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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
There are valid reasons to vote no.
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.
Yes voters are one who want to enshrine racism in constitution. Any mention of race is racism, but majority is so brainwashed to fail to understand it.
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.
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
Tbh dude this thread is going to be a shitshow.
The alternative is a bunch of little shitshows to keep track of, so this is somewhat easier to moderate
Ah, a contained disaster. Fair point.
those people are more than happy to do the same. Wanting a respectful response in return? lol no
Doesn’t matter: you should aim to be better than them
edit: dont worry just thinking out loud, my intention wasnt to derail the thread and on thought this thread should be a place for discussing the voice not the riff raff. apologies
Thanks for asking for feedback. The bit about cookers is worded a bit vaguely in such a way that it is unclear whether the converse is implied, that is, every vocal no voter is a cooker or a significant portion of vocal ‘no’ voters are cookers. And to be honest I do agree with that - just look at The Guardian’s fact checking of the official ‘No’ essay, most of it was made up. It’s just that using the term ‘cooker’ is probably not the most respectful way to convey that
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.
You mean how Howard removed atsic and implemented his 10 point plan? Yeah that was great…
Can’t we just have another referendum to remove it if it’s that bad?
Of course that’s an option in theory - but in practice, referendums are incredibly expensive operations, not to mention generally damaging to public discourse of other issues.
Most Governments would prefer to just reduce any funding for the body down to the bare minimum required, and have it sit impotently to the side, rather than front up and say ‘yeah nah, this didn’t work, so here’s another big money spend to fix the constitutional issue we created while we think of something else’.
But but that logic, it’s either not bad enough to be worth removing, or the government of the day has no real need to remove it.
Ergo, it being in the constitution is not really a problem.
The government only has no real need to remove it if they’re happy with the status quo regarding inequality - they can still point to the (presumingly failed) body and say ‘we tried’ and not bother with something better.
Found this which made me lol a bit
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.
These parliamentarians don’t necessarily represent or advocate for Indigenous Australians as they represent everyone in their electorate. Anthony Albanese doesn’t just represent the Italians in his electorate, he represents everyone. That’s how majority based systems work. The majority based system is a problem when you have a minority group who are so disadvantaged and have limited ways of having their voices heard. Especially when it’s about policies and laws that affect them specifically.
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-reportingCan we accept that this agency is providing equal (if not more) access to the same opportunities?
There are several differences between the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) and the proposed Voice to Parliament, according to constitutional and legal experts. Firstly, the NIAA is an internal agency accountable to the executive government. The proposed Voice, on the other hand, is an independent body that sits outside of both the executive and parliament. Secondly, the NIAA can only advise the executive government, while in contrast the proposed Voice can advise both the executive and parliament. Thirdly, the NIAA is not an entirely Indigenous organisation, whereas the proposed Voice would be composed entirely of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Lastly, the NIAA can be abolished by an executive order, while the proposed Voice would have its existence guaranteed by being enshrined in the Constitution.
deleted by creator
The NIAA facilitated the entire Voice referendum proposal to the government, as detailed in their 272-page report in July 2021.
This process, run by the NIAA, involved 115 community consultation sessions in 67 communities and more than 120 stakeholder meetings around the country with over 9,400 people and organisations participating in the consultation process led by NIAA co-design members.Are you suggesting that this was a waste of taxpayer dollars and “just another example of white people making decisions on behalf of black people”?
deleted by creator
It’s fairly obvious that you haven’t read the document and are just trying to test whether I have done the same.
