Referendum 2023

[Trevros]

I Thought that was fairly straight forward, the question we are being asked to answer YES or NO to is about altering the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Question one should be along the lines of do you agree to a proposal to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia. If this was the question being put, I would say that it would almost certainly achieve a majority YES result.

Question two would then be asking do you agree to a proposal to alter the Constitution by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

This is where the majority of voters will most likely vote NO due to the lack of understanding of how this will actually work and the fear that we will be stuck with it if turns out to be another bloated, unwieldy and inefficient or corrupt money pit as many of these idealistic schemes end up being.

People understand that if this is enshrined in the constitution it becomes almost impossible to undo and by rolling these 2 questions into 1 it is most likely going to be defeated because of the second part of the proposition.

I'm a skeptic by nature and I think it was done to distract us from their mis/dis information bill as well as the importation of more people who we don't need or can handle during a recession aka cost of living crisis. We are simply being regarded as retarded four year olds.

 

[Lauren]

I've noticed confusion around some of the following topics and therefore wanted to share some details surrounding these to help clarify, I've also read up on other aspects. I have added links for verification.
Also, just wanted to give a friendly reminder of all the details around the upcoming referendum.

First though I wanted to touch on any misinformation surrounding the campaign. I feel it's crucial to distinguish what's fact or not, for healthy debate. This enables us to engage in informed and thoughtful conversations.
Amnesty International has compiled a resource to clarify common myths with facts and evidence.
I encourage everyone to read this and other fact checking materials.
Please feel free to post any publications you find.

2023 REFERENDUM 14 OCTOBER 2023 - Recognising Australia's First Peoples

The question

A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?

The question that will be put to voters is whether to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

The Parliament of Australia has agreed to propose adding a new chapter, Chapter IX-Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to the Constitution. The chapter would include a new section 129, which would be as follows:

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;​

iii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;​

iii. 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.​

​

When you receive a ballot paper at the referendum, you should write 'Yes' if you agree with this proposed change to the Constitution, or you should write 'No' if you do not agree.

Interactive YES and NO pamphlets are available on the AEC Website.


The 1967 Referendum and Constitutional Constraints
The 1967 referendum in Australia marked a significant milestone in recognising the rights of Aboriginal people. It successfully removed discriminatory clauses from the Australian Constitution, enabling the federal government to enact laws for the benefit of Indigenous Australians, and garnered public support for Indigenous rights. However, despite its success, certain constitutional constraints persisted, particularly in Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution.

Section 51(xxvi) and Constitutional Constraints:
This exception stipulates that the federal government cannot create laws for Indigenous rights in any state without that state's permission. This constitutional constraint imposes limitations on the federal government's ability to legislate uniformly across all states concerning Indigenous rights.
The Proposed Voice to Parliament:
To address these persistent constitutional constraints, the proposed Voice to Parliament referendum seeks to find a balanced solution. The Voice is designed to operate within the existing constitutional framework, enabling Indigenous perspectives to be expressed at the national level while respecting the autonomy of individual states. This approach aims to reconcile federal and state powers concerning Indigenous issues.

Although, the 1967 referendum was a crucial step forward, it did not completely eliminate all constitutional constraints related to Indigenous rights. The proposed Voice to Parliament seeks to work within these constraints to ensure that Indigenous voices are heard nationally, even in a decentralised system where states have their own legislations

Collaborative Approach
To understand how the Voice and Parliament can collaborate effectively, it's essential to consider relevant constitutional provisions:

1. Section 109 of the Constitution stipulates that when a state law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law prevails, rendering the state law invalid.
2. Any laws required to establish and operate the Voice must align with the areas outlined in Section 51 of the Constitution.
3. In the event of a conflict between new national laws for the Voice and state laws, the national laws for the Voice take precedence and must be followed.

These constitutional sections provide a clear framework for collaboration between the Voice and Parliament to craft policies that effectively address shared challenges faced by diverse communities, such as Child Protection policies.

