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.
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.
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.
“Everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a racist even the Aboriginal Australians”
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.
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.
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.”
Have you read the Statement from the Heart? I just posted it to the thread if you want to check it out. I have no idea why it isn’t central to the discussion, because the statement is literally where all this is coming from.
The Voice is the first step towards a treaty. That’s basically what Makarrata means in English. If a treaty were to happen today, who would it be with? Which of the hundreds of tribes across the land should be chosen to represent aboriginal peoples? We all need a body representing first nations to open these dialogues with.
I have read the Uluru statement. It asks for a voice that is enshrined in the constitution. The referendum does nothing to enshrine the voice in the constitution. The wording of the proposed amendment leave all the details of how the voice is implemented up to government and subject to its whims.
What good is a voice that is subject to parliament? If the government of the day can stack it with sycophants or gut it at a whim they can negotiate a treaty on the worst possible terms. The process of how the voice is structured, chosen, and its powers need to be enshrined in the constitution and the proposed amendment does not do that.
The wording of the proposed amendment leave all the details of how the voice is implemented up to government and subject to its whims
You’ve alluded to this twice in this thread now. Here’s the proposed change to the Constitution:
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.
Are you saying item 3 is the problem?
No, they’re saying item 1 is the problem (with regards to what you quoted). What The Voice actually looks like won’t be decided until after it passes the referendum. “A body” could mean absolutely anything. We have suggestions and theories, but all of this still needs to be officially worked out.
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 don’t get the issue with ‘virtue signalling’. At all.
Before any societal change can happen, a pre-requisite is virtuous behaviour and ‘signals’?
This is clearly a journey, not the end destination. So why on earth would you want to not take the first step just because it doesn’t take you instantly to the destination?
You do realise what happened after the republican referendum lost? You won’t see this again in at least a generation. That’s what we’re really voting on. No will mean “Yeah, nah. The people voted on that. Maybe take a look again in (waves hand) the future”.
And you know every time something remotely to do with indigenous rights/culture comes up, people will refer back and say “The country voted No”.
But thank god, at least we will have defeated “virtue signalling”…
The issue with virtue signalling is that it’s used to pretend you’re doing something without actually having to do it. The voice is pretending to give the indigenous people some power while not actually giving them anything noteworthy. They’re acknowledged in the white settler’s constitution but basically as an afterthought for us to ignore.
My, and many others issue, is that this “first step” will in fact be treated for decades as the destination. We don’t want nothing to be done to help indigenous people, we want more done to help them. We want meaningful change, something protected that actually gives them power, not a promise that we’ll let them say something without promising that we’ll listen and take action.
Will some people point to a no win as “nothing needs to be done”? Absolutely, but I think those will just be the minority of straight up racists. More people will still want something done, just not token gestures.
If you can’t get a Yes vote on such a “meaningless, token” (I’d rather call it ‘symbolic’, or ‘aspirational’) change, then how can you expect or hope for more substantial changes to pass?
Well I’m voting no because it’s meaningless. We shouldn’t be putting meaningless things in to the constitution.
If it was actually meaningful change I’d be voting yes.
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.
Literally every one of my indigenous friends and colleagues that I’ve spoken to are voting no,
Did you forget what you wrote?
2 points:
- Anyone can say they have indigenous friends or have spoken to indigenous people. In fact Peter Dutton has been doing that this whole time. This is a largely anonymous forum so there’s no reason to believe anyone who says “ah yeah I spoke to a guy.”
- We have polling on indigenous peoples opinions on the voice. The people we surround ourselves with or we encounter in our daily lives are an insignificant sample size and subject to selection bias.
I didn’t write it. Whirlybird didn’t just say “I’ve spoken to indigenous people” they gave examples of the different people they spoke with. Just because you haven’t ever had a real conversation with an Aboriginal Australian doesn’t mean none of us have.
-
If you don’t trust anyone on here why bother? It isn’t difficult to discern a bad faith argument.
-
You trust polling but not another human that you are peaking to through the internet? Anecdotal evidence isn’t perfect but polling has financial reasons to push lies and special accounting tricks to make the numbers say whatever they want.
The polling is massively skewed. I cant find a single poll where they exclude anyone who hasn’t read the proposed amendment.
Indigenous peoples want a voice to parliament that is enshrined and protected by the constitution and so do I But the majority of the yes voters have been misled to believe the referendum will give them that. Anyone who reads the constitutional amendment critically will see it is the way the referendum is written is just a empty gesture to delay real action.
They didn’t give any more examples than a politician saying they’ve spoken to people in the community.
- If you don’t trust anyone on here why bother? It isn’t difficult to discern a bad faith argument.
