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
    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.

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

              No I want them to do more than a token gesture that guarantees nothing while giving them ammo to do nothing for the foreseeable future because they’ve done this.

              Btw I’ve literally never voted for the LNP. I’ve voted for the greens more than I’ve voted for Labor too, but sure, pretend I’m a “far right” and keep pretending everyone that’s not in love with virtue signalling is a racist.