2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum

[ntyuk1707]

Set to be held on 14 October 2023, the Voice referendum will ask voters:

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 'Voice' itself is a proposed advisory body of indigenous Australians to advise the government on policy matters affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. 

The term was used in the Uluru Statement from the Heart signed by 250 delegates from some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities which called for 'Voice', 'Treaty' and 'Truth' to tackle long-standing inequalities faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. 

It has been critiqued for being vague, unrepresentative, expensive, doing little to resolve the issues impacting those communities, as well as creating a body of Government based on race and made up of those who have always had a voice at the table, and allowing the Labor government to decide the make-up of the body without oversight from voters as to what that will look like.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hopes that victory at the referendum will be the preface for a referendum in the next Parliament to make Australia a republic.

The 'Voice' had enjoyed strong support in the opinion polls, but is now set to be defeated on a 55-45 margin based on current polling, with No campaigners including Aboriginal Senator Jacinta Price gaining prominence over the course of the campaign. 

[ntyuk1707]

For the referendum to pass, 4 out of 6 states must support the proposal and a majority of voters across the nation.

Polling conducted on 21 August 2023 points to the No campaign winning Western Australia and Queensland with 63% of the vote, South Australia with 54% of the vote, Tasmania with 53% and New South Wales with 52%, and the Yes campaign winning Victoria with 51% of the vote, and a national result of 54% No, 46% Yes.

[stb12]

Malcolm Turnbull is supporting a Yes vote despite opposing these moves while PM

[eastmidlandsright]

Aug 30, 2023 10:21:36 GMT stb12 said:

Malcolm Turnbull is supporting a Yes vote despite opposing these moves while PM

Would anyone have expected anything different?

[iain]

Aug 30, 2023 10:12:47 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

creating a body of Government … made up of those who have always had a voice at the table

Eh?

There are many criticisms that can be levelled at ‘the Voice’ (most obviously how vague it is) but even in your very partisan post this stands out. How is that a credible argument?

[ntyuk1707]

Aug 30, 2023 13:10:54 GMT iain said:

Aug 30, 2023 10:12:47 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

creating a body of Government … made up of those who have always had a voice at the table

Eh?

There are many criticisms that can be levelled at ‘the Voice’ (most obviously how vague it is) but even in your very partisan post this stands out. How is that a credible argument?

There have been five national indigenous advisory bodies with three elected since 1973, collectively costing hundreds of millions of Australian dollars, which have been widely considered to have failed to improve outcomes for Indigenous and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia and have all been disbanded.

Furthermore, 250 unelected signatories cannot fully represent a diverse ethnic group of over 800,000 people, especially when, for example, the traditional owners of Uluru (Anangu people) have opposed the treaty and called for it to be renamed, alongside other aboriginal groups who hold Uluru sacred. 

The Voice proposal does not represent all indigenous Australians, and some do feel disenfranchised as has been documented in ABC News reports and by aboriginal politicians across the political spectrum such as Jacinta Price (Country Liberal) and Lidia Thorpe (Green). 

[Forfarshire Conservative]

Aug 30, 2023 10:21:36 GMT stb12 said:

Malcolm Turnbull is supporting a Yes vote despite opposing these moves while PM

The least conservative conservative in Oz!

[finsobruce]

Aug 30, 2023 14:07:34 GMT Forfarshire Conservative said:

Aug 30, 2023 10:21:36 GMT stb12 said:

Malcolm Turnbull is supporting a Yes vote despite opposing these moves while PM

The least conservative conservative in Oz!

A woke conservative?

[jamie]

Aug 30, 2023 14:07:34 GMT Forfarshire Conservative said:

Aug 30, 2023 10:21:36 GMT stb12 said:

Malcolm Turnbull is supporting a Yes vote despite opposing these moves while PM

The least conservative conservative in Oz!

He was one of the few people in the Liberal party who actually held liberal views. 

[jamie]

A few general comments for those interested:

The Yes campaign is truly appalling. It’s led by people who’ve never had to win elections and consequently have no idea how to engage with normal people. The government, despite pushing forward with the referendum, has shown little real commitment to heading the campaign in their place (and the only member of the government to show any interest is the Indigenous minister, who is not a persuasive politician).
Any criticism or questions about the Voice tend to get pigeonholed as misinformation, racism etc, which means the Yes side has done next to nothing to engage with people who aren’t hardcore supporters of the Voice (including normal genuinely persuadable voters).
The government has released a lot of detail on what the legislation enacting the Voice would include, but nonetheless won’t give all the detail eg; how is it elected. They also won’t say if a Yes vote will be taken as a mandate for further controversial policies in the area. This has led to a widespread view they are hiding unpopular elements of the Voice.
There’s some debate about the legal effect of the amendment. In itself, it’s a very vague and could be easily neutered by legislation, but there is some legal concern about overreach if it reaches the courts. The Labor attorney general tried to sort this out, but was stopped by the Yes side.
It’s worth saying that the official Liberal Party position is that a Voice is a good idea, it just shouldn’t be put in the constitution and so nationally orientated. Whether they stick to this in the event of a No vote, who knows.

[jamie]

Aug 30, 2023 10:12:47 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

and allowing the Labor government to alter the exact wording of the constitution without oversight from voters as to what that will look like.

This isn’t correct. The Labor government cannot alter the constitution itself, it’s only the voters who can vote in favour of inserting this constitutional amendment into the constitution. That said, the actual Voice would be constitutionally mandated but most of the details would be decided by ordinary legislation, so the voters would have to trust the government (and future ones) to make the right decisions regarding how the Voice operates if they vote for putting the idea in the constitution. 

