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:
- The Voice referendum official Yes/No pamphlets
- Linda Burney says there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by supporting the Voice
- Families distressed after 'highly misleading' video used by anti-Voice campaigners goes viral
- The Indigenous Voice to Parliament – separating fact from fiction | 7.30
- 10 questions about the Voice to Parliament - answered by the experts
- The yes pamphlet: campaign’s voice to parliament referendum essay – annotated and factchecked
- Fact-checking for the "No" referendum pamphlet was not compulsory
Common Misinformation
- "The Uluru Statement from the Heart is 26 Pages not 1" - not true
Government Information
- Referendum question and constitutional amendment
- voice.gov.au - General information about the Voice
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.
- Added the proposed constitutional amendment (31/08/2023)
- 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.
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.
Lidia Thorpe? ex-Greens senator who split because she is against the referendum?
I'm still not sure I get Lidia's arguments tbh. I agree with her on treaty and I honestly don't know why (other than being a pack of racists) we haven't implemented the recommendation of the royal commission into indigenous deaths in custody, I'm just not sure that voting the voice down is a good move or would even help get those things done. It could make Australia wake up to its past by giving it a shock, but just (maybe more) likely the referendum failing will empower racists.
Would voting up a powerless voice help get them done? It would be used as a way to put off further action. "What? You don't need a treaty. We gave you a Voice to parliament last decade."
Have you read the Statement from the Heart? I just posted it to the thread if you want to check it out. I have no idea why it isn't central to the discussion, because the statement is literally where all this is coming from.
The Voice is the first step towards a treaty. That's basically what Makarrata means in English. If a treaty were to happen today, who would it be with? Which of the hundreds of tribes across the land should be chosen to represent aboriginal peoples? We all need a body representing first nations to open these dialogues with.
How do you interpret the part at the end that refers to “powers”?
Also, just curious, have you studied constitutional law in your degree yet?
G'day, sorry for the long wait.
To preface: I have studied constitutional law (was a lockdown subject for me). I'm not going to claim to have the understanding of either the High Court or the Constitutional Lawyers I've encountered, and bear in mind IANAL, and nothing I say here constitutes a true legal interpretation.
Based on both other legislation where the term "powers" has been used, as well as the context in which it is used in the proposed wording, I read it as referring to any abilities it may rely on in order to make its representations. I couldn't tell you what these may be, as that would depend on the Government of the day, but my expectation would be they'd be related to information gathering, decision-making (including whether a chair would exist and veto power), whistleblowing, and those kinds of things.
The wording is purposefully very vague of course - which serves a few purposes. The big one is about making it hard for oppositional forces to take it to the High Court to claim whatever controversial action its taking is unconstitutional; there've been a few cases like that that just end up wasting the court's time, along with tax payer money. Similarly, keeping it vague gives plenty of room to legislation to define its limitations, and allows for evolution as the needs of the community change.
Sorry for the essay mate, tl;dr: did study Constitutional law, had a great teacher! Powers is kept vague, but I would argue it refers to abilities. Vaguery is a good thing in a constitution because it gives room for the law to adapt and evolve.