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:
- The Voice referendum official Yes/No pamphlets
- Linda Burney says there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by supporting the Voice
- Families distressed after ‘highly misleading’ video used by anti-Voice campaigners goes viral
- The Indigenous Voice to Parliament – separating fact from fiction | 7.30
- 10 questions about the Voice to Parliament - answered by the experts
- The yes pamphlet: campaign’s voice to parliament referendum essay – annotated and factchecked
- Fact-checking for the “No” referendum pamphlet was not compulsory
Common Misinformation
- “The Uluru Statement from the Heart is 26 Pages not 1” - not true
Government Information
- Referendum question and constitutional amendment
- voice.gov.au - General information about the Voice
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.
- Added the proposed constitutional amendment (31/08/2023)
- 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.
A summary of my viewpoint:
I am enormously sick of the no campaign brigading every discussion with terrible arguments in bad faith.
I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed. Similarly, the law is my degree. I’ve spent five years of my life studying it, and although I’m not a graduate yet (two units to go), I’d think I’d know more about this shit than Joe from bumfuck nowhere on Facebook.
There is no case for a no vote. None whatsoever. The change would not grant special rights to Indigenous Australians. It has been repeatedly explained by both lawyers and politicians. You can read the change yourself. It has to be a constitutional change, because that protects it from being outright removed by successive governments, which is the very thing that happened to the previous body that performed this role. By definition, it is not racist, as racism refers to negative treatment on the basis of race or ethnic background, and not differing treatment. This is one of three steps proposed by Indigenous Australians towards reconciliation, and isn’t the endpoint. If it fails, it will be the endpoint.
When the colonisers arrived, Indigenous Australians outnumbered colonisers. Now, they make up just 2.5% of the population. We are driving them to extinction. If this fails, by the time we get around to trying again, it is likely the genocide will have all but been completed.
Ethically and morally, a yes vote is the only choice. Legally, it is the best choice for change.
How do you interpret the part at the end that refers to “powers”?
Also, just curious, have you studied constitutional law in your degree yet?
G’day, sorry for the long wait.
To preface: I have studied constitutional law (was a lockdown subject for me). I’m not going to claim to have the understanding of either the High Court or the Constitutional Lawyers I’ve encountered, and bear in mind IANAL, and nothing I say here constitutes a true legal interpretation.
Based on both other legislation where the term “powers” has been used, as well as the context in which it is used in the proposed wording, I read it as referring to any abilities it may rely on in order to make its representations. I couldn’t tell you what these may be, as that would depend on the Government of the day, but my expectation would be they’d be related to information gathering, decision-making (including whether a chair would exist and veto power), whistleblowing, and those kinds of things.
The wording is purposefully very vague of course - which serves a few purposes. The big one is about making it hard for oppositional forces to take it to the High Court to claim whatever controversial action its taking is unconstitutional; there’ve been a few cases like that that just end up wasting the court’s time, along with tax payer money. Similarly, keeping it vague gives plenty of room to legislation to define its limitations, and allows for evolution as the needs of the community change.
Sorry for the essay mate, tl;dr: did study Constitutional law, had a great teacher! Powers is kept vague, but I would argue it refers to abilities. Vaguery is a good thing in a constitution because it gives room for the law to adapt and evolve.
Even if “powers” implied devolution which is just insane, this would be with the consent of Parliament.
Lidia Thorpe? ex-Greens senator who split because she is against the referendum?
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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:
Are you saying item 3 is the problem?
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.
It really sounds like number 3. Govt deciding what the voice is.
Literally every one of my indigenous friends and colleagues that I’ve spoken to are voting no, including some who work for our government and are very well respected in their communities and in the government. Some run indigenous businesses and not for profits, some are elders and aunties/uncles, many are actively out there trying to make life better for indigenous people. I wasn’t sure which way to vote, but I’ll be voting no after speaking to them.
They all echoed the same thoughts - it’s virtue signalling, and they don’t want a seat at that table where they are not guaranteed to actually be listened to or respected.
And good for you, however, this doesn’t mean that all Indigenous Australians, or at least a majority, are against it. Polling in the Guardian’s fact-checking article claims 80% approval.
Stating that all Indigenous Australians who you know are against it isn’t a valid argument. Your real argument is that “it’s virtue signalling”
I didn’t say that was the argument though. As you noted, I gave the reasons why they said they were voting no and why I’ll be voting no as well, because I agree with them. It just looks like white people virtue signalling so they can go “look how awesome and not racist we are! we’re giving the indigenous people some crayons and a seat at the table where we can continue to not listen to them” while also making them feel good because they then feel justified in being able to call people they disagree with racists.
