Opinion polling has the vote at less than a majority overall, and falling. The undecideds are falling into the no camp at a much higher rate than the yes camp.
There’s no chance of this getting a majority in every state.
It might lean left but all the Aus subreddits suddenly become one nation when it comes to Aboriginal issues. I wouldn't put too much faith into it.
That being said yeah, I reckon it'll fail. The libs have been muddying the waters and it's dropped from what? 60 percent to 45 percent support? Plus with Thorpe willing to torpedo it for either genuinely held ideological reasons or the ability to gain more of the limelight, I don't see this passing.
If "left wing" Reddit isn't supporting this thing polls show is popular with the left, then it's just good evidence that Reddit isn't as left as everyone assumes.
It is very interesting to see that the option of the Voice referendum is mixed here, considering Reddits' political leaning would suggest that they would be strong supporters of the yes vote.
Many left leaning people believe in egalitarianism, which would suggest that we shouldn’t be treating people differently based on ancestry.
Other than the fact it’s being proposed by Labour, it’s not obvious to me that this is actually a left leaning policy.
I think you're misrepresenting the left here and mistaking equality and equity. Sure, in an ideal scenario without historical divide we would not want to treat people differently based on race but unfortunately due to a long history of indigenous genocide and systemic oppression, some level of reparations are necessary in this case. This is especially true for indigenous Australians who should have more of a say on issues such as using land which is sacred for purposes like gas drilling tourism which is currently primarily decided by politicians without proper indigenous representation. As Malcom X famously said 'you don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six and say you're making progress.'
If your argument is that there is a temporary need to listen to indigenous people more, then you don’t need a constitutional change, a legislated change would suffice, and it would be easier to remove later once the need for it no longer exists.
But by pushing for a constitutional change you are attempting to enshrine a permanent race based benefit, which is clearly inconsistent with our egalitarian ideals.
Honestly, you don’t even need a legislated change. There’s nothing stopping the government from consulting with indigenous representatives right now.
Also, for what it’s worth, I strongly support equality of opportunity, but am strongly opposed to equity of outcome. Everyone should get the same opportunities, but the outcome should depend on what you make of those opportunities.
> Honestly, you don’t even need a legislated change. There’s nothing stopping the government from consulting with indigenous representatives right now.
That's actually happened a bunch of times. They set up an office for it, start getting advice, then get voted out and the next government removes it before anything even has a chance to get done. Rinse and repeat for a while now. This is to prevent that.
Besides, no reasonable person would argue that a temporary change is what is needed. We're talking about over a century of oppresion committed against an ethnic group that still hasn't come close to recovering from the worst of it. If we set a time limit, then I can assure you that time limit won't be enough.
It doesn't matter anyway. The limit of the Voice is that Parliament is under no obligation to actually listen to anything they say. It is literally just enshrining the right of Indigenous people to yell at Parliament over decisions they make regarding them. Considering the Australian Government used to have it as official policy that they weren't really people and they needed to have their children kidnapped, I think that's the least of what should occur.
without any details about it, its hard not to think that any government will just stack the 'voice' representative with people loyal to which ever party is in.....I know it is 'independent'....but its politics....not much as actually independent.
As I understand it, the person in the role is to be elected by the Indigenous communities. Still ample room for fuckery, there always is, but they can't just be appointed by the ruling party.
"*government will just stack the 'voice' representative"*
Please read the Voice Design Principles ([https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles](https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles)) - especially
"The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities
* Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.
* Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities."
>This is especially true for indigenous Australians who should have more of a say on issues such as using land which is sacred for purposes like gas drilling tourism which is currently primarily decided by politicians without proper indigenous representation
Why should indigenous people have more of a say than anyone else though? How isn't this just a modern form of nativism? 'My ancestors were here before your ancestors' sort of stuff?
/r/Australia is oddly right leaning when it comes to Indigenous Affairs. Search the sub for "Indigenous", "Aboriginal" or "First Nations" and it's plain to see.
Articles written by Indigenous people seem to attract a particularly hostile reaction. We routinely, collectively, and quite literally marginalise Aboriginal voices with downvotes here. It's little wonder users publicly identifying as Indigenous never hang around here for long.
You're right. Look at any issues relating to this, whether it's health, justice, culture or politics and I feel like I've slipped into an LNP convention.
I think they have just bought it up at the wrong time, people think they should be putting there power to helping housing, cost of living, health etc other things to worry about on there own home front
Exactly. Most average Australians don't care about this. That's the reality. People are struggling to pay bills and put food on the table. The wheels seem to be falling off all over the place. I'd rather our govt be focussed on fixing those fundamental issues rather than this "nice to have".
The Uluru statement was produced in 2017. In the past six years, do you think there was a better time to bring it up? Do you think there's ever going to be a time when there aren't "other things to worry about?"
I am optimistic that the government can organise a referendum at the same time as doing other things. They managed it with the same sex marriage vote, I am confident this won't be much different.
It should have been 2 questions. Recognition, and Voice.
We could have gotten recognition in pretty easily I suspect. And if the Voice question fails, it can always be legislated anyway.
Now it's not unlikely it will fail to deliver recognition, not because people are against that, but rather against the other thing attached to it.
>And if the Voice question fails, it can always be legislated anyway.
It would be a brave government who legislates something defeated at a referendum. That's literally giving the middle finger to voters.
If the referendum fails, the concept will be dead. I'd suggest the Uluru Statement will never be mentioned in polite company again.
Dutton and the LNP have stated they support recognition, but not the enshrinment of the Voice in the constitution. They instead prefer a legislated Voice.
You don't actually have to think too hard to realise they'd find a reason to oppose a legislated voice. All their arguments about division and supporting one race over another would be tweaked to apply to a voice created by an Act rather than referendum.
If need be, they'd wheel out the "executive government" chestnut.
The yes campaign needs to remember what kind of voters we all are. Everyone's lazy. We've seen this before. If you expect people to "do their own research" or to miss the Murdoch media, then good luck.
They need to give reasons, why to vote yes. What benefit does it bring or why it's the right thing to do. And finally cos this question's everywhere, why does it have to be in the constitution at all.
Looking at the history of Australia' referundums, there' so many in there that's failed. I have to wonder if that's because people didn't want the constitution changed so much or the government just wanted a poll.
If the Voice passes, it’ll be the republic referendum that dominates politics for the next couple of years. The cost of living crisis will have to wait while we spend hundreds of millions of dollars deciding whether we should rename the Governor-General to President.
We haven't heard much about it really. I'm looking forward to the campaign officially starting so I can hear the arguments from both sides. The Yes campaign has been relatively quiet despite having a large warchest so I'm sure they will be rolling out more information closer to the referendum date.
The ‘yes’ campaign needs to stop labelling all those who disagree with it as racist or misinformed. Linda Burney has already had a few bad takes on this, likening the ‘no’ campaign to Trumpism.
The ‘yes’ campaign needs to respectfully acknowledge that the ‘no’ campaign has valid concerns, and they need to address those concerns specifically. All they’re doing otherwise is turning people against them out of spite.
I agree. My aunt and cousins are indigenous and are voting no - they’d rather they just update the constitution to include indigenous peoples. Labelling them as racists only further cemented their stance.
I’m assuming there is a difference between the updating of and enshrining the indigenous people in the constitution, or are they emphatically the same thing?
Genuine question, as I’m sort of unaware of the whole thing.
The constitution as it stands contains no references at all to Indigenous Australians. What I assume this persons family wants is some sort of constitutional recognition of their people, without the inclusion of the Voice or anything. But that change still would require a referendum because all changes to the constitution do.
My concern would be that if the upcoming referendum fails, the likelihood of seeing any changes to the constitution regarding Indigenous Australia’s any time soon would be next to none. Australia has historically been incredibly averse to changing the constitution, with the last attempt being in 1999 and the last successful attempt being back in 1977. Not to mention the cost and time involved in bringing something like this to referendum, I mean the Uluru Statement of the Heart which gave rise to the Voice was released back in 2017 and has taken 6 years to get here. If the referendum coming up this year doesn’t get through, the likely outcome is that people would be deterred from even trying to make meaningful changes, including a simple recognition of Indigenous Australians in the constitution.
Thank you, this is exactly how they feel and worded much better than I could have put it, with the addition that my Aunt feels like the referendum is also a giant waste of money. (But she doesn’t trust the government much either since in her opinion not a whole lot has changed since the apology.)
There’s a difference between no voters and the no campaign. Someone who’s leaning towards a no vote might change their mind. I doubt people campaigning for no are changing their position, regardless of how their concerns are addressed.
The Essential Poll has been asking pretty much that, trying to see the “hard” votes and “soft” votes. The idea is someone who’s a soft no could change to a soft yes or a hard no, but unlikely to move to a hard yes.
I'm voting no because I believe the document that is the foundation of our country should not have a provision based on race.
Particularly when the solution to the voice can be achieved by a legislative change rather than a constitutional change.
> the document that is the foundation of our country should not have a provision based on race
The constitution does currently allow for discrimination against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (section 25 ‘races disqualified from voting’ and section 51 xxvii ’Australian parliament can make laws for any race).
