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.

  • Death2Litterers
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

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

      “so listen to the”…“advisors”

      Good idea. That’s why you should vote yes. So there’s dedicated advisors to listen to.

      “We should help them, regardless of their race”

      Yes. But different people need different help.

      Racism is the idea that your race is better than others. That is not what I’m saying. I am saying that there are differences in the ethnicities in Australia, in both physical and cultural terms, which result in needing different actions to achieve the same results.

      “The government should consult them”

      So vote yes, so there is someone to consult.

      Hey, remember that time Tony Abbott made himself Minister for Women?

      • Death2Litterers
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If some group of individuals require substantially different medical treatment because their biology is that different to everybody else’s, then the people who should be consulted are scientific and medical experts, not more politicians. You do not need to enshrine a racist body into the constitution to be able to meet the different needs of different people.

        Racism is the idea that your race is better than others

        Racism is descriminating on the basis of race, which this proposed ammendment would do, and you appear to support.

        So vote yes, so there is someone to consult.

        You do not need a racist advisory body enshrined in the constitution to be able to consult with people.

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

          It would be nice to live in your fantasy world, but it’s obvious that a) you don’t understand what/how analogies are b) that not having a non-racist body not-enshrined in the constitution hasn’t worked well so far, so we should try having a non-racist body not enshrined in the constitution, and vote yes.

          You don’t know what the word discrimination means, or what Aborigines go through, and both are kind of sad things about you.

          Lastly “need”: no, but it seems to be the best option out of any we’ve been presented so far. As such, we should vote yes. If you have something better for us to vote on, then you should have presented it.