Page 241 details the 3 co-design groups as follows:
- The National Group
- The Local & Regional Group
- The Senior Advisory Group
The Senior Advisory Group membership (p241):
The Minister will invite individuals to participate in the Senior Advisory Group. The Senior Advisory Group will include 2 co-chairs, Professor Tom Calma AO and Professor Dr Marcia Langton AM. The Senior Advisory Group will comprise around
20 members as determined by the Minister. The Senior Advisory Group will have a majority of Indigenous Australians who have a spread of skills and experience, and those with extensive experience and ability to work strategically across the co-design process. Consideration will also be given to achieving a balance of: gender; representation across jurisdictions; and the
urban, regional and remote spectrum, as much as possible.The National Group membership (p244):
The Minister will invite individuals to participate in the National Group, following consultation with the Senior Advisory Group, and appoint a co-chair from among the Indigenous non-government members. The second co-chair will be a senior official from the NIAA. The 2 co-chairs will also be key contacts and representatives for the National Group. They will lead engagement with the Senior Advisory Group and Local & Regional Group, Minister and the Government at key points, as required.The Local & Regional Group membership (p246):
The Minister will invite individuals to participate in the Local & Regional Group, following consultation with the Senior Advisory Group, and appoint a co-chair from among Indigenous non-government members. The second co-chair will be a senior official from the NIAA.Facilitate: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facilitate
As defined in the details of each co-design group:
All secretariat, logistical and administrative support will be provided by NIAA. This will include planning, logistics, travel arrangements and meeting support.
The co-chair for each group is a senior official from the NIAA.
Each group can request technical assistance, if needed, through the NIAA.More details on how the groups operated, their purpose, activities, scope, timeframes, as established by the NIAA’s process is defined in pages 241-247.
If you don’t understand all of the above to be the definition of the word “facilitated”, it brings into question whether you would under the wording of the Voice’s proposed constitutional amendment.
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.
which is unavailable to other Australians
Perhaps you should look up just how many existing governmental advisory bodies there are that have zero relation to the indigenous population. Maybe we should go and revoke them, you know, for equality
deleted by creator
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.
Yep and I’m not looking forward to the sort of bullshit arguments people will espouse in opposing a truth telling process.
That has been tried in the past, more than once, by both left and right wing parties. It failed miserably every time.
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.
Even if “powers” implied devolution which is just insane, this would be with the consent of Parliament.
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.
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.
The voice will be able to use shame via the media / social media etc, to ensure things it wants are passed.
Indigenous Australians can already talk to the media and use social media. The Voice doesn’t change that at all.
Also - every citizen of this country has the right to advocate for things they want to see passed into law. That’s what it means to live in a democracy.
What The Voice actually does is force our government (not the media, not the general public), to listen when indigenous representatives raise important issues. It doesn’t force the government to act, only listen. And if the government does do anything that the majority of Australians disagree with… they will be voted out with prejudice at the next election and the new government will immediately reverse whatever they did. You’re worried about something that just won’t happen.
So, why isn’t she FOR the Voice? Explain that.
Or maybe because she knows that her lunacy will be blocked out once there’s an advisory body telling us how crazy she is.
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.
Because the no campaign isn’t interested in answers, they just want to spread FUD.
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!
-
I’m trying to understand the No voters.
They’re saying because the details haven’t been ironed out, the Voice could be given much more power than is proposed.
But in their worst case scenario, what do they think is going to happen?
At this point I’ve just come to the conclusion the no people are most likely racists in hiding. The whole special rights/excessive powers/etc is just a cover story imo
The worst case scenario for them is that marginalised groups might start getting a greater say over the policies and laws that affect them. If Indigenous Australians are awarded more power in a system that is designed to keep them powerless then who knows what other groups in a similar situation of powerlessness might start getting uppity about.
The conservative no campaign don’t want to change the status quo because they don’t have a problem with it. Shit’s working fine in their view. The yes campaign and progressive no campaign agree that the status quo is not good enough but disagree about how it needs to be changed.
If you read the conservative no campaign’s brochure one of the concerns that they have about the voice is that it opens the door to activism. I personally think that is the foundation of their position and everything else is just incoherent fluff to wrap it up in.
opens the doors to activism
Cool, where do I sign up?
Those insert slur here will get uppity!
That’s their worst case scenario. No longer playing with a stacked deck.
deleted by creator
Probably the worst case for No voters is that the Voice becomes a platform to push for reparations, whereby Australians are expected to pay a tax for events that occurred before they were born or arrived in the country.