Understanding Discrimination, Systemic Racism and the Distinction Between Race and Culture
Discrimination refers to the unfair or biased treatment of individuals or groups due to characteristics like race, gender, age, religion, or other factors. It can contribute to the continuation of bias and misconceptions by reinforcing negative stereotypes and maintaining unequal opportunities or treatment, thereby perpetuating and strengthening prejudiced beliefs.
Systemic (or institutionalised) racism: is a pervasive and deeply ingrained form of discrimination that exists within societal structures, institutions, and policies. It involves the systematic disadvantage, exclusion, or mistreatment of certain racial or ethnic groups, often resulting from historical and structural factors. Systemic racism can be observed in areas such as education, employment, housing, criminal justice, and healthcare, where marginalised racial groups face disproportionate challenges and barriers due to these deeply rooted inequities.
Race vs. Culture: Race is a societal concept used to categorise individuals based on physical traits such as skin color, often lacking a biological basis. In contrast, culture encompasses the shared beliefs, traditions, and customs within a social group, emphasising the societal aspect of human identity.

Closing the Gap 2023 Report Summary
The third Closing the Gap Report, released in July 2023, provides a comprehensive assessment of Australia's advancement towards specific targets aimed at bridging disparities and disadvantages among Indigenous Australians. Progressions towards the 15 targets that can be assessed has been limited, with only four on track to be met. Despite this, outcomes are improving for most targets. Of the four targets that are on track, three have had annual improvements close to double what is needed. Moreover, seven of targets that are not on track are nevertheless improving.
However, outcomes are getting worse for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in four target areas. Rates of adult imprisonment, children in out-of-home care, and suicide have all increased, and children’s early development outcomes at the start of school have declined.
Suicide is the 5th leading cause of death for Indigenous Australians.

Historical Context and International Comparisons
The current discussion centres on the proposed Voice to Parliament referendum, which aims to address the historical factors that have led to disparities and inequities within Indigenous communities in Australia. This initiative is part of an ongoing effort to rectify these issues and enhance Indigenous rights and representation. To gain a deeper understanding, I strongly recommend exploring the historical context and reviewing relevant policies, as they are easily accessible on the internet through resources like Wikipedia. This can provide valuable insights into the origins and persistence of these challenges and the vital role of the Voice in addressing them.
Aboriginal Protection Act 1869
Half-Caste Act
Aborigines Protection Act 1909
Aborigines Act 1969
The Australian Parliament House website provides an extensive overview of ATSIC, complete with comprehensive information about its history, as well as its precursor and subsequent entities.
Furthermore, feel it's important to note that other countries have established parliamentary bodies with the key function of addressing injustices and safeguarding the cultural rights and heritage of their communities. I've attached links for the following: the Sámi in Scandinavia, Canadian Indigenous peoples, and New Zealand's Māori. Perhaps you can see how this would work from a political standpoint.

Just remember, when it comes to the referendum, it's ultimately your choice. Make it count!

 

[Trevros]

NO

 

[stephen]

Dat you earl

Nope.

 

[tigerballs]

That's absolutely ridiculous.

If a future government ignores the feedback from the voice I'm not sure they'd be called racist, perhaps incompetent. If you're going to spend billions of dollars to help people, and what you've been doing have been working, and the people you trying to help give you feedback and you reject all of it then yes you're incompetent. Sure some recommendations may be unfeasible, cost effective or take a long time to implement. But that consultation could still at least lead to compromise and better solutions, that save money and lives.

We'll see won't we.

 

[tigerballs]

No one is stating it'll fix anything. You can't fix people's problems. The no voters crying what about me will still be crying what about me because they blame society for their problems rather than creating a good life for themselves.

It's about recognizing Indigenous people in the constitution and giving them more input into the spend that we make. It's one of the key components Indigenous people have requested via the Uluru statement.

Stop making stuff up and start being rational.

