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.
15 years of consultation with aboriginal commmunities across all of Australia.
Developed, vetted and approved by practicing constitutional lawyers.
Good enough for me.
I find it so frustrating when I hear NO campaigners say a constitutive is not required. Politicians should just do their job and it’s easy to consult ATSI people, no voice required.
They literally did that. Consulted ATSI people, as part of a plan to change things, with all major parties on board. They are showing how much they don’t listen by saying that they don’t need the voice to listen? Aaaghhh.
No voters are low-key racists, I 100% believe this- they hide behind some weak arguments to pretend they’re progressive, but deep down they are just bigoted at heart. at worst this Yes vote does nothing, at best it changes for the people the well-being and future of indigenous australians. This whole throwing water on the fire instead of using a fire truck is just obfuscation, and they’d also find a reason to vote No for the fire truck as well.
There are valid reasons to vote no. However most no voters seem to jump on all the excuses to try and justify their stance. Even when two reasons are contradictory.
Then complain that the YES side call them racist. I do think they don’t consider themselves racist. They think their opinions are just ‘common sense’ rather than discrimination. Or that the injustices are too long ago, ignoring current injustice.
The way I see it is we have 3 options. The voice. No change Another unnamed option.
They are against the voice. They recognize, for the most part, that there is injustice, but have no alternative path. To me, that’s intellectual dishonesty. If you recognize there is a problem, you either propose a solution or go with the proposed current actions to help, or accept status quo. A nonvite is a vote for status quo, but with added divisiveness sue to attempts made to actually have change, that are now rejected.
This is my take.
I really don’t know anything about the, nor the issues faced by indigenous Australians, nor the best way to address them. This just isn’t relevant to my day to day.
That said, if I made a list of people who’s opinions I respect and polled them I’m sure it would be overwhelmingly “yes”.
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.
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.
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
Insulting people and labelling people with whom you disagree doesn’t foster good discussion and only emboldens their position
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
And good for you, however, this doesn’t mean that all Indigenous Australians, or at least a majority, are against it. Polling in the Guardian’s fact-checking article claims 80% approval.
Stating that all Indigenous Australians who you know are against it isn’t a valid argument. Your real argument is that “it’s virtue signalling”
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 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.
My thinking boils down to this:
-
We spend billions each year, but studies show the gap between other Australians and indigenous is worsening. We should be trying something. Anything.
-
For those concerned about ‘the details’, my understanding is that the pollies are responsible for those after the referendum. Do you really think a parliament and senate made up of mainly old white guys are going to significantly change how the country works? Seriously?
So, we’ve got nothing to lose, and hell, wouldn’t it be awesome if it actually had some positive changes!
For me, this referendum boils down to exactly the same pair of questions as for the same-sex marriage postal survey in 2017:
- Does this affect me adversely? (answer: no, it doesn’t)
- How does this benefit those that want it? (answer: for the better)
Easy.
There is no guaranteed positive effect though like there is for gay marriage being made legal. There is definitely a huge chance that it’s just virtue signalling and used to go “look we care what indigenous people want” while doing nothing to actually help indigenous people though.
This is what shits me about the no camp. You’re too worried about what it’ll look like, rather than getting past the first gate - giving them something in the Constitution.
It’s a starting point - not the end game.
Besides, my first question remains: where’s the harm in voting this in?
The harm is that it’s virtue signalling that will be used as proof that we’ve done something to help indigenous people while actually doing nothing of any substance.
Also I think anyone not worrying about the vagueness of something were being asked to put in our constitution, something that should not be taken lightly, is absolutely absurd.
I have family diving into this and I listen here and there. A concern one has mentioned is the aggressive stance by Lidia Thorpe. Without a doubt she will want full sovereignty over any other race.
In a June 2022 interview, Thorpe said she was there to ‘infiltrate’ the Australian parliament and that the Australian flag had “no permission to be here”.
So yes, the voice can be used in good ways I’m sure, but, depending on your stance, Lidia will be trying to use it for her own means as well.
And having said that, maybe eventually these times will pass, Lidia’s will take over, and maybe that’s good? It was and probably should be the aboriginal people’s country to fully control in the end.
But Lidia’s against the Voice, so not sure how that line of thought plays out.
The fact is, the Voice won’t have the power to create legislation or veto Parliament, or even anything close to that. It’s job will be to advise on indigenous affars. Yes, we’ve had bodies before that were meant to do that (notably ATSIC). But they weren’t protected by the Constitution, so were easily dismantled by the government of the day.
Lidia is just an example, if that helps.
She in the past has said she wants full treaty, with whatever bargaining comes with it. I’ve heard that she wants more now, and that’s her right to want that. She may even get what she wants some day. Interesting times ahead.
The voice will be able to use shame via the media / social media etc, to ensure things it wants are passed. There may be other mechanisms also. These are some of the fears I hear.
It’ll be interesting to see it all play out, that’s for sure. I wonder what the future will bring for the nation? It’d be great to see aboriginal people lifted to a position of honour and be able to reclaim their losses. I think though, this is the everyday day man’s fear. What will that mean? How far will it go? Only time will tell.
Without a doubt she will want full sovereignty over any other race.
Um… there is no way in hell Australians would allow Lidia Thorpe to have full sovereignty over this country. Have your forgotten the part where her boyfriend was president of the Victorian chapter of the largest outlaw motorcycle gang in Australia?! Sure - police have no evidence he committed a crime. But he was president of an organisation that has had gunfights in broad daylight where innocent bystanders were shot to death for simply standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not to mention selling hard drugs to kids.
Nobody should be listening to Lidia Thorpe on anything and it’s an embarrassment that the Greens allowed her to be a leading member of the party.
And if what you actually meant was “some other indigenous person” should have full sovereignty… well, which person specifically? Who exactly are you suggesting should replace King Charles as sovereign of Australia? I get it, he’s a terrible person for the role, I think we should find someone better. But I don’t see anyone putting their hand up. When someone competent does, then we can hold another referendum.
For now, it’s at best an impossibly unrealistic dream. At worst it’s a deliberate and malicious attempt to make sure no meaningful progress happens. And honestly, I’m leaning towards the latter.
Why has every piece of “information” about the No vote always boil down to “we don’t know”. But the yes voters have a bunch of answers to every question.
Its not “we don’t know” its that the Referendum makes the Voice subject to parliament. The lack of details on how the voice will operate means that there is no protection from the constitution. It is not a Voice enshrined in the Constitution. The voice we will get if the amendment is passed is the same as the voice we would get if Parliament made a voice without a referendum.
Referendum makes the Voice subject to parliament
Nope. Wrong.
The voice we will get if the amendment is passed is the same as the voice we would get if Parliament made a voice without a referendum.
No, it isn’t. A Voice enshrined in the Constitution will need another referendum to abolish. An Act of Parliament only requires… an Act of Parliament to abolish.
That’s already profoundly better.
Nope. Wrong.
No. Right.
The voice as it is will be in the constitution, but what the voice is will be left to the government in power. You can be damn sure that the second the LNP are in power again the Voice will be reduced to one white person who joins one meeting a year via zoom to give their opinion, which will always be “yeh nah the indigenous people are all good mate”.
That’s many peoples problem with it - the only thing enshrined in the constitution will be that it exists in some form, not what form not what actual influence or power it has. We’re voting for an idea without an implementation. That doesn’t sit well with many, myself included.
