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.
I know it isn't a popular view around here, but for the sake of a diversity of opinion, here is why I will be voting no.
I am of the view that all Australians should be treated equally in the eye of the law, regardless of the colour of their skin or who their grandparents are. I think the law should be race-blind.
I think it is a step in the wrong direction for Australia to have laws that separate Australians along racist lines. I think it's a step in the wrong direction to enshrine in the constitution that people of one ethnic heritage get special representation that people of different ethnic heritage do not.
I don't care who your dad was, or who his dad was, or who his dad was. Just because someone's dad's dad's dad was in Australia before someone else's shouldn't entitle them to more representation to parliament than anyone else. You shouldn't get special privilege just because you were born into a particular family lineage.
I think Australia needs to do more to help those who need help. Nobody should die in police custody. Everybody should have access to education. Anyone who is born into poverty should be lifted out of it. And any time the government is going to make laws, they should obviously consult with the people who those laws will affect.
Regardless of the colour of their skin.
Cool, but they're not though, and you're doing your best to ensure the status quo doesn't change.
You want things to change but will vote to ensure they don't
I vote for politicians who support policies that I believe will make all Australians better off, and actively campaign to change the status quo in ways that I think are better. I also actively campaign against changing the status quo in ways that I think are worse. This is one of those ways.
It's well and good if this is your opinion, but note that Aboriginals weren't only here before, but they had their own nations, systems of government and sovereignty that was stripped from them in the 1700s. This isn't just about race, but about their native history with the land and unique connection. If you still believe that Aboriginals don't deserve any sort of representation that recognises this fact, along with all the disadvantage that specifically affects Aboriginals due to government policies since then, then sure.
I'd also like to note that committees and policy institutes already hear from special interest groups, it's not division to hear from those who are uniquely affected by laws.
I believe that all Australians should have representation to parliament. I don't believe that anybody should have a 'birthright' to more representation just because of the family lineage they were born into.
I believe that any time the government is going to introduce or change laws, they should consult with the people those laws will affect. Regardless of the race or culture of those people.
This is the entire reason why this is being debated. The government has a horrendous track record of ignoring indigenous people on matters that affect them. Even to this day, and it appears to be a structural issue. Let us not forget what the Australian government has done in the name of "helping" them, resulting in the Stolen Generations, among other things.
A referendum isn't needed to consult with people.
And people shouldn't be included/excluded from consultation just because of their race/culture/heritage.
While that does seem to be mostly correct, I think it's also complicated. As I'm sure many people have said, previous consultative bodies have been abolished several times, and could only consult with the executive branch. This constitutional change will also enable representations be made to the legislative branch.
Could they have just tried to do so without a constitutional change? Probably. Yet they aren't without reason for putting it in the constitution either.
People are right now, but perhaps not in ways explicitly stated by law. If we were a new country with a clean slate I might think this voice wouldn't be necessary. Not only do we have a history of excluding people based on race, but I can see in the community that we still do so, and that will continue unless put a stop to.
I understand the unease of putting a specifically indigenous voice in there, but from what I understand even if parliament gives it the most power possible, it will still be less powerful than a traditional lobby group, only able to table discussions and research. Discussions I think should have happened decades ago.
It's not a perfect solution, I don't think I've met anybody who truly thinks that. But my opinion is that it would provide overall more help than harm, especially considering that I think the government's inability to listen is structural, and not just individual fault.
Not probably. Definitely.
If the concern is that a body not enshrined in the constitution might be abolished by a future government, the same future government would just shrink a constitutionally established voice down to the bare minimum and ignore it, rendering it useless. Either way, the only real solution is to not elect shit governments in the future.
I personally don't believe it will provide help than harm. I believe the Voice a step towards an Australia in which people of different races are treated differently and racial discrimination is enshrined in our laws, and that is not something I desire.
I guess we just have different perspectives on how things currently are then, I view it as already the case that structural discrimination is at play, and that it's very embedded into Australian government and society.
It's not a very popular opinion because it can be rejected objectively:
On the more "subjective" front:
Whether you call it race or cultural group, the argument doesn't change. I think all Australians should be treated equally by the law, and any Australian who is disadvantaged should receive help, regardless of whether they're part of one culture or another. Enshrining in the constitution that one cultural group gets extra representation to parliament that other cultural groups do not get is, in my view, a step away from the Australia that I want to live in.
If I understand correctly your argument against the voice is that the traditional owners of this land should not be represented by an advisory body in the constitution because they are no different to any other cultural group that experiences disadvantage.
This isn't about addressing their current disadvantage - it could be used to help with that - it's about a way forward respecting their culture and extensive history. The Australia I want to live in is where we can have an Australia Day that isn't divisive; an Australia where the oldest living culture lives on and we're proud of it. What I really want is an Australia which can look back at its past and say "that was wrong, but we're in a better place now".
Today we live in an Australia where the past is troubled because we haven't come to terms with it. I remember back during the BLM protests when statues of slave traders, explorers and colonisers were being defaced and torn down, prominent archaeologist Mary Beard was saying that we should keep the statues. Why? Not because we're proud of those people or what they did. It was because it reminded us where we came from. Many of these parts in the UK were built on slave money and while the current inhabitants didn't do that and don't condone those actions they still benefit from them.
The comparison to the UK and BLM may seem like a bit of a reach, but I guarantee you that it relates to our current debate. The Voice represents a statue, it reminds us of the past. And I agree with you I would like to live in an Australia where we don't need statues, because I didn't create this problem and solving it is going to be difficult. Perhaps one day in 100 years time there will be a referendum to remove the Voice. But as long as Indigenous children grow up asking where they came from and why they don't live there anymore we need statues, we can't just ignore the past. Indigenous people have passed stories along for thousands of years, they're not forgetting any time soon.
Sorry for the essay but I hope that you and other people sharing your opinion do give it a read.
You don't need the Voice to be able to respect aboriginal culture and history or pass along stories.
I also don't support statues glorifying slave traders.
What's your solution then?
Also I never said that I support statues glorifying slave traders, I support statues reminding us of the source of our wealth.
@unionagainstdhmo @australia Well said, thank you!
I think understanding the difference between equality and equity would help in understanding some of the points Indigenous advocates have been making throughout this campaign. Equity is about rights and needs according to what different groups experience in terms of disadvantage. Essesntially, equality looks different for different groups of people. Equality is a great value to have and strive for, but because of our colonial history Indigenous Australians do not have equality. In whatever way you measure it there is a significant gap in inequality between Indigenous and non- Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians also have different needs (culturally appropriate services, inclusive education systems etc) and rights (land rights, cultural rights etc). The best people to advise on how to close the gap is Indigenous Australians themselves. That's what the voice is about.
I believe that anybody who is disadvantaged should be helped, and anybody who needs healthcare or education or assistance should receive it, and I believe that anytime the government is going to introduce or change laws, they should consult with the people those laws will affect. Regardless of whether those people are of aboriginal heritage or not. I don't believe our laws should make special exceptions or treat people differently because of their race or culture or who their ancestors are.
And that is exactly why you should vote yes. To help ensure that everything you've said happens.
Look, here is an example: women and Africans have different responses to various medicines and pain killers and such. Generally, historically, they get subpar care compared to white men. Not intentionally! It's just decades and centuries of data is from white male subjects.
And its baked into the mentality too (here's a link from the USA: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the-united-states/racial-disparities-in-health-care/)
It's not exactly apples to apples here - but the basis the same. There are differences and inequities which an advisory board would be useful for, for achieving the goal of equality.
And really, that could also be your biggest misunderstanding of the world here (sorry for sounding confrontational, but hear me out): equality vs equity.
If the law is truly equal, then it is inequitable and unfair. This is because WE are unequal.
For example, if a speeding fine is $500 for everyone, regardless of the speed or the person, then it is equal. However, a rich person can speed as much as they want, and it's just part of the cost of driving for them. A poor person would have to sell their car to pay their debts. That's not equal punishment. Some countries take income into consideration when assigning speeding tickets as a way to balance the law.
The point is to highlight: equal is not always fair. Equal is not always equitable.
So listen to scientific and medical advisors who are the people best suited to identify these concerns and propose solutions.
The solution isn't to make the law that Aboriginals pay lower speeding fines or that white folk pay higher speeding fines though, is it? The solution is to make fines scale with the offender's wealth, not their race.
If somebody needs help, I don't believe we should take their race into consideration. We should just help them, regardless of their race.
If the government is going to make a policy or change the law, I don't believe that somebody's race should decide whether or not the government consults with them first. The government should consult with them regardless of their race.
I think your misunderstanding of the world is that you think racism is a good idea. I personally don't agree with you.
"so listen to the"..."advisors"
Good idea. That's why you should vote yes. So there's dedicated advisors to listen to.
"We should help them, regardless of their race"
Yes. But different people need different help.
Racism is the idea that your race is better than others. That is not what I'm saying. I am saying that there are differences in the ethnicities in Australia, in both physical and cultural terms, which result in needing different actions to achieve the same results.
"The government should consult them"
So vote yes, so there is someone to consult.
Hey, remember that time Tony Abbott made himself Minister for Women?
If some group of individuals require substantially different medical treatment because their biology is that different to everybody else's, then the people who should be consulted are scientific and medical experts, not more politicians. You do not need to enshrine a racist body into the constitution to be able to meet the different needs of different people.
Racism is descriminating on the basis of race, which this proposed ammendment would do, and you appear to support.
You do not need a racist advisory body enshrined in the constitution to be able to consult with people.
It would be nice to live in your fantasy world, but it's obvious that a) you don't understand what/how analogies are b) that not having a non-racist body not-enshrined in the constitution hasn't worked well so far, so we should try having a non-racist body not enshrined in the constitution, and vote yes.
You don't know what the word discrimination means, or what Aborigines go through, and both are kind of sad things about you.
Lastly "need": no, but it seems to be the best option out of any we've been presented so far. As such, we should vote yes. If you have something better for us to vote on, then you should have presented it.
That's just wow lol. Would you dare say that to Murdoch, Gina Reinhardt, Clive Palmer or any of the other million/billionaires? Or our King?
Yes, I would. Would you not?
This might be a bit petty, but the fact your instance has a .uk TLD alongside your opinion is, well, kinda yikes. I think a voice to parliament is one of the least drastic changes we could make to recognise the harm that was caused by someone’s dad’s dad’s dad.
It is indeed petty, and irrelevant.
I don't want to just 'recognise' harm that was done. I want to make Australia a better place for everyone living in it, and help anyone who is born into disadvantage, regardless of their family lineage. I do not believe that the voice does that.
How do you feel about New Zealand’s Māori representation in their parliament?
Much the same way I feel about having seats on a bus reserved for people of a certain race and not others. I think dividing parliament along racial lines is racist and I don't support it.
No, you don't want to help people. You want to seem like you help people without actually caring about them. If you did, you would acknowledge differences. You don't, so it's obvious you're acting in bad faith now.
Yeah, that's right mate, I don't acknowledge differences. I think all people are exactly the same, down to their fingerprints. I don't care about anybody because there are zero differences at all. You got me. Real sharp you are.
If you did, you would acknowledge the difference between equality and equity.
So you want to help people who are born into disadvantage but you don't want to hear from those very same people?
Oooooookay?