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.

  • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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?

                • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not going to stop saying it’s virtue signalling just because you don’t like that that’s what it is

                  I don’t care if you’re saying it. I just said it makes you sound like someone who gets their opinions from Fox News.

                  Why doesn’t the constitution amendment have a minimum number of seats for the voice?

                  Because the Voice isn’t going to be a part of any chamber of Parliament. You should pay more attention to the detail.

                  Me: let’s give indigenous people an actual position with guaranteed powers so they can actually improve their lives?

                  Which the Voice is the first step (of many) towards that goal.

                  You: shut up racist, why don’t you want to just give them the bare minimum so us whities can just circle jerk about how not racist we are?

                  Ah, yes. The true dog whistle of the far right: let’s put words into someon’s mouth, rather than engage on the topic, or engage our critical thinking skills on the matter.

                  You haven’t put forward one good reason not to vote for the voice. Only hypothetical, baseless nonsense.

                  • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    😂 Theeeeeere we go, the “far left” “progressive” dog whistle call. Just call me a fascist nazi and get it over with, we all know you want to.

                    The reason for my decision to vote no is because it’s virtue signalling by people like you so you can feel smug pretending to care about a minority without actually wanting to do anything to make their life easier.

                    We’re done here.