People being angry about paying reparations are silly. They act like money is being taken out of their pockets.
The amount of tax we pay doesn’t change, and the tax will be going towards improving peoples lives.
If we’re going to get salty about how our tax money is spent, maybe we should be looking at the billions of dollars given to billionaire companies.
Removed by mod
This is the first referendum voting experience for me so I’m excited to be part of history even if the outcome is not the one I want. I’m personally in the critical yes camp where I hope the referendum is successful but still agree with the points raised by the progressive no campaign. I was unsure for a while because I’m not an Indigenous person and wanted to listen to as many different Indigenous perspectives as I could before deciding. What really pushed me to yes was the idea that while not every person who votes no is racist, all racists will vote no.
I have serious issues with the idea of progressive no - it’s bad faith at worst, purity politics at best. “Nonono don’t throw that bucket of water on the fire i want a fire truck” the former doesn’t preclude the latter ffs.
Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint and it’s not my place to say what is or isn’t a good approach to change in this space. The progressive no campaign is connected to the Indigenous sovereignty movement and I can understand why they have taken the position they have. I’m not an Indigenous person so I don’t feel like it’s appropriate for me to try and represent their ideas. But I don’t think it’s fair to close yourself off to them, especially when the principle of the voice should is about listening to the diversity of Indigenous perspectives.
I think my very first voting experience was the republic referendum. I really didn’t know what I was doing or how to research. But all these years later, I stand by my vote.
I am voting Yes for The Voice because team Yes have put up an good case for it. Team No have yet to convince me otherwise; Everything I read is either vague speculation or miss information.
I wish I got to vote in the Republic referendum. What was the rhetoric like in comparison to the current one? Did anyone make a fuss about the ticks and crosses thing?
#ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART
We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:
Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.
How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
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.
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?”
deleted by creator
People voted for Brexit and a lot of them are unhappy about it, not that I expect the same would hold true of the Voice.
yep. and to be frank my opinion is if you take the same side as people like this, you are tarnished by their presence
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.
I honestly don’t know how I’m going to vote. Something is needed, but is it this?
I agree with a concern from the ‘no’ camp, that this ends up being a bandaid or virtue-signalling; and if it passes then “job well done” and we don’t keep moving forward.
Otoh, I very much fear that if the result is ‘no’, we have collectively just affirmed racism - the overt, the systemic, and the subtextual.
I have family planning to vote both ways, and they have put considered thought into their positions, not just gut reactions.
But I don’t know, for me. I don’t think I can in good conscience vote ‘no’, but I have not yet convinced myself that I can vote ‘yes’.
Your concerns are valid. I don’t think it’s a wild position to expect action from The Voice as a measure of success, and not virtue signalling. Race politics in this country is ugly. If the Yes camp wins, they will celebrate in a way that the No camp will label virtue signalling. And if the No camp wins, they will decry victory over political correctness. Respectful debate is unlikely irrespective of the outcome.
All that said — The Voice will be independent of the Government of the day. If the Government fails to act, The Voice will speak directly to the Government, the media and the community, announcing failure. I believe this will create a powerful political incentive to listen and act on the recommendations of The Voice in a unique way that our system currently does not have.
All political parties have issues with racism to various degrees — Liberals, Greens, Labor, all of 'em. The Voice will hold them accountable for their respective failures. Given that politicians loath transparency, it’s a fundamentally good idea to have an indigenous body to hold politicians to direct account.
A recent example of how this may play out is in Queensland, where Labor is potentially liable for tens of millions of dollars, for inhumane child detention in so-called ‘watch’ houses. The Guardian has an excellent article on this issue. If Australia had an advisory body like The Voice, the sheer amount of attention that would be given on this issue would unquestionably force Labor to prioritise rectifying this issue. Currently, this issue is being played out in the courts, which is an important component of justice, but I’d argue that an expedited solution would occur if The Voice existed.
Pardon the long post. If you want any recommendations for balanced and fair podcasts, articles or resources, please let me know. Happy to help. And all the best otherwise x
I think it’s as simple as “progress over perfection”.
