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.
This is the first referendum voting experience for me so I'm excited to be part of history even if the outcome is not the one I want. I'm personally in the critical yes camp where I hope the referendum is successful but still agree with the points raised by the progressive no campaign. I was unsure for a while because I'm not an Indigenous person and wanted to listen to as many different Indigenous perspectives as I could before deciding. What really pushed me to yes was the idea that while not every person who votes no is racist, all racists will vote no.
I have serious issues with the idea of progressive no - it's bad faith at worst, purity politics at best. "Nonono don't throw that bucket of water on the fire i want a fire truck" the former doesn't preclude the latter ffs.
Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint and it's not my place to say what is or isn't a good approach to change in this space. The progressive no campaign is connected to the Indigenous sovereignty movement and I can understand why they have taken the position they have. I'm not an Indigenous person so I don't feel like it's appropriate for me to try and represent their ideas. But I don't think it's fair to close yourself off to them, especially when the principle of the voice should is about listening to the diversity of Indigenous perspectives.
What if the throwing of the bucket is used by the arsonists as justification for not calling the fire truck? What if the bucket was built by the people who have acted in the interests of the arsonists in the first place? What if the bucket isn't full of water it is just a bucket?
What if a no vote is used as 'proof' no one wants indigenous representation? I can play that game too.
"The voice" is literally just enshrining in the constitution an indigenous presence in parliament. What the ever loving fuck do your other arguments have to do with this fact. What. Show your fucking work.
A No result could just as easily be blamed on the poor wording of the referendum.
No need to be so aggressive I'm trying to debate here in good faith. Read the proposed amendment.
So all they are doing is giving parliament the power to do something that it already has the power to do. The amendment doesn't even go as far to say that any changes to the voice after it is established would need 3/4 majority or any other protections. The amendment is a nothingburger.
That's what happened after the 2000 republic referendum. It was said that lots of people who voted no wanted a republic, but thought the wording of the question was wrong.
It ultimately doesn't matter, because 23 years later there has never been another referendum on the topic.
If you believe a no vote for the voice is going to inspire a better worded referendum - or any sort of change on the status quo in the next couple of decades, well I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you. A "No" vote is a vote for no change for the next generation.
I don't disagree with most of what you said but if you think a Yes vote is going to change the status quo you are going to be disappointed. The referendum passing will do as much for the next generation as "Closing the gap" did for this one only the lack of action will be blamed on the Voice not on the government.
Now I'm really confused. We've essentially agreed that a "No" vote will change nothing. Common ground is good!
Even if a "yes" vote did nothing (which most of us disagree with, but let's honour your vision), it would at the very least show that most of the population wants change. You have nothing to lose in showing a little hope. Why would you vote against that?
From what I can make out, your concerns are:
On your first point: More common ground! I also don't want to stop here. But that's the whole point. We start with a voice to parliament, and hopefully go on a journey together toward healing and reconciliation. We end with a treaty that has brought us together as one people.
On your second point: that's not what the constitution is for. If you put too much detail into your body there, you are stuck with that definition. A body of 10 people might be appropriate today, but inadequate in 30 years. But as it says 10 in the constitution, we are stuck with that - forever. The idea of the article in the constitution is to describe what the body is for, and the details can be adjusted as needed.
A Yes vote manufactures consent. It is saying "this is good enough" It allows Racists cover. A No result opens the nation up to well deserved ridicule. Our government will never do what is right unless they are bullied extensively and made to feel shame. Half measures like this amendment allow them to skate along with no action. We need anti-Racists to be angry. We need a real movement that demands real change not a pacified voter base that accepts platitudes.
No it is defined perfectly well. It is explicitly defined as being subject to parliament which is NOT enshrined in the constitution. The amendment offers no protections beyond its existence. It is a underhanded insult to indigenous peoples who stated clearly that they want an Indigenous Voice to Parliament Enshrined in the constitution.
The "Journey together toward healing and reconciliation" was supposed to start 48 years ago with Gough Whitlam. It was supposed to start with the National Apology 24 years ago, with the closing the gap program 13 years ago. The colonial government will keep throwing ineffectual policy at voters as long as we keep gobbling them up.
Sure but couldn't they have at least put is some protections for the voice? Something like "it can only be modified once every 10 years" or "requires 2/3rds majority to change." Something, anything that gives the voice an edge against our reactionary government?
The voice could have been legislated into existence first and then tweaked before making a constitutional amendment. This was a suggestion with lots of support before the referendum was called. If the voice was a concrete thing the referendum wouldn't be subject to emotional debate based on speculation. Making the voice first and then enshrining it might take longer to get it enshrined but it would be quicker to get it started and once it was in the constitution the fight would be over. Doing the refferemdum first makes the fight last indefinitely because the legislation will always be under threat. This was a deliberate choice by the ruling class because they will give up the illusion of power but they will never give up their right to take the power back.
