this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
76 points (98.7% liked)

Australia

3480 readers
173 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

15 years of consultation with aboriginal commmunities across all of Australia.

Developed, vetted and approved by practicing constitutional lawyers.

Good enough for me.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I find it so frustrating when I hear NO campaigners say a constitutive is not required. Politicians should just do their job and it’s easy to consult ATSI people, no voice required.

They literally did that. Consulted ATSI people, as part of a plan to change things, with all major parties on board. They are showing how much they don’t listen by saying that they don’t need the voice to listen? Aaaghhh.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (13 children)

No voters are low-key racists, I 100% believe this- they hide behind some weak arguments to pretend they're progressive, but deep down they are just bigoted at heart. at worst this Yes vote does nothing, at best it changes for the people the well-being and future of indigenous australians. This whole throwing water on the fire instead of using a fire truck is just obfuscation, and they'd also find a reason to vote No for the fire truck as well.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago (65 children)

A summary of my viewpoint:

I am enormously sick of the no campaign brigading every discussion with terrible arguments in bad faith.

I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed. Similarly, the law is my degree. I've spent five years of my life studying it, and although I'm not a graduate yet (two units to go), I'd think I'd know more about this shit than Joe from bumfuck nowhere on Facebook.

There is no case for a no vote. None whatsoever. The change would not grant special rights to Indigenous Australians. It has been repeatedly explained by both lawyers and politicians. You can read the change yourself. It has to be a constitutional change, because that protects it from being outright removed by successive governments, which is the very thing that happened to the previous body that performed this role. By definition, it is not racist, as racism refers to negative treatment on the basis of race or ethnic background, and not differing treatment. This is one of three steps proposed by Indigenous Australians towards reconciliation, and isn't the endpoint. If it fails, it will be the endpoint.

When the colonisers arrived, Indigenous Australians outnumbered colonisers. Now, they make up just 2.5% of the population. We are driving them to extinction. If this fails, by the time we get around to trying again, it is likely the genocide will have all but been completed.

Ethically and morally, a yes vote is the only choice. Legally, it is the best choice for change.

load more comments (65 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

My thinking boils down to this:

  1. We spend billions each year, but studies show the gap between other Australians and indigenous is worsening. We should be trying something. Anything.

  2. For those concerned about 'the details', my understanding is that the pollies are responsible for those after the referendum. Do you really think a parliament and senate made up of mainly old white guys are going to significantly change how the country works? Seriously?

So, we've got nothing to lose, and hell, wouldn't it be awesome if it actually had some positive changes!

[–] [email protected] 35 points 11 months ago (7 children)

For me, this referendum boils down to exactly the same pair of questions as for the same-sex marriage postal survey in 2017:

  1. Does this affect me adversely? (answer: no, it doesn't)
  2. How does this benefit those that want it? (answer: for the better)

Easy.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Why has every piece of "information" about the No vote always boil down to "we don't know". But the yes voters have a bunch of answers to every question.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago

Because the no campaign isn't interested in answers, they just want to spread FUD.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (9 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

opens the doors to activism

Cool, where do I sign up?

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (9 children)

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

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Those insert slur here will get uppity!

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

What's that saying? Equity feels like oppression to the privileged?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Probably the worst case for No voters is that the Voice becomes a platform to push for reparations, whereby Australians are expected to pay a tax for events that occurred before they were born or arrived in the country.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (6 children)

This is the first referendum voting experience for me so I'm excited to be part of history even if the outcome is not the one I want. I'm personally in the critical yes camp where I hope the referendum is successful but still agree with the points raised by the progressive no campaign. I was unsure for a while because I'm not an Indigenous person and wanted to listen to as many different Indigenous perspectives as I could before deciding. What really pushed me to yes was the idea that while not every person who votes no is racist, all racists will vote no.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (19 children)

I have serious issues with the idea of progressive no - it's bad faith at worst, purity politics at best. "Nonono don't throw that bucket of water on the fire i want a fire truck" the former doesn't preclude the latter ffs.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint and it's not my place to say what is or isn't a good approach to change in this space. The progressive no campaign is connected to the Indigenous sovereignty movement and I can understand why they have taken the position they have. I'm not an Indigenous person so I don't feel like it's appropriate for me to try and represent their ideas. But I don't think it's fair to close yourself off to them, especially when the principle of the voice should is about listening to the diversity of Indigenous perspectives.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think my very first voting experience was the republic referendum. I really didn't know what I was doing or how to research. But all these years later, I stand by my vote.

