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.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      ·
      1 year ago

      The voice enshrined in the constitution is the plan. The state,ent does not discuss its make up, nor the election process, nor the fine details. The constitution shouldn’t either. It may need fine tuning to be effective, not be rorted by bad actors, and to be representative. If all that is in the constitution, it’s harder to change later. For an example, look at what the constitution says about how we elect senators, who would have more power. Very little. It’s left to the states to legislate.

      A no vote to reject what you call a performative gesture is more damaging than a performative gesture. I don’t think it’s just a performative gesture, to be clear, but it’s a poor argument.

      I don’t expect any corporation or person to do the right thing unless it’s in their interest. I expect the voice to be a check on the powers in government, rather than a power themselves. Just like the oil and gas and mining industry has paid lobbyists that are very effective, the voice can do the same, but for the people. The press has no powers in the constitution, but Murdoch, for instance, has had huge power just be nature of his abi,it’s to spread information with his slant on it. The voice will have power, but it won’t have power to control our government.

      Change comes slowly and then in a sprint. Stopping that progress doesn’t advance anyone’s rights and is a misguided understanding of how governance works. Your ideal is not necessarily everyone’s ideal. Even this limited change for the better is at risk of failure. A more extreme version would be even more so. Your resistance to good enough, instead of ideal is just as bad as the racists in outcome, even if your intentions are good.