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.

  • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are valid reasons to vote no. However most no voters seem to jump on all the excuses to try and justify their stance. Even when two reasons are contradictory.

    Then complain that the YES side call them racist. I do think they don’t consider themselves racist. They think their opinions are just ‘common sense’ rather than discrimination. Or that the injustices are too long ago, ignoring current injustice.

    The way I see it is we have 3 options. The voice. No change Another unnamed option.

    They are against the voice. They recognize, for the most part, that there is injustice, but have no alternative path. To me, that’s intellectual dishonesty. If you recognize there is a problem, you either propose a solution or go with the proposed current actions to help, or accept status quo. A nonvite is a vote for status quo, but with added divisiveness sue to attempts made to actually have change, that are now rejected.

    • abhibeckert@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There are valid reasons to vote no.

      Such as? I’ve never seen one and I think if there were valid reasons the No campaign would be spreading the word far and wide.

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not recognising one race or people so as to preserve equality under the constitution is one. I don’t agree as the history and inequality no present outweighs it.

        Having a separate process, different to the voice is a valid argument, however the NO side aren’t proposing one.

        If you think the status quo is acceptable, that there is sufficient resources available and they are properly allocated, then that is a valid reason to vote no. Again, I disagree.

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

          They are valid, in the sense that they follow a degree of logic and make grammatical sense. Otherwise no.