[ntyuk1707]

Aug 30, 2023 16:16:13 GMT jamie said:

Aug 30, 2023 10:12:47 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

and allowing the Labor government to alter the exact wording of the constitution without oversight from voters as to what that will look like.

This isn’t correct. The Labor government cannot alter the constitution itself, it’s only the voters who can vote in favour of inserting this constitutional amendment into the constitution. That said, the actual Voice would be constitutionally mandated but most of the details would be decided by ordinary legislation, so the voters would have to trust the government (and future ones) to make the right decisions regarding how the Voice operates if they vote for putting the idea in the constitution. 

Thank you for this clarification. I shall amend the post.

[johnloony]

Just by reading through this thread, without doing any further investigation into the subject or the debate about what it’s about or what it means, is enough to make me think that it’s bizarre and ludicrous. Vague aspirations about being more inclusive, without proper details of what it’s going to be, is not basis for a constitutional settlement. I can’t help thinking that a vaguely-comparable thing in the UK would be a statutory requirement that the UK government must “consult” a “body” to ensure that (for example) LGBT people are not going to be adversely affected by other legislation. It would be a recipe for the process being abused in wildly inappropriate ways, according to the transient whims of the government of the day.

I expect that this will, when it gets to it, be heavily defeated in all 6 states.

[iain]

Aug 30, 2023 14:01:50 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

Furthermore, 250 unelected signatories cannot fully represent a diverse ethnic group of over 800,000 people

Well no, hence them wanting to set up a representative body rather than relying on ‘community leaders’.

As I said, many criticisms can be levelled at the Voice, but the idea that it will be ‘made up of those who have always had a voice at the table’ is certainly not one of them. Indeed even the idea that self-appointed community leaders have always had a voice at the table is laughable in the extreme and betrays a profound ignorance of even the most basic Australian political history.

[Pete Whitehead]

Aug 30, 2023 16:09:34 GMT jamie said:

A few general comments for those interested:

The Yes campaign is truly appalling. It’s led by people who’ve never had to win elections and consequently have no idea how to engage with normal people. The government, despite pushing forward with the referendum, has shown little real commitment to heading the campaign in their place (and the only member of the government to show any interest is the Indigenous minister, who is not a persuasive politician).
Any criticism or questions about the Voice tend to get pigeonholed as misinformation, racism etc, which means the Yes side has done next to nothing to engage with people who aren’t hardcore supporters of the Voice (including normal genuinely persuadable voters).
The government has released a lot of detail on what the legislation enacting the Voice would include, but nonetheless won’t give all the detail eg; how is it elected. They also won’t say if a Yes vote will be taken as a mandate for further controversial policies in the area. This has led to a widespread view they are hiding unpopular elements of the Voice.
There’s some debate about the legal effect of the amendment. In itself, it’s a very vague and could be easily neutered by legislation, but there is some legal concern about overreach if it reaches the courts. The Labor attorney general tried to sort this out, but was stopped by the Yes side.
It’s worth saying that the official Liberal Party position is that a Voice is a good idea, it just shouldn’t be put in the constitution and so nationally orientated. Whether they stick to this in the event of a No vote, who knows.

Same old, same old..

[Devil Wincarnate]

Who is going to be judged eligible to select a proposed body? Identity is a charged topic after all. Will you have to declare yourself indigenous? Prove it somehow?

[jamie]

Aug 30, 2023 20:17:56 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Who is going to be judged eligible to select a proposed body? Identity is a charged topic after all. Will you have to declare yourself indigenous? Prove it somehow?

The members of the Voice would need to pass the 3 part test:
Being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent
Identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person
Being accepted as such by the community in which they live, or formerly lived.

I would assume, but cannot at this moment find a credible source, that something similar would apply for the electorate. 

Australia generally has a fairly liberal approach to Aboriginal identity, so if you went to the effort of wanting to be recognised as such you will probably be accepted assuming you have even vaguely credible evidence of ancestry. 

[Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith]

Aug 30, 2023 16:09:34 GMT jamie said:

A few general comments for those interested:

The Yes campaign is truly appalling. It’s led by people who’ve never had to win elections and consequently have no idea how to engage with normal people. The government, despite pushing forward with the referendum, has shown little real commitment to heading the campaign in their place (and the only member of the government to show any interest is the Indigenous minister, who is not a persuasive politician).
Any criticism or questions about the Voice tend to get pigeonholed as misinformation, racism etc, which means the Yes side has done next to nothing to engage with people who aren’t hardcore supporters of the Voice (including normal genuinely persuadable voters).
The government has released a lot of detail on what the legislation enacting the Voice would include, but nonetheless won’t give all the detail eg; how is it elected. They also won’t say if a Yes vote will be taken as a mandate for further controversial policies in the area. This has led to a widespread view they are hiding unpopular elements of the Voice.
There’s some debate about the legal effect of the amendment. In itself, it’s a very vague and could be easily neutered by legislation, but there is some legal concern about overreach if it reaches the courts. The Labor attorney general tried to sort this out, but was stopped by the Yes side.
It’s worth saying that the official Liberal Party position is that a Voice is a good idea, it just shouldn’t be put in the constitution and so nationally orientated. Whether they stick to this in the event of a No vote, who knows.

So the yes campaign has been on the UK's inept Yes campaign to stay in the EU, wowzers.

[The Bishop]

Its quite possibly even worse than our 2016 remain effort.

[Devil Wincarnate]

Aug 31, 2023 11:25:15 GMT The Bishop said:

Its quite possibly even worse than our 2016 remain effort.

"Vote for me, you thick arseholes" is a campaign approach that does reappear more than it should.