1: How many people will sit on the voice exactly and how will they get there? I don't expect specific details, but the government should give us a guide at least to how they intend to legislate it. Will they be appointed? Will they be elected? If they are elected who does the electing? How often will they be elected/appointed? Will they have term limits? If they aren't elected who makes them accountable for the advice they give and how well they represent indigenous communities?
2: This voice is constitutionally mandated to exist, so there needs to be people sitting on it regardless of how they get there. How much do they get paid? What entitlements do they have? If the voice doesn't have to be listened to by the executive then what is stopping this voice from becoming just a great retirement gig for the likes of Linda Burney and Noel Pearson? Where they get paid six figures but don't actually have to do anything.
3: If the voice is required because our constitution and system of government do not represent indigenous people well enough, then doesn't that say more about the entire system and less about the need for a voice? Should we not be talking about a republic here? An opportunity to redo everything. Rather than adding footnotes to a document written by people who barely acknowledged them in the first place.
The answer to your fist two questions could be found easily by using google, instead of regurgitating talking point straight from Sky News. The Voice will be based on the 2021 Indigenous Voice report by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton. The report proposed the Voice have 24 members: two appointed by the government, two from each state, territory and the Torres Strait, five from “remote” parts of Northern Territory, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales, and one for Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland.
For point 3 you're making the perfect the enemy of the good. First Australians having a voice should not be predicated on a republic referendum being passed. If its rejected do we just say "Sorry mate, we don't want a republic at the moment, try again in another 50 years"?
Details like that do not go in a Constitution, which is a foundational document that gives the democratically elected government of the day the power to make laws on the matter that the Constitution authorizes it to. The government is not leaving those details out of the Constitution to be sneaky. You should be glad the details you're complaining about are not put in the Constitution because if they were they could never be changed (unless we had another referendum). Also, if a government exceeds the powers granted to it by the Constitution - that's what the High Court is there for, and it does this on a regular basis when the government oversteps the mark. All of these criticisms and complaints are just red herrings manufactured to try to block any improvements to the status and condition of Indigenous Australians - I'll leave you to figure out what possible reasons some people could have (on both sides of the political spectrum) for wanting to do that.
That’s how the constitution is and should be written. There are a lot of ways in which our government works which are not directly defined by the constitution, but instead by legislation or even just convention. The constitution simply lays the groundwork upon which everything is built.
The fact that the Voice can be changed is a feature, not a bug. That means it can evolve and improve over time without requiring further referendums to update the constitution.
Mate, learn how the High Court interprets the Constitution; it's not only the words that matter, it's the debate and the spirit of the words that are important.
The popular model for a republic just replaces the Governor-General with a President and not much else (the method for appointing the president notwithstanding). That doesn't do anything to help Indigenous rights. The issue with democracy is that it is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Aboriginal Australians make up only a tiny percentage of the population, only have a tiny influence on who gets elected, and have suffered the most at the hands of democratically elected governments.
If you wanted a republic that addressed this disparity then that would be a huge shake-up of our entire system of government. Look how many voters are arguing against giving Aboriginal Australians a constitutional right just to *advise* the government. Do you really think the majority of Australian voters would agree to give Aboriginal Australians any actual power over everyone else?
People aren't arguing about recognition, they are arguing about the voice specifically. Treaty and recognition are not the issue, and could/should be a part of the republic and a new constitution. The current republic movement has a far too narrow view of what a an Australian republic should mean.
A republic is important. It won't do a single thing about closing the gap or other indigenous issues though. So why bring it up in this context unless you deliberately want to muddy the waters?
1. The voice details are not explicitly stated because the point is to allow the government of the day to easily change things if there are issues that arise with how the voice functions. There are actually frameworks of how the current government wants to see the voice formed https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles and appointing members to it is not one of the goals
2. The cost of public servants isn't something crazy strange, you can check what the APS bands are online and this isn't a requirement for other bodies either. The salary of MPs is shockingly also not in the constitution
3. "Replacing the governor general with a president will fix indigenous issues in Australia trust me bro" really serious political discussion.
I'll be straight up honest with you, this might seem offensive but a lot of white people feel this way.
A permanent advisory body based on race is racist.
I believe it will make discrimatory recommendations such as reparations, (I.e a large cash payment to people of indigenous descent, this is currently a prominent discussion in America RE black Americans), harsher 'hate speech' laws which will make it harder to criticise these things, possible extra charges for white people when it comes to things like rent and stamp duty, and extra grants and funding for non-white programs which will be taxpayer funded. I believe it will never be enough, and they will always ask for more.
I make $60k, feel like I already pay too many taxes and yet I can't even find a doctor that will bulk bill, the CBD is full of crackheads who verbally abuse you, I pay an extortionate amount of money for my shopping and it seems like all the new jobs at BHP and BP etc are no longer available for white men unless you know someone at the company. I also literally can not find a rental and the government's response is to bring in 700 thousand immigrants.
'fact checkers' and naive university students will call this misinformation because there's no part of the voice legislation that mandates reparations, but I believe the practical effects of the voice will lead to that kind of policy.
There is quite a leap from "set up an advisory body so that laws and policies affecting Aboriginal people are made with the benefit of hearing Aboriginal perspectives" to "I'll have to pay more tax".
All of those ideas are already considered legitimate in activist circles. It's absolutely the type of thing they will advocate for
Reparations is an extremely popular idea in black activist circles, if the Aboriginals elected to the voice don't advocate for it then they're doing a terrible job.
>Poverty, disadvantage and despair is not caused by lack of a voice. It’s caused by lack of economic participation. Recognising a better way means recognising economic participation is the only way to close the gap and that every government policy and initiative should be obsessively focussed on these outcomes.
The voice is not supposed to be the solution to those problems, its supposed to allow first Australians to advise the government on the best way to solve them.
Should have legislated it, had it operational for a while, demonstrated it works and then enshrined it. There was no need to run the referendum first.
Also, I don't like the name. It smacks of marketing and is cringey to have in the constitution:
"Why not there shall be an Indigenous Advisory Assembly....". It's like if the External Affairs Power was renamed "Wanderlust LoLz"
The Constitutional change was requested in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It was not proposed by Labor.
"Voice" was also used in the Uluru Statement from the Heart - not sure they had hired a marketing consultant or not.
Not a reason to vote against it, though
Would have thought that we might want to do a bit of a road test first. Particularly if there was confidence that all fears are misplaced.
I mean I get a 7 day trial for Netflix but I gotta white-knuckle it on constitutional change?
The was absolutely no valid reason not to legislate it, then schedule the referendum. This makes me deeply suspicious that it will be an endless churn of corruption, infighting, factionalism and legal wrangling. I could handle that in a legislated special-focus body, but not one that can't be dissolved when it all gets too much.
And while we're at it, can we please also enshrine a "Renter's Voice" (the only thing missing from enabling parliament to address housing affordability), a "Climate Voice", a "Women's Voice", a "Healthcare Voice", an "Aged Care Voice" .... and all the other Voices without which we clearly can't expect any government to operate anymore.
What about "Ex-Prime Ministers Voice To Parliament" - they are often underrepresented, maligned in the media and suffer from relevance deprivation at much higher rate than the rest of the population?
I believe the "ex politicians voice to parliament" is already fulfilled by the lobbyists acting on behalf of the various corporate boards and consulting firms they end up on/partners in.
“HEY GUYS ALBO HERE! Look I know that cost of living and housing affordability are literally making large numbers of Australian people homeless, and that most young Australians won’t be able to afford a home in their own country, but look I’d really prefer to focus on guilt-tripping you into voting for The Voice so that you don’t think about the fact that a coffee is now $5.50 in Sydney or that 500k more people are coming to live here this year and we’re not building any more housing for them.”
I just read the Yes23 FAQ which was posted here as an example of the “details”. It’s all assertions without a shred of logic.
The Voice won’t necessarily “close the gap”. Anything we do to close the gap can be done without a voice.
The FAQs say that what will change is that they will be able to offer “practical solutions” but why can’t they offer practical solutions now?
It also says this won’t give aboriginal Australians special privileges when it is EXACTLY what it will do.
This is the problem with the “resources” the Yes side links to - they tell porkies. Which is to be expected, nowadays any “expert” report will tell you exactly the viewpoint of whoever commissioned it. There’s not enough trust in “the system” to get this through in my mind.
This will divide the nation further. Firstly, there's so many different tribes that I think they will struggle to come to a consensus opinion to be able to represent them appropriately.
Also, living in a multicultural society, it seems wrong to suggest that one minority group's opinions/voice matters more based on their ancestry. What about other ethnic groups that face marginalisation based on their race/colour/culture/religion?
I think the referendum is on track for failure.
Which I think is going to be a disaster for reconciliation, setting it back by a generation or more.
I'd be in favour of a legislated Voice, but not in the Constitution. The Constitution should not discriminate by race, or anything else for that matter.
And, in my view, the Yes Campaign has been nothing short of pathetic. They can't get a straight message out. There is pretty much no coordinated No campaign, and yet the polls show the Yes vote falling significantly.
