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

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.

  1. Added the proposed constitutional amendment (31/08/2023)
  2. 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.

  • spiffmeister@aussie.zone
    81·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      52·
      1 year ago

      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.”

      • Nath@aussie.zone
        41·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          66·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.comEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            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:

            1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
            2. 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;
            3. 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?

            • Ilandar@aussie.zone
              42·
              1 year ago

              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.