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.

  • 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
        3
        ·
        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
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well I’m voting no because it’s meaningless. We shouldn’t be putting meaningless this 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.

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

                It’s only meaningless in the sense it doesn’t have any legislative power. Committees like this have strong roots in our democracy and have extreme benefit both to policy institutes and parliament itself in developing legislation. Parliamentary practice in this country would be dysfunctional if legislative committees and policy institutes didn’t exist, this is just allowing that same power of research and representation that is afforded to committees to a group of people who had their sovereignty and institutions stripped from them with zero recourse.

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

                  It’s only meaningless in the sense it doesn’t have any legislative power

                  Pretty massive thing that it doesn’t have, and why it’s pointless. There have been and still are many indigenous advisory committees, what’s another one without any power actually going to do? Have a look at this one where a few of the indigenous members recently quit because, shock horror, they felt that their work on the advisory body was not being listened to or helping at all.

                  https://aussie.zone/comment/2748827

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

                    We would never abandon our commitment to consular assistance in Russia just because the government may not listen to us. We regard it as a duty regardless of perception in the current moment. We also know that different times will produce different outcomes in those efforts, and that ultimately representation isn’t doesn’t force anyone’s hand in helping Australians. We may bring up issues that are gaining traction domestically but aren’t heard by the RU gov, or let them see from our POV. We get all of this with a voice. Even if we are completely ignored, these benefits help in pushing our concerns across a wider audience that may have previously not heard them.