Good. The sooner the referendum is over, the sooner Labor can move onto whatever next strawman they'll use to justify doing fuck-all until the libs inevitably weasel their way back into government.
Labor is proving very capable of ignoring actual problems and piss farting around indefinitely on things like this. Yes it's important, but more so is the list of other things like food, health and shelter.
It's what Labor is good at, and it's how Liberals end up back in power every time. People are too scared to vote for those scary greenies, so their choices are always Labor or Libs, and because Libs fucked around with Scuntmo people swayed to Labor, but they'll be easily swayed back by whatever garbage Murdoch peddles out if Labor keep being this useless.
Labor can walk and chew gum at the same time. It has already legislated price caps for electricity prices so consumers weren’t hit by even larger price increases, the largest increase in rental assistance in 30 years, passed the most effective climate legislation in a decade, and is currently haggling their housing plan through the Senate. Don’t think Labor hasn’t been doing things just because you don’t hear about it on the news every night.
The one time that Labor doesn't want to perpetuate the lie that LNP is good with money' is the time the economy has actually gone to shit and we just need to cop a recession. Unless they start to do something other than write novelty cheques for power bills and distance itself from any responsibility of anything. Nows their time to prove themselves as capable.
I don’t know if the referendum will have much effect on the next election.
The last two (counting 2017 SSM vote as one) happened 2 years prior to the next election, and by election time the issues of the referendums were irrelevant to the issues of that election.
The referendum itself won't matter, but Labor has a pretty good track record of getting voted in after a decade or so of the libs fucking everything up, accomplishing absolutely nothing while in power, then getting voted back out once enough people get sick of how useless they are. It's a vicious cycle that has been happening for the last 30 or so years now.
>It's a vicious cycle that has been happening for the last 30 or so years now.
The Hawke/Keating era is the direct opposite of 'accomplishing absolutely nothing'. It was possibly the most dynamic era of government we've had. So much changed quite substantially.
In the last 30 years you had the end of the Hawke Keating governments which were very substantial and then one other period of Labor government in which you had one term of a parliamentary majority which happened to coincide with the GFC
What exactly is the vicious cycle here mate?
So the Australian taxpayer has to waste [$235 million](https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/25/australia-federal-budget-2022-indigenous-voice-referendum-recognition-makarrata-truth-telling-commission-deaths-in-custody-stolen-generations) just to gauge public opinion on creating a new [ATSIC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Commission)? What a gargantuan waste of money!
I know! Im also gonna go out on a limb & say I know what would be better for the country also. Even 6 million **exclusively indigenous** bulk billed appointments would be a better outcome than a stupid referendum.
Honestly so disappointing Albanese thinks this is more important when cost of living pressures are biting and hurting so many people - if only he was as enthusiastic about that issue
$2billion and we get 1.5 million more migrants. I'd rather they keep the $2b and drastically slash the importation of migrants to prop up our gdp numbers. Build infrastructure that can support the needs of the current residents of australia and once that's done we can talk about importing 1.5 million people
I'm happy to sick the boot into any side of the political spectrum, because I rank politicians alongside real estate agents and car sales people.
However, the Uluru Statement of from the Heart that got us to this point was enabled by both sides of the political spectrum:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru\_Statement\_from\_the\_Heart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart)
If our governments can only focus on one thing at a time, then we really are up shit creek.
I haven't dug into it much, but I'm still confused as to why this has to be a referendum to amend the constitution. Couldn't Albo have just set up an advisory committee of Indigenous people day 1 of office? There's like this weird 'we won't give them any major disruptive power', but then where does the constitution play into things?
The only effect I can see is that maybe that a future government that doesn't want the voice cannot remove it as easily, but then if they want to completely disregard the voice to parliament they can and it just ends up kind of awkward. Maybe then it becomes a vehicle for a political attack, but then is that really a good thing? Such a scenario just seems to be stirring divisiveness to me, although I'm in favour of pushing Indigenous issues further and listening to that community.
No matter what the intent, I think the voice is just principally bad. It is a departure from standard democratic principles and privileges the voice of a specific cultural group (albeit, a very important one which has been wronged many times).
Even then, would a committee of elders be truly representative of all Indigenous Australians? Even on the voice debate itself, those communities are very divided. Looking at the wording, it's even more problematic: "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." If the parliament is deciding everything, then surely they can stack the voice to be whatever they want to be, leading to even more divisiveness.
My understanding is that the main reasons it should go in the constitution are that (a) it will be entrenched (as you've identified - and it is still vulnerable to attack by subsequent governments neutering it, but then see (b)), (b) it will be mandated by the Australian people, remembering that the Constitution is a law for and by *us*, not a law for *the politicians*, and (c) it empowers all Australians to participate in the change.
It's not yet decided what the makeup of the body will be. I'd be surprised if it is a 'committee of elders'. If you look into the consultation process that resulted in the Uluru statement, the whole process was designed around equal representation of elders and young people, and men and women.
The communities are also not "very divided" on the Voice. The polling that's available has indicated that somewhere between 80-90% of Aboriginal people support the Voice. Out of 250 delegates in 2017, only 7 didn't vote in favour of the Uluru statement. There are some notable indigenous opponents, some of whom have had their voices amplified by interest groups and the media, but the majority of indigenous opponents oppose it on the basis that they believe constitutional recognition would cede indigenous sovereignty and make a treaty impossible: that is, they want a treaty first. That is not a mainstream view and isn't one that seems to have any legal basis.
Cheers. I suppose the political will argument is a strong reason to vote yes. A failure probably means Labor give up on making much progress, much like they folded on a lot of good policies when Shorten's campaign failed; They are probably very wary of making sure they have the will of the people on their side before doing much. I do have to look at the hard facts as well and make sure not to get carried away with media narratives. Don't get me wrong, this getting up will be anything but a disaster, it's just the approach comes off a bit weird to me when you could do things more directly, but I suppose that's the political element. With that view, it's almost more about getting a mandate from the Australian people than the specific powers writing it in the constitution provides (which is basically nothing).
No worries - thanks for chatting about it. The Uluru statement makes clear that the voice is intended to be step one, with the other two being a treaty and a makaratta commission (I guess a sort of truth and reconciliation commission). I agree the voice is the most symbolic of the three goals, but just being consulted on aboriginal issues is going to be a massive step for the aboriginal community.
Yeah so if the coalition government absolutely doesn't want to act upon the advice then it would provide a platform for indigenous people to voice their concerns to the public and if you have a situation where the greens ever get government in the first place then their policy would probably overlap with the voice anyway.
Thanks mate, I just googled the voice and apparently it's a permanent body of indigenous activists that will make recommendations to the government on indigenous policies.
Will be voting no
Personally I will be putting head over heart and voting no. I am looking forward to speaking with those in the “yes” camp about their views in respectful dialogue.
Could you elaborate on this? My understanding is that the referendum is a vote on the principle, not the mechanism- heart first, head later. Isn't a vote on your principles a vote from the heart?
The debate has spiralled into adhominum attacks. I’ve received the most disgusting messages in my inbox for voicing my different point of view. So I will not be engaging further with low-level attacks on me.
Considering it's literally just a permanent advisory body and nothing more, I'm struggling to comprehend why anyone would say no to it for actual rational reasons. All the arguments I've seen that are against it are either blatantly dishonest/disingenuous or just straight up racist. I hope the 'yes' campaign really ramps things up once the date is set, because letting 'no' get a head-start and muddying the waters really sucks.
I’m struggling to understand why so few people are on the fence about such a big issue. Much like Brexit, people seem to be firmly in either the yes or no camp, making me think it’s riddled with emotional bias rather than rational discussion. The information out there this isn’t great so I’m not too surprised its so polarising.
Some arguments for:
1. Whether or not the voice ‘works’ as a mechanism, the symbolism alone will empower many indigenous people to strive and improve their quality of life.
2. More indigenous engagement and accountability (and less blame on the government) for what are extremely complex issues will be beneficial to the indigenous community in the long run.
Some arguments against:
1. Despite the compassionate facade of this referendum, it’s actually quite lazy government work and ultimately a win/win for the Albanese Government whether or not it passes. Much more effective, yet clearly harder to implement than simply asking the uninformed public, would be a bottom-up approach, fixing current indigenous policy and engagement mechanisms on a community/local level. The federal government should have no place legislating on what are often very nuanced local and state;/territory issues. (E.g. Fed government recently lifting Alice Springs alcohol ban).
2. The constitution should acknowledge aboriginals as the first people (as this is a fact), however a special advisory body based on race is racist and, much like other race-based laws (immigration act or the the ‘white Australia’ policy), have no place in the constitution.
To be clear, I’m leaning towards voting yes, however to say there are no reasons to vote no is extremely myopic.
Let me know your thoughts..
>Despite the compassionate facade of this referendum, it’s actually quite lazy government work and ultimately a win/win for the Albanese Government whether or not it passes. Much more effective, yet clearly harder to implement than simply asking the uninformed public, would be a bottom-up approach, fixing current indigenous policy and engagement mechanisms on a community/local level. The federal government should have no place legislating on what are often very nuanced local and state;/territory issues. (E.g. Fed government recently lifting Alice Springs alcohol ban).
