Skip to main content

2023 Referendum: Indigenous Voice to Parliament

rj90

rj90

Yeah, Nah.
To preface, I was going to put this in the political thread, but then thought some people might actively avoid that part of the forum, so the title may catch people's attention if they wish to engage.

I'm just wondering what people's thoughts are on the upcoming Voice to Parliament Referendum later this year? Instantly, I thought it'd be a no brainer and I'd be voting yes, but the more it goes on, now I'm unsure if this is what indigenous people want?

Do we have any Indigenous Australia's here who can share their thoughts & opinions? Is this something we should be voting in favour of?

Ultimately, I'm a white, early 30s guy who hasn't had any first hand experience in what marginalized communities are subjected to, so my vote will be guided by what the people this impacts want us to do. Unlike the Same Sex Marriage vote (which was a clear no brainer) this one is a bit more confusing and my concern is a No vote will push any form of reconciliation back by decades.

Where does everyone else sit with this one?
 
I'd vote yes if I could vote, but I've been out of Aus so long now I've been deleted from the electoral roll.
 
You can find out more why voting YES is important here.

And also, take good note of who opposes it: Peter Dutton (who walked out on the apology, refused to turn up for the introduction of the Voice referendum legislation into parliament, and now opposes the Voice in any form), Murdoch media (enough said), Pauline Hanson etc. Do you feel you align with their views?
 
Definitely a step in the right direction but I don’t think it goes far enough. IMO a voice in parliament should be guaranteed seats in parliament not just an advisory council that governments can choose whether or not the advice they receive is worth listening to. I’d likely still vote yes on this but given that our current government set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and has still yet to implement the majority of the commission’s recommendations I’m pessimistic about anything that could be used to simply give the appearance of a meaningful attempt at reconciliation.
 
timmy said:
And also, take good note of who opposes it: Peter Dutton (who walked out on the apology, refused to turn up for the introduction of the Voice referendum legislation into parliament, and now opposes the Voice in any form), Murdoch media (enough said), Pauline Hanson etc. Do you feel you align with their views?
Click to expand...

Exactly right. I definitely don't align with any of their views at all.

I do find it interesting that a number of Indigenous Australians in the public eye are opposing the Voice. But this mostly seems to stem from the fact that they don't think it goes far enough. Interesting to think that their answer to something not going far enough is to straight up reject it.
 
rj90 said:
Exactly right. I definitely don't align with any of their views at all.

I do find it interesting that a number of Indigenous Australians in the public eye are opposing the Voice. But this mostly seems to stem from the fact that they don't think it goes far enough. Interesting to think that their answer to something not going far enough is to straight up reject it.
Click to expand...

There are also plenty of ATSI who oppose it because they don't think it will do anything for them. Amongst many other concerns. Where the minimalising of their opinions is considered evidence of that fact.

When you say others find it doesn't go far enough, what do they mean and is that a good or a bad thing?

What baffles me is the use of emotional pleas over any substantial debate or discussion. I hate people like Dutton, but tactics like, "if he supports it you can't." Is dumb to me. People can agree or disagree in completely different ways. That simplistic thinking, crowd and group think is why political discourse is so bad in this current era. I vote mainly Labor/Greens but think they're bad in so many ways. Team politics is dumb and is used as a way to get people to not think.

Framing this around if you care about ATSI or not. If you're racist or not. Doesn't address what this is or isn't going to do. The level of debate and discussion has been pitiful because it is framed around everything but what this is going to do.

Whether it is good or bad, it won't pass as a result.
 
Last edited:
The "it doesn't go far enough" argument is bullshit. If you really feel that way, then vote yes and then focus on improving/furthering it, rather than, as @rj90 noted, setting the cause back by decades by voting no. It's time to move forward on reconciliation and this is one important piece of that process.
 
timmy said:
The "it doesn't go far enough" argument is bullshit.
Click to expand...
I gave a perfect example of why it’s not. Look at how many of the 94 calls to action our Truth and Reconciliation Commission gave the Trudeau government have been implemented. 13 in seven years.

If you want meaningful change you have to fight for it. You’re not going to get it settling for something substandard and hoping something meaningful comes later.

I think voting ‘no’ is only a setback if there is no mandate behind the ‘no’. This isn’t enough is very different from we don’t want this at all.
 
Last edited:
I am genuinely unsure how I will vote on this referendum. I don’t understand why the finer details of the form and function of the voice hasn’t been detailed more explicitly.

It feels like we are being asked to vote on a “nice idea” at this point.

Vote yes… and then trust us (the govt) to come up with the rules that will govern the voice. Ahhh I’m not feeling super confident in that! Why can’t they have worked that out BEFORE asking us to change the constitution? I really don’t understand.

Changing the constitution is significant and I’m trying not to be swayed by “slippery slope” arguments, I just want more information first. 🤷🏽‍♂️
 
Kingston said:
Having no voice is essentially the same thing as having a voice that’s not listened to.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree with this.
Making “representations” alone could wind up being timely, expensive and impotent.

NZ have Māori seats in parliament don’t they? How successful / meaningful / impactful is that?
 
bleachy_dude said:
Yeah I agree with this.
Making “representations” alone could wind up being timely, expensive and impotent.

NZ have Māori seats in parliament don’t they? How successful / meaningful / impactful is that?
Click to expand...
NZ has a Maori electoral role - People can chose to either vote for the electorate they live in or one of the Maori seats. the more on the Maori role I think that means the more Maori seats (I could be wrong though). People who run for those seats still could be from Labour etc though, but there is a Maori party. NZ's MMP system means that there are several smaller parties that could have to work together to form a government.
 
bleachy_dude said:
I am genuinely unsure how I will vote on this referendum. I don’t understand why the finer details of the form and function of the voice hasn’t been detailed more explicitly.
Click to expand...

They actually don't know what those details are. The other day Albo was taking questions about it and couldn't answer basic questions about how it will function. Even answering some questions in direct contradiction to the wording of the legislation.
 
up_all_night said:
They actually don't know what those details are. The other day Albo was taking questions about it and couldn't answer basic questions about how it will function. Even answering some questions in direct contradiction to the wording of the legislation.
Click to expand...
Seriously mind boggling. Almost as if Albo gets to walk away from this almost inevitably failed referendum with all the brownie points of “trying”. 🤷🏽‍♂️
 
I'm coming from this completely oblivious to the situation but surely they get a "voice to Parliament" through electing MPs and representatives? Is the argument that Indigenous candidates don't tend to win these votes, so are under-represented?
 
Maybe I am being dense but if a white prime minister was to say exactly how it works is that not going against the whole point of what is trying to be achieved? Surely it should be up to the group of people representing the voices to be given agency, empowerment and ownership to decide how the process works?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top