Wanting more clarity is just a case of people trying to find a reason to vote no.

One thing that aggravates my parents (definite No voters) is that there is no acknowledgement from the Yes campaign of the internal failures of previous bodies like ATSIC. It’s fair to state that the government dismantled bodies like ATSIC, but the Yes campaign seem to be deliberately hiding or ignoring the fraud, corruption, ineffectiveness, and nepotism that existed in these organisations.

One can read all about the structural problems, lack of accountability, and failure to deliver results that were detailed in the parliamentary findings on ATSIC. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/indigenousaffairs/report/final/c02

If you have library access, the 2003 report, In the Hand of the Regions, is also worth a read: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26479564

There were also criminal investigations launched into both the Chief of ATSIC, Geoff Clark, and the deputy chairman, “Sugar” Ray Robinson.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11071533/Geoff-Clark-ex-ATSIC-chief-facing-2million-fraud-charges-threatens-senator-Jacinta-Price.html
https://www.smh.com.au/national/former-atsic-leader-sugar-ray-in-court-20060118-gdmsov.html

For No voters like my parents, they question why we should force a similar organisation into the Constitution, particularly when there were so many systemic (and even criminal) problems with ATSIC.

I also love how they put “it opens the door to activists” like it’s a bad thing

Well “activists” aren’t automatically a good thing by default.

California has a proposition voting thing. It sounds like a good idea but it has caused them problems. A lot of it is in the wording of the proposition and omitting any negative consequences. For example, people might vote for less property taxes without realising that means less money to fund schools etc. Everything is a trade off and it’s hard to convey that to the general population.

I think some of the “No” reasons are valid questions to ask, so simply brushing them off as irrational is not going to win over anyone sitting on the fence. When I have spoken with family & friends, some of their uncertainty and concerns can be found amongst the ten No arguments.

For example, the question of inequitable representation (point #3 of the No arguments) is a fair one. Shouldn’t all Australians, regardless of their gender, race, or ancestry be represented equally in the Constitution?
In 1962, all Indigenous Australians were given the fair right to vote, giving them the same level of voice and representation as that of any Australian citizen. This resolved the issue of equal voting rights, which allows all Australians to have their voice equally represented in parliament. The Voice would now add an additional representation above what voting provides to the average Australian and it will be mandated in the Constitution.
Which personal factors determine if one can be awarded this additional amount of representation? Do you have to prove you are Indigenous by way of a blood test, a written exam, a form of ID, or just by stating that you identify as an Indigenous Australian? I even know of some people who have claimed benefits of Indigenous Australians (e.g. scholarships) when they themselves were Pacific Islander. How pure does your bloodline need to be in order to receive additional representation?

Do the No voters think that the government shouldn’t listen to the AMA when making health policy? That they shouldn’t listen to teachers and principals when they make education policy?

They fall mostly into the LNP camp, and given their track record… yes, that is exactly what they think.

That seems to be the problem after reading these - there is no clarity by design of the government. They aren’t telling us what the thing we’re voting on actually is.

Which is why the constitutional lawyer Dutton quoted is demanding his quote be removed pending legal action

The pamphlets are for the people who decide in the voting booth, it’s worthwhile to look for more detail on the questions you have.

I’m voting Yes for two main reasons.

1. When I look at NZ and the recognition of the Maori I feel embarassed that we have the oldest continuous civilization on the planet and we don’t give a shit about it at all.

2. We haven’t moved the dial on any of the major markers impacting indigenous people in the last twenty years. Perhaps it’s time we actually started listening and giving them a voice isn’t a bad start.

Also there’s nobody on the No side I have any respect for. Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine are Opportunists, Lidia Thorpe is just the other side of the same coin. That tells me enough about the right side to be on.

So do some reading, see what the legal community is saying, look for political academics commenting. Just stay away from political campaign drivel.

For me, I expect us to be an international laughing stock if we vote this down. We already have a reputation for serious racism and a referendum like this failing would make me actively seek alternative citizenship just out of embarrassment.

