Talk:Indigenous Voice to Parliament

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work.

North8000 (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Claimed contradiction between Albanese's Garma statement and the Co-design Progress Final Report

How does Albanese's proposed "The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples," contradict "On behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the National Voice would have a responsibility and right to advise the Australian Parliament and Government on national matters of significance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples," and the further detail in Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report to the Australian Government's section 2.8? Transient-understanding (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"May make represenations" is a lot different to "have a responsibility and right to advise".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Update the name? Albanese proposal is for "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice" (not "Voice to Parliament")

The Albanese Government is currently not proposing a "Voice to Parliament" but an "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice" that may "make representations to Parliament AND the Executive government". What's the best way to amend the article name and introduction? Observoz (talk) Observoz (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think the name should be changed. Also, shouldn't Australia be mentioned in the title?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Since the wording of the proposed question and the proposed constitutional amendment are being debated by parliament starting next week, and continuing till June, there's no telling how or whether either of them will change before we go to the polls. I'd prefer to wait till the dust settles. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

shouldn't Australia be mentioned in the title? — There's no indication that "Australia" will be part of the formal name of the Voice, so unless there are some other similarly named "Voice" articles, it "unambiguously defines the topical scope of the article, [without being] more precise than that", without the word "Australia", so no disambiguator is required. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that this article should be called "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice". While the referendum mechanism bills are still flowing through parliament and all that, I would be very surprised if the name of the body did change, especially as changes to the name would result in significant alterations to the already announced referendum question and proposed constitution section. I think it would be best to move the article now, and if there is changes later down the line, review again then. Tim (Talk) 01:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Observoz Safes007 (talk)I agree it should be moved, but it may need a (commonwealth) or something similar to distinguish it from the state voices. SA has one now and I think others are planning to have ones as well. Having another look at WP:TITLE, there doesn't appear to be a requirement to use the official name. At present the most common way to refer to the proposed body seems to be "Voice to Parliament". I would support changing the name to just this, but the current title seems to best satisfