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.

  • samson@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Death2Litterers@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • yistdaj@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Death2Litterers@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • yistdaj@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A referendum isn’t needed to consult with people.

            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.

            And people shouldn’t be included/excluded from consultation just because of their race/culture/heritage.

            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.

            • Death2Litterers@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Could they have just tried to do so without a constitutional change? Probably.

              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.

              But my opinion is that it would provide overall more help than harm

              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.

              • yistdaj@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.