As far as I’m concerned anyone making this sort of argument should be ignored because it’s the easiest form of bad faith argument.
- You trust polling but not another human that you are peaking to through the internet? Anecdotal evidence isn’t perfect but polling has financial reasons to push lies and special accounting tricks to make the numbers say whatever they want.
This is true, and you can make an argument against the polling, but that’s an argument that can actually be had. You can’t argue with random anecdotes. I don’t understand how you can simultaneously point out legit issues with polls but also accept unverifiable anecdotes.
Anyone who reads the constitutional amendment critically will see it is the way the referendum is written is just a empty gesture to delay real action.
I agree it’s a risk. There’s a lot of really easy things the country could be doing to help indigenous Australians and this may not help while just being a massive distraction.
-
We have polling on indigenous peoples opinions on the voice. The people we surround ourselves with or we encounter in our daily lives are an insignificant sample size and subject to selection bias.
You think the people responding to polls aren’t subject to selection bias? I don’t care what polls of random people with unknown selection criteria and reach say, I care about what the people I know and trust have to say on the issue. Blindly believing polls is absolutely absurd.
This is a largely anonymous forum so there’s no reason to believe anyone who says “ah yeah I spoke to a guy.”
Cool, so why should anyone listen to anything you say?
Polls are only so accurate and can be subject to a range of issues as well sure. The difference is the sample size is much larger, and you can generally find a polling organisations methodology so you can probably see how they collected results broadly, if you have an issue with the methodology you should argue with that.
Cool, so why should anyone listen to anything you say?
You shouldn’t if I make claims that I know people and they say X.
Removed by mod
This comment was removed as it contained personal attacks against the creator of the parent comment. While you may not agree with someone it does not imply that they are fascist
Oh god, even the “progressives” here have started calling everyone that they disagree with fascists now.
You’re virtue signalling a bit too hard mate. People like you are why many indigenous people don’t want this Voice.
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.
Can you put the actual amendment in the post and ask people to read it before debating? It seems funny to have a discussion about something without having it there in front of us.
There is a link in there but I can copy into the whole thing
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
Found this which made me lol a bit
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.
and removed next term when the next quasi fascist gets elected.
nothing in the referendum stops that if you actually read it.
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-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.
Your claim that the NIAA serves the same purpose has been debunked many times. As an internal government agency, it has no independence. Furthermore it only has 22% Indigenous representation among its staff. The Voice would be a completely independent and 100% Indigenous voice, free from white bias.
The NIAA is just another example of white people making decisions on behalf of black people, which we already know achieves nothing other than the waste of taxpayer dollars.
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”?
run by the NIAA
Wrong. There were 3 co-design groups and 52 group members, which included representatives of the NIAA. The NIAA did not “run” the consultation process. If you haven’t bothered to read your own sources, don’t share them. Also, please look up the definition of “facilitated”.
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.
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.
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
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 think you need to look up the definition of equity with regards to human rights. You have it completely the wrong way around.
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.
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.
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.
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!
-
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.
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.
You’re getting too bogged down in the details of something that needs development, thought and consideration. This is the first step, of what needs to be many, to address the rights of our first nations people.
Constitutional wording needs to be vague, to allow interpretation by the legislative branch based on the needs of the day. Otherwise, you end up trying to change it too often, and our history of successful referendums isn’t strong enough to go down that path.
Yeah imagine wanting details on something vague we’re being asked to put in the constitution 😂. Silly me. One of the biggest issues is that it’s so vague and almost completely up to the government that’s in power at the time. It basically means it’s pointless and just virtue signalling.
it’s so vague and almost completely up to the government that’s in power at the time
That’s the whole purpose of the Constitution! To mandate a thing that must exist without mandating the how. Sometimes it sets sensible defaults, but that’s it. For example, the senate must be a minimum of 6 seats per state, but Parliament can (and did) legislate more.
It’s not the Constitution’s job to define how things are achieved. Its job is to broadly define the powers that govern us. It’s up to Parliament to legislate the details, within the guard rails set out by the Constitution.
You should consider not saying “virtue signaling” so much - you sound like someone who watches too much Murdoch media.
I’m not going to stop saying it’s virtue signalling just because you don’t like that that’s what it is. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….
Why doesn’t the constitution amendment have a minimum number of seats for the voice? Why is it only “it has to exist” with literally zero powers listed or any make-up constitutional protected?
It’s hilarious that you call me, someone that’s asking for more constitutionally guaranteed power for indigenous people “far right” essentially while others also call me racist 😂.
Me: let’s give indigenous people an actual position with guaranteed powers so they can actually improve their lives?