"The no voters crying what about me will still be crying what about me because they blame society for their problems rather than creating a good life for themselves."
Isn't this the whole reasoning behind the voice in the first place?

 

[watersider]

Two questions:

1.Do No voters feel frustrated about current indigenous policy? And if so what aspect? Generally feel that indigenous people get too much support? Or just not effective? Or both? Some here like @Tucker have said they have experience working in indigenous communities so would be good if possible to get insight into what actually happens.

2. Do No voters agree with Sam Newman about welcome to country being overdone and going too far now that it occurs before all major sporting events? I think his contention is that it is too political.

Asking to get a sense of how attitudes to broader Indigenous policies and cultural recognition of Indigenous people plays into thinking on this topic.

Cheers.

 

[earl]

"The no voters crying what about me will still be crying what about me because they blame society for their problems rather than creating a good life for themselves."
Isn't this the whole reasoning behind the voice in the first place?

It is but it's a little bit pathetic when it comes to the "no" voters. Indigenous people have in general been discriminated against in pretty significant fashions in our country.

The killing times: the massacres of Aboriginal people Australia must confront

Special report: Shootings, poisonings and children driven off cliffs – this is a record of state-sanctioned slaughter

www.theguardian.com

Almost 70% of Australians accept that Aboriginal people were subject to mass killings, incarceration and forced removal from land, and their movement was restricted.

So the "no" voters whine about being discriminated against due to having a proposal for Indigenous representation to parliament whereas Indigenous people suffer from significantly lower standards of living in Australia right now and a history of atrocities against them in Australia.

It seems like an extremely one sided argument.

I will state and I stated this earlier as well that there comes a point where everyone has to learn that their life is their problem. I am voting yes and I will support reparations up to a certain dollar amount however none of these actions will turn around any Indigenous persons life without that person putting in an effort for themselves.

 

[Tucker]

To be clear this is not on. Theres kooks on both
sides. I've seen heaps of videos of crazy no
voters this week. chose not to post, no point. it's
despicable behaviour either way you look at
it. Continuing 235 years of denial and exclusion
of Indigenous people constitutionally is the only
thing continuing to divide Australians. On Oct 14
we vote on 2 things - recognition and a voice
to Parliament. How the voice will work, how representations are made, the composition of committee are all legislation. Fed govt, your party, Nationals, Greens X bench & the others will have input into legislation. Leave
the logistics and implementation up to our
elected officials. Our job is to vote yes or no

So you think it’s ok to tell people their reasons for voting no don’t matter?
So highly naive and ignorant.

 

[Tucker]

"The no voters crying what about me will still be crying what about me because they blame society for their problems rather than creating a good life for themselves."
Isn't this the whole reasoning behind the voice in the first place?

Yes. He has described sections of Aboriginal Communities as per today.

 

[Kaito]

So you think it’s ok to tell people their reasons for voting no don’t matter?
So highly naive and ignorant.

Of course it matters. You've done a fair job
of explaining why people should vote no lol

 

[Tucker]

Two questions:

1.Do No voters feel frustrated about current indigenous policy? And if so what aspect? Generally feel that indigenous people get too much support? Or just not effective? Or both? Some here like @Tucker have said they have experience working in indigenous communities so would be good if possible to get insight into what actually happens.

The problem I see a lot with Indigenous policy is that Governments have set ideas about what they want to spend money on and when it should be spent. I’ve seen grants for extensions on schools in communities where most Indigenous don’t work. If you couldn’t be bothered working, and are likely a substance abuser, you aren’t demanding your kids go to school. Couple this with the royalties a lot of these mobs receive from mining, gas pipelines, rail etc…you end up with a lazy community with no skills. This leads to violence and abuse issues.
The Government does too much for them. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day…teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime. If these communities used their royalties to buy local businesses and invest in their towns rather than cars and tvs and shit, they would focus on dragging themselves up. If these organisations trained them to be self sufficient, providing real world skills, they would focus on dragging themselves up. Poverty in a lot of the communities I have seen is largely caused by people receiving funds they haven’t earned, refusing to work or go to school as free money keeps rolling in and blowing it on dumb shit as well as alcohol and drugs.