In and of itself, will this amendment do harm? If your answer is “No”, that’s all that matters.
It may not be the Silver Bullet, there likely is no silver bullet - but if this is one step closer to the life we all want to look back on, then we should try it. Arguments that this isn’t enough are complete sophistry. One step is better than no steps. The argument that “we might not take step four, therefore we shouldn’t take step one” is completely disingenuous. Of course we should take step one, because it’s better than where we are today. Tomorrow we will work on step two - together.
What are you losing by voting yes?
How does it directly affect you?
deleted by creator
I agree with a concern from the ‘no’ camp, that this ends up being a bandaid or virtue-signalling; and if it passes then “job well done” and we don’t keep moving forward.
I’m sorry but that argument doesn’t have any merit at all.
If you are hungry, is it a “band aid solution” to take one step towards the kitchen? Taking one step isn’t going to fill you up. There’s going to be far more work after the step, but that step is an essential component of the full solution.
This entire issue is going to take generations of hard work to fix. The fact this referendum alone will not fix everything on it’s own is totally irrelevant. The referendum will help in a few key small ways, and therefore it should be passed.
Indigenous Australians must take a leadership role in patching the rift between them and the rest of the country. It simply cannot be solved by white people alone. This referendum, if we vote Yes, will enshrine into law an essential framework for representatives of Indigenous Australia to collaborate with the broader government as a whole.
I very much fear that if the result is ‘no’, we have collectively just affirmed racism
That is exactly how the ‘no’ vote will be interpreted. Even if 90% of people vote ‘yes’ most people will see that as proof that 10% of the population are racist.
This is a litmus test of Australian society. Are we ready to make real progress or not? Voting no means we are not ready.
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.
you’re in a mood to argue, I’m not. Sorry you’re racist or whatever, your trolling would work better if you pretended to read what people wrote.
Your claim is false and I have proven it, unless you are claiming that the Mabo decision was forced by violence.
Fuck I’ve already got this song stuck in my head and it’s going to be stuck in there for months.
For what it’s worth, a lot of my neighbours have a vote yes sign on their doors. It makes me feel like we’ll get the yes to change the constitution. That’d be awesome. I’m hanging onto hope.
I think it’s going to be close just because of how powerful the no campaign has been spreading their bullshit
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.
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 not a very popular opinion because it can be rejected objectively:
- Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander people aren’t a race but a cultural group that has existed for over 60000 years
- The voice doesn’t give these groups representation in parliament but would exist as an advisory body which may make representations to parliament, just as all Australians already can
- It also doesn’t specify that it must be composed of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
On the more “subjective” front:
- This isn’t just any cultural group, this is the first group that was unlawfully kicked off of their land by British settlers
- As non-indigenous Australians it’s not our fault, but since we benefit from it - it’s our responsibility. Many Indigenous people are unhappy as they don’t get to continue their culture due to the aforementioned invasion.
- There isn’t a solution where everyone wins, Indigenous people shouldn’t have to give up their culture and integrate into ours and Non-indigenous people shouldn’t have to pack up and move somewhere else
- The Voice is a step to help solve this divide (remember further steps won’t be able to happen without further democratic processes) no one really gets what they want and it’s up to us to decide where we stand on this
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.
If I understand correctly your argument against the voice is that the traditional owners of this land should not be represented by an advisory body in the constitution because they are no different to any other cultural group that experiences disadvantage.
This isn’t about addressing their current disadvantage - it could be used to help with that - it’s about a way forward respecting their culture and extensive history. The Australia I want to live in is where we can have an Australia Day that isn’t divisive; an Australia where the oldest living culture lives on and we’re proud of it. What I really want is an Australia which can look back at its past and say “that was wrong, but we’re in a better place now”.
Today we live in an Australia where the past is troubled because we haven’t come to terms with it. I remember back during the BLM protests when statues of slave traders, explorers and colonisers were being defaced and torn down, prominent archaeologist Mary Beard was saying that we should keep the statues. Why? Not because we’re proud of those people or what they did. It was because it reminded us where we came from. Many of these parts in the UK were built on slave money and while the current inhabitants didn’t do that and don’t condone those actions they still benefit from them.