I don’t get the issue with ‘virtue signalling’. At all.
Before any societal change can happen, a pre-requisite is virtuous behaviour and ‘signals’?
This is clearly a journey, not the end destination. So why on earth would you want to not take the first step just because it doesn’t take you instantly to the destination?
You do realise what happened after the republican referendum lost? You won’t see this again in at least a generation. That’s what we’re really voting on. No will mean “Yeah, nah. The people voted on that. Maybe take a look again in (waves hand) the future”.
And you know every time something remotely to do with indigenous rights/culture comes up, people will refer back and say “The country voted No”.
But thank god, at least we will have defeated “virtue signalling”…
The issue with virtue signalling is that it’s used to pretend you’re doing something without actually having to do it. The voice is pretending to give the indigenous people some power while not actually giving them anything noteworthy. They’re acknowledged in the white settler’s constitution but basically as an afterthought for us to ignore.
My, and many others issue, is that this “first step” will in fact be treated for decades as the destination. We don’t want nothing to be done to help indigenous people, we want more done to help them. We want meaningful change, something protected that actually gives them power, not a promise that we’ll let them say something without promising that we’ll listen and take action.
Will some people point to a no win as “nothing needs to be done”? Absolutely, but I think those will just be the minority of straight up racists. More people will still want something done, just not token gestures.
If you can’t get a Yes vote on such a “meaningless, token” (I’d rather call it ‘symbolic’, or ‘aspirational’) change, then how can you expect or hope for more substantial changes to pass?
Well I’m voting no because it’s meaningless. We shouldn’t be putting meaningless things in to the constitution.
If it was actually meaningful change I’d be voting yes.
It’s all good. Everyone is entitled to vote how they want, and for whatever reason they want.
I’m just feeling a bit sad, because I don’t see this passing, and I can’t see any path forward without a Yes vote 🙁
I think it’s worth basically ignoring anyone who says “I’ve spoken to indigenous people.” In fact I would suggest anyone (for or against) who speaks to people around them and makes that judgment should consider consulting surveys/polls, rather than relying on their small circles as a sample size.
Where did they say that? Are you really going to call the user a liar for saying they know Indigenous Australians? That’s weak tea.
Did you forget what you wrote?
2 points:
I didn’t write it. Whirlybird didn’t just say “I’ve spoken to indigenous people” they gave examples of the different people they spoke with. Just because you haven’t ever had a real conversation with an Aboriginal Australian doesn’t mean none of us have.
If you don’t trust anyone on here why bother? It isn’t difficult to discern a bad faith argument.
You trust polling but not another human that you are peaking to through the internet? Anecdotal evidence isn’t perfect but polling has financial reasons to push lies and special accounting tricks to make the numbers say whatever they want.
The polling is massively skewed. I cant find a single poll where they exclude anyone who hasn’t read the proposed amendment.
Indigenous peoples want a voice to parliament that is enshrined and protected by the constitution and so do I But the majority of the yes voters have been misled to believe the referendum will give them that. Anyone who reads the constitutional amendment critically will see it is the way the referendum is written is just a empty gesture to delay real action.
They didn’t give any more examples than a politician saying they’ve spoken to people in the community.
As far as I’m concerned anyone making this sort of argument should be ignored because it’s the easiest form of bad faith argument.
This is true, and you can make an argument against the polling, but that’s an argument that can actually be had. You can’t argue with random anecdotes. I don’t understand how you can simultaneously point out legit issues with polls but also accept unverifiable anecdotes.
I agree it’s a risk. There’s a lot of really easy things the country could be doing to help indigenous Australians and this may not help while just being a massive distraction.
You think the people responding to polls aren’t subject to selection bias? I don’t care what polls of random people with unknown selection criteria and reach say, I care about what the people I know and trust have to say on the issue. Blindly believing polls is absolutely absurd.
Cool, so why should anyone listen to anything you say?
Polls are only so accurate and can be subject to a range of issues as well sure. The difference is the sample size is much larger, and you can generally find a polling organisations methodology so you can probably see how they collected results broadly, if you have an issue with the methodology you should argue with that.
You shouldn’t if I make claims that I know people and they say X.
Removed by mod
This comment was removed as it contained personal attacks against the creator of the parent comment. While you may not agree with someone it does not imply that they are fascist
Oh god, even the “progressives” here have started calling everyone that they disagree with fascists now.