2. Do No voters agree with Sam Newman about welcome to country being overdone and going too far now that it occurs before all major sporting events? I think his contention is that it is too political.

I’m not too fussed on the welcome to country stuff or the name changes to places. It’s surface level shit that doesn’t really do anything to help out. If it makes people happy, so be it, but they wouldn’t have cracked my list of important things to achieve.

 

[Red88_Tiger]

The problem I see a lot with Indigenous policy is that Governments have set ideas about what they want to spend money on and when it should be spent. I’ve seen grants for extensions on schools in communities where most Indigenous don’t work. If you couldn’t be bothered working, and are likely a substance abuser, you aren’t demanding your kids go to school. Couple this with the royalties a lot of these mobs receive from mining, gas pipelines, rail etc…you end up with a lazy community with no skills. This leads to violence and abuse issues.
The Government does too much for them. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day…teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime. If these communities used their royalties to buy local businesses and invest in their towns rather than cars and tvs and shit, they would focus on dragging themselves up. If these organisations trained them to be self sufficient, providing real world skills, they would focus on dragging themselves up. Poverty in a lot of the communities I have seen is largely caused by people receiving funds they haven’t earned, refusing to work or go to school as free money keeps rolling in and blowing it on dumb shit as well as alcohol and drugs.

I’m not too fussed on the welcome to country stuff or the name changes to places. It’s surface level shit that doesn’t really do anything to help out. If it makes people happy, so be it, but they wouldn’t have cracked my list of important things to achieve.

I’m a believer of building from the ground up. A longer process but more reliable in the long run
What do you think would be an incentive for the parents aswell as the children ( I think you would need one for each) to get them to school

 

[watersider]

The problem I see a lot with Indigenous policy is that Governments have set ideas about what they want to spend money on and when it should be spent. I’ve seen grants for extensions on schools in communities where most Indigenous don’t work. If you couldn’t be bothered working, and are likely a substance abuser, you aren’t demanding your kids go to school. Couple this with the royalties a lot of these mobs receive from mining, gas pipelines, rail etc…you end up with a lazy community with no skills. This leads to violence and abuse issues.
The Government does too much for them. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day…teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime. If these communities used their royalties to buy local businesses and invest in their towns rather than cars and tvs and shit, they would focus on dragging themselves up. If these organisations trained them to be self sufficient, providing real world skills, they would focus on dragging themselves up. Poverty in a lot of the communities I have seen is largely caused by people receiving funds they haven’t earned, refusing to work or go to school as free money keeps rolling in and blowing it on dumb shit as well as alcohol and drugs.

I’m not too fussed on the welcome to country stuff or the name changes to places. It’s surface level shit that doesn’t really do anything to help out. If it makes people happy, so be it, but they wouldn’t have cracked my list of important things to achieve.

And what impact do you think the introduction of the voice would have on these issues?

 

[twentyforty]

The problem I see a lot with Indigenous policy is that Governments have set ideas about what they want to spend money on and when it should be spent. I’ve seen grants for extensions on schools in communities where most Indigenous don’t work. If you couldn’t be bothered working, and are likely a substance abuser, you aren’t demanding your kids go to school. Couple this with the royalties a lot of these mobs receive from mining, gas pipelines, rail etc…you end up with a lazy community with no skills. This leads to violence and abuse issues.
The Government does too much for them. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day…teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime. If these communities used their royalties to buy local businesses and invest in their towns rather than cars and tvs and shit, they would focus on dragging themselves up. If these organisations trained them to be self sufficient, providing real world skills, they would focus on dragging themselves up. Poverty in a lot of the communities I have seen is largely caused by people receiving funds they haven’t earned, refusing to work or go to school as free money keeps rolling in and blowing it on dumb shit as well as alcohol and drugs.