You: shut up racist, why don’t you want to just give them the bare minimum?
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
Ah yes, the many many indigenous people campaigning for no are racist against themselves. You hit the nail on the head.
Removed by mod
You’re the perfect example of the virtue signalling white person I mentioned in another comment. You feel good about yourself because you think you’re helping the black people and you then feel even better because you get to call everyone else racists…….even indigenous people that you are pretending you care about.
That’s now what they said. Have you hit yourself on the head?
He said that the no voters are racist……have you taken a fall yourself?
the conclusion that the “no” people are most likely racists in hiding
the conclusion that indigenous people campaigning for “no” are racist against themselves
Different hits to different heads? I don’t know what to tell you.
I can’t tell if you’re just taking the piss or actually think that he didn’t say that everyone voting no is a racist….? Or are you suggesting that 100% of indigenous people are voting yes?
Maybe I have hit myself on the head because I sure don’t remember offering any opinions.
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?
The worst case scenario for them is that marginalised groups might start getting a greater say over the policies and laws that affect them.
Ah yes, that explains the marginalised group of indigenous Australians that are against this and voting no. They’re afraid that they’ll get a greater say over policies.
You guys are acting ridiculous, trying to paint every single person that is voting no as a scared racist. As with most other types of activists, you’re doing more harm than good with your rhetoric.
You’d probably be one of those white guys in American saying the “negros” don’t want equal rights or to be able to marry white women for the same reasons lol.
So you think that all indigenous people want this voice?
Look at this fascist white guy. He’s so white he’s black.
I mean Mundie isn’t the greatest person to link to.
He’s not indigenous?
Lets just say he has some problematic ideas. He has been involved in professions prone to causing extensive brain damage. I’m not going to say his entire opinion is wrong but he uses buzz words and phrases that are common is far-right and conspiracy theory circles.
There are more qualified people who have good credibility like Lidia Thorpe who’s arguments are well formed and don’t inadvertently reference less reputable ideas.
Those insert slur here will get uppity!
That’s their worst case scenario. No longer playing with a stacked deck.
What’s that saying? Equity feels like oppression to the privileged?
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.
Its not that the details haven’t been ironed out its that none of the details will be protected by the constitution.
The wording of the referendum makes the voice a political football.
Okay, then what happens when the football is dropped? What’s the worst that could happen in the eyes of both parties?
This is one of the no sides more compelling arguments.
Its a consideration for all office holders, but more so if you’re the Liberal/National party that see’s a reasonable chance of holding power someday.
Historically this side of politics interests have disagreed more often with indigenous nations interests.
To disagree and ignore the Voice councils recommendations could leech political capital, and a resulting media storm could use up all the ‘air in the room’, so to speak. Undermining that executives ability to carry out their agenda.
In short it can be an easy political wedge for opposition partys, or other interested persons to hit the government of the day with.
The right is always the one who wins political Football.
The voice will become an impotent political appointment to stuff a friend into as a favor like the appeals court or ABC Board. Nothing will change materially for indigenous peoples but settlers will get to pretend they aren’t racists because they voted yes.
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.
What if the throwing of the bucket is used by the arsonists as justification for not calling the fire truck? What if the bucket was built by the people who have acted in the interests of the arsonists in the first place? What if the bucket isn’t full of water it is just a bucket?
What if a no vote is used as ‘proof’ no one wants indigenous representation? I can play that game too.
“The voice” is literally just enshrining in the constitution an indigenous presence in parliament. What the ever loving fuck do your other arguments have to do with this fact. What. Show your fucking work.
What if a no vote is used as ‘proof’ no one wants indigenous representation
A No result could just as easily be blamed on the poor wording of the referendum.
Show your fucking work.
No need to be so aggressive I’m trying to debate here in good faith. Read the proposed amendment.
Parliament shall … have power to make laws … relating to the … Voice.
So all they are doing is giving parliament the power to do something that it already has the power to do. The amendment doesn’t even go as far to say that any changes to the voice after it is established would need 3/4 majority or any other protections. The amendment is a nothingburger.
That’s what happened after the 2000 republic referendum. It was said that lots of people who voted no wanted a republic, but thought the wording of the question was wrong.
It ultimately doesn’t matter, because 23 years later there has never been another referendum on the topic.
If you believe a no vote for the voice is going to inspire a better worded referendum - or any sort of change on the status quo in the next couple of decades, well I’m afraid I’m going to disagree with you. A “No” vote is a vote for no change for the next generation.
