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.

  • gorkette@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just to point out, racism does not have to be negative treatment. Racism just has to be inequitable. The proposed amendment creates a system for Indigenous Australians, which is unavailable to other Australians. That is inequitable.

    The changes needed can be achieved without a Constitutional amendment.

    • Marin_Rider@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The changes needed can be achieved without a Constitutional amendment.

      and removed next term when the next quasi fascist gets elected.

      frankly im a little sick of the ‘no’ side claiming the Voice will both do nothing, but simultaneously cause some sort of irrepairable divide that will destroy the nation.

      And every. single. cooker. is loudly vocally on the No side. Which makes it an easy choice for me

      • Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        and removed next term when the next quasi fascist gets elected.

        Come on, this is just FUD, plain and simple.

        If the voice does turn out to be a white elephant, then we should have the flexibility to remove it and try again with a different model. I’m 100% on board with the Government of the day legislating a body, but I don’t believe it should be in the constution, and I doubt I’m the only one.

        Using inflammatory language is not the way to try and convince people one way or the other.

          • Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Of course that’s an option in theory - but in practice, referendums are incredibly expensive operations, not to mention generally damaging to public discourse of other issues.

            Most Governments would prefer to just reduce any funding for the body down to the bare minimum required, and have it sit impotently to the side, rather than front up and say ‘yeah nah, this didn’t work, so here’s another big money spend to fix the constitutional issue we created while we think of something else’.

            • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But but that logic, it’s either not bad enough to be worth removing, or the government of the day has no real need to remove it.

              Ergo, it being in the constitution is not really a problem.

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

                The government only has no real need to remove it if they’re happy with the status quo regarding inequality - they can still point to the (presumingly failed) body and say ‘we tried’ and not bother with something better.

    • Dalek Thal@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      this is inequitable

      Not what equity means. Equity refers to equal access to the same opportunities. Put simply, due to their post-genocide, White Australia Policy and “Breeding out the Black” (real campaign) numbers, Indigenous Australians completely lack representation in Parliament. Therefore they lack access to the opportunities your average Australian (regardless of race) has. An Indigenous Voice to Parliament will make things more equitable, not less, as it will provide access to the same opportunities of representation that the rest of us have already.

      • morry040@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Indigenous Australians already have The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), employing 1,023 full time staff and a budget of $285M each year specifically for the purpose to “lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.”
        The very detailed annual reports and corporate plans define their activities, plans, and successes fairly well: https://www.niaa.gov.au/who-we-are/accountability-and-reporting

        Can we accept that this agency is providing equal (if not more) access to the same opportunities?

        • Beachgoingcitizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are several differences between the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) and the proposed Voice to Parliament, according to constitutional and legal experts. Firstly, the NIAA is an internal agency accountable to the executive government. The proposed Voice, on the other hand, is an independent body that sits outside of both the executive and parliament. Secondly, the NIAA can only advise the executive government, while in contrast the proposed Voice can advise both the executive and parliament. Thirdly, the NIAA is not an entirely Indigenous organisation, whereas the proposed Voice would be composed entirely of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Lastly, the NIAA can be abolished by an executive order, while the proposed Voice would have its existence guaranteed by being enshrined in the Constitution.

          https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/indigenous-australians-do-not-already-have-a-voice-to-parliament

        • Ilandar@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your claim that the NIAA serves the same purpose has been debunked many times. As an internal government agency, it has no independence. Furthermore it only has 22% Indigenous representation among its staff. The Voice would be a completely independent and 100% Indigenous voice, free from white bias.

          The NIAA is just another example of white people making decisions on behalf of black people, which we already know achieves nothing other than the waste of taxpayer dollars.

          • morry040@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            The NIAA facilitated the entire Voice referendum proposal to the government, as detailed in their 272-page report in July 2021.
            This process, run by the NIAA, involved 115 community consultation sessions in 67 communities and more than 120 stakeholder meetings around the country with over 9,400 people and organisations participating in the consultation process led by NIAA co-design members.

            Are you suggesting that this was a waste of taxpayer dollars and “just another example of white people making decisions on behalf of black people”?

