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.

  • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed.

    Literally every one of my indigenous friends and colleagues that I’ve spoken to are voting no, including some who work for our government and are very well respected in their communities and in the government. Some run indigenous businesses and not for profits, some are elders and aunties/uncles, many are actively out there trying to make life better for indigenous people. I wasn’t sure which way to vote, but I’ll be voting no after speaking to them.

    They all echoed the same thoughts - it’s virtue signalling, and they don’t want a seat at that table where they are not guaranteed to actually be listened to or respected.

    • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      And good for you, however, this doesn’t mean that all Indigenous Australians, or at least a majority, are against it. Polling in the Guardian’s fact-checking article claims 80% approval.

      Stating that all Indigenous Australians who you know are against it isn’t a valid argument. Your real argument is that “it’s virtue signalling”

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Stating that all Indigenous Australians who you know are against it isn’t a valid argument.

        I didn’t say that was the argument though. As you noted, I gave the reasons why they said they were voting no and why I’ll be voting no as well, because I agree with them. It just looks like white people virtue signalling so they can go “look how awesome and not racist we are! we’re giving the indigenous people some crayons and a seat at the table where we can continue to not listen to them” while also making them feel good because they then feel justified in being able to call people they disagree with racists.

        • No1@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t get the issue with ‘virtue signalling’. At all.

          Before any societal change can happen, a pre-requisite is virtuous behaviour and ‘signals’?

          This is clearly a journey, not the end destination. So why on earth would you want to not take the first step just because it doesn’t take you instantly to the destination?

          You do realise what happened after the republican referendum lost? You won’t see this again in at least a generation. That’s what we’re really voting on. No will mean “Yeah, nah. The people voted on that. Maybe take a look again in (waves hand) the future”.

          And you know every time something remotely to do with indigenous rights/culture comes up, people will refer back and say “The country voted No”.

          But thank god, at least we will have defeated “virtue signalling”…

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

            The issue with virtue signalling is that it’s used to pretend you’re doing something without actually having to do it. The voice is pretending to give the indigenous people some power while not actually giving them anything noteworthy. They’re acknowledged in the white settler’s constitution but basically as an afterthought for us to ignore.

            My, and many others issue, is that this “first step” will in fact be treated for decades as the destination. We don’t want nothing to be done to help indigenous people, we want more done to help them. We want meaningful change, something protected that actually gives them power, not a promise that we’ll let them say something without promising that we’ll listen and take action.

            Will some people point to a no win as “nothing needs to be done”? Absolutely, but I think those will just be the minority of straight up racists. More people will still want something done, just not token gestures.

            • No1@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If you can’t get a Yes vote on such a “meaningless, token” (I’d rather call it ‘symbolic’, or ‘aspirational’) change, then how can you expect or hope for more substantial changes to pass?

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

                Well I’m voting no because it’s meaningless. We shouldn’t be putting meaningless things in to the constitution.

                If it was actually meaningful change I’d be voting yes.

                • No1@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It’s all good. Everyone is entitled to vote how they want, and for whatever reason they want.

                  I’m just feeling a bit sad, because I don’t see this passing, and I can’t see any path forward without a Yes vote 🙁

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

                    That’s honestly the only thing making me consider voting yes. I don’t want to be partly responsible for nothing being done even if I don’t think voting yes will do anything either.

    • spiffmeister@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s worth basically ignoring anyone who says “I’ve spoken to indigenous people.” In fact I would suggest anyone (for or against) who speaks to people around them and makes that judgment should consider consulting surveys/polls, rather than relying on their small circles as a sample size.

      • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zoneOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This comment was removed as it contained personal attacks against the creator of the parent comment. While you may not agree with someone it does not imply that they are fascist

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh god, even the “progressives” here have started calling everyone that they disagree with fascists now.

        You’re virtue signalling a bit too hard mate. People like you are why many indigenous people don’t want this Voice.