With the Voice to Parliament Referendum date announced to be October 14 2023, this thread will run in the lead up to the date for general discussions/queries regarding the Voice to Parliament.
The Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
Past Discussions
Here are some previous posts in this community regarding the referendum:
- The Voice referendum official Yes/No pamphlets
- Linda Burney says there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by supporting the Voice
- Families distressed after ‘highly misleading’ video used by anti-Voice campaigners goes viral
- The Indigenous Voice to Parliament – separating fact from fiction | 7.30
- 10 questions about the Voice to Parliament - answered by the experts
- The yes pamphlet: campaign’s voice to parliament referendum essay – annotated and factchecked
- Fact-checking for the “No” referendum pamphlet was not compulsory
Common Misinformation
- “The Uluru Statement from the Heart is 26 Pages not 1” - not true
Government Information
- Referendum question and constitutional amendment
- voice.gov.au - General information about the Voice
Amendments to this post
If you would like to see some other articles or posts linked here please let me know and I’ll try to add it as soon as possible.
- Added the proposed constitutional amendment (31/08/2023)
- Added Common Misinformation section (01/07/2023)
Discussion / Rules
Please follow the rules in the sidebar and for aussie.zone in general. Anything deemed to be misinformation or with malicious intent will be removed at moderators’ discretion. This is a safe space to discuss your opinion on the voice or ask general questions.
Please continue posting news articles as separate posts but consider adding a link to this post to encourage discussion.
A summary of my viewpoint:
I am enormously sick of the no campaign brigading every discussion with terrible arguments in bad faith.
I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed. Similarly, the law is my degree. I’ve spent five years of my life studying it, and although I’m not a graduate yet (two units to go), I’d think I’d know more about this shit than Joe from bumfuck nowhere on Facebook.
There is no case for a no vote. None whatsoever. The change would not grant special rights to Indigenous Australians. It has been repeatedly explained by both lawyers and politicians. You can read the change yourself. It has to be a constitutional change, because that protects it from being outright removed by successive governments, which is the very thing that happened to the previous body that performed this role. By definition, it is not racist, as racism refers to negative treatment on the basis of race or ethnic background, and not differing treatment. This is one of three steps proposed by Indigenous Australians towards reconciliation, and isn’t the endpoint. If it fails, it will be the endpoint.
When the colonisers arrived, Indigenous Australians outnumbered colonisers. Now, they make up just 2.5% of the population. We are driving them to extinction. If this fails, by the time we get around to trying again, it is likely the genocide will have all but been completed.
Ethically and morally, a yes vote is the only choice. Legally, it is the best choice for change.
Just to point out, racism does not have to be negative treatment. Racism just has to be inequitable. The proposed amendment creates a system for Indigenous Australians, which is unavailable to other Australians. That is inequitable.
The changes needed can be achieved without a Constitutional amendment.
The changes needed can be achieved without a Constitutional amendment.
and removed next term when the next quasi fascist gets elected.
frankly im a little sick of the ‘no’ side claiming the Voice will both do nothing, but simultaneously cause some sort of irrepairable divide that will destroy the nation.
And every. single. cooker. is loudly vocally on the No side. Which makes it an easy choice for me
and removed next term when the next quasi fascist gets elected.
Come on, this is just FUD, plain and simple.
If the voice does turn out to be a white elephant, then we should have the flexibility to remove it and try again with a different model. I’m 100% on board with the Government of the day legislating a body, but I don’t believe it should be in the constution, and I doubt I’m the only one.
Using inflammatory language is not the way to try and convince people one way or the other.
this is inequitable
Not what equity means. Equity refers to equal access to the same opportunities. Put simply, due to their post-genocide, White Australia Policy and “Breeding out the Black” (real campaign) numbers, Indigenous Australians completely lack representation in Parliament. Therefore they lack access to the opportunities your average Australian (regardless of race) has. An Indigenous Voice to Parliament will make things more equitable, not less, as it will provide access to the same opportunities of representation that the rest of us have already.
Indigenous Australians completely lack representation in Parliament
There are Indigenous Australians in Parliament so this cannot be true.
it will provide access to the same opportunities of representation that the rest of us have already
I get a vote and that’s it, Indigenous Australians also get a vote.
Sounds like the same opportunity for representation to me.
Indigenous Australians already have The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), employing 1,023 full time staff and a budget of $285M each year specifically for the purpose to “lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.”
The very detailed annual reports and corporate plans define their activities, plans, and successes fairly well: https://www.niaa.gov.au/who-we-are/accountability-and-reporting
Can we accept that this agency is providing equal (if not more) access to the same opportunities?
it is not necessarily inequitable. it is unequal. but it would only be inequitable if you think that the indigenous populations of Australia have been up until this point been treated on even footing with colonizers.