As for indigenous Australians, if we vote no I hope they start to radicalise. I’ll be on their side

with no particular group being elevated in terms of representation above beyond anyone else, and certainly not on the basis of race.

No one is being elevated. This myth of “special rights” or “special treatment” has been repeatedly debunked by constitutional law experts.

in essence setting up a third chamber of parliament.

This is 100% false - the Voice is purely an advisory body. To equate it to the House of Representatives or the Senate is just a flat out lie.

And while the Voice cannot block legislation directly I could foresee it doing so indirectly.

How? It has no power.

If one doesn’t agree with this and thinks it’s powerless, then why bother?

Powerless is not the same as unnecessary. The Voice will be able to make more informed recommendations to government than any other advisory body when it comes to matters specific to Indigenous Australians. It is true that a potential lack of willingness from government, particularly conservative government, to actually listen to and work with the Voice is a concern. However there is no guarantee that this will be the case.

Having the voice as a permanent entity seems to suggest to me that the problems in some sections amongst the aboriginal community basically will continue on forever and hence putting the voice in the constitution, and I find this incredibly racist and insulting.

The Voice would not exist solely to solve the “problems” you’re referring to. Issues relating specifically to Indigenous Australians will continue to exist for as long as they exist. Having an advisory board that can offer better advice than anything that has come before it will always be important. It needs to be permanent so that it cannot be instantly wiped out by a conservative government, as has been emphasised repeatedly for months now.

Assuming they implemented the Voice and it did the trick and everything is all good in ten years time, I’m very skeptical a future referendum to disband it would ever fly.

Again - you completely misunderstand the point of the Voice. It is not a quick bandaid solution for social problems. There is absolutely no intention of abolishing it once it “does the trick”. This is why it is in the constitution.

Once people get into power they will absolutely hang on to it.

Once again - the Voice doesn’t have power.

If we setup a voice for this particular minority group, what’s next? an LGBTQIA+ voice, or some other minority voice? This could set a very unworkable precedence.

Come on dude, really? This is textbook slippery slope fallacy. Please be better than this if you are serious about engaging in discussion and debate.

I’m sure this is going to be an unpopular point of view, but at some point people do need to take responsibility for their own choices. Not everything is someone else’s fault, and certainly not someone that’s been dead for 200 years, or even 50 years. I have more sympathy for kids with fucked up parents (I’ve been there), and early childhood intervention involving kids from difficult homes needs to be looked at in general regardless of race. But we don’t need the voice to point out this really patently obvious fact.

I don’t even know where to start with this. You are completely ignorant of history if you think the social problems that exist today are a consequence of people not “taking responsibility for their actions”. The dispossession of land, genocide, incarceration, Stolen Generations - all of this is quite literally someone else’s fault. White people tried to wipe Indigenous Australians out, failed and have left a mountain of problems behind that cannot be solved solely by the individual choices of the victims.

There have been many aboriginal advisory and policy groups in the past that were dismantled due to dysfunction and corruption. To this day there is still a vast bureaucracy dedicated to aboriginal issues. What exactly is happening to all of their advice and their reports and all of their policy work? This doesn’t seem to be fixing the problem. And for some reason we are supposed to believe, without any evidence, that another layer of bureaucracy is going to help?

The Voice will be 100% run by Indigenous Australians. Its advice will therefore be superior to that of any other body. For example, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which the conservative No campaign is attempting to use as evidence that the Voice is redundant, is only 22% Indigenous.

Let’s say for arguments sake it would work. Great. Form the body today through legislation and stop dicking around in the constitution.

It needs to be in the constitution so it isn’t immediately abolished by a future, most likely conservative, government. You literally just acknowledged yourself that many previous advisory and policy groups have been dismantled by government.

Some suggest slipping in a bit of text into the constitution saying “Aborigines were here first” or words that effect. To me it seems quite ridiculous since this is history and it seems pointless to restate the historical facts in the constitution. If it makes someone feel better I’m not against it but I’m not sure it would change how people feel in the long run, aboriginals included.

Are you Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander? No? Then no one cares about how you feel. This isn’t about you. Not everything is about you.