You’re virtue signalling a bit too hard mate. People like you are why many indigenous people don’t want this Voice.
Just to point out, racism does not have to be negative treatment. Racism just has to be inequitable. The proposed amendment creates a system for Indigenous Australians, which is unavailable to other Australians. That is inequitable.
The changes needed can be achieved without a Constitutional amendment.
and removed next term when the next quasi fascist gets elected.
frankly im a little sick of the ‘no’ side claiming the Voice will both do nothing, but simultaneously cause some sort of irrepairable divide that will destroy the nation.
And every. single. cooker. is loudly vocally on the No side. Which makes it an easy choice for me
Insulting people and labelling people with whom you disagree doesn’t foster good discussion and only emboldens their position
Tbh dude this thread is going to be a shitshow.
The alternative is a bunch of little shitshows to keep track of, so this is somewhat easier to moderate
Ah, a contained disaster. Fair point.
Can you put the actual amendment in the post and ask people to read it before debating? It seems funny to have a discussion about something without having it there in front of us.
There is a link in there but I can copy into the whole thing
those people are more than happy to do the same. Wanting a respectful response in return? lol no
Doesn’t matter: you should aim to be better than them
edit: dont worry just thinking out loud, my intention wasnt to derail the thread and on thought this thread should be a place for discussing the voice not the riff raff. apologies
Thanks for asking for feedback. The bit about cookers is worded a bit vaguely in such a way that it is unclear whether the converse is implied, that is, every vocal no voter is a cooker or a significant portion of vocal ‘no’ voters are cookers. And to be honest I do agree with that - just look at The Guardian’s fact checking of the official ‘No’ essay, most of it was made up. It’s just that using the term ‘cooker’ is probably not the most respectful way to convey that
all good. sorry mate i dont mean to sidetrack the thread, ill go back to lurking, thanks for the response
Found this which made me lol a bit
Come on, this is just FUD, plain and simple.
If the voice does turn out to be a white elephant, then we should have the flexibility to remove it and try again with a different model. I’m 100% on board with the Government of the day legislating a body, but I don’t believe it should be in the constution, and I doubt I’m the only one.
Using inflammatory language is not the way to try and convince people one way or the other.
You mean how Howard removed atsic and implemented his 10 point plan? Yeah that was great…
Can’t we just have another referendum to remove it if it’s that bad?
Of course that’s an option in theory - but in practice, referendums are incredibly expensive operations, not to mention generally damaging to public discourse of other issues.
Most Governments would prefer to just reduce any funding for the body down to the bare minimum required, and have it sit impotently to the side, rather than front up and say ‘yeah nah, this didn’t work, so here’s another big money spend to fix the constitutional issue we created while we think of something else’.
But but that logic, it’s either not bad enough to be worth removing, or the government of the day has no real need to remove it.
Ergo, it being in the constitution is not really a problem.
The government only has no real need to remove it if they’re happy with the status quo regarding inequality - they can still point to the (presumingly failed) body and say ‘we tried’ and not bother with something better.
nothing in the referendum stops that if you actually read it.
Not what equity means. Equity refers to equal access to the same opportunities. Put simply, due to their post-genocide, White Australia Policy and “Breeding out the Black” (real campaign) numbers, Indigenous Australians completely lack representation in Parliament. Therefore they lack access to the opportunities your average Australian (regardless of race) has. An Indigenous Voice to Parliament will make things more equitable, not less, as it will provide access to the same opportunities of representation that the rest of us have already.
Indigenous Australians already have The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), employing 1,023 full time staff and a budget of $285M each year specifically for the purpose to “lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.”
The very detailed annual reports and corporate plans define their activities, plans, and successes fairly well: https://www.niaa.gov.au/who-we-are/accountability-and-reporting
Can we accept that this agency is providing equal (if not more) access to the same opportunities?
There are several differences between the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) and the proposed Voice to Parliament, according to constitutional and legal experts. Firstly, the NIAA is an internal agency accountable to the executive government. The proposed Voice, on the other hand, is an independent body that sits outside of both the executive and parliament. Secondly, the NIAA can only advise the executive government, while in contrast the proposed Voice can advise both the executive and parliament. Thirdly, the NIAA is not an entirely Indigenous organisation, whereas the proposed Voice would be composed entirely of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Lastly, the NIAA can be abolished by an executive order, while the proposed Voice would have its existence guaranteed by being enshrined in the Constitution.
https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/indigenous-australians-do-not-already-have-a-voice-to-parliament
Your claim that the NIAA serves the same purpose has been debunked many times. As an internal government agency, it has no independence. Furthermore it only has 22% Indigenous representation among its staff. The Voice would be a completely independent and 100% Indigenous voice, free from white bias.