I don’t disagree with most of what you said but if you think a Yes vote is going to change the status quo you are going to be disappointed. The referendum passing will do as much for the next generation as “Closing the gap” did for this one only the lack of action will be blamed on the Voice not on the government.
Now I’m really confused. We’ve essentially agreed that a “No” vote will change nothing. Common ground is good!
Even if a “yes” vote did nothing (which most of us disagree with, but let’s honour your vision), it would at the very least show that most of the population wants change. You have nothing to lose in showing a little hope. Why would you vote against that?
From what I can make out, your concerns are:
- “Yes” doesn’t go far enough.
- The makeup of the body is not defined clearly enough.
On your first point: More common ground! I also don’t want to stop here. But that’s the whole point. We start with a voice to parliament, and hopefully go on a journey together toward healing and reconciliation. We end with a treaty that has brought us together as one people.
On your second point: that’s not what the constitution is for. If you put too much detail into your body there, you are stuck with that definition. A body of 10 people might be appropriate today, but inadequate in 30 years. But as it says 10 in the constitution, we are stuck with that - forever. The idea of the article in the constitution is to describe what the body is for, and the details can be adjusted as needed.
in parliament
I’m afraid not, the voice will only be able to “make representations to” parliament, just like everyone else.
Source: the proposed amendment itself
the voice will only be able to “make representations to” parliament, just like everyone else.
Not “able” the voice “may” make representations. Who decides when they may? Oh right that is left to parliament.
Its a gag order written in a passive tone.
Ok, no.
In legal terms ‘may’ means the Voice may act at their discretion (differing from ‘shall’, which is an obligation)
May is discretionary but it is not clear in this instance as to who decides… until the last line where it says that parliament gets to decide the powers of the voice. It is clear that the voice has the choice to not make representations but it is not cut and dry that Parliament must accept representations.
If they wanted it cut and dry they would have said “the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall receive any representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples made by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice” instead of using “may” which is subject to challenges.
You seems to think this amendment was written by people who want what is best for Aboriginal Australians and not made by people who directly benefit from the injustices committed against Aboriginal Australians.
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?
What really pushed me to yes was the idea that while not every person who votes no is racist, all racists will vote no.
Sorry but that’s not a very smart way to make a decision. It’s a terrible way actually.
Ok cool. You do you, I’ll do me. There’s no need to attack each other’s approach to decision making.
That person is a no voter, and not the progressive kind. It’s no surprise they took offence to your original comment.
😂 ah yes, more “everyone that votes no is racist” rhetoric.
I didn’t take offence, I pointed out it’s a terrible way of making a decision.
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
The Voice will be independent of the Government of the day.
Not True.
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.
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?
It is what the majority of Indigenous Australians surveyed, as well as the overwhelming majority of people involved in the process, have indicated they want. The Progressive No campaign has some valid criticisms but ultimately I don’t feel it is my responsibility as a non-Indigenous person to vote No on behalf of a minority. The way I see it, that side lost their internal battle years ago and we are now at a stage where the best way to show respect is to vote Yes.
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.
#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.
Removed by mod
This may answer that question:
https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/secret-list-of-voice-plans-a-concoction
No, it doesn’t. The ones that I saw aren’t in those.
Where did you see them? The Uluru statement from the heart is the 1-page conclusion of meeting in 2017
As pointed out in the link by spiffmeister, that’s concocted misinformation.
More so though, even if one wasn’t able to accept that those points were false or misinformation, those points aren’t being added to the constitution by this vote.
The wording is very clear. Nothing will be added to the constitution that relate to any of the points you raised.
Your response would be like Australians in 1900 refusing to ratify the proposed constitution because they objected to the line in section 24 that the House of Representatives be “directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth”, since one day, one of those “directly chosen” people might make outlandish, farfetched, or incendiary suggestions during their time in the House of Representatives.
Or a local council refusing to allow a bakery to open in its township, because of the possibility that one day, a baker from that store might bake bad bread. Even if that bread was never sold, and never affected anyone, the mere possibility that bread might come out the oven bad within the next 20 years, is enough to convince the council they should never allow a bakery to open.
This comment made claims about the Uluru Statement from the Heart which are proven to be misinformation and have no relation to the Voice to Parliament. Source
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
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?”
Nothing. Even the Progressive No campaign has can’t answer that question. The closest they got was claiming a successful Yes vote would lead to more racism in Australia because everyone would be unhappy with Indigenous Australians getting a Voice…even though they would have literally just voted Yes to it in that scenario.
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.
“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.
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.
Fuck I’ve already got this song stuck in my head and it’s going to be stuck in there for months.
I’ll be voting yes as it’s the least we can do, foot in the door and all.