For aboriginals that are looking for real power (i.e. dedicated seats in parliament), this seems like a very watered down version of it.

The Voice is just one aspect of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The majority of Indigenous Australians support it, but this does not mean that they are opposed to further additions and implementations. The Voice is a start, it is not the be all and end all.

For aboriginals that only want aboriginals in this country and want everyone else to fuck off it’s most definitely unsatisfactory.

If such people even exist they are an extreme, extreme minority. You are very closeted if you actually believe such a group is large enough to warrant a mention.

The way I see it is that we are all here in this country as a result of some type migration, even aboriginals.

Use your brain please. What is the key difference here? One group was here first. Non-Indigenous peoples displaced those who were here first. You are either extremely ignorant of Australia’s history, or just downright dishonest if you think we are all the same in this respect.

The way this debate is going, whoever is on the other side is automatically deemed bad and whoever agrees is good.

Welcome to politics. Welcome to our ever polarising society. This is not an excuse for you to play the victim. Your failed arguments and lies do not magically gain more weight because someone hurt your feelings.

1. In an ideal liberal democracy that’s been set up with agreement from all parties yes. But the aboriginals didn’t even get a vote on being colonised, nevermind Federation. They’ve essentially been under occupation for more than 200 years. The Voice is meant as a first step in resolving that conflict so we can move forward as a nation. Voice, Truth, Treaty. Even the racist yanks made treaties with their natives. Can we not even live up to that low bar?
2. I personally don’t think the Voice will be a permanent feature but I also don’t think me or my grandchildren will be around to see it abolished. There is multigenerational trauma that needs to be acknowledged and healed. That’s the Truth and Treaty bit btw. The Voice is meant to make sure the government of the day doesn’t forget those two things.
3. Not going to entertain slippery slopes. Other minorities consented to participate in the liberal democracy we established. See point 1 above.
4. See point made by @Ilandar@aussie.zone about 200 years of oppression and attempted genocide.
5. The Voice will be permanent that can’t be abolished like all the previous groups. It’s still purely advisory so parliament could absolutely ignore it but they have to consider the optics of the thing. Because now the Voice will be visible. Hand to heart, how many people could name all the previous aboriginal bodies before this debate? I know I couldn’t.
6. The point is to not be purely performatory. Just adding a line in the Constitutions then patting ourselves on the back and calling it a job well done isn’t enough. So many organisations already do that today and it’s become nothing more than an empty ritual now. Do you notice all the “original custodian acknowledgements” uttered at the opening of every function? Adding a line to the Constitution would be just that.
7. The point is to have a symbol that is visible. To move forward to Truth and Treaty. I think that’s an important step to take to right the wrongs of the past so we can move forward together.
8. See point from @Ilandar@aussie.zone about them being here first. Also see point 1 about not really having a choice of being part of our modern nation.

I’m not even aboriginal. My ancestors came from China during the gold rush. There are things I’d like to see redressed too but I haven’t had it as bad. They’re first in line, so to speak.

A lot of people have responded intelligently, but I’m going to respond like a dum-dum:

• In a liberal democracy, everyone should be equal under the law, but this country was colonised. We could all just leave and come back later, or we could pay reparations. Otherwise, we’re basically stealing shit and saying “OK we’re starting liberal democracy… NOW”… wait (steal more stuff) “now”… I mean (steal more) now. Now for real! The Mabo ruling literally happened in the 90s. So much for Liberal Democracy.
• The Voice does not exist to “fix Aboriginal problems”. It exists as a first step towards reconciliation, there will be other steps which will need more constitutional amendments. The “problem” is non-aboriginal people.
• It’s not a “minority group”, it’s a dispossessed group due to colonisation. Yes, if you steal land and assets from “other minority groups” then maybe they would need recognition. This is consistent with other nations such as NZ.
• Yes, white Australians definitely need to take responsibility for colonisation and its effects which are happening to this day. You should definitely feel for people who have had violence committed on them regardless of race.
• Aboriginal advisory groups are often designed to fail and then shut down. It is an obvious problem for people who want to take things out of this country, sell it, and fuck off back to Britain. This one has constitutional power, so they won’t be able to do that. This will protect Australians.
• It’s not “were here first” it’s “were colonised”. If China won a war and took over Australia, they would not just change the constitution to say “sucks to be you”, they’d have to make up some shit, if only to create some sort of consent. The Australian constitution basically says “the queen says we’re a country now”
• Aboriginal people aren’t dickbags, they don’t want “real power”. They want recognition and reconciliation. They want to re-glue the history of this nation. Take a look at the Uluru statement from the heart. It is about subtlety, sharing, and growth, not about power and control.
• Some people are bad because they are idiots, others are bad because they choose to ignore history, and some are bad because they want to engineer hurt to others just to help themselves. You take your pick.