The changes needed can be achieved without a Constitutional amendment.
Australia has tried doing it without a referendum multiple times over our history, every single time they started promising and then fizzled out into nothing.
By putting it in the constitution, there would have to be a new referendum in order to undo the changes.
I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed.
Literally every one of my indigenous friends and colleagues that I’ve spoken to are voting no, including some who work for our government and are very well respected in their communities and in the government. Some run indigenous businesses and not for profits, some are elders and aunties/uncles, many are actively out there trying to make life better for indigenous people. I wasn’t sure which way to vote, but I’ll be voting no after speaking to them.
They all echoed the same thoughts - it’s virtue signalling, and they don’t want a seat at that table where they are not guaranteed to actually be listened to or respected.
I think it’s worth basically ignoring anyone who says “I’ve spoken to indigenous people.” In fact I would suggest anyone (for or against) who speaks to people around them and makes that judgment should consider consulting surveys/polls, rather than relying on their small circles as a sample size.
“I’ve spoken to indigenous people.”
Where did they say that? Are you really going to call the user a liar for saying they know Indigenous Australians? That’s weak tea.
Stating that all Indigenous Australians who you know are against it isn’t a valid argument.
I didn’t say that was the argument though. As you noted, I gave the reasons why they said they were voting no and why I’ll be voting no as well, because I agree with them. It just looks like white people virtue signalling so they can go “look how awesome and not racist we are! we’re giving the indigenous people some crayons and a seat at the table where we can continue to not listen to them” while also making them feel good because they then feel justified in being able to call people they disagree with racists.
I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed.
Lidia Thorpe? ex-Greens senator who split because she is against the referendum?
I’m still not sure I get Lidia’s arguments tbh. I agree with her on treaty and I honestly don’t know why (other than being a pack of racists) we haven’t implemented the recommendation of the royal commission into indigenous deaths in custody, I’m just not sure that voting the voice down is a good move or would even help get those things done. It could make Australia wake up to its past by giving it a shock, but just (maybe more) likely the referendum failing will empower racists.
I’m just not sure that voting the voice down is a good move or would even help get those things done.
Would voting up a powerless voice help get them done? It would be used as a way to put off further action. “What? You don’t need a treaty. We gave you a Voice to parliament last decade.”
How do you interpret the part at the end that refers to “powers”?
Also, just curious, have you studied constitutional law in your degree yet?
G’day, sorry for the long wait.
To preface: I have studied constitutional law (was a lockdown subject for me). I’m not going to claim to have the understanding of either the High Court or the Constitutional Lawyers I’ve encountered, and bear in mind IANAL, and nothing I say here constitutes a true legal interpretation.
Based on both other legislation where the term “powers” has been used, as well as the context in which it is used in the proposed wording, I read it as referring to any abilities it may rely on in order to make its representations. I couldn’t tell you what these may be, as that would depend on the Government of the day, but my expectation would be they’d be related to information gathering, decision-making (including whether a chair would exist and veto power), whistleblowing, and those kinds of things.
The wording is purposefully very vague of course - which serves a few purposes. The big one is about making it hard for oppositional forces to take it to the High Court to claim whatever controversial action its taking is unconstitutional; there’ve been a few cases like that that just end up wasting the court’s time, along with tax payer money. Similarly, keeping it vague gives plenty of room to legislation to define its limitations, and allows for evolution as the needs of the community change.
Sorry for the essay mate, tl;dr: did study Constitutional law, had a great teacher! Powers is kept vague, but I would argue it refers to abilities. Vaguery is a good thing in a constitution because it gives room for the law to adapt and evolve.
Voting no to this is simply reaffirming the status quo that violence is the only way foe minorities to gain a seat at the table.
This is an unprecedented, earnest, consensus, peaceful approach to a way forward. A way without killing.
Slapping it back out of fear is a vote in favour of violence, for that is the only other way indigenous people have gained political power in colonial nations.
Just be kind, choose to be kind. Please.
violence is the only way foe minorities to gain a seat at the table
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_(No_2)
Your claim is baseless fearmongering.
The Mabo decision, while significant, is not what we’re talking about here and is a bad faith misdirection.
When we compare the political situation of colonised peoples there is an enormous difference in political power and concessions granted between those who killed lots of colonisers vs those who did not. Comparisons abound from NZ, to Ireland and everything between going eastward.
The Mabo decision demonstrates that non-violent methods can be effective in Australia.
Your claim that violence is the only answer is dangerous and bordering on incitement. Now you are simply shifting the goal posts.
