is ridiculous, because of course they do.
It's not about power, not directly. It's about access and influence, and establishing networks of personal relationships that connect to power in meaningful ways.
But the real point is that it was asked for by some of the best people on this continent, and the campaign against it aligns with the interests of the absolute worst.
posted by flabdablet at 5:26 AM on September 11, 2023 [10 favorites]
The cost of using the Aboriginal flag is down to the copyright being held by a specific individual who has a contentious history of licensing the flag for use.
Just to put this derail to bed, the copyright deal with Harold Thomas was announced Jan 24, 2022. The third flag furore was in June, 2022. Adding a third flag to the bridge was quoted at 25 million because it was a rushed quote for structural work on a heritage bridge and working thoroughfare. That’s going to be expensive even before padding occurs. Swapping out the tired old NSW flag was kind of a win-win situation.
posted by zamboni at 5:27 AM on September 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
Just to put this derail to bed, the copyright deal with Harold Thomas was announced Jan 24, 2022. The third flag furore was in June, 2022. Adding a third flag to the bridge was quoted at 25 million because it was a rushed quote for structural work on a heritage bridge and working thoroughfare. That’s going to be expensive even before padding occurs. Swapping out the tired old NSW flag was kind of a win-win situation.
posted by zamboni at 5:27 AM on September 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
Access alone is important, but I think most lobby groups have power not just because of their access, but because they are able to use that access to subtly pitch the possibility of quid pro pro, whether that's campaign support, industry parachutes, contracts or whatever. I think saying the Voice would give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the position to imply such incentives is one of the No campaign's lies.
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:31 AM on September 11, 2023
posted by Audreynachrome at 5:31 AM on September 11, 2023
Fears about the consequences of improved indigenous access to this country's decision making processes are certainly being amplified and promoted by the No campaign. And the stories being whispered to stoke those fears reveal the same sick reflection of the invader society's own values that they always have.
It's almost as if those who spread these fears would rather go on pretending that this continent was Terra Nullius before the English boats came than actually sit down for any kind of genuine conversation.
posted by flabdablet at 5:47 AM on September 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
It's almost as if those who spread these fears would rather go on pretending that this continent was Terra Nullius before the English boats came than actually sit down for any kind of genuine conversation.
posted by flabdablet at 5:47 AM on September 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
Wait they’re letting all Australians vote on whether the first Australians are Australian? That seems dangerously close to letting people vote on the humanity of specific people
posted by toodleydoodley at 8:07 AM on September 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by toodleydoodley at 8:07 AM on September 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
Toodleydoodley: We already did that in 1967. 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)
This thread is about the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum. I appreciate where you’re coming from, but it sounds like you should catch up on the current situation before weighing in.
posted by zamboni at 8:20 AM on September 11, 2023 [5 favorites]
This thread is about the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum. I appreciate where you’re coming from, but it sounds like you should catch up on the current situation before weighing in.
posted by zamboni at 8:20 AM on September 11, 2023 [5 favorites]
I agree with almost all of the progressive criticisms of the Voice. But the people making those criticisms don't have the leverage or power to push Treaty forward. Whereas the Voice proposal is an imperfect thing that will give airtime and national power to at least 24 more Indigenous people. That's not nothing. And it's on the table right now, and all I have to do is write Yes on a bit of paper.
I'm probably more left-wing than most of those people, so of course I'm going to have quibbles with their proposal. But I'm more left wing than most white Australians too, and most politicians, but I still show up and vote for the best option on offer.
The Uluṟu Statement from the Heart is a remarkable thing, and I'm so impressed that it was written by a participatory process. Of course it doesn't have unanimous support from every single one of the 800,000 + Indigenous people living here. If the Indigenous No group want to get loud and vote No, that's not just their right but their duty in a democratic society. But it's pretty bloody special that it's got definitely more than 50% support, probably as high as 80%. As a white Australian, I think it would be immoral of me to turn down an offer made in good faith by any group of Indigenous people.
posted by harriet vane at 8:21 AM on September 11, 2023 [10 favorites]
I'm probably more left-wing than most of those people, so of course I'm going to have quibbles with their proposal. But I'm more left wing than most white Australians too, and most politicians, but I still show up and vote for the best option on offer.