I’m not too fussed on the welcome to country stuff or the name changes to places. It’s surface level shit that doesn’t really do anything to help out. If it makes people happy, so be it, but they wouldn’t have cracked my list of important things to achieve.

Those royalties aren’t taxed.
The point Jacinta Price was hammering home recently shows up a hurdle in starting a business on Native Title land. Approval needs to be cleared by elders and those elders may be a different group on any given day. They may also refuse to talk about it or have a disliking for the entrepreneur who wants to serve the community.

 

[Tucker]

And what impact do you think the introduction of the voice would have on these issues?

My concern is that it will place a bandaid over a broken leg and then everyone will backslap each other on the application of said bandaid and walk away. Job done. The Voice can handle these issues henceforth.
Additionally, activists have told communities for a decade that reparations are owed. Like I said above, communities have been conditioned to receive “free money”. Their recommendations will all focus on how to make this happen, instead of taking an introspective view of how things can be changed currently. “Stay the course….things are happening in Canberra”. Meanwhile another generation will be lost.

 

[stephen]

My concern is that it will place a bandaid over a broken leg and then everyone will backslap each other on the application of said bandaid and walk away. Job done. The Voice can handle these issues henceforth.
Additionally, activists have told communities for a decade that reparations are owed. Like I said above, communities have been conditioned to receive “free money”. Their recommendations will all focus on how to make this happen, instead of taking an introspective view of how things can be changed currently. “Stay the course….things are happening in Canberra”. Meanwhile another generation will be lost.

This is the real danger. Decades might pass whilst we wait to measure the impact of the voice.
As you've written, another generation will be lost, having become accustomed to welfare & low expectations with a ready made excuse to fail in life.

 

[Tucker]

I’m a believer of building from the ground up. A longer process but more reliable in the long run
What do you think would be an incentive for the parents aswell as the children ( I think you would need one for each) to get them to school

First of all, you have to get the parents to change their world view when it comes to money. Continually throwing cash at them has created a mindset of “easy come, easy go” and “there’s more where that comes from”. They don’t appreciate it like we do. Just say I was given a $10k cheque. I would sit down with my wife, pull out our budget and work out what to do with it. A lot of them would blow it very quickly on nothing. They might buy mag wheels for their Datsun, and spend the rest getting off chop. So first thing is first…get them jobs. Teach them skills. Give them a reason to start their day each morning, give them a reason to be proud…not just proud of being Aboriginal (which is such a stupid slogan) but actually proud of what they can contribute to their societies, enabling them to set goals and achieve them. This will have a positive, sustainable impact on communities as substance abuse as well as violence will decline.

When the kids see their parents are improving their lives, providing clean and comfortable housing for them and not getting wrecked and fighting with them, it will have positive outcomes. The kids are likely to stay home at night time, instead of wandering the streets, getting into trouble. They will have proper role models raising them, not shitbag peers who influence them to go the easy route of crime. Eventually they will understand that stealing gets you quick cash that doesn’t last, but working gives you consistent money without the risks. Correlating success with education will improve communities through school attendances. We must then ensure that proper teachers fill these classrooms, not apologist activists who constantly teach the kids they are victims.

 

[Kaito]

Just a reminder that The Voice came
directly from Indigenous communities,
and more than 80% of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people support it.

 

[earl]

I've mentioned previously how I think the lack of detail in this referendum is a good thing. This is a commonly raised by by no voters but to me it's completely missing the point.

It's good to read an opinion on this from an expert that states that this isn't a very good argument.

Proposed Voice to Parliament already more detailed than most of the constitution

www.sydney.edu.au

The no-detail argument for a "no" vote on the Voice referendum is at best misconceived, and at worst dishonest. The simple position is that the Australian constitution is light on detail; that's how it works.

Whatever the merits of a "no" argument for the Voice, they do not lie in the strawman argument of "no detail".