1y ago

Voice to Parliament Referendum Megathread

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:

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.

301 comments

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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  That has been tried in the past, more than once, by both left and right wing parties. It failed miserably every time.
- I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed.
  Literally every one of my indigenous friends and colleagues that I've spoken to are voting no, including some who work for our government and are very well respected in their communities and in the government. Some run indigenous businesses and not for profits, some are elders and aunties/uncles, many are actively out there trying to make life better for indigenous people. I wasn't sure which way to vote, but I'll be voting no after speaking to them.
  They all echoed the same thoughts - it's virtue signalling, and they don't want a seat at that table where they are not guaranteed to actually be listened to or respected.
  
  I think it's worth basically ignoring anyone who says "I've spoken to indigenous people." In fact I would suggest anyone (for or against) who speaks to people around them and makes that judgment should consider consulting surveys/polls, rather than relying on their small circles as a sample size.

My thinking boils down to this:
We spend billions each year, but studies show the gap between other Australians and indigenous is worsening. We should be trying something. Anything.
For those concerned about 'the details', my understanding is that the pollies are responsible for those after the referendum. Do you really think a parliament and senate made up of mainly old white guys are going to significantly change how the country works? Seriously?
So, we've got nothing to lose, and hell, wouldn't it be awesome if it actually had some positive changes!

For me, this referendum boils down to exactly the same pair of questions as for the same-sex marriage postal survey in 2017:
Does this affect me adversely? (answer: no, it doesn't)
How does this benefit those that want it? (answer: for the better)
Easy.
- There is no guaranteed positive effect though like there is for gay marriage being made legal. There is definitely a huge chance that it’s just virtue signalling and used to go “look we care what indigenous people want” while doing nothing to actually help indigenous people though.
  
  This is what shits me about the no camp. You're too worried about what it'll look like, rather than getting past the first gate - giving them something in the Constitution.
  It's a starting point - not the end game.
  Besides, my first question remains: where's the harm in voting this in?
- 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.
  
  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.
- 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.

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?
- 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.
- 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.
- Those insert slur here will get uppity!
  That's their worst case scenario. No longer playing with a stacked deck.
- 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 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?
- 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.

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?
- 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.

You’re the voice that will make history The Uluṟu Dialogue | John Farnham
- Fuck I've already got this song stuck in my head and it's going to be stuck in there for months.

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?"
  
  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.

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.

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.
- 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.

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!

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.

“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
This referendum does not establish a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. This Amendment is a nothingburger. They didn't even enshrine the right for the Voice to address parliament. They said the voice "may" make representations to the Parliament and the Executive. I'm pretty sure anyone "may" make representations to the Parliament and the Executive if the Parliament and the Executive see fit.
The Parliament already has power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. The whole point was to make a "Voice enshrined in the Constitution" not to enshrine in the constitution a Voice subject to parliament.
I don't care how you vote but if you think this referendum will make Aboriginal Australians' lives better you are kidding yourself. This is a performative measure so that people can feel good about themselves while they continue to live on stolen land and profit from genocide.
- Language like may has specific interpretations under law. I'm not a constitutional lawyer but it probably means something like they don't have to if they have nothing to say but that Parliament has to listen if they do.
  My wife works in regulations for chemical imports and it's full of "aisic may require companies to make declaration" which means "if don't file imports you go to gaol".
  Nothing in the constitution is particularly rigid. Consider how elections are described. No provisions for how they will be conducted are specified, just that you have to have them and roughly who is allowed to vote.
  And yet while not as good as the multi member elections of many European countries our electoral system is pretty good.

