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.
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.
You can be pro-Voice and anti referendum. The issue is that the proposed amendment is offensively ineffectual.
Claiming that the progressive NO has no path forward is intellectually dishonest. Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yet, given an opportunity here, you failed to enlighten anyone.
I've explained extensively why the referendum rubbish elsewhere in the thread. I can't enlighten you if you refuse to pull your head out of where the sun doesn't shine.
Yes, you've given your spurious reasons for a no. Still no proposed solution instead.
Maybe if you spent less time insulting people and more time being constructive, you'd see better than the proverbial head up an ass.
The Yes vote isn’t a solution either though, it’s virtue signalling. The only thing that would be constitutionally protected is a vague “seat at the table” that is 100% at the discretion of the current party in power. It’s basically a token gesture that can be used to then stop making any actual progress. The voice position literally holds no power whatsoever.
Yes, it’s not meant to hold power. That’s why it’s called the voice. It’s the ability to speak and be heard. It’s not just a token gesture though. It adds pressure on any government who does not listen as to why they did not. It’s the same as the press. They hold power by holding government to account.
That’s a token gesture in every way.
“We’ll let you speak, like we always do, but we won’t guarantee we’ll listen or do what you say”.
The solution is simple. Do what the Uluru statement says. Make a voice for Indigenous Peoples that is enshrined in the constitution.
Don't settle for a cardboard cut out version of the voice. Be angry that the racists running your country would try to lie to you to pretend that this will fix things. Be mad that they would waste so much money and time and effort to do a performative gesture. Tell them you are angry.
Do you expect Oil companies and Coal miners to stop pollution on their own? Why would you expect the colonial government operating on stolen land to actually force themselves to have accountability to the very people who they are stealing from? Voting Yes for the current amendment is just encouraging the poor behaviour. Its enabling the quiet racists and helping them hide.
Our government needs to be bullied and harassed until they have no choice to do what is right. They will not do it voluntarily. If they pass this referendum they will act like their last place participation ribbon in the anti-racism olympics is a world record setting gold medal and they will never strive anything better.
The voice enshrined in the constitution is the plan. The state,ent does not discuss its make up, nor the election process, nor the fine details. The constitution shouldn’t either. It may need fine tuning to be effective, not be rorted by bad actors, and to be representative. If all that is in the constitution, it’s harder to change later. For an example, look at what the constitution says about how we elect senators, who would have more power. Very little. It’s left to the states to legislate.
A no vote to reject what you call a performative gesture is more damaging than a performative gesture. I don’t think it’s just a performative gesture, to be clear, but it’s a poor argument.
I don’t expect any corporation or person to do the right thing unless it’s in their interest. I expect the voice to be a check on the powers in government, rather than a power themselves. Just like the oil and gas and mining industry has paid lobbyists that are very effective, the voice can do the same, but for the people. The press has no powers in the constitution, but Murdoch, for instance, has had huge power just be nature of his abi,it’s to spread information with his slant on it. The voice will have power, but it won’t have power to control our government.
Change comes slowly and then in a sprint. Stopping that progress doesn’t advance anyone’s rights and is a misguided understanding of how governance works. Your ideal is not necessarily everyone’s ideal. Even this limited change for the better is at risk of failure. A more extreme version would be even more so. Your resistance to good enough, instead of ideal is just as bad as the racists in outcome, even if your intentions are good.
I disagree with your opinions they are vibes based and not based on historical evidence. Expecting members of the government to work against their own self interests is silly.
Such as? I've never seen one and I think if there were valid reasons the No campaign would be spreading the word far and wide.
Not recognising one race or people so as to preserve equality under the constitution is one. I don't agree as the history and inequality no present outweighs it.
Having a separate process, different to the voice is a valid argument, however the NO side aren't proposing one.
If you think the status quo is acceptable, that there is sufficient resources available and they are properly allocated, then that is a valid reason to vote no. Again, I disagree.
They are valid, in the sense that they follow a degree of logic and make grammatical sense. Otherwise no.