Voice to Parliament Referendum Megathread

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

Developed, vetted and approved by practicing constitutional lawyers.

Good enough for me.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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'.

#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.

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.

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.

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

You’re the voice that will make history The Uluṟu Dialogue | John Farnham

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

FWIW I'll be voting Yes, but I doubt it will do much good.

Referendums never succeed in this country, unless they have bipartisan support. So what was the point of this exercise? What's Albanese's angle in all of this?

“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.

This referendum does not establish a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. This Amendment is a nothingburger. They didn't even enshrine the right for the Voice to address parliament. They said the voice "may" make representations to the Parliament and the Executive. I'm pretty sure anyone "may" make representations to the Parliament and the Executive if the Parliament and the Executive see fit.

The Parliament already has power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. The whole point was to make a "Voice enshrined in the Constitution" not to enshrine in the constitution a Voice subject to parliament.

I don't care how you vote but if you think this referendum will make Aboriginal Australians' lives better you are kidding yourself. This is a performative measure so that people can feel good about themselves while they continue to live on stolen land and profit from genocide.

Senator Patrick Dodson was interviewed about The Voice recently. Some of the more interesting topics covered were what a Yes/No vote would mean for Australia on a national and international level, Indigenous Australians and Dodson himself as a long-term activist currently battling cancer and whether the Voice should be legislated in the event of a No vote. It's a good listen.

Did anyone catch Noel Pearson's interview on Insiders this morning? Worth watching, he is a very straightforward speaker.

EDIT: Also worth watching: Dan Bourchier's recent report for Four Corners.

I will be out of the country that week. Anyone know if postal votes and/or early voting will be a thing for the referendum?

What is it with all the people taking pens with them to the vote?

Do they not understand how polls work? What scrutineers do? A simple search can find information on how everything works.

Who the hell is telling them to take pens because if you use a pencil someone can change your vote?

Voting no to this is simply reaffirming the status quo that violence is the only way foe minorities to gain a seat at the table.

This is an unprecedented, earnest, consensus, peaceful approach to a way forward. A way without killing.

Slapping it back out of fear is a vote in favour of violence, for that is the only other way indigenous people have gained political power in colonial nations.

Just be kind, choose to be kind. Please.

What a surprise

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-04/security-experts-warn-foreign-actors-are-tampering/102935524

The idea that the voice is some sort of useless idea is seriously flawed. Policy institutes and Parliamentary hearing and committee are the biggest drivers of policy in this country. Media attention and petitions aren't nearly as effective in this regard. The voice will likely not be integrated as a Parliamentary comittee is, due to its being a separate body, but will still offer valuable representation to Parliament to those who came before these institutions and this country. Aboriginals had their own traditions, nations and sovereignty on land that was not ceded. We have accepted their legal and unique history with this land, this is merely saying that within the framework of Australia as a country, that Aboriginals deserve access to our legislature and executive on matters that affect them.

The popular argument by resident no voter @whirlybird@aussie.zone seems to be that this is virtue signalling and that this would be the end of social justice for Aboriginals, that resistance would develop in trying to advance a cause further. They seem to suggest that we would be better off doing something of substance, as to not foment resistance and resentment. I would hope that on the first point, its been made clear that there is real benefit to having a Voice, and the second is irrelevant, the Australian population will tire after a no vote, and after a yes vote. Its the jobs of those politically active, the media, the Voice itself, politicians, and those non apathetic people to push for more when the time comes.

A second argument I hear, and the most factually true argument I hear is lack of detail. It is true that there is a lack of official detail from those legislators who will be advancing bills if the referendum finishes in the affirmative. It is also understandable to want to know in substance what the fruits of your vote would be. Id encourage those who would like to learn to listen to ideas from the referendum working group and those associated with the yes campaign on rough ideas of a Voice if this is the case. Its important to remember that we are voting on the amendment though, not the bill itself. There are significant measures that must go into establishing the voice in substance:

• Will the voice exist entirely under its own weight, legislated by Parliament and run by itself, or will the bureaucratic arm of the voice exist in the Australian Public Service
• How will the voice be elected? How will regional voices be represented? Is a federal model (each nation receives x representatives), a state based model (each state receives x amount of reps) or a unitary, population based model more effective?

All of these questions take significant time. If you can focus on the amendment, and whether support those ideas outside of what a future voice may look like, it will help.

Counting has started, ABC has a live results page here. As of the time I'm writing this there is only 0.3% of the total counted but it's rising quickly.

Permanently Deleted

Hey, just a little nudge, if you’re keen to chat about the Voice to Parliament, we’ve got this corker of a megathread where we can all have a good chinwag in one spot. But if you’re not up for that, no worries, it’s business as usual. Gotta keep things fair dinkum!

Hey, just a little nudge, if you’re keen to chat about the Voice to Parliament, we’ve got this corker of a megathread where we can all have a good chinwag in one spot. But if you’re not up for that, no worries, it’s business as usual. Gotta keep things fair dinkum!

Regardless of how this all rolls, actual treaty with the individual indigenous nations will be beginning soon. Just watch.

I've been lucky enough to have family involved deeply in this, and the voice, whilst positive, is a bit of a sideshow to the treaties.

There are a lot of nations to treaty with (not one first nation, but many first nations), so it will take time. But, it's all about to kick off.

The crown did not win by spoils of war, nor did it take over via treaty.

Watch the news. The upcoming wind of change is all based on Australian having no actual, legal rights to claim the continent. No treaty. No spoils of war.

The key word to watch is apartheid. The media will probably start using it soon. Not the Murdoch press, of course.

I know it isn't a popular view around here, but for the sake of a diversity of opinion, here is why I will be voting no.

I am of the view that all Australians should be treated equally in the eye of the law, regardless of the colour of their skin or who their grandparents are. I think the law should be race-blind.

I think it is a step in the wrong direction for Australia to have laws that separate Australians along racist lines. I think it's a step in the wrong direction to enshrine in the constitution that people of one ethnic heritage get special representation that people of different ethnic heritage do not.

I don't care who your dad was, or who his dad was, or who his dad was. Just because someone's dad's dad's dad was in Australia before someone else's shouldn't entitle them to more representation to parliament than anyone else. You shouldn't get special privilege just because you were born into a particular family lineage.

I think Australia needs to do more to help those who need help. Nobody should die in police custody. Everybody should have access to education. Anyone who is born into poverty should be lifted out of it. And any time the government is going to make laws, they should obviously consult with the people who those laws will affect.

Regardless of the colour of their skin.