The idea that the voice is some sort of useless idea is seriously flawed. Policy institutes and Parliamentary hearing and committee are the biggest drivers of policy in this country. Media attention and petitions aren't nearly as effective in this regard. The voice will likely not be integrated as a Parliamentary comittee is, due to its being a separate body, but will still offer valuable representation to Parliament to those who came before these institutions and this country. Aboriginals had their own traditions, nations and sovereignty on land that was not ceded. We have accepted their legal and unique history with this land, this is merely saying that within the framework of Australia as a country, that Aboriginals deserve access to our legislature and executive on matters that affect them.
The popular argument by resident no voter @whirlybird@aussie.zone seems to be that this is virtue signalling and that this would be the end of social justice for Aboriginals, that resistance would develop in trying to advance a cause further. They seem to suggest that we would be better off doing something of substance, as to not foment resistance and resentment. I would hope that on the first point, its been made clear that there is real benefit to having a Voice, and the second is irrelevant, the Australian population will tire after a no vote, and after a yes vote. Its the jobs of those politically active, the media, the Voice itself, politicians, and those non apathetic people to push for more when the time comes.
A second argument I hear, and the most factually true argument I hear is lack of detail. It is true that there is a lack of official detail from those legislators who will be advancing bills if the referendum finishes in the affirmative. It is also understandable to want to know in substance what the fruits of your vote would be. Id encourage those who would like to learn to listen to ideas from the referendum working group and those associated with the yes campaign on rough ideas of a Voice if this is the case. Its important to remember that we are voting on the amendment though, not the bill itself. There are significant measures that must go into establishing the voice in substance:
Will the voice exist entirely under its own weight, legislated by Parliament and run by itself, or will the bureaucratic arm of the voice exist in the Australian Public Service
How will the voice be elected? How will regional voices be represented? Is a federal model (each nation receives x representatives), a state based model (each state receives x amount of reps) or a unitary, population based model more effective?
All of these questions take significant time. If you can focus on the amendment, and whether support those ideas outside of what a future voice may look like, it will help.
- The idea that the voice is some sort of useless idea is seriously flawed.
  That's your opinion. It's not mine or plenty of other peoples, including lots of indigenous people.
  this is merely saying that within the framework of Australia as a country, that Aboriginals deserve access to our legislature and executive on matters that affect them.
  Yeah, they just don't actually get any power over it. Gee aren't we nice for giving them the ability to say "hey nah we don't like this" before we say "tough shit, we're doing it" and there's nothing they can do.
  I would hope that on the first point, its been made clear that there is real benefit to having a Voice
  It hasn't, no matter how many times you want to say it has.
  Id encourage those who would like to learn to listen to ideas from the referendum working group and those associated with the yes campaign on rough ideas of a Voice if this is the case
  I don't care about "rough ideas", I care about knowing the actual details of the things I'm being asked to put in our constitution. Why on earth should I vote to add something to it that we have no idea what it will look like, but we know that it can just change at the whim of the current party in power?
  All of these questions take significant time. If you can focus on the amendment, and whether support those ideas outside of what a future voice may look like, it will help.
  Then they should have taken that time before asking us to vote on it. This didn't need to be rushed through. Any issues of timelines are caused by the people pushing for the referendum, thinking they can just bully everyone into voting yes by calling them racists, when all we want is to actually have details on what the voice will look like and what it can do. The referendum should not have been pushed without these details, and it would likely be a dramatically different result if we had what we are asking for but being told we can't have unless we vote yes.

I will be out of the country that week. Anyone know if postal votes and/or early voting will be a thing for the referendum?
- Here once the writs are in: https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/vote/postal-voting.html

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.

What a surprise
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-04/security-experts-warn-foreign-actors-are-tampering/102935524

What is it with all the people taking pens with them to the vote?
Do they not understand how polls work? What scrutineers do? A simple search can find information on how everything works.
Who the hell is telling them to take pens because if you use a pencil someone can change your vote?

Counting has started, ABC has a live results page here. As of the time I'm writing this there is only 0.3% of the total counted but it's rising quickly.

Hey, just a little nudge, if you’re keen to chat about the Voice to Parliament, we’ve got this corker of a megathread where we can all have a good chinwag in one spot. But if you’re not up for that, no worries, it’s business as usual. Gotta keep things fair dinkum!

Regardless of how this all rolls, actual treaty with the individual indigenous nations will be beginning soon. Just watch.
I've been lucky enough to have family involved deeply in this, and the voice, whilst positive, is a bit of a sideshow to the treaties.
There are a lot of nations to treaty with (not one first nation, but many first nations), so it will take time. But, it's all about to kick off.
The crown did not win by spoils of war, nor did it take over via treaty.
Watch the news. The upcoming wind of change is all based on Australian having no actual, legal rights to claim the continent. No treaty. No spoils of war.
The key word to watch is apartheid. The media will probably start using it soon. Not the Murdoch press, of course.
- Nothing you said is true.
  
  Bookmark this. Time will tell
- Worth reminding people that Murdoch - the Murdoch press you mentioned - is against it.
  So either you agree with and support Murdoch, or you support Australia and vote yes.
  
  You didn't actually read what was written. You cherry picked, and repackaged.

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 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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?

301 comments