With the Voice to Parliament Referendum date announced to be October 14 2023, this thread will run in the lead up to the date for general discussions/queries regarding the Voice to Parliament.

The Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

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

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

Past Discussions

Here are some previous posts in this community regarding the referendum:

Common Misinformation

  • “The Uluru Statement from the Heart is 26 Pages not 1” - not true

Government Information

Amendments to this post

If you would like to see some other articles or posts linked here please let me know and I’ll try to add it as soon as possible.

  1. Added the proposed constitutional amendment (31/08/2023)
  2. Added Common Misinformation section (01/07/2023)

Discussion / Rules

Please follow the rules in the sidebar and for aussie.zone in general. Anything deemed to be misinformation or with malicious intent will be removed at moderators’ discretion. This is a safe space to discuss your opinion on the voice or ask general questions.

Please continue posting news articles as separate posts but consider adding a link to this post to encourage discussion.

  • Taleya
    51·
    10 months ago

    Ok, no.

    In legal terms ‘may’ means the Voice may act at their discretion (differing from ‘shall’, which is an obligation)

    • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      32·
      10 months ago

      May is discretionary but it is not clear in this instance as to who decides… until the last line where it says that parliament gets to decide the powers of the voice. It is clear that the voice has the choice to not make representations but it is not cut and dry that Parliament must accept representations.

      If they wanted it cut and dry they would have said “the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall receive any representations on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples made by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice” instead of using “may” which is subject to challenges.

      You seems to think this amendment was written by people who want what is best for Aboriginal Australians and not made by people who directly benefit from the injustices committed against Aboriginal Australians.

      • CalamityJoe
        4·
        10 months ago

        ‘May’ is used, (in addition to other reasons) because otherwise it creates a legal obligation on the Voice, to make representations.

        Then that would have to be regulated by parliamentary legislation, stating exactly when and how often the Voice legally has to make representations (once a year? Twice a year?) and when exactly.

        Even your example of ‘the legislature and executive “shall receive” representations from the Voice’ sets up the necessity of creating parliamentary legistion to regulate, as they would be needed to define how often and in what form (Email? Formal oration to shared session of HoR and Senate? Document submitted to Cabinet? Oration to Cabinet in a specific ceremonial format? Or to Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet?) those representations are to be made, in order for parliament to “receive them”

        And “shall receive” still puts the legal/constitutional obligation on the Voice to come up with and present those representations, (even if they’ve nothing important to say at that time, or need more time to discuss an issue) and then obey all those parliamentary regulations in order to fulfil the constitutional obligations you’ve just created.

        The current wording allows that a formal constitutional body, calling itself the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, may make representations to Parliament and the Executive, and therefore that those representations will be formally recognised as coming from a constitutionally enshrined and recognised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander entity. The current wording doesn’t force them to make representations, and more importantly, doesn’t mean the creation and the Voice having to follow strict rules about when, how, and how often those representations are made.

        With the current wording, if the Voice decided they wanted to present their representation as a handwritten piece of paper hand-delivered to the Prime Minister, they could. Because any legislation that blocks the Voice from making a representation to the Executive would be found unconstitutional. And any legislation moderating and regulating how the Voice can make those representations could be potentially challenged in the High Court if they negatively impinge the Voice’s ability to make those representations.

        Basically, the current constitutional wording allows for the creation of an ATSI Voice that can’t be told to shut up.

        And also importantly, can’t be closed down and discontinued through a legislative act of parliament.

        • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          22·
          10 months ago

          ‘May’ is used, (in addition to other reasons) because otherwise it creates a legal obligation on the Voice, to make representations.

          It is up to the voice to make representations and the voice should want to make a representation on everything that effects Aboriginal Australians. Eve if the representation is “I don’t hate this” The word may means the government isn’t obligated to receive representations. As it is right now anyone “may” make a representation to parliament but it is up to parliament to accept or ignore such representations. The wording in the proposed amendment changes nothing.

          And “shall receive” still puts the legal/constitutional obligation on the Voice to come up with and present those representations

          If the voice wants to be heard it has to do the talking. (I feel stupid for having to say that) Who else should have the responsibility to make and present representations for the voice other than the voice?

          The current wording doesn’t force them to make representations, and more importantly, doesn’t mean the creation and the Voice having to follow strict rules about when, how, and how often those representations are made.

          Sure but the wording also doesn’t force Parliament receive the representations either. They could receive a single representation once a decade and claim to have done their duty. Because the powers and construction of the voice is left to the Parliament to legislate and future governments to modify the government ultimately decides when and how the Voice can speak. It is a soft form gag order.

          And also importantly, can’t be closed down and discontinued through a legislative act of parliament.

          The don’t have to close down the voice they can just defund and declaw it till it is inoffensive. Again the funding, composition, and powers of the voice are all subject to legislature and thus not enshrined in the constitution.

      • TaleyaEnglish
        32·
        10 months ago

        … legalese on a countries constitution and your fee fees on ‘weasel words’ have zero relation to one another. Please stop.