Thought provoking post. I want to do everything possible to help address aboriginal issues. But I would have preferred they trial the voice for a couple of years first to see if it works and iron out any issues. Then if it’s a success, use that as evidence why it should be added to the constitution. It seems wild to commit to something before we’ve really tried it.

I mean, there’s a 270 page report about the design of the thing here https://voice.gov.au/resources/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report

Bullshit. If you worked, or where at all involved with, in indigenous communities you’d know the overwhelming sentiment is a yes vote and that those opposed are considered cookers.

You post a lot of well rehearsed nonsense

I’ll be voting Yes. If over the coming months we were to find out that somehow the Voice to Parliament will have a negative impact on demands for Treaties, truth telling, sovereignty among other things then I might change my mind but I find that unlikely. Who knows.

Don’t think about whether or not it will actually be useful - there is no way to predict this. Just focus on this one thought:

If Australia votes No, it will kill all political momentum behind the ongoing fight for Indigenous rights to governance and sovereignty. This will be perceived as a damaging failure by Labor and neither they, nor the Liberals, will go anywhere reforms of this scale for a long time.

I understand and support those who are voting No based on their lived experiences, but the rest of us have an obligation to vote Yes as far as I’m concerned. This referendum is the culmination of decades of work by Indigenous Australians and voting against it would be a morally reprehensible act.

I’m still seeing too many ‘No’ people wanting more than a voice, like treaty. Why can’t we have both? A no on this one is going to push treaty back further.

The Government literally won’t divulge the details of what the Voice actually entails.

That is miss-information propagated by the “No” campaign. The governemnt absoltuely has divulged what The Voice entails, and it’s really simple. These words will be added to the constitution:

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;

ii. 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.”

Let me make it even simpler:

There will be a group of people authorised to give a small speech on indigenous issues when parliament is in session and occasionally have meetings with relevant politicians/government workers.

The government will do their normal job (passing laws, etc) after taking into consideration what was said.

It’s not complex. There is no risk. We’re not giving Indigenous Australians some kind of exclusive right. The reality is anyone can write a letter to a politician, and if the letter has any merit at all a staff member will ensure the politician reads it. If the contents of your letter are actually important the politician will even meet with you in person.

The only thing that this changes is The Voice won’t need to have their message approved by the staff member. I suppose in theory, that could result in wasting a few minutes of our politicians time… but I doubt that will happen. The reality is sensible people will given the power to speak for all indigenous peoples, and they will only talk about the most important issues affecting indigenous people. They will have an endlessly long list of points to bring up, and they’ll pick the most important ones - which will never be a waste of time to bring up in Parliament.

At the end of the day it’s a matter of respect. It’s a formal process to do what is already being done informally. Indigenous issues won’t need to be raised via back channels anymore.

A few details, like how many people will be on The Voice and how long they can speak in Parliament for, etc are still to be decided on, but none of those really matter. Does it matter if there’s ten people or fifty in The Voice? Only one of them will be allowed to speak in any given parliament session. There’s generally a 15-20 minute time restriction on anything raised in parliament, and I’d expect the same limit will be applied to The Voice. But if they allow 60 minutes instead… honestly who cares. By not putting it in the constitution the government is allowing those decisions to be changed without going back and doing an entire referendum all over again.