I know it isn’t a popular view around here, but for the sake of a diversity of opinion, here is why I will be voting no.
I am of the view that all Australians should be treated equally in the eye of the law, regardless of the colour of their skin or who their grandparents are. I think the law should be race-blind.
I think it is a step in the wrong direction for Australia to have laws that separate Australians along racist lines. I think it’s a step in the wrong direction to enshrine in the constitution that people of one ethnic heritage get special representation that people of different ethnic heritage do not.
I don’t care who your dad was, or who his dad was, or who his dad was. Just because someone’s dad’s dad’s dad was in Australia before someone else’s shouldn’t entitle them to more representation to parliament than anyone else. You shouldn’t get special privilege just because you were born into a particular family lineage.
I think Australia needs to do more to help those who need help. Nobody should die in police custody. Everybody should have access to education. Anyone who is born into poverty should be lifted out of it. And any time the government is going to make laws, they should obviously consult with the people who those laws will affect.
Regardless of the colour of their skin.
Whether you call it race or cultural group, the argument doesn’t change. I think all Australians should be treated equally by the law, and any Australian who is disadvantaged should receive help, regardless of whether they’re part of one culture or another. Enshrining in the constitution that one cultural group gets extra representation to parliament that other cultural groups do not get is, in my view, a step away from the Australia that I want to live in.
@unionagainstdhmo @australia Well said, thank you!
This might be a bit petty, but the fact your instance has a .uk TLD alongside your opinion is, well, kinda yikes. I think a voice to parliament is one of the least drastic changes we could make to recognise the harm that was caused by someone’s dad’s dad’s dad.
It is indeed petty, and irrelevant.
I don’t want to just ‘recognise’ harm that was done. I want to make Australia a better place for everyone living in it, and help anyone who is born into disadvantage, regardless of their family lineage. I do not believe that the voice does that.
No, you don’t want to help people. You want to seem like you help people without actually caring about them. If you did, you would acknowledge differences. You don’t, so it’s obvious you’re acting in bad faith now.
How do you feel about New Zealand’s Māori representation in their parliament?
I am of the view that all Australians should be treated equally in the eye of the law, regardless of the colour of their skin
Cool, but they’re not though, and you’re doing your best to ensure the status quo doesn’t change.
You want things to change but will vote to ensure they don’t
I vote for politicians who support policies that I believe will make all Australians better off, and actively campaign to change the status quo in ways that I think are better. I also actively campaign against changing the status quo in ways that I think are worse. This is one of those ways.
It’s well and good if this is your opinion, but note that Aboriginals weren’t only here before, but they had their own nations, systems of government and sovereignty that was stripped from them in the 1700s. This isn’t just about race, but about their native history with the land and unique connection. If you still believe that Aboriginals don’t deserve any sort of representation that recognises this fact, along with all the disadvantage that specifically affects Aboriginals due to government policies since then, then sure.
I’d also like to note that committees and policy institutes already hear from special interest groups, it’s not division to hear from those who are uniquely affected by laws.
I believe that all Australians should have representation to parliament. I don’t believe that anybody should have a ‘birthright’ to more representation just because of the family lineage they were born into.
I believe that any time the government is going to introduce or change laws, they should consult with the people those laws will affect. Regardless of the race or culture of those people.
I believe that any time the government is going to introduce or change laws, they should consult with the people those laws will affect. Regardless of the race or culture of those people.
This is the entire reason why this is being debated. The government has a horrendous track record of ignoring indigenous people on matters that affect them. Even to this day, and it appears to be a structural issue. Let us not forget what the Australian government has done in the name of “helping” them, resulting in the Stolen Generations, among other things.
And that is exactly why you should vote yes. To help ensure that everything you’ve said happens.
Look, here is an example: women and Africans have different responses to various medicines and pain killers and such. Generally, historically, they get subpar care compared to white men. Not intentionally! It’s just decades and centuries of data is from white male subjects.
And its baked into the mentality too (here’s a link from the USA: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the-united-states/racial-disparities-in-health-care/)
It’s not exactly apples to apples here - but the basis the same. There are differences and inequities which an advisory board would be useful for, for achieving the goal of equality.
And really, that could also be your biggest misunderstanding of the world here (sorry for sounding confrontational, but hear me out): equality vs equity.
If the law is truly equal, then it is inequitable and unfair. This is because WE are unequal.
For example, if a speeding fine is $500 for everyone, regardless of the speed or the person, then it is equal. However, a rich person can speed as much as they want, and it’s just part of the cost of driving for them. A poor person would have to sell their car to pay their debts. That’s not equal punishment. Some countries take income into consideration when assigning speeding tickets as a way to balance the law.
