Historic Indigenous voice referendum bill passes parliament

I'm not in anyway a representative for the 'Voice' campaign, so I'm happy to be corrected by anyone who's more informed (or actually involved!), but you've asked some pretty valid questions that we should be discussing.

So here's my 2c worth.

What can the Voice do anyway?

There have been a number of Aboriginal advocate groups since the beginning of the 20th Century. Some of these have been pretty influential and have gone a long way to achieving important milestones in recognition of Aboriginal & Torres Straights people.

Some of these include the establishment of NAIDOC week (most schools and communities do something for this - but it was established almost 70 years ago!). Some of these include really seemingly simple things like welfare pr making sure funeral needs are met in communities (imagine living in your home country and the government wouldn't let you farewell a dead family member because a cremation or burial is 'against the rules'...some of the issues have been this basic). And of course some include monumentally significant things like advocating for changes made by the the 1967 referendum.

So there is a significant history of Aboriginal Advocate groups pushing for advancement, making sure basic needs are met, promoting changes to reduce issues with alcohol, etc. All good things, but with a long way to go I'm sure everyone would agree.

So if an advocacy group can do all that, why the hell do we need to change the constitution?

Probably the crux of the issue. The problem with advocacy groups to date is that they have been constantly attacked or undermined by government on various levels. Here's some examples:

• Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association (AAPA) - strong evidence the organisation was broken up through the combined efforts of the NSW Aborigines Protection Board, missionaries, and the police.
• National Aboriginal Consultative Committee - plagued by tensions fueled by the opinions of non-Indigenous advisors to the government (Fraser coalition government).
• The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission - basically broken up by Howard.

Like any government bureaucracy the formal bodies had to deal with various tensions - but, that's like the whole purpose of politics right? If everything was a perfect and straightforward process we wouldn't need any politicians. I'm sure there were legitimate concerns with a number of these bodies, but the point is that when they became inconvenient they were given the boot (usually by one particular party). Another thing to note is that we've now got about 100 years of learning on what works and doesn't work with this type of Aboriginal advocate body.

Given this history and the lack of trust generated by some of the interventions like in the Howard years or Abbotts 'all talk no action', Aboriginal people are pretty jaded by the idea of 'yet another body to dismantle'.

So what's being proposed in the constitution is the need for the government to consult with the Voice on legislation affecting Aboriginal people. It's not enshrining a particular composition or remit, because experience shows that needs to be tweaked even as the issues shift.

Anyway, like I said, I only really know enough to scape the surface of the issues. But we rarely seem to get any discussion on "why" other than "it's better than the racists having a field day", so I hope this helps.

Anyone but I don’t think it would affect anyone but first Australians. I think everyone in Australia deserves the same rights. Having a seperate or parallel legal system/government doesn’t seem like a good idea. What if they have some backwards ideas on the rights of women, the lgbt or on corporal punishment.

To be fair I haven’t looked to see how it works in other countries with the similar First Nations issues, but the Indian Reservation system in the US doesn’t seem like something to copy.

The argument that they never conceded defeat doesn’t hold much water with me; it was an assimilation that’s not how that works.

I can see where you’re coming from. But a no vote will make australia a shittier place for our nonwhite members. So I don’t see it as voting for the voice, I see it as voting not to empower racist shitheads. Voting yes will at least not make the situation worse.

I have family in the yidingi in Cairns. It's a separate nation, as are all the aboriginal nations.

There are many separate nations.

My family member was just last week asking me how the hundreds of other nations will all agree and find a common ground. I had no answer as, just like he said, there is no one aboriginal nation, rather many individual nations.

One group of people from a nation or two, or ten even, can't make a decision for all aboriginal nations. That was his take anyway.

So he's voting no.

I am not aboriginal. I don't have full info on what the decision means. So I have no idea how I can vote either way.

Transparency is important. Inclusion of, and working with all aboriginal nations is also important.

Any differential treatment based on race is racism. Only way to stop it is not having it mentioned anywhere in the law. We need to stop this practice not enshrine it.