The Uluṟu Statement from the Heart is a remarkable thing, and I'm so impressed that it was written by a participatory process. Of course it doesn't have unanimous support from every single one of the 800,000 + Indigenous people living here. If the Indigenous No group want to get loud and vote No, that's not just their right but their duty in a democratic society. But it's pretty bloody special that it's got definitely more than 50% support, probably as high as 80%. As a white Australian, I think it would be immoral of me to turn down an offer made in good faith by any group of Indigenous people.
posted by harriet vane at 8:21 AM on September 11, 2023 [10 favorites]
The Uluru Statement From the Heart is a very powerful piece of writing and I wish they had somehow been able to capture that spirit in the proposed constitutional amendment, which just seems like watered-down legalised obfuscation.
"In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future."
The 2017 is not a typo. It's already been 6 years (granted, no one predicted the pandemic) - it's well past time.
posted by Athanassiel at 12:38 PM on September 11, 2023 [5 favorites]
"In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future."
The 2017 is not a typo. It's already been 6 years (granted, no one predicted the pandemic) - it's well past time.
posted by Athanassiel at 12:38 PM on September 11, 2023 [5 favorites]
Is there any serious analysis as to why polling (wiki) has swung to No?
Racism. It really is that simple.
Most of the people I know look at what has happened in New Zealand over the last couple of decades, where the Maori people have, in their eyes, 'taken over the country and excluded white people from everything'. They don't want to see that happen here, even though it hasn't actually happened in New Zealand either. The whole 'No' argument is based purely on the fact that they think we're talking about giving black people power over white people.
The Voice is symbolic at best and, no matter how much you try and argue otherwise, is not going to change anyone's life who will vote in this referendum for better or worse. Maybe in 50 years it will get enough leverage to actually do something, but not in most people's lifetime.
My only gripe with bringing this referendum to the people is the cost of doing it as a stand-alone exercise. I'd be very strongly in favour of a change to the constitution that made it mandatory for referendum questions to be voted on concurrently with a national general election.
posted by dg at 3:37 PM on September 11, 2023
Racism. It really is that simple.
Most of the people I know look at what has happened in New Zealand over the last couple of decades, where the Maori people have, in their eyes, 'taken over the country and excluded white people from everything'. They don't want to see that happen here, even though it hasn't actually happened in New Zealand either. The whole 'No' argument is based purely on the fact that they think we're talking about giving black people power over white people.
The Voice is symbolic at best and, no matter how much you try and argue otherwise, is not going to change anyone's life who will vote in this referendum for better or worse. Maybe in 50 years it will get enough leverage to actually do something, but not in most people's lifetime.
My only gripe with bringing this referendum to the people is the cost of doing it as a stand-alone exercise. I'd be very strongly in favour of a change to the constitution that made it mandatory for referendum questions to be voted on concurrently with a national general election.
posted by dg at 3:37 PM on September 11, 2023
I've been searching for, but can't find, an article I read a year or two ago that talked about the flaws of referendums and showed research that on the whole, and ignoring the actual topic of a referendum, there was an inherent bias toward "no" votes. I believe this was in a US context. The gist of it was that the "safe" response to referendums was always a "no" vote, assuming that "no" represented cautious resistance to a proposed change that people might not fully understand, and uninformed voters would gravitate to "no". Also, as a mechanism for change, it suggested that you are better off wording your referendum such that "no" is the desired outcome.
I did find a similar post-Brexit analysis from Politico that talks about some of the other flaws of referendums, including the idea that confusion about the position or wording of it can doom a referendum question, lower participation in referendums outside of general elections can seriously diminish support, and that referendums can give an outsized stage to fringe groups. To Athanassiel's point, was there a reason why the Voice referendum wasn't part of last year's general election? Was it just a desire for adoption of the Voice to be seen as an independent "the people have spoken" victory, undiluted by other issues?