I am voting Yes for The Voice because team Yes have put up an good case for it. Team No have yet to convince me otherwise; Everything I read is either vague speculation or miss information.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I honestly don't know how I'm going to vote. Something is needed, but is it this?

I agree with a concern from the 'no' camp, that this ends up being a bandaid or virtue-signalling; and if it passes then "job well done" and we don't keep moving forward.

Otoh, I very much fear that if the result is 'no', we have collectively just affirmed racism - the overt, the systemic, and the subtextual.

I have family planning to vote both ways, and they have put considered thought into their positions, not just gut reactions.

But I don't know, for me. I don't think I can in good conscience vote 'no', but I have not yet convinced myself that I can vote 'yes'.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Your concerns are valid. I don't think it's a wild position to expect action from The Voice as a measure of success, and not virtue signalling. Race politics in this country is ugly. If the Yes camp wins, they will celebrate in a way that the No camp will label virtue signalling. And if the No camp wins, they will decry victory over political correctness. Respectful debate is unlikely irrespective of the outcome.

All that said — The Voice will be independent of the Government of the day. If the Government fails to act, The Voice will speak directly to the Government, the media and the community, announcing failure. I believe this will create a powerful political incentive to listen and act on the recommendations of The Voice in a unique way that our system currently does not have.

All political parties have issues with racism to various degrees — Liberals, Greens, Labor, all of 'em. The Voice will hold them accountable for their respective failures. Given that politicians loath transparency, it's a fundamentally good idea to have an indigenous body to hold politicians to direct account.

A recent example of how this may play out is in Queensland, where Labor is potentially liable for tens of millions of dollars, for inhumane child detention in so-called 'watch' houses. The Guardian has an excellent article on this issue. If Australia had an advisory body like The Voice, the sheer amount of attention that would be given on this issue would unquestionably force Labor to prioritise rectifying this issue. Currently, this issue is being played out in the courts, which is an important component of justice, but I'd argue that an expedited solution would occur if The Voice existed.

Pardon the long post. If you want any recommendations for balanced and fair podcasts, articles or resources, please let me know. Happy to help. And all the best otherwise x

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

I think it’s as simple as “progress over perfection”.

In and of itself, will this amendment do harm? If your answer is “No”, that’s all that matters.

It may not be the Silver Bullet, there likely is no silver bullet - but if this is one step closer to the life we all want to look back on, then we should try it. Arguments that this isn’t enough are complete sophistry. One step is better than no steps. The argument that “we might not take step four, therefore we shouldn’t take step one” is completely disingenuous. Of course we should take step one, because it’s better than where we are today. Tomorrow we will work on step two - together.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

#ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART

We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:

Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.

This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.

How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?

With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.

Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.

These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.

We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.

We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.

We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.

In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

so that 7 news story on the Adelaide "No" protest pretty much told me all I need to know about the No side.

conspiracy theorists, shouty people, antivax nonsense and racism. what any of that had to do with the referendum who knows

edit: sydney and melbourne too it seems. its almost as if certain types of people swing to the No side

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

For what it's worth, a lot of my neighbours have a vote yes sign on their doors. It makes me feel like we'll get the yes to change the constitution. That'd be awesome. I'm hanging onto hope.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (45 children)

Something I have not seen discussed anywhere.
They do not specify that this group will be elected. That mean they will be appointed. I just can't see future for this other than a punch of politicians mates from the inner city. Completely out of touch with the needs of those they represent.
I'm still leaning towards voting yes but I don't see this actually helping. It's probably just going to cost the tax payers a bunch of money and do no good.
If they were elected then they could be held to account.

load more comments (45 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'll be voting yes as it's the least we can do, foot in the door and all.
That said, it's literally the least we could do. Very much a 'yes, and' rather than think racism's solved with this one vote

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›