That said, it’s literally the least we could do. Very much a ‘yes, and’ rather than think racism’s solved with this one vote@forcequit @unionagainstdhmo Good on ya!
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.
Which makes the voice completely irrelevant. When the LNP are in power the voice will be 1 spot held by some white idiot like Barnaby Joyce or Scomo. If One Nation ever got in power the voice would be some white racist saying that the indigenous people want to all be shipped off to the middle of the country and left alone in a fenced area with no contact with the rest of the country.
It doesn’t matter its still a step in the right direction.
Besides its just asking to be heard and that’s it, the voice doesn’t have the power to make any rules or changes. So it really doesn’t matter.
What does matter if it it’s voted down now it will never comr back meaning one nations people will have no chance at a well legislated voice in the future.
So if your argument is no because its not set up well enough thats shit, because we need to crawl before running.
This doesn’t make your voice heard any more than any of the existing indigenous advisory boards. It just gives you one more voice to be ignored, and to be used as a political tool by the government of the time. LNP get in and make some cronie the single person in the voice who makes recommendations that harm indigenous people - how does that help you?
Your argument is basically “it’s better than nothing and will lead to more”. My argument is that it is nothing, and if it goes through it will be pointed at for decades as a way to go “look we gave them a voice, we don’t need to do any more”.
Sorry mate this is kind of absurd.
When new legislation is passed by government, yes there is (rightly) much debate between elected representatives around exactly how that legislation should work.
Once legislation is passed there is rarely much meaningful change beyond incremental improvements / adaptions.
You’re suggesting that every newly elected government will just discard legislation from the previous government. If this were likely, every new government would have been doing it with every contentious issue throughout our history.
Untrue. The high court would have something to say about an aboriginal voice being composed of non Aboriginals.
Would they? There’s nothing in the proposed constituational amendment that says that the body has to be made up of indigenous people and indigenous people only.
Constitutional interpretation relies on all sources used to draft the document. Intentions must be gathered as this is a founding document, therefore all Acts spring forth from it. Explanatory documents, the Uluru statement itself, and documents by the referendum working group all support the idea of the A&TSIVoice being for ATSI people only.
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.
This isn’t “celebrating” our indigenous heritage. If anything it’s doing it a disservice by having the white people go “here you go little fellas, you can have a high chair up with the adults at the big table, but just shoosh and let us decide what’s best for you”.
If anything it’s doing it a disservice by having the white people go “here you go little fellas, you can have a high chair up with the adults at the big table, but just shoosh and let us decide what’s best for you”.
Then why not ask Indigenous Australians what they think? Vote Yes if it’s what they want, vote No if they don’t.
(The answer, by the way, is that about 80% of Indigenous Australians are in favour.)
The actual number bounces around depending on sample size and timing, but tends to land somewhere between the 80% in an Ipsos poll of 300 First Nations people in January of this year (this poll was commissioned by 89 Degrees East, where I am research director) and the 83% in a YouGov poll of 738 First Nations people conducted this month – the largest and most representative sample I know of to date.
🤣 Sorry but those polls being used to say “80% of Indigenous Australians are in favour” is pathetic. Just over 1000 people, potentially significantly less with crossover, means you can throw that statistic in the bin.
The largest poll being only 738 people is absolutely mind boggling. Imagine using that number to extrapolate out to an entire population of a country.
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.
The government will then act in this advice
Or they just won’t, because nothing in this change to the constitution makes them or even says they need to even consider any advice. That’s one of the problems lots of us have with it - it changes literally nothing.
I think this is one of the most valid criticisms of the voice proposal. I agree it doesn’t go far enough in ensuring that governments listen to the voice. This is a big part of why I was on the fence with my vote for a while.
Yet people call me racist and “far right” for having this concern lol.
You would rather us have bo hope then the smallest opportunity to maybe be heard
It may be a valid criticism but it’s not a valid reason to vote No. Remember that the advisory body is only half of what is happening here, the other half is constitutional recognition. Indigenous Australians have asked for this in overwhelming numbers. By itself, that is as good a reason as any to vote Yes.
But even in the event that the advisory body is ineffective in its initial state, the beauty of this system is that it can just redesigned by the next government. It doesn’t have to be perfect right out of the gate to have a positive effect.
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
You mean Rupert Murdoch put them there.
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.
FWIW I’ll be voting Yes, but I doubt it will do much good.
Referendums never succeed in this country, unless they have bipartisan support. So what was the point of this exercise? What’s Albanese’s angle in all of this?
Same sex marriage?
Actually, that was a postal survey, before a parliamentary vote. Not a binding referendum.
deleted by creator
What was deleted?