The comparison to the UK and BLM may seem like a bit of a reach, but I guarantee you that it relates to our current debate. The Voice represents a statue, it reminds us of the past. And I agree with you I would like to live in an Australia where we don’t need statues, because I didn’t create this problem and solving it is going to be difficult. Perhaps one day in 100 years time there will be a referendum to remove the Voice. But as long as Indigenous children grow up asking where they came from and why they don’t live there anymore we need statues, we can’t just ignore the past. Indigenous people have passed stories along for thousands of years, they’re not forgetting any time soon.
Sorry for the essay but I hope that you and other people sharing your opinion do give it a read.
You don’t need the Voice to be able to respect aboriginal culture and history or pass along stories.
I also don’t support statues glorifying slave traders.
What’s your solution then?
Also I never said that I support statues glorifying slave traders, I support statues reminding us of the source of our wealth.
@unionagainstdhmo @australia Well said, thank you!
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.
A referendum isn’t needed to consult with people.
And people shouldn’t be included/excluded from consultation just because of their race/culture/heritage.
A referendum isn’t needed to consult with people.
While that does seem to be mostly correct, I think it’s also complicated. As I’m sure many people have said, previous consultative bodies have been abolished several times, and could only consult with the executive branch. This constitutional change will also enable representations be made to the legislative branch.
Could they have just tried to do so without a constitutional change? Probably. Yet they aren’t without reason for putting it in the constitution either.
And people shouldn’t be included/excluded from consultation just because of their race/culture/heritage.
People are right now, but perhaps not in ways explicitly stated by law. If we were a new country with a clean slate I might think this voice wouldn’t be necessary. Not only do we have a history of excluding people based on race, but I can see in the community that we still do so, and that will continue unless put a stop to.
I understand the unease of putting a specifically indigenous voice in there, but from what I understand even if parliament gives it the most power possible, it will still be less powerful than a traditional lobby group, only able to table discussions and research. Discussions I think should have happened decades ago.
It’s not a perfect solution, I don’t think I’ve met anybody who truly thinks that. But my opinion is that it would provide overall more help than harm, especially considering that I think the government’s inability to listen is structural, and not just individual fault.
Could they have just tried to do so without a constitutional change? Probably.
Not probably. Definitely.
If the concern is that a body not enshrined in the constitution might be abolished by a future government, the same future government would just shrink a constitutionally established voice down to the bare minimum and ignore it, rendering it useless. Either way, the only real solution is to not elect shit governments in the future.
But my opinion is that it would provide overall more help than harm
I personally don’t believe it will provide help than harm. I believe the Voice a step towards an Australia in which people of different races are treated differently and racial discrimination is enshrined in our laws, and that is not something I desire.
I guess we just have different perspectives on how things currently are then, I view it as already the case that structural discrimination is at play, and that it’s very embedded into Australian government and society.
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.
How do you feel about New Zealand’s Māori representation in their parliament?
Much the same way I feel about having seats on a bus reserved for people of a certain race and not others. I think dividing parliament along racial lines is racist and I don’t support it.
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.
If you did, you would acknowledge differences.
Yeah, that’s right mate, I don’t acknowledge differences. I think all people are exactly the same, down to their fingerprints. I don’t care about anybody because there are zero differences at all. You got me. Real sharp you are.
If you did, you would acknowledge the difference between equality and equity.
So you want to help people who are born into disadvantage but you don’t want to hear from those very same people?
Oooooookay?
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?
If some group of individuals require substantially different medical treatment because their biology is that different to everybody else’s, then the people who should be consulted are scientific and medical experts, not more politicians. You do not need to enshrine a racist body into the constitution to be able to meet the different needs of different people.
Racism is the idea that your race is better than others
Racism is descriminating on the basis of race, which this proposed ammendment would do, and you appear to support.
So vote yes, so there is someone to consult.
You do not need a racist advisory body enshrined in the constitution to be able to consult with people.