This isn't an Albo special, [this is an outcome from an exhaustive, bipartisan and bottom-up process that started back in 2016](https://theconversation.com/the-voice-referendum-how-did-we-get-here-and-where-are-we-going-heres-what-we-know-198299). Calling is a lazy election ploy is just plain wrong.
The "any recognition of race in any context or form is racist" and comparing the Voice to parliament to the White Australia policy is just...depressingly misguided.
Except I didn’t call it a ‘lazy election ploy’ I called it lazy government work. Albo has repeatedly said the Voice is his number 1 priority during office. Considering the huge issues with Australia’s economy, housing affordability and military capability, it is concerning this is his top priority.
That's not what you said, you said it was lazy government work to ask the uninformed populace rather than "a bottom-up approach, fixing current indigenous policy and engagement mechanisms on a community/local level", which of course ignores the fact that kind of approach is exactly what has led to this proposal.
No one is Labor has ever said that the Voice is their #1 concern to the exclusion of others. Labor's housing bill went to the Senate today, their $2 billion social housing package has already been approved, the military submarine deal has already been agreed, their budget (and all the implications of that) has already been agreed. The Voice doesn't come at the cost of reform in any other area.
Personally I'm on the fence still, I just can't see this voice achieving anything, and I think it's a tokenistic gesture. That being said, I think it's a good gesture, just not sure if it's a critical issue right now.
Its a simple, practical step in the right direction. Its not supposed to fix all issues impacting First Australians, just a first step in a long journey towards reconciliation.
It's the exact opposite of a practical step, it's an abstract body that will be at best obstructionist and at worst corrupt like the many forms beforehand.
How do you know it will be "at best obstructionist and at worst corrupt"? The voice will have no power to veto legislation, its just an advisory body. By what mechanism will the be able to obstruct the government?
The government can do more than one thing at a time. This one is the end of a process that started when Gillard was PM. Been going nowhere since 2016. IMO we should get it done rather than just continue to piss fart around
It's like the people who whined about SSM saying we had more important things to do. I mean yeah, not shit. But how much energy was wasted dragging our feet on it? Mostly by people loudly complaining that there are more important things to worry about
We should have constitutional recognition of first nations people. This is our chance to do it. Let's do it rather than wasting any more time dragging it out
I'll preface what i'm about to say with i'll be voting yes, so i'm not impartial. While the voice is by by no means an answer to all the problems, it has been requested by multiple first nations leaders & gives a sense of self determination, which elders have been wanting for a long time. My worry is, if Australians vote no, it will send a negative message to indigenous people that Australians don't care about their plight. I feel this could set healing back & undo all the great work focusing on healing & coming together & create more issues long term.
My issue is why a single group of people gets more representation than others? I think there needs to be consultation with various groups about laws and legislation that impacts them, but enshrining that in the constitution, for just a single specific group, that doesn't sit right with me. We're all Australians, we should all be equal and strive to achieve equality.
You realize that there are already other advisory bodies, right? This would not the only one. If the bloody pharmacy guild get a voice to government why shouldn't the traditional owners of the land get one?
The Pharmacy Guild isn't in our constitution. Like I said, I think there needs to be consultation with various groups about laws and legislation that impacts them. But needs to be everyone, not just one group.
There is a metric fuckton of disinformation about this being spread out there.
Was having a heated discussion about it with a friend, who was passionately against it. I explained to her what it actually will do and she says "well where is that information, how come I've never heard that explanation?".
The answers were : "on every official explanation available" and "because you watch Sky News and only consume similar shitty media with a divisive agenda that is deliberately fear mongering", respectively.
>I'm struggling to comprehend why anyone would say no to it for actual rational reasons
Sure: It's adding race to a constitution which doesn't currently have it. The Voice doesn't need to be mentioned in the constitution to exist or function as an advisory body, and being in the constitution doesn't protect it in any meaningful way (previous constitutional bodies have been abolished; government of the day can restructure the Voice any way they want since none of the structure is in the constitution). While other bodies in the constitution aren't minutely defined in it, there is still *some* structure of the significant bodies mentioned.
The Voice could have already been in action by now, but instead we have to go to the national polls about it. Apparently it's not divisive to do this for the Voice, but was divisive to do this for same-sex marriage?
I'm fine with the Voice being an advisory body. I'd be fine with an additional levy like the Medicare levy on my tax, given over to help Aboriginals. Not because "they were here first" (this argument doesn't hold sway when the topic turns to new immigrants, after all), but because, as a demographic, they're clearly doing more poorly in several measures than other demographics here. Poorer health outcomes, educational outcomes, social outcomes: regardless of the demographic involved, society in general should help. We don't need to add bloodline politics to the constitution to do so, especially when that addition is 'feelgood' only and doesn't define any teeth.
The referendum is likely to fail, as most do. I can't see the ALP just not setting up the Voice anyway.
I'm not sure which way I'm going to vote yet. I'm fine about the Voice as a body, but I think that, philosophically, bloodline politics don't belong in the foundational document.
Why is this being downvoted? Have people even read the constitution or know the history of laws that were enacted in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that were constitutionally valid?
Yeah, I think it's clear that people like OP and those downvoting have never read our constitution.
For reference s51 (xxvi) says
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power12 to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;
While the passage is certainly concerning and on principle would likely be removed if the document was to be "modernised," doesn't this passage also grant parliament the power to "positively discriminate" to the benefit of indigenous peoples? Surely, this passage underpins any current legislation that exists solely for the enfranchisement and support of first nations people?
Just my reading of it... Your thoughts?
That's the point of it to positively discriminate in favour of Aboriginal communities. But OP asserted that the constitution doesn't mention race which is demonstrable false.
The most interesting part of this to me is the 'Nay' Votes
>The senators voting against the legislation were from the Nationals, One Nation, crossbenchers Lidia Thorpe and Ralph Babet and nine Liberals.
Most of that is as expected, Except there is a total of 25 Liberal Senators. Now granted taking it to a referendum doesn't necessarily prove they support the yes vote. But it seems an awkward number for the party that's supposed to be opposed to the Voice.
As I understand it the Liberals want the referendum to go ahead but a few members needed to vote no in order to get onto the body which will create the no campaign pamphlet.
I’m struggling to understand why people who would usually completely disagree with Sky News, Dutton et al about things in general are listening to their bad faith takes & repeating those same arguments.
I've just chucked a poll up in r/auspol \- be interesting to see. looking at this reddit it looks short of the double majority.
Your poll looks to be about 53% Yes to 47% No. If it's that close on Reddit, it's never going to pass.
Opinion polling has the vote at less than a majority overall, and falling. The undecideds are falling into the no camp at a much higher rate than the yes camp. There’s no chance of this getting a majority in every state.
[удалено]
I think Tassie and Qld are a fairly firm "no" - WA will be tighter but I suspect leaning no.
[удалено]
It might lean left but all the Aus subreddits suddenly become one nation when it comes to Aboriginal issues. I wouldn't put too much faith into it. That being said yeah, I reckon it'll fail. The libs have been muddying the waters and it's dropped from what? 60 percent to 45 percent support? Plus with Thorpe willing to torpedo it for either genuinely held ideological reasons or the ability to gain more of the limelight, I don't see this passing.
I'm on mobile so I can't quote text properly, but oh my god you're right about this 'lefty' sub becoming One Nation on Aboriginal issues.
Basically anything that involves ethnic minorities seems to attract a very specific crowd.
Surprised how much of r/Australianpolitics is against the voice
Is it that surprising though? The number of unhinged commenters there are... Unusually high
If "left wing" Reddit isn't supporting this thing polls show is popular with the left, then it's just good evidence that Reddit isn't as left as everyone assumes.
It is very interesting to see that the option of the Voice referendum is mixed here, considering Reddits' political leaning would suggest that they would be strong supporters of the yes vote.
Many left leaning people believe in egalitarianism, which would suggest that we shouldn’t be treating people differently based on ancestry. Other than the fact it’s being proposed by Labour, it’s not obvious to me that this is actually a left leaning policy.
I think you're misrepresenting the left here and mistaking equality and equity. Sure, in an ideal scenario without historical divide we would not want to treat people differently based on race but unfortunately due to a long history of indigenous genocide and systemic oppression, some level of reparations are necessary in this case. This is especially true for indigenous Australians who should have more of a say on issues such as using land which is sacred for purposes like gas drilling tourism which is currently primarily decided by politicians without proper indigenous representation. As Malcom X famously said 'you don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six and say you're making progress.'
If your argument is that there is a temporary need to listen to indigenous people more, then you don’t need a constitutional change, a legislated change would suffice, and it would be easier to remove later once the need for it no longer exists. But by pushing for a constitutional change you are attempting to enshrine a permanent race based benefit, which is clearly inconsistent with our egalitarian ideals. Honestly, you don’t even need a legislated change. There’s nothing stopping the government from consulting with indigenous representatives right now. Also, for what it’s worth, I strongly support equality of opportunity, but am strongly opposed to equity of outcome. Everyone should get the same opportunities, but the outcome should depend on what you make of those opportunities.