Still, it's a shame if opposition to the mechanism of the referendum, either with respect to its appropriateness as a standalone vote or as a chance to register dissatisfaction with the current government, results in negating overall support for the Voice.
posted by amusebuche at 3:42 PM on September 11, 2023
I did find a similar post-Brexit analysis from Politico that talks about some of the other flaws of referendums, including the idea that confusion about the position or wording of it can doom a referendum question, lower participation in referendums outside of general elections can seriously diminish support, and that referendums can give an outsized stage to fringe groups. To Athanassiel's point, was there a reason why the Voice referendum wasn't part of last year's general election? Was it just a desire for adoption of the Voice to be seen as an independent "the people have spoken" victory, undiluted by other issues?
Still, it's a shame if opposition to the mechanism of the referendum, either with respect to its appropriateness as a standalone vote or as a chance to register dissatisfaction with the current government, results in negating overall support for the Voice.
posted by amusebuche at 3:42 PM on September 11, 2023
I'm not allowed to vote in this referendum, being long delisted from the electoral roll, but I told my folks back home that with this vote they're not asking for money, they're not asking for land, they're asking for the bare minimum that we can do as a civilized society. The only problem with it is that it doesn't go far enough. So vote yes or I'll fuckin' disown you.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:04 PM on September 11, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 4:04 PM on September 11, 2023 [3 favorites]
I'm being horribly reminded of the way conservatives and monarchists were able to divide and conquer the republican movement in 1999. But at least Farnsey is on side.
posted by Coaticass at 6:21 PM on September 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Coaticass at 6:21 PM on September 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
To Athanassiel's point, was there a reason why the Voice referendum wasn't part of last year's general election?
Before last year's general election, the reactionary fuckwit party Dutton works for, led by the most fucked fuckwit ever to do so, was actually running the joint instead of merely trying to ruin it from the sidelines.
posted by flabdablet at 6:59 PM on September 11, 2023 [3 favorites]
Before last year's general election, the reactionary fuckwit party Dutton works for, led by the most fucked fuckwit ever to do so, was actually running the joint instead of merely trying to ruin it from the sidelines.
posted by flabdablet at 6:59 PM on September 11, 2023 [3 favorites]
I don't know that including this in the federal election would have been the way to go - that wasn't my point. My point is the Uluru Statement came out 6 years ago, so although I understand Reasons why the Voice hasn't been up for voting earlier, it's long since due. I actually think this is more important than who governs the country, and if Dutton weren't such a shitty piece of bogroll, bipartisan support could have actually gotten this to pass. But Dutton is Dutton and it is so much easier for him and his ilk to say no rather than try to commit to the potential for having to do actual work if they said yes.
posted by Athanassiel at 7:26 PM on September 11, 2023
posted by Athanassiel at 7:26 PM on September 11, 2023
I'm actually fine with running referendums separate to elections. It means that you can focus on one thing only, rather than the broad swathe of issues that tend to come up at election time.
posted by Jilder at 7:58 PM on September 11, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Jilder at 7:58 PM on September 11, 2023 [3 favorites]
I'm fine with the concept of running referenda stand-alone, although doing it at election time gives an opportunity to consider which side is more or less likely to implement the outcome correctly. It's the cost that annoys me. $75m (not the $364m reported by Sky News) can buy a lot of just about anything else.
posted by dg at 11:55 PM on September 11, 2023
posted by dg at 11:55 PM on September 11, 2023
dg: I tend to think of that kind of cost as "fractions of submarines." $75 million barely covers the toilet seats by comparison.
posted by Jilder at 12:23 AM on September 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Jilder at 12:23 AM on September 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
Dg: where do you get the $75 mil from?
Direct from the Budget 2023-2024 - page 85 -
The Government will provide $364.6 million over 3 years from 2022–23 to deliver the referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples in the Constitution through a Voice to Parliament. Funding includes:
• $336.6 million over two years from 2023–24 for the Australian Electoral Commission to deliver the referendum, including $10.6 million to produce information pamphlets for the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases for distribution to all Australian households
• $12.0 million over two years from 2022–23 for the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) and the Museum of Australian Democracy for neutral public civics education and awareness activities
• $10.5 million in 2023–24 to the Department of Health and Aged Care to increase mental health supports for First Nations people during the period of the referendum
• $5.5 million in 2023–24 to the NIAA for consultation, policy and delivery.
