this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

3520 readers
72 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] 20 points 1 year ago (9 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 (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 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] 10 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] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 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 (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

This is my take.

I really don't know anything about the, nor the issues faced by indigenous Australians, nor the best way to address them. This just isn't relevant to my day to day.

That said, if I made a list of people who's opinions I respect and polled them I'm sure it would be overwhelmingly "yes".

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (56 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 (56 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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] 8 points 1 year 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I think it's going to be close just because of how powerful the no campaign has been spreading their bullshit

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Don't forget neo nazis who are actively supporting the no campaign. Dutton and co can try to lie and convince people that they care about making things better for Indigenous Australians all they want but there's absolutely no fucking reality where nazis give a shit about this. Not all people who vote no are racists, but all racists will vote no.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Less than the active racism on the news, there's a hell of a lot of people who think righting wrongs isn't worth the small sum of cash and time that a voice will take up in the public sphere. People who think because we've been forced into a minority that we should lay down and accept being trodden on.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (10 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] 7 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How people are appointed to the Voice is irrelevant to the referendum and will be legislated by the parliament

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's very relevant. We need to decide if we want to irrevocably change the country. We need more than "don't worry about it"

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (26 children)

if we want to irrevocably change

The composition of the Voice is not irrevocable. The vote in the referendum is whether you support the notion that there is a constitutionally-mandated Voice, and not whether you approve of the specific model being proposed. Parliament can change the specific model at will, regardless of whether it is the current Labor Government or a future LNP one. The only thing that will be irrevocable is the fact that some Voice exists.

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

If you are not an Indigenous person then the voice will not really be advising on things that are relevant to you. And the voice is fundamentally an advisory group that will present their concerns to the government. The government will then act on this advice. It will still be the government making laws and policies. It just needs to be constitutional so that it can't be terminated like previous advisory groups have been.

Considering the level of disadvantage that Indigenous Australians experience, don't you think it's reasonable that they should have greater say (a voice) on how to address the issues that are relevant to them?

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

We've already decided on that through the previous federal election. Theoretically, the voice will be legislated in a way which appeals to the majority of Australians.

Remember: bad politicians and parties only get into parliament because, we, Australians, put them there

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year 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] 7 points 1 year ago (15 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.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (5 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] 8 points 1 year 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 (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›