Not "able" the voice "may" make representations. Who decides when they may? Oh right that is left to parliament.
Its a gag order written in a passive tone.
Ok, no.
In legal terms 'may' means the Voice may act at their discretion (differing from 'shall', which is an obligation)
May is discretionary but it is not clear in this instance as to who decides... until the last line where it says that parliament gets to decide the powers of the voice. It is clear that the voice has the choice to not make representations but it is not cut and dry that Parliament must accept representations.
If they wanted it cut and dry they would have said "the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall receive any representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples made by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice" instead of using "may" which is subject to challenges.
You seems to think this amendment was written by people who want what is best for Aboriginal Australians and not made by people who directly benefit from the injustices committed against Aboriginal Australians.
'May' is used, (in addition to other reasons) because otherwise it creates a legal obligation on the Voice, to make representations.
Then that would have to be regulated by parliamentary legislation, stating exactly when and how often the Voice legally has to make representations (once a year? Twice a year?) and when exactly.
Even your example of 'the legislature and executive "shall receive" representations from the Voice' sets up the necessity of creating parliamentary legistion to regulate, as they would be needed to define how often and in what form (Email? Formal oration to shared session of HoR and Senate? Document submitted to Cabinet? Oration to Cabinet in a specific ceremonial format? Or to Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet?) those representations are to be made, in order for parliament to "receive them"
And "shall receive" still puts the legal/constitutional obligation on the Voice to come up with and present those representations, (even if they've nothing important to say at that time, or need more time to discuss an issue) and then obey all those parliamentary regulations in order to fulfil the constitutional obligations you've just created.
The current wording allows that a formal constitutional body, calling itself the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, may make representations to Parliament and the Executive, and therefore that those representations will be formally recognised as coming from a constitutionally enshrined and recognised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander entity. The current wording doesn't force them to make representations, and more importantly, doesn't mean the creation and the Voice having to follow strict rules about when, how, and how often those representations are made.
With the current wording, if the Voice decided they wanted to present their representation as a handwritten piece of paper hand-delivered to the Prime Minister, they could. Because any legislation that blocks the Voice from making a representation to the Executive would be found unconstitutional. And any legislation moderating and regulating how the Voice can make those representations could be potentially challenged in the High Court if they negatively impinge the Voice's ability to make those representations.
Basically, the current constitutional wording allows for the creation of an ATSI Voice that can't be told to shut up.
And also importantly, can't be closed down and discontinued through a legislative act of parliament.
It is up to the voice to make representations and the voice should want to make a representation on everything that effects Aboriginal Australians. Eve if the representation is "I don't hate this" The word may means the government isn't obligated to receive representations. As it is right now anyone "may" make a representation to parliament but it is up to parliament to accept or ignore such representations. The wording in the proposed amendment changes nothing.
If the voice wants to be heard it has to do the talking. (I feel stupid for having to say that) Who else should have the responsibility to make and present representations for the voice other than the voice?
Sure but the wording also doesn't force Parliament receive the representations either. They could receive a single representation once a decade and claim to have done their duty. Because the powers and construction of the voice is left to the Parliament to legislate and future governments to modify the government ultimately decides when and how the Voice can speak. It is a soft form gag order.
The don't have to close down the voice they can just defund and declaw it till it is inoffensive. Again the funding, composition, and powers of the voice are all subject to legislature and thus not enshrined in the constitution.
....... legalese on a countries constitution and your fee fees on 'weasel words' have zero relation to one another. Please stop.
....yeah nah
So good to have people like you willing to debate in good faith using facts and reason.
sure thing, dude. I mean, I'm not the one who's been making accusations left right and centre and hurling shit at everyone else in this thread to the point the mods start nuking, but you do you.
I think my very first voting experience was the republic referendum. I really didn't know what I was doing or how to research. But all these years later, I stand by my vote.
I am voting Yes for The Voice because team Yes have put up an good case for it. Team No have yet to convince me otherwise; Everything I read is either vague speculation or miss information.
I wish I got to vote in the Republic referendum. What was the rhetoric like in comparison to the current one? Did anyone make a fuss about the ticks and crosses thing?
Sorry but that's not a very smart way to make a decision. It's a terrible way actually.
Ok cool. You do you, I'll do me. There's no need to attack each other's approach to decision making.
That person is a no voter, and not the progressive kind. It's no surprise they took offence to your original comment.
😂 ah yes, more “everyone that votes no is racist” rhetoric.
I didn’t take offence, I pointed out it’s a terrible way of making a decision.