posted by xdvesper at 2:52 AM on September 12, 2023
Direct from the Budget 2023-2024 - page 85 -
The Government will provide $364.6 million over 3 years from 2022–23 to deliver the referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples in the Constitution through a Voice to Parliament. Funding includes:
• $336.6 million over two years from 2023–24 for the Australian Electoral Commission to deliver the referendum, including $10.6 million to produce information pamphlets for the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases for distribution to all Australian households
• $12.0 million over two years from 2022–23 for the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) and the Museum of Australian Democracy for neutral public civics education and awareness activities
• $10.5 million in 2023–24 to the Department of Health and Aged Care to increase mental health supports for First Nations people during the period of the referendum
• $5.5 million in 2023–24 to the NIAA for consultation, policy and delivery.
posted by xdvesper at 2:52 AM on September 12, 2023
xdvesper: Can you break that into metric submarines for us? It still seems pretty cheap by comparison.
posted by Jilder at 3:41 AM on September 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Jilder at 3:41 AM on September 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
xdvesper: Can you break that into metric submarines for us? It still seems pretty cheap by comparison.
About 1/15th of a metric submarine.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:50 AM on September 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
About 1/15th of a metric submarine.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 6:50 AM on September 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Dg: where do you get the $75 mil from?
I think I tripped myself up trying to not include every other cost towards supporting indigenous people, as the Murdoch-owned press and the opposition have done and, in doing so, missed the $160m contingency amount that had been carried forward from previous budgets and probably added something up wrong as well.
The budget papers (page 85) allocate $31.5m from 2023-24 specifically for the referendum itself, but do mention $364.6m over three years from 2023-24. On top of the contingency amount, that makes the direct cost $191.5m, but there may be other costs allocated to departments that don't mention the referendum itself. That $364m includes a bunch of stuff that's tangential to the referendum and at least some seems to be targeted more at delivering the outcome should the referendum pass. In short, it's hard to see how much the referendum itself will cost.
At between $89b and $123b per submarine (which also includes a lot of associated infrastructure and other costs, not just the actual submarines), the $191.5m works out to between 16% and 22% of a submarine. Imperial not metric, because the submarines are being built in the US.
posted by dg at 2:25 PM on September 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
I think I tripped myself up trying to not include every other cost towards supporting indigenous people, as the Murdoch-owned press and the opposition have done and, in doing so, missed the $160m contingency amount that had been carried forward from previous budgets and probably added something up wrong as well.
The budget papers (page 85) allocate $31.5m from 2023-24 specifically for the referendum itself, but do mention $364.6m over three years from 2023-24. On top of the contingency amount, that makes the direct cost $191.5m, but there may be other costs allocated to departments that don't mention the referendum itself. That $364m includes a bunch of stuff that's tangential to the referendum and at least some seems to be targeted more at delivering the outcome should the referendum pass. In short, it's hard to see how much the referendum itself will cost.
At between $89b and $123b per submarine (which also includes a lot of associated infrastructure and other costs, not just the actual submarines), the $191.5m works out to between 16% and 22% of a submarine. Imperial not metric, because the submarines are being built in the US.
posted by dg at 2:25 PM on September 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
So, I meant to watch this when this was posted, a week ago, but I just now got around to it - and it left me sobbing, and then made me go look up a bunch of stuff about the history of the rights of First Peoples in Australia.
This is a tremendously moving ad, and I hope (despite current polling) it passes with something like the 90% of yes votes for the 1967 referendum.
I am really grateful to have seen this, and grateful for the opportunity to learn more about things I should already have known about.
Thank you so much for posting this, chariot pulled by cassowaries - I appreciate it.
posted by kristi at 2:55 PM on September 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
This is a tremendously moving ad, and I hope (despite current polling) it passes with something like the 90% of yes votes for the 1967 referendum.
I am really grateful to have seen this, and grateful for the opportunity to learn more about things I should already have known about.
Thank you so much for posting this, chariot pulled by cassowaries - I appreciate it.
posted by kristi at 2:55 PM on September 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
« Older Boats the way the Romans did them | “Oh yeah,” I said. “Call me Mister Diamond Hands.” Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Suck shit, Dutton.
posted by flabdablet at 9:05 PM on September 10, 2023 [8 favorites]