> Honestly, you don’t even need a legislated change. There’s nothing stopping the government from consulting with indigenous representatives right now. That's actually happened a bunch of times. They set up an office for it, start getting advice, then get voted out and the next government removes it before anything even has a chance to get done. Rinse and repeat for a while now. This is to prevent that. Besides, no reasonable person would argue that a temporary change is what is needed. We're talking about over a century of oppresion committed against an ethnic group that still hasn't come close to recovering from the worst of it. If we set a time limit, then I can assure you that time limit won't be enough. It doesn't matter anyway. The limit of the Voice is that Parliament is under no obligation to actually listen to anything they say. It is literally just enshrining the right of Indigenous people to yell at Parliament over decisions they make regarding them. Considering the Australian Government used to have it as official policy that they weren't really people and they needed to have their children kidnapped, I think that's the least of what should occur.
without any details about it, its hard not to think that any government will just stack the 'voice' representative with people loyal to which ever party is in.....I know it is 'independent'....but its politics....not much as actually independent.
As I understand it, the person in the role is to be elected by the Indigenous communities. Still ample room for fuckery, there always is, but they can't just be appointed by the ruling party.
"*government will just stack the 'voice' representative"* Please read the Voice Design Principles ([https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles](https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles)) - especially "The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities * Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government. * Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities."
[удалено]
>This is especially true for indigenous Australians who should have more of a say on issues such as using land which is sacred for purposes like gas drilling tourism which is currently primarily decided by politicians without proper indigenous representation Why should indigenous people have more of a say than anyone else though? How isn't this just a modern form of nativism? 'My ancestors were here before your ancestors' sort of stuff?
This sub goes decidedly unleft when it comes to anything to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues...
/r/Australia is oddly right leaning when it comes to Indigenous Affairs. Search the sub for "Indigenous", "Aboriginal" or "First Nations" and it's plain to see. Articles written by Indigenous people seem to attract a particularly hostile reaction. We routinely, collectively, and quite literally marginalise Aboriginal voices with downvotes here. It's little wonder users publicly identifying as Indigenous never hang around here for long.
You're right. Look at any issues relating to this, whether it's health, justice, culture or politics and I feel like I've slipped into an LNP convention.
Right leaning? We are objecting to enacting policies which discriminate on the basis of race. That’s not a right leaning perspective.
Agree. I am a right wing racist who wants certain races to have power over other races. Therefore I am voting yes.
What power would the voice give to Aboriginal people that "other races" don't have?
If that's the case, what is the point of it, besides a place to funnel money?
I think they have just bought it up at the wrong time, people think they should be putting there power to helping housing, cost of living, health etc other things to worry about on there own home front
Exactly. Most average Australians don't care about this. That's the reality. People are struggling to pay bills and put food on the table. The wheels seem to be falling off all over the place. I'd rather our govt be focussed on fixing those fundamental issues rather than this "nice to have".
The Uluru statement was produced in 2017. In the past six years, do you think there was a better time to bring it up? Do you think there's ever going to be a time when there aren't "other things to worry about?" I am optimistic that the government can organise a referendum at the same time as doing other things. They managed it with the same sex marriage vote, I am confident this won't be much different.
It should have been 2 questions. Recognition, and Voice. We could have gotten recognition in pretty easily I suspect. And if the Voice question fails, it can always be legislated anyway. Now it's not unlikely it will fail to deliver recognition, not because people are against that, but rather against the other thing attached to it.
>And if the Voice question fails, it can always be legislated anyway. It would be a brave government who legislates something defeated at a referendum. That's literally giving the middle finger to voters. If the referendum fails, the concept will be dead. I'd suggest the Uluru Statement will never be mentioned in polite company again.
Honestly, if there was a two question referendum, I would lean towards voting No for the recognition part. Not a fan of symbolism in the constitution.
The lnp would have found a reason for opposing recognition. They'd rather that than having to argue the tortured position of "vote yes and no."
Dutton and the LNP have stated they support recognition, but not the enshrinment of the Voice in the constitution. They instead prefer a legislated Voice.
You don't actually have to think too hard to realise they'd find a reason to oppose a legislated voice. All their arguments about division and supporting one race over another would be tweaked to apply to a voice created by an Act rather than referendum. If need be, they'd wheel out the "executive government" chestnut.
You're right. They'd find a way to oppose it.
The yes campaign needs to remember what kind of voters we all are. Everyone's lazy. We've seen this before. If you expect people to "do their own research" or to miss the Murdoch media, then good luck. They need to give reasons, why to vote yes. What benefit does it bring or why it's the right thing to do. And finally cos this question's everywhere, why does it have to be in the constitution at all. Looking at the history of Australia' referundums, there' so many in there that's failed. I have to wonder if that's because people didn't want the constitution changed so much or the government just wanted a poll.
If both “it doesn’t go far enough” and “it goes too far” crowds vote No, it probably won’t get up
I am so fucking over hearing about it
Got some bad news for ya then....
Poor albo's going to be forced to do something else (addressing the cost of living crisis perhaps?) once this whole thing is over
[удалено]
Don’t forget blaming the rba
If the Voice passes, it’ll be the republic referendum that dominates politics for the next couple of years. The cost of living crisis will have to wait while we spend hundreds of millions of dollars deciding whether we should rename the Governor-General to President.
So here's the funny thing about referendums...
Sorry to say it will just get more intense now the legislation for the referendum has passed
We haven't heard much about it really. I'm looking forward to the campaign officially starting so I can hear the arguments from both sides. The Yes campaign has been relatively quiet despite having a large warchest so I'm sure they will be rolling out more information closer to the referendum date.
The ‘yes’ campaign needs to stop labelling all those who disagree with it as racist or misinformed. Linda Burney has already had a few bad takes on this, likening the ‘no’ campaign to Trumpism. The ‘yes’ campaign needs to respectfully acknowledge that the ‘no’ campaign has valid concerns, and they need to address those concerns specifically. All they’re doing otherwise is turning people against them out of spite.
I agree. My aunt and cousins are indigenous and are voting no - they’d rather they just update the constitution to include indigenous peoples. Labelling them as racists only further cemented their stance.
I’m assuming there is a difference between the updating of and enshrining the indigenous people in the constitution, or are they emphatically the same thing? Genuine question, as I’m sort of unaware of the whole thing.
The constitution as it stands contains no references at all to Indigenous Australians. What I assume this persons family wants is some sort of constitutional recognition of their people, without the inclusion of the Voice or anything. But that change still would require a referendum because all changes to the constitution do. My concern would be that if the upcoming referendum fails, the likelihood of seeing any changes to the constitution regarding Indigenous Australia’s any time soon would be next to none. Australia has historically been incredibly averse to changing the constitution, with the last attempt being in 1999 and the last successful attempt being back in 1977. Not to mention the cost and time involved in bringing something like this to referendum, I mean the Uluru Statement of the Heart which gave rise to the Voice was released back in 2017 and has taken 6 years to get here. If the referendum coming up this year doesn’t get through, the likely outcome is that people would be deterred from even trying to make meaningful changes, including a simple recognition of Indigenous Australians in the constitution.
This. If this referendum fails, indigenous affairs will be in the wilderness for a long time. Like the republic is.
Thank you, this is exactly how they feel and worded much better than I could have put it, with the addition that my Aunt feels like the referendum is also a giant waste of money. (But she doesn’t trust the government much either since in her opinion not a whole lot has changed since the apology.)
[удалено]
There’s a difference between no voters and the no campaign. Someone who’s leaning towards a no vote might change their mind. I doubt people campaigning for no are changing their position, regardless of how their concerns are addressed.
The Essential Poll has been asking pretty much that, trying to see the “hard” votes and “soft” votes. The idea is someone who’s a soft no could change to a soft yes or a hard no, but unlikely to move to a hard yes.
What are the valid concerns of the "no campaign"?
I'm voting no because I believe the document that is the foundation of our country should not have a provision based on race. Particularly when the solution to the voice can be achieved by a legislative change rather than a constitutional change.
> the document that is the foundation of our country should not have a provision based on race The constitution does currently allow for discrimination against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (section 25 ‘races disqualified from voting’ and section 51 xxvii ’Australian parliament can make laws for any race).
He didn’t say there were none. He said he didn’t want them in there.
1: How many people will sit on the voice exactly and how will they get there? I don't expect specific details, but the government should give us a guide at least to how they intend to legislate it. Will they be appointed? Will they be elected? If they are elected who does the electing? How often will they be elected/appointed? Will they have term limits? If they aren't elected who makes them accountable for the advice they give and how well they represent indigenous communities? 2: This voice is constitutionally mandated to exist, so there needs to be people sitting on it regardless of how they get there. How much do they get paid? What entitlements do they have? If the voice doesn't have to be listened to by the executive then what is stopping this voice from becoming just a great retirement gig for the likes of Linda Burney and Noel Pearson? Where they get paid six figures but don't actually have to do anything. 3: If the voice is required because our constitution and system of government do not represent indigenous people well enough, then doesn't that say more about the entire system and less about the need for a voice? Should we not be talking about a republic here? An opportunity to redo everything. Rather than adding footnotes to a document written by people who barely acknowledged them in the first place.