            • Ilandar@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              run by the NIAA

              Wrong. There were 3 co-design groups and 52 group members, which included representatives of the NIAA. The NIAA did not “run” the consultation process. If you haven’t bothered to read your own sources, don’t share them. Also, please look up the definition of “facilitated”.

              • morry040@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s fairly obvious that you haven’t read the document and are just trying to test whether I have done the same.

                Page 241 details the 3 co-design groups as follows:

                1. The National Group
                2. The Local & Regional Group
                3. The Senior Advisory Group

                The Senior Advisory Group membership (p241):
                The Minister will invite individuals to participate in the Senior Advisory Group. The Senior Advisory Group will include 2 co-chairs, Professor Tom Calma AO and Professor Dr Marcia Langton AM. The Senior Advisory Group will comprise around
                20 members as determined by the Minister. The Senior Advisory Group will have a majority of Indigenous Australians who have a spread of skills and experience, and those with extensive experience and ability to work strategically across the co-design process. Consideration will also be given to achieving a balance of: gender; representation across jurisdictions; and the
                urban, regional and remote spectrum, as much as possible.

                The National Group membership (p244):
                The Minister will invite individuals to participate in the National Group, following consultation with the Senior Advisory Group, and appoint a co-chair from among the Indigenous non-government members. The second co-chair will be a senior official from the NIAA. The 2 co-chairs will also be key contacts and representatives for the National Group. They will lead engagement with the Senior Advisory Group and Local & Regional Group, Minister and the Government at key points, as required.

                The Local & Regional Group membership (p246):
                The Minister will invite individuals to participate in the Local & Regional Group, following consultation with the Senior Advisory Group, and appoint a co-chair from among Indigenous non-government members. The second co-chair will be a senior official from the NIAA.

                Facilitate: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facilitate
                As defined in the details of each co-design group:
                All secretariat, logistical and administrative support will be provided by NIAA. This will include planning, logistics, travel arrangements and meeting support.
                The co-chair for each group is a senior official from the NIAA.
                Each group can request technical assistance, if needed, through the NIAA.

                More details on how the groups operated, their purpose, activities, scope, timeframes, as established by the NIAA’s process is defined in pages 241-247.

                If you don’t understand all of the above to be the definition of the word “facilitated”, it brings into question whether you would under the wording of the Voice’s proposed constitutional amendment.

                • Ilandar@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Thanks for providing even more evidence that they didn’t “run” the process. I don’t know what you’re hoping to achieve by quoting large sections of the report - you are just debunking your own claim lol

                  Your own provided definition of facilitate also clearly implies assistance, not control over decision making.

      • Cypher@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Indigenous Australians completely lack representation in Parliament

        There are Indigenous Australians in Parliament so this cannot be true.

        it will provide access to the same opportunities of representation that the rest of us have already

        I get a vote and that’s it, Indigenous Australians also get a vote.

        Sounds like the same opportunity for representation to me.

        • Nonameuser678@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          These parliamentarians don’t necessarily represent or advocate for Indigenous Australians as they represent everyone in their electorate. Anthony Albanese doesn’t just represent the Italians in his electorate, he represents everyone. That’s how majority based systems work. The majority based system is a problem when you have a minority group who are so disadvantaged and have limited ways of having their voices heard. Especially when it’s about policies and laws that affect them specifically.

    • abhibeckert@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The changes needed can be achieved without a Constitutional amendment.

      Australia has tried doing it without a referendum multiple times over our history, every single time they started promising and then fizzled out into nothing.

      By putting it in the constitution, there would have to be a new referendum in order to undo the changes.

    • tristan@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      which is unavailable to other Australians

      Perhaps you should look up just how many existing governmental advisory bodies there are that have zero relation to the indigenous population. Maybe we should go and revoke them, you know, for equality

    • Ilandar@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you need to look up the definition of equity with regards to human rights. You have it completely the wrong way around.

    • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      it is not necessarily inequitable. it is unequal. but it would only be inequitable if you think that the indigenous populations of Australia have been up until this point been treated on even footing with colonizers.

      • Nonameuser678@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep and I’m not looking forward to the sort of bullshit arguments people will espouse in opposing a truth telling process.

    • abhibeckert@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That has been tried in the past, more than once, by both left and right wing parties. It failed miserably every time.