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.

  • Zozano@aussie.zone
    ·
    1 year ago

    I'm trying to understand the No voters.

    They're saying because the details haven't been ironed out, the Voice could be given much more power than is proposed.

    But in their worst case scenario, what do they think is going to happen?

    • Baku@aussie.zone
      ·
      1 year ago

      At this point I've just come to the conclusion the no people are most likely racists in hiding. The whole special rights/excessive powers/etc is just a cover story imo

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah yes, the many many indigenous people campaigning for no are racist against themselves. You hit the nail on the head.

            • INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone
              ·
              1 year ago

              the conclusion that the "no" people are most likely racists in hiding

              the conclusion that indigenous people campaigning for "no" are racist against themselves

              Different hits to different heads? I don't know what to tell you.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I can’t tell if you’re just taking the piss or actually think that he didn’t say that everyone voting no is a racist….? Or are you suggesting that 100% of indigenous people are voting yes?

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re the perfect example of the virtue signalling white person I mentioned in another comment. You feel good about yourself because you think you’re helping the black people and you then feel even better because you get to call everyone else racists…….even indigenous people that you are pretending you care about.

    • Nonameuser678@aussie.zone
      ·
      1 year ago

      The worst case scenario for them is that marginalised groups might start getting a greater say over the policies and laws that affect them. If Indigenous Australians are awarded more power in a system that is designed to keep them powerless then who knows what other groups in a similar situation of powerlessness might start getting uppity about.

      The conservative no campaign don't want to change the status quo because they don't have a problem with it. Shit's working fine in their view. The yes campaign and progressive no campaign agree that the status quo is not good enough but disagree about how it needs to be changed.

      If you read the conservative no campaign's brochure one of the concerns that they have about the voice is that it opens the door to activism. I personally think that is the foundation of their position and everything else is just incoherent fluff to wrap it up in.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        ·
        1 year ago

        The worst case scenario for them is that marginalised groups might start getting a greater say over the policies and laws that affect them.

        Ah yes, that explains the marginalised group of indigenous Australians that are against this and voting no. They're afraid that they'll get a greater say over policies.

        You guys are acting ridiculous, trying to paint every single person that is voting no as a scared racist. As with most other types of activists, you're doing more harm than good with your rhetoric.

        • Emu_Warrior@aussie.zone
          ·
          1 year ago

          You'd probably be one of those white guys in American saying the "negros" don't want equal rights or to be able to marry white women for the same reasons lol.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            ·
            1 year ago

            So you think that all indigenous people want this voice?

            https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/sport/boxing-mma/why-the-hell-do-we-need-the-voice-boxing-star-anthony-mundine-slams-referendum/news-story/a387682585d0dc9f541916a5f1127786

            Look at this fascist white guy. He’s so white he’s black.

                • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lets just say he has some problematic ideas. He has been involved in professions prone to causing extensive brain damage. I'm not going to say his entire opinion is wrong but he uses buzz words and phrases that are common is far-right and conspiracy theory circles.

                  There are more qualified people who have good credibility like Lidia Thorpe who's arguments are well formed and don't inadvertently reference less reputable ideas.

                  • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    The point being made was that he’s indigenous and voting no, which apparently makes him a white racist according to some other posters in here that I’m replying to.

                    I dislike Mundine, I think he’s an idiot and a cancer to those young people that he takes under his wing, but he’s indigenous and voting no, not a racist white.

                    Also if there has been one thing Mundine has always been consistent about, it’s his views on systemic racism against his people and being vocal about it.

    • Taleya@aussie.zone
      ·
      1 year ago

      Those insert slur here will get uppity!

      That's their worst case scenario. No longer playing with a stacked deck.

    • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its not that the details haven't been ironed out its that none of the details will be protected by the constitution.

      The wording of the referendum makes the voice a political football.

      • Zozano@aussie.zone
        ·
        1 year ago

        Okay, then what happens when the football is dropped? What's the worst that could happen in the eyes of both parties?

        • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zone
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is one of the no sides more compelling arguments.

          Its a consideration for all office holders, but more so if you're the Liberal/National party that see's a reasonable chance of holding power someday.

          Historically this side of politics interests have disagreed more often with indigenous nations interests.

          To disagree and ignore the Voice councils recommendations could leech political capital, and a resulting media storm could use up all the 'air in the room', so to speak. Undermining that executives ability to carry out their agenda.

          In short it can be an easy political wedge for opposition partys, or other interested persons to hit the government of the day with.

        • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          The right is always the one who wins political Football.

          The voice will become an impotent political appointment to stuff a friend into as a favor like the appeals court or ABC Board. Nothing will change materially for indigenous peoples but settlers will get to pretend they aren't racists because they voted yes.