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.

  • Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

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

      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.

      • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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”.

          • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • samson@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              This isn’t much of a thing in this country but it’s not impossible. Fear radicalisation and trivial legislation. Not an argument against the voice though.

      • samson@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Untrue. The high court would have something to say about an aboriginal voice being composed of non Aboriginals.

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

          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.

          • samson@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • samson@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What’s your point? This is the reason we have the courts. We could write into infinity the processes and procedure of a voice but the other bodies are free to determine those for themselves, we are leaving this to Parliament so that the voice can change according to need and times.

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

                  we are leaving this to Parliament so that the voice can change according to need and times.

                  Should there ever be a need or a time when the Indigenous voice isn’t entirely made up of indigenous people? If not, why not protect that in the constitution?

                  • samson@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Because there are functional problems to this issue. The representative portion may be, but their might be other public servants who aren’t aboriginal and may be excluded if mentioned in the constitution. If you insert functional requirements into the constitution to enable such things you remove the ability to change the Voice’s functions as mentioned before. Legal interpretations suggest that a voice would have to be comprised of ATSI people regardless.

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

      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.

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

        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”.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.)

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

            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.

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

              Tell me you don’t understand how polling works without telling me you don’t understand how polling works.

              Even nation-wide polls often use a sample size less than 5 times that, and I shouldn’t need to tell you that the Indigenous population of Australia is less than 20%.

              The polls’ conductors would admittedly tell you that obtaining a representative sample of Indigenous Australians is rather difficult, but this is accounted for in their margins of error, which are less than 10%. 80% ± 10% is still a pretty overwhelming majority.

              • Ilandar@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You don’t understand bro, he has “Indigenous friends”. He definitely knows what he’s talking about!

                • Zagorath@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And he has the gall to say in one comment

                  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”.

                  while in another pretending he’s not claiming it’s

                  a racist policy imposed by white people on Indigenous Australians

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

                    It’s quite fitting that the biggest proponent for a No vote here perfectly embodies everything wrong about that campaign. Zero facts or evidence, misinformation everywhere (5 million Indigenous Australians lel), shifting the goalposts every time debunks one of their claims and then attempting to take the moral high ground by pretending everyone is accusing them of racism (which they obviously can’t be guilty of as they have “Indigenous friends” who they mention in every second comment). And now they’ve started co-opting Progressive No arguments because they realise those play better here, even though their initial bad faith questions two months ago were straight out of the Conservative No playbook.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                I understand how polling works, and I understand that a sample size that small doesn’t extrapolate out with any certainty or accuracy to a population of ~5 million.

                They can say their margin of error is 10% but it doesn’t make it correct.

                You cannot conclude that 80% of a 5 million population support something based on a poll of 700 people lol. Absolutely absurd.

                • Zagorath@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  to a population of ~5 million

                  It probably would, actually, since that would be roughly the same ratio of polled people to total population as the polls used to determine the views of Australia as a whole.

                  But the Indigenous population is actually much lower than 5 million anyway. Try just over 812,000.

                  It’s not very complicated. You can look up the formula for how to calculate a margin of error based on your sample size, total population, desired confidence level, and the percentage of the portion that gave an answer. z × sqrt(p × (1-p)) / sqrt((N-1) × n / (N - n)), where p is the sample proportion, n is the sample size, N is the total population size, and z is the z-score associated with your desired level of confidence. I’m using a 99% confidence interval; I was going to use 95%, but it turned out that with this sample size you can actually be a lot more confident than that and still keep quite a low margin. The z-score is 2.58. When I put in your figure of 5 million (remembering that this is actually more than 5× too large!), 700 people, and 80%, the margin of error is a measly 3.9%.

                  Real polling is more sophisticated than that, since they account for how representative they believe their sample is of the whole population, but that’s what it boils down to. They know what they’re doing far better than you or I, and they’re quite confident.

                  If you want to oppose the Voice, do so, and face whatever accusations may be levied at you because of it. But don’t hide behind the lie that it’s a racist policy imposed by white people on Indigenous Australians. Because the evidence is clear on that matter: Indigenous Australians support it.

                  • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The evidence is not clear. A poll of 700 people is not “the evidence is clear”.

                    Margins of error are not “truth”. You can decide you’ve got a margin of error of 1% and be wildly and massively incorrect in your results.

                    Also not sure why you’re saying I’m hiding behind a lie that it’s a racist white policy? Where did that come from?

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

      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.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It might do that. Or it might not. The inter-state commission is a good example of that.