It would be nice to live in your fantasy world, but it’s obvious that a) you don’t understand what/how analogies are b) that not having a non-racist body not-enshrined in the constitution hasn’t worked well so far, so we should try having a non-racist body not enshrined in the constitution, and vote yes.
You don’t know what the word discrimination means, or what Aborigines go through, and both are kind of sad things about you.
Lastly “need”: no, but it seems to be the best option out of any we’ve been presented so far. As such, we should vote yes. If you have something better for us to vote on, then you should have presented it.
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?
Yes, I would. Would you not?
Something I have not seen discussed anywhere.
They do not specify that this group will be elected. That mean they will be appointed. I just can’t see future for this other than a punch of politicians mates from the inner city. Completely out of touch with the needs of those they represent.
I’m still leaning towards voting yes but I don’t see this actually helping. It’s probably just going to cost the tax payers a bunch of money and do no good.
If they were elected then they could be held to account.How people are appointed to the Voice is irrelevant to the referendum and will be legislated by the parliament
It’s very relevant. We need to decide if we want to irrevocably change the country. We need more than “don’t worry about it”
if we want to irrevocably change
The composition of the Voice is not irrevocable. The vote in the referendum is whether you support the notion that there is a constitutionally-mandated Voice, and not whether you approve of the specific model being proposed. Parliament can change the specific model at will, regardless of whether it is the current Labor Government or a future LNP one. The only thing that will be irrevocable is the fact that some Voice exists.
And that’s where I can see people having concerns. By voting Yes, you are opening the door for a model that you may not agree with. I can see people being hesitant about it, like it’s a trap. But that’s just my devil’s advocate opinion, the fact is that this will unlikely affect anyone who isn’t ingenious in a tangible way.
It’s well overdue for us to genuinely celebrate our indigenous heritage and ensure our constitution allows us to embed this culture into our country’s DNA.
Not entirely true. HC will likely set some sort of minimum standard for composition eventually, probably minimum standards for how they can provide representations if parliament decides to make it hard for them to do so.
It might do that. Or it might not. The inter-state commission is a good example of that.
If you are not an Indigenous person then the voice will not really be advising on things that are relevant to you. And the voice is fundamentally an advisory group that will present their concerns to the government. The government will then act on this advice. It will still be the government making laws and policies. It just needs to be constitutional so that it can’t be terminated like previous advisory groups have been.
Considering the level of disadvantage that Indigenous Australians experience, don’t you think it’s reasonable that they should have greater say (a voice) on how to address the issues that are relevant to them?
The problem is that those people who will be given the voice will actively work against the needs of those they pretend to represent. Just like all politicians.
How will that help anyone?So, your plan is to burn it all down and live in an anarchist commune?
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
We’ve already decided on that through the previous federal election. Theoretically, the voice will be legislated in a way which appeals to the majority of Australians.
Remember: bad politicians and parties only get into parliament because, we, Australians, put them there
The rich put them there. We Australians don’t really have a choice. The Libs are complete garbage and Labor have abandoned their principles just to get power. They are only slightly better?
What other choice do we have?We live in a democracy, we voted for them. I think if political advertising was prohibited then we would have way more independents in parliament
A reminder, the PM is basically appointed. We don’t get to vote on the PM, just the party, and they pick who is going to lead us.
As for a “bunch of money” - it’s almost nothing.
If conservative voters actually cared about money, they wouldn’t waste money on American nuclear subs we can’t refuel, or broken French contracts, or spending more triple on a subpar telecommunications network that Labor is having to spend more on to fix.
No, it’s not about money, and it isn’t about elections.
I am one of the biggest critics of the Libs but I don’t think the whole AUKUS debacle can be 100% blamed on them.
The whole thing screams the US forcing Australia to buy the subs to ensure long term control.
If the government doesn’t do what they are told then the US can refuse to maintain the subs.
Remember the last prime minister who looked out for Australia’s best interests rather than the US’s interests got kicked out of government and an unelected lib Prime minister replaced him.
