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.

  • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    For me, this referendum boils down to exactly the same pair of questions as for the same-sex marriage postal survey in 2017:

    1. Does this affect me adversely? (answer: no, it doesn’t)
    2. How does this benefit those that want it? (answer: for the better)

    Easy.

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • AceSLive
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So to do nothing at all is better than at least making the first steps, and improving from there?

    • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • abhibeckert@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

          • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • abhibeckert@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.