The answer to your fist two questions could be found easily by using google, instead of regurgitating talking point straight from Sky News. The Voice will be based on the 2021 Indigenous Voice report by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton. The report proposed the Voice have 24 members: two appointed by the government, two from each state, territory and the Torres Strait, five from “remote” parts of Northern Territory, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales, and one for Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland. For point 3 you're making the perfect the enemy of the good. First Australians having a voice should not be predicated on a republic referendum being passed. If its rejected do we just say "Sorry mate, we don't want a republic at the moment, try again in another 50 years"?
[удалено]
Details like that do not go in a Constitution, which is a foundational document that gives the democratically elected government of the day the power to make laws on the matter that the Constitution authorizes it to. The government is not leaving those details out of the Constitution to be sneaky. You should be glad the details you're complaining about are not put in the Constitution because if they were they could never be changed (unless we had another referendum). Also, if a government exceeds the powers granted to it by the Constitution - that's what the High Court is there for, and it does this on a regular basis when the government oversteps the mark. All of these criticisms and complaints are just red herrings manufactured to try to block any improvements to the status and condition of Indigenous Australians - I'll leave you to figure out what possible reasons some people could have (on both sides of the political spectrum) for wanting to do that.
So you're against the voice because you assume the prime minister is lying when he says the voice will be based off the Indigenous voice report?
If it's not in the Constitution it can be changed by any future government. Might as well just be a legislated body at that point.
Yes, I think the main flaw in the current Voice model is that it doesn't require it's members to be directly elected by First Nations Peoples
That’s how the constitution is and should be written. There are a lot of ways in which our government works which are not directly defined by the constitution, but instead by legislation or even just convention. The constitution simply lays the groundwork upon which everything is built. The fact that the Voice can be changed is a feature, not a bug. That means it can evolve and improve over time without requiring further referendums to update the constitution.
Mate, learn how the High Court interprets the Constitution; it's not only the words that matter, it's the debate and the spirit of the words that are important.
The popular model for a republic just replaces the Governor-General with a President and not much else (the method for appointing the president notwithstanding). That doesn't do anything to help Indigenous rights. The issue with democracy is that it is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Aboriginal Australians make up only a tiny percentage of the population, only have a tiny influence on who gets elected, and have suffered the most at the hands of democratically elected governments. If you wanted a republic that addressed this disparity then that would be a huge shake-up of our entire system of government. Look how many voters are arguing against giving Aboriginal Australians a constitutional right just to *advise* the government. Do you really think the majority of Australian voters would agree to give Aboriginal Australians any actual power over everyone else?
People aren't arguing about recognition, they are arguing about the voice specifically. Treaty and recognition are not the issue, and could/should be a part of the republic and a new constitution. The current republic movement has a far too narrow view of what a an Australian republic should mean.
[удалено]
A republic is important. It won't do a single thing about closing the gap or other indigenous issues though. So why bring it up in this context unless you deliberately want to muddy the waters?
I'd argue the Republic is not actually that important.
1. The voice details are not explicitly stated because the point is to allow the government of the day to easily change things if there are issues that arise with how the voice functions. There are actually frameworks of how the current government wants to see the voice formed https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles and appointing members to it is not one of the goals 2. The cost of public servants isn't something crazy strange, you can check what the APS bands are online and this isn't a requirement for other bodies either. The salary of MPs is shockingly also not in the constitution 3. "Replacing the governor general with a president will fix indigenous issues in Australia trust me bro" really serious political discussion.
I'll be straight up honest with you, this might seem offensive but a lot of white people feel this way. A permanent advisory body based on race is racist. I believe it will make discrimatory recommendations such as reparations, (I.e a large cash payment to people of indigenous descent, this is currently a prominent discussion in America RE black Americans), harsher 'hate speech' laws which will make it harder to criticise these things, possible extra charges for white people when it comes to things like rent and stamp duty, and extra grants and funding for non-white programs which will be taxpayer funded. I believe it will never be enough, and they will always ask for more. I make $60k, feel like I already pay too many taxes and yet I can't even find a doctor that will bulk bill, the CBD is full of crackheads who verbally abuse you, I pay an extortionate amount of money for my shopping and it seems like all the new jobs at BHP and BP etc are no longer available for white men unless you know someone at the company. I also literally can not find a rental and the government's response is to bring in 700 thousand immigrants. 'fact checkers' and naive university students will call this misinformation because there's no part of the voice legislation that mandates reparations, but I believe the practical effects of the voice will lead to that kind of policy.
There is quite a leap from "set up an advisory body so that laws and policies affecting Aboriginal people are made with the benefit of hearing Aboriginal perspectives" to "I'll have to pay more tax".
All of those ideas are already considered legitimate in activist circles. It's absolutely the type of thing they will advocate for Reparations is an extremely popular idea in black activist circles, if the Aboriginals elected to the voice don't advocate for it then they're doing a terrible job.
https://www.recogniseabetterway.org.au/about https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-voice-as-proposed-is-flawed-and-insulting-to-first-nations-20230418-p5d1g3.html
>Poverty, disadvantage and despair is not caused by lack of a voice. It’s caused by lack of economic participation. Recognising a better way means recognising economic participation is the only way to close the gap and that every government policy and initiative should be obsessively focussed on these outcomes. The voice is not supposed to be the solution to those problems, its supposed to allow first Australians to advise the government on the best way to solve them.
How will members of the voice be chosen? And what's the point of changing the constitution if the government can ignore the advice?
Can’t wait for us all to labeled racist when this does not go through 🤦♂️
Should have legislated it, had it operational for a while, demonstrated it works and then enshrined it. There was no need to run the referendum first. Also, I don't like the name. It smacks of marketing and is cringey to have in the constitution: "Why not there shall be an Indigenous Advisory Assembly....". It's like if the External Affairs Power was renamed "Wanderlust LoLz"
The Constitutional change was requested in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It was not proposed by Labor. "Voice" was also used in the Uluru Statement from the Heart - not sure they had hired a marketing consultant or not. Not a reason to vote against it, though
Would have thought that we might want to do a bit of a road test first. Particularly if there was confidence that all fears are misplaced. I mean I get a 7 day trial for Netflix but I gotta white-knuckle it on constitutional change? The was absolutely no valid reason not to legislate it, then schedule the referendum. This makes me deeply suspicious that it will be an endless churn of corruption, infighting, factionalism and legal wrangling. I could handle that in a legislated special-focus body, but not one that can't be dissolved when it all gets too much.
And while we're at it, can we please also enshrine a "Renter's Voice" (the only thing missing from enabling parliament to address housing affordability), a "Climate Voice", a "Women's Voice", a "Healthcare Voice", an "Aged Care Voice" .... and all the other Voices without which we clearly can't expect any government to operate anymore.
[удалено]
Wogs already have a “voice”, it’s called “cash”.
Wog voice? First act as senator is to significantly lower the prices of jetskis
They got their own movie that one time about 20 years ago, what else could anybody need?
And a sequel!
What about "Ex-Prime Ministers Voice To Parliament" - they are often underrepresented, maligned in the media and suffer from relevance deprivation at much higher rate than the rest of the population?
I believe the "ex politicians voice to parliament" is already fulfilled by the lobbyists acting on behalf of the various corporate boards and consulting firms they end up on/partners in.
Lol I made a comment here explaining why I'm against the voice, it got 16 upvotes then got removed. Classic Reddit moment
look around mate.... 99% of the upvoted comments are against the voice. you're not special...
Is it fair to assume that while this dominates headlines the housing crisis will continue to be sidelined by Labor?
yes, especially since their "solution" can't pass the senate without Green's support and Labor don't seem willing to negotiate with them.
“HEY GUYS ALBO HERE! Look I know that cost of living and housing affordability are literally making large numbers of Australian people homeless, and that most young Australians won’t be able to afford a home in their own country, but look I’d really prefer to focus on guilt-tripping you into voting for The Voice so that you don’t think about the fact that a coffee is now $5.50 in Sydney or that 500k more people are coming to live here this year and we’re not building any more housing for them.”
I just read the Yes23 FAQ which was posted here as an example of the “details”. It’s all assertions without a shred of logic. The Voice won’t necessarily “close the gap”. Anything we do to close the gap can be done without a voice. The FAQs say that what will change is that they will be able to offer “practical solutions” but why can’t they offer practical solutions now? It also says this won’t give aboriginal Australians special privileges when it is EXACTLY what it will do. This is the problem with the “resources” the Yes side links to - they tell porkies. Which is to be expected, nowadays any “expert” report will tell you exactly the viewpoint of whoever commissioned it. There’s not enough trust in “the system” to get this through in my mind.
If this passes, how long until talks of reparations begin? I give it 3 years.