The NIAA is just another example of white people making decisions on behalf of black people, which we already know achieves nothing other than the waste of taxpayer dollars.
The NIAA facilitated the entire Voice referendum proposal to the government, as detailed in their 272-page report in July 2021.
This process, run by the NIAA, involved 115 community consultation sessions in 67 communities and more than 120 stakeholder meetings around the country with over 9,400 people and organisations participating in the consultation process led by NIAA co-design members.
Are you suggesting that this was a waste of taxpayer dollars and “just another example of white people making decisions on behalf of black people”?
Wrong. There were 3 co-design groups and 52 group members, which included representatives of the NIAA. The NIAA did not “run” the consultation process. If you haven’t bothered to read your own sources, don’t share them. Also, please look up the definition of “facilitated”.
It’s fairly obvious that you haven’t read the document and are just trying to test whether I have done the same.
Page 241 details the 3 co-design groups as follows:
The Senior Advisory Group membership (p241):
The Minister will invite individuals to participate in the Senior Advisory Group. The Senior Advisory Group will include 2 co-chairs, Professor Tom Calma AO and Professor Dr Marcia Langton AM. The Senior Advisory Group will comprise around
20 members as determined by the Minister. The Senior Advisory Group will have a majority of Indigenous Australians who have a spread of skills and experience, and those with extensive experience and ability to work strategically across the co-design process. Consideration will also be given to achieving a balance of: gender; representation across jurisdictions; and the
urban, regional and remote spectrum, as much as possible.
The National Group membership (p244):
The Minister will invite individuals to participate in the National Group, following consultation with the Senior Advisory Group, and appoint a co-chair from among the Indigenous non-government members. The second co-chair will be a senior official from the NIAA. The 2 co-chairs will also be key contacts and representatives for the National Group. They will lead engagement with the Senior Advisory Group and Local & Regional Group, Minister and the Government at key points, as required.
The Local & Regional Group membership (p246):
The Minister will invite individuals to participate in the Local & Regional Group, following consultation with the Senior Advisory Group, and appoint a co-chair from among Indigenous non-government members. The second co-chair will be a senior official from the NIAA.
Facilitate: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facilitate
As defined in the details of each co-design group:
All secretariat, logistical and administrative support will be provided by NIAA. This will include planning, logistics, travel arrangements and meeting support.
The co-chair for each group is a senior official from the NIAA.
Each group can request technical assistance, if needed, through the NIAA.
More details on how the groups operated, their purpose, activities, scope, timeframes, as established by the NIAA’s process is defined in pages 241-247.
If you don’t understand all of the above to be the definition of the word “facilitated”, it brings into question whether you would under the wording of the Voice’s proposed constitutional amendment.
Thanks for providing even more evidence that they didn’t “run” the process. I don’t know what you’re hoping to achieve by quoting large sections of the report - you are just debunking your own claim lol
Your own provided definition of facilitate also clearly implies assistance, not control over decision making.
There are Indigenous Australians in Parliament so this cannot be true.
I get a vote and that’s it, Indigenous Australians also get a vote.
Sounds like the same opportunity for representation to me.
These parliamentarians don’t necessarily represent or advocate for Indigenous Australians as they represent everyone in their electorate. Anthony Albanese doesn’t just represent the Italians in his electorate, he represents everyone. That’s how majority based systems work. The majority based system is a problem when you have a minority group who are so disadvantaged and have limited ways of having their voices heard. Especially when it’s about policies and laws that affect them specifically.
Perhaps you should look up just how many existing governmental advisory bodies there are that have zero relation to the indigenous population. Maybe we should go and revoke them, you know, for equality
Australia has tried doing it without a referendum multiple times over our history, every single time they started promising and then fizzled out into nothing.
By putting it in the constitution, there would have to be a new referendum in order to undo the changes.
I think you need to look up the definition of equity with regards to human rights. You have it completely the wrong way around.
it is not necessarily inequitable. it is unequal. but it would only be inequitable if you think that the indigenous populations of Australia have been up until this point been treated on even footing with colonizers.
Yep and I’m not looking forward to the sort of bullshit arguments people will espouse in opposing a truth telling process.
That has been tried in the past, more than once, by both left and right wing parties. It failed miserably every time.