The point is to highlight: equal is not always fair. Equal is not always equitable.
women and Africans have different responses to various medicines and pain killers and such
So listen to scientific and medical advisors who are the people best suited to identify these concerns and propose solutions.
The point is to highlight: equal is not always fair. Equal is not always equitable.
The solution isn’t to make the law that Aboriginals pay lower speeding fines or that white folk pay higher speeding fines though, is it? The solution is to make fines scale with the offender’s wealth, not their race.
If somebody needs help, I don’t believe we should take their race into consideration. We should just help them, regardless of their race.
If the government is going to make a policy or change the law, I don’t believe that somebody’s race should decide whether or not the government consults with them first. The government should consult with them regardless of their race.
I think your misunderstanding of the world is that you think racism is a good idea. I personally don’t agree with you.
“so listen to the”…“advisors”
Good idea. That’s why you should vote yes. So there’s dedicated advisors to listen to.
“We should help them, regardless of their race”
Yes. But different people need different help.
Racism is the idea that your race is better than others. That is not what I’m saying. I am saying that there are differences in the ethnicities in Australia, in both physical and cultural terms, which result in needing different actions to achieve the same results.
“The government should consult them”
So vote yes, so there is someone to consult.
Hey, remember that time Tony Abbott made himself Minister for Women?
I think understanding the difference between equality and equity would help in understanding some of the points Indigenous advocates have been making throughout this campaign. Equity is about rights and needs according to what different groups experience in terms of disadvantage. Essesntially, equality looks different for different groups of people. Equality is a great value to have and strive for, but because of our colonial history Indigenous Australians do not have equality. In whatever way you measure it there is a significant gap in inequality between Indigenous and non- Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians also have different needs (culturally appropriate services, inclusive education systems etc) and rights (land rights, cultural rights etc). The best people to advise on how to close the gap is Indigenous Australians themselves. That’s what the voice is about.
I believe that anybody who is disadvantaged should be helped, and anybody who needs healthcare or education or assistance should receive it, and I believe that anytime the government is going to introduce or change laws, they should consult with the people those laws will affect. Regardless of whether those people are of aboriginal heritage or not. I don’t believe our laws should make special exceptions or treat people differently because of their race or culture or who their ancestors are.
You shouldn’t get special privilege just because you were born into a particular family lineage.
That’s just wow lol. Would you dare say that to Murdoch, Gina Reinhardt, Clive Palmer or any of the other million/billionaires? Or our King?
“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
This referendum does not establish a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. This Amendment is a nothingburger. They didn’t even enshrine the right for the Voice to address parliament. They said the voice “may” make representations to the Parliament and the Executive. I’m pretty sure anyone “may” make representations to the Parliament and the Executive if the Parliament and the Executive see fit.
The Parliament already has power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. The whole point was to make a “Voice enshrined in the Constitution” not to enshrine in the constitution a Voice subject to parliament.
I don’t care how you vote but if you think this referendum will make Aboriginal Australians’ lives better you are kidding yourself. This is a performative measure so that people can feel good about themselves while they continue to live on stolen land and profit from genocide.
Language like may has specific interpretations under law. I’m not a constitutional lawyer but it probably means something like they don’t have to if they have nothing to say but that Parliament has to listen if they do.
My wife works in regulations for chemical imports and it’s full of “aisic may require companies to make declaration” which means “if don’t file imports you go to gaol”.
Nothing in the constitution is particularly rigid. Consider how elections are described. No provisions for how they will be conducted are specified, just that you have to have them and roughly who is allowed to vote.
And yet while not as good as the multi member elections of many European countries our electoral system is pretty good.
so that 7 news story on the Adelaide “No” protest pretty much told me all I need to know about the No side.
conspiracy theorists, shouty people, antivax nonsense and racism. what any of that had to do with the referendum who knows
edit: sydney and melbourne too it seems. its almost as if certain types of people swing to the No side
Don’t forget neo nazis who are actively supporting the no campaign. Dutton and co can try to lie and convince people that they care about making things better for Indigenous Australians all they want but there’s absolutely no fucking reality where nazis give a shit about this. Not all people who vote no are racists, but all racists will vote no.
One question I have, which I haven’t been able to ask anyone since I’m a recluse, is “what positive societal change is made by voting no?”
“what positive societal change is made by voting no?”
That’s the wrong question. I don’t think any positive change will be made by voting no - but I also don’t think any positive change will be made by voting yes. In fact I think that there will be more negative change by voting yes.
Less than the active racism on the news, there’s a hell of a lot of people who think righting wrongs isn’t worth the small sum of cash and time that a voice will take up in the public sphere. People who think because we’ve been forced into a minority that we should lay down and accept being trodden on.