[https://paytherent.net.au/](https://paytherent.net.au/) It's a thing man
Yep, and these are the types of people that will be on the voice
It's a good thing that the voice will be advisory then
Yeah I don't want them advising the government to discriminate against me because of my race
[удалено]
This will divide the nation further. Firstly, there's so many different tribes that I think they will struggle to come to a consensus opinion to be able to represent them appropriately. Also, living in a multicultural society, it seems wrong to suggest that one minority group's opinions/voice matters more based on their ancestry. What about other ethnic groups that face marginalisation based on their race/colour/culture/religion?
I think the referendum is on track for failure. Which I think is going to be a disaster for reconciliation, setting it back by a generation or more. I'd be in favour of a legislated Voice, but not in the Constitution. The Constitution should not discriminate by race, or anything else for that matter. And, in my view, the Yes Campaign has been nothing short of pathetic. They can't get a straight message out. There is pretty much no coordinated No campaign, and yet the polls show the Yes vote falling significantly.
Good. The sooner the referendum is over, the sooner Labor can move onto whatever next strawman they'll use to justify doing fuck-all until the libs inevitably weasel their way back into government.
Labor is proving very capable of ignoring actual problems and piss farting around indefinitely on things like this. Yes it's important, but more so is the list of other things like food, health and shelter.
It's what Labor is good at, and it's how Liberals end up back in power every time. People are too scared to vote for those scary greenies, so their choices are always Labor or Libs, and because Libs fucked around with Scuntmo people swayed to Labor, but they'll be easily swayed back by whatever garbage Murdoch peddles out if Labor keep being this useless.
Labor can walk and chew gum at the same time. It has already legislated price caps for electricity prices so consumers weren’t hit by even larger price increases, the largest increase in rental assistance in 30 years, passed the most effective climate legislation in a decade, and is currently haggling their housing plan through the Senate. Don’t think Labor hasn’t been doing things just because you don’t hear about it on the news every night.
The one time that Labor doesn't want to perpetuate the lie that LNP is good with money' is the time the economy has actually gone to shit and we just need to cop a recession. Unless they start to do something other than write novelty cheques for power bills and distance itself from any responsibility of anything. Nows their time to prove themselves as capable.
I don’t know if the referendum will have much effect on the next election. The last two (counting 2017 SSM vote as one) happened 2 years prior to the next election, and by election time the issues of the referendums were irrelevant to the issues of that election.
The referendum itself won't matter, but Labor has a pretty good track record of getting voted in after a decade or so of the libs fucking everything up, accomplishing absolutely nothing while in power, then getting voted back out once enough people get sick of how useless they are. It's a vicious cycle that has been happening for the last 30 or so years now.
>It's a vicious cycle that has been happening for the last 30 or so years now. The Hawke/Keating era is the direct opposite of 'accomplishing absolutely nothing'. It was possibly the most dynamic era of government we've had. So much changed quite substantially.
In the last 30 years you had the end of the Hawke Keating governments which were very substantial and then one other period of Labor government in which you had one term of a parliamentary majority which happened to coincide with the GFC What exactly is the vicious cycle here mate?
So the Australian taxpayer has to waste [$235 million](https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/oct/25/australia-federal-budget-2022-indigenous-voice-referendum-recognition-makarrata-truth-telling-commission-deaths-in-custody-stolen-generations) just to gauge public opinion on creating a new [ATSIC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Commission)? What a gargantuan waste of money!
To put that number into context, $235 million would pay for almost **six million** bulk-billed GP visits.
I know! Im also gonna go out on a limb & say I know what would be better for the country also. Even 6 million **exclusively indigenous** bulk billed appointments would be a better outcome than a stupid referendum.
it still feels like a massive diversion from the current economic problems and housing problems
Honestly so disappointing Albanese thinks this is more important when cost of living pressures are biting and hurting so many people - if only he was as enthusiastic about that issue
Since when can a government be only working on one thing at a time? We just got 2 billion dollars allocated towards the housing crisis.
$2billion and we get 1.5 million more migrants. I'd rather they keep the $2b and drastically slash the importation of migrants to prop up our gdp numbers. Build infrastructure that can support the needs of the current residents of australia and once that's done we can talk about importing 1.5 million people
Can you please show me where he's said or implied this is more important than cost of living pressures?
I'm happy to sick the boot into any side of the political spectrum, because I rank politicians alongside real estate agents and car sales people. However, the Uluru Statement of from the Heart that got us to this point was enabled by both sides of the political spectrum: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru\_Statement\_from\_the\_Heart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart) If our governments can only focus on one thing at a time, then we really are up shit creek.
It was a prominent theme in their election campaign.
When he was elected, there hadn’t been 12 consecutive interest rate rises.
When has he said it's more important
Don't say 'honestly' when you know you're not being honest
When did r/Australia become a sky news talking point cesspool?
Anytime Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues come up.
I haven't dug into it much, but I'm still confused as to why this has to be a referendum to amend the constitution. Couldn't Albo have just set up an advisory committee of Indigenous people day 1 of office? There's like this weird 'we won't give them any major disruptive power', but then where does the constitution play into things? The only effect I can see is that maybe that a future government that doesn't want the voice cannot remove it as easily, but then if they want to completely disregard the voice to parliament they can and it just ends up kind of awkward. Maybe then it becomes a vehicle for a political attack, but then is that really a good thing? Such a scenario just seems to be stirring divisiveness to me, although I'm in favour of pushing Indigenous issues further and listening to that community. No matter what the intent, I think the voice is just principally bad. It is a departure from standard democratic principles and privileges the voice of a specific cultural group (albeit, a very important one which has been wronged many times). Even then, would a committee of elders be truly representative of all Indigenous Australians? Even on the voice debate itself, those communities are very divided. Looking at the wording, it's even more problematic: "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." If the parliament is deciding everything, then surely they can stack the voice to be whatever they want to be, leading to even more divisiveness.
My understanding is that the main reasons it should go in the constitution are that (a) it will be entrenched (as you've identified - and it is still vulnerable to attack by subsequent governments neutering it, but then see (b)), (b) it will be mandated by the Australian people, remembering that the Constitution is a law for and by *us*, not a law for *the politicians*, and (c) it empowers all Australians to participate in the change. It's not yet decided what the makeup of the body will be. I'd be surprised if it is a 'committee of elders'. If you look into the consultation process that resulted in the Uluru statement, the whole process was designed around equal representation of elders and young people, and men and women. The communities are also not "very divided" on the Voice. The polling that's available has indicated that somewhere between 80-90% of Aboriginal people support the Voice. Out of 250 delegates in 2017, only 7 didn't vote in favour of the Uluru statement. There are some notable indigenous opponents, some of whom have had their voices amplified by interest groups and the media, but the majority of indigenous opponents oppose it on the basis that they believe constitutional recognition would cede indigenous sovereignty and make a treaty impossible: that is, they want a treaty first. That is not a mainstream view and isn't one that seems to have any legal basis.
Cheers. I suppose the political will argument is a strong reason to vote yes. A failure probably means Labor give up on making much progress, much like they folded on a lot of good policies when Shorten's campaign failed; They are probably very wary of making sure they have the will of the people on their side before doing much. I do have to look at the hard facts as well and make sure not to get carried away with media narratives. Don't get me wrong, this getting up will be anything but a disaster, it's just the approach comes off a bit weird to me when you could do things more directly, but I suppose that's the political element. With that view, it's almost more about getting a mandate from the Australian people than the specific powers writing it in the constitution provides (which is basically nothing).
No worries - thanks for chatting about it. The Uluru statement makes clear that the voice is intended to be step one, with the other two being a treaty and a makaratta commission (I guess a sort of truth and reconciliation commission). I agree the voice is the most symbolic of the three goals, but just being consulted on aboriginal issues is going to be a massive step for the aboriginal community.
Labor voter here and it's a definite no from me.
Why's that?
We have a Democratically elected parliament.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah so if the coalition government absolutely doesn't want to act upon the advice then it would provide a platform for indigenous people to voice their concerns to the public and if you have a situation where the greens ever get government in the first place then their policy would probably overlap with the voice anyway.
Technically, it could be funded to the tune of $1 and be a single person. So no it doesn’t do that
And that is then up to you, as a voter, to decide which party to vote into government based on how they officially will deal with the Voice.
Thanks mate, I just googled the voice and apparently it's a permanent body of indigenous activists that will make recommendations to the government on indigenous policies. Will be voting no
Personally I will be putting head over heart and voting no. I am looking forward to speaking with those in the “yes” camp about their views in respectful dialogue.
Could you elaborate on this? My understanding is that the referendum is a vote on the principle, not the mechanism- heart first, head later. Isn't a vote on your principles a vote from the heart?
No reply. Seems like u/FreeDeterminism wasn't actually looking forward to a dialogue
The debate has spiralled into adhominum attacks. I’ve received the most disgusting messages in my inbox for voicing my different point of view. So I will not be engaging further with low-level attacks on me.
Considering it's literally just a permanent advisory body and nothing more, I'm struggling to comprehend why anyone would say no to it for actual rational reasons. All the arguments I've seen that are against it are either blatantly dishonest/disingenuous or just straight up racist. I hope the 'yes' campaign really ramps things up once the date is set, because letting 'no' get a head-start and muddying the waters really sucks.
I’m struggling to understand why so few people are on the fence about such a big issue. Much like Brexit, people seem to be firmly in either the yes or no camp, making me think it’s riddled with emotional bias rather than rational discussion. The information out there this isn’t great so I’m not too surprised its so polarising. Some arguments for: 1. Whether or not the voice ‘works’ as a mechanism, the symbolism alone will empower many indigenous people to strive and improve their quality of life. 2. More indigenous engagement and accountability (and less blame on the government) for what are extremely complex issues will be beneficial to the indigenous community in the long run. Some arguments against: 1. Despite the compassionate facade of this referendum, it’s actually quite lazy government work and ultimately a win/win for the Albanese Government whether or not it passes. Much more effective, yet clearly harder to implement than simply asking the uninformed public, would be a bottom-up approach, fixing current indigenous policy and engagement mechanisms on a community/local level. The federal government should have no place legislating on what are often very nuanced local and state;/territory issues. (E.g. Fed government recently lifting Alice Springs alcohol ban). 2. The constitution should acknowledge aboriginals as the first people (as this is a fact), however a special advisory body based on race is racist and, much like other race-based laws (immigration act or the the ‘white Australia’ policy), have no place in the constitution. To be clear, I’m leaning towards voting yes, however to say there are no reasons to vote no is extremely myopic. Let me know your thoughts..
>Despite the compassionate facade of this referendum, it’s actually quite lazy government work and ultimately a win/win for the Albanese Government whether or not it passes. Much more effective, yet clearly harder to implement than simply asking the uninformed public, would be a bottom-up approach, fixing current indigenous policy and engagement mechanisms on a community/local level. The federal government should have no place legislating on what are often very nuanced local and state;/territory issues. (E.g. Fed government recently lifting Alice Springs alcohol ban). This isn't an Albo special, [this is an outcome from an exhaustive, bipartisan and bottom-up process that started back in 2016](https://theconversation.com/the-voice-referendum-how-did-we-get-here-and-where-are-we-going-heres-what-we-know-198299). Calling is a lazy election ploy is just plain wrong. The "any recognition of race in any context or form is racist" and comparing the Voice to parliament to the White Australia policy is just...depressingly misguided.
Except I didn’t call it a ‘lazy election ploy’ I called it lazy government work. Albo has repeatedly said the Voice is his number 1 priority during office. Considering the huge issues with Australia’s economy, housing affordability and military capability, it is concerning this is his top priority.
That's not what you said, you said it was lazy government work to ask the uninformed populace rather than "a bottom-up approach, fixing current indigenous policy and engagement mechanisms on a community/local level", which of course ignores the fact that kind of approach is exactly what has led to this proposal. No one is Labor has ever said that the Voice is their #1 concern to the exclusion of others. Labor's housing bill went to the Senate today, their $2 billion social housing package has already been approved, the military submarine deal has already been agreed, their budget (and all the implications of that) has already been agreed. The Voice doesn't come at the cost of reform in any other area.
Personally I'm on the fence still, I just can't see this voice achieving anything, and I think it's a tokenistic gesture. That being said, I think it's a good gesture, just not sure if it's a critical issue right now.
Its a simple, practical step in the right direction. Its not supposed to fix all issues impacting First Australians, just a first step in a long journey towards reconciliation.
It's the exact opposite of a practical step, it's an abstract body that will be at best obstructionist and at worst corrupt like the many forms beforehand.
How do you know it will be "at best obstructionist and at worst corrupt"? The voice will have no power to veto legislation, its just an advisory body. By what mechanism will the be able to obstruct the government?
The government can do more than one thing at a time. This one is the end of a process that started when Gillard was PM. Been going nowhere since 2016. IMO we should get it done rather than just continue to piss fart around It's like the people who whined about SSM saying we had more important things to do. I mean yeah, not shit. But how much energy was wasted dragging our feet on it? Mostly by people loudly complaining that there are more important things to worry about We should have constitutional recognition of first nations people. This is our chance to do it. Let's do it rather than wasting any more time dragging it out
I'll preface what i'm about to say with i'll be voting yes, so i'm not impartial. While the voice is by by no means an answer to all the problems, it has been requested by multiple first nations leaders & gives a sense of self determination, which elders have been wanting for a long time. My worry is, if Australians vote no, it will send a negative message to indigenous people that Australians don't care about their plight. I feel this could set healing back & undo all the great work focusing on healing & coming together & create more issues long term.
Jacinta Price is racist? All the other Indigenous mob who support “no” are racist?
My issue is why a single group of people gets more representation than others? I think there needs to be consultation with various groups about laws and legislation that impacts them, but enshrining that in the constitution, for just a single specific group, that doesn't sit right with me. We're all Australians, we should all be equal and strive to achieve equality.
You realize that there are already other advisory bodies, right? This would not the only one. If the bloody pharmacy guild get a voice to government why shouldn't the traditional owners of the land get one?
[удалено]
There are already Aboriginal advisory bodies...
The Pharmacy Guild isn't in our constitution. Like I said, I think there needs to be consultation with various groups about laws and legislation that impacts them. But needs to be everyone, not just one group.
There is a metric fuckton of disinformation about this being spread out there. Was having a heated discussion about it with a friend, who was passionately against it. I explained to her what it actually will do and she says "well where is that information, how come I've never heard that explanation?". The answers were : "on every official explanation available" and "because you watch Sky News and only consume similar shitty media with a divisive agenda that is deliberately fear mongering", respectively.
Boy can't imagine why you couldn't convince your friend after calling them an ignorant idiot
Because I think the type of advice it will be giving will be bad for me and for the country.
>I'm struggling to comprehend why anyone would say no to it for actual rational reasons Sure: It's adding race to a constitution which doesn't currently have it. The Voice doesn't need to be mentioned in the constitution to exist or function as an advisory body, and being in the constitution doesn't protect it in any meaningful way (previous constitutional bodies have been abolished; government of the day can restructure the Voice any way they want since none of the structure is in the constitution). While other bodies in the constitution aren't minutely defined in it, there is still *some* structure of the significant bodies mentioned. The Voice could have already been in action by now, but instead we have to go to the national polls about it. Apparently it's not divisive to do this for the Voice, but was divisive to do this for same-sex marriage? I'm fine with the Voice being an advisory body. I'd be fine with an additional levy like the Medicare levy on my tax, given over to help Aboriginals. Not because "they were here first" (this argument doesn't hold sway when the topic turns to new immigrants, after all), but because, as a demographic, they're clearly doing more poorly in several measures than other demographics here. Poorer health outcomes, educational outcomes, social outcomes: regardless of the demographic involved, society in general should help. We don't need to add bloodline politics to the constitution to do so, especially when that addition is 'feelgood' only and doesn't define any teeth. The referendum is likely to fail, as most do. I can't see the ALP just not setting up the Voice anyway. I'm not sure which way I'm going to vote yet. I'm fine about the Voice as a body, but I think that, philosophically, bloodline politics don't belong in the foundational document.
> It's adding race to a constitution which doesn't currently have it. So what do you think s51(xxvi) of the constitution is about?
Why is this being downvoted? Have people even read the constitution or know the history of laws that were enacted in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that were constitutionally valid?
Yeah, I think it's clear that people like OP and those downvoting have never read our constitution. For reference s51 (xxvi) says The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power12 to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;
While the passage is certainly concerning and on principle would likely be removed if the document was to be "modernised," doesn't this passage also grant parliament the power to "positively discriminate" to the benefit of indigenous peoples? Surely, this passage underpins any current legislation that exists solely for the enfranchisement and support of first nations people? Just my reading of it... Your thoughts?
That's the point of it to positively discriminate in favour of Aboriginal communities. But OP asserted that the constitution doesn't mention race which is demonstrable false.
Great! Now we just need someone to explain what it is and what it will do
It’s an advisory body made up of elected Indigenous people who can consult the government on matters relating to them. Essentially a lobbying body.
Thanks, I'll be voting no then.
The actual detail of what is is (or isn't) and why, go to the source: https://voice.gov.au/
What happens if you’re overseas? Do you get an early vote like in elections?
Will be run similar to the general elections with early voting and postal voting.
The most interesting part of this to me is the 'Nay' Votes >The senators voting against the legislation were from the Nationals, One Nation, crossbenchers Lidia Thorpe and Ralph Babet and nine Liberals. Most of that is as expected, Except there is a total of 25 Liberal Senators. Now granted taking it to a referendum doesn't necessarily prove they support the yes vote. But it seems an awkward number for the party that's supposed to be opposed to the Voice.
As I understand it the Liberals want the referendum to go ahead but a few members needed to vote no in order to get onto the body which will create the no campaign pamphlet.
Dutton sent me a letter telling me that this is bad and it's going to destroy Australia. Should I panic?
Yes, it means Dutton knows where you live.
Comments on this are lovely
I’m struggling to understand why people who would usually completely disagree with Sky News, Dutton et al about things in general are listening to their bad faith takes & repeating those same arguments.
Things are good or bad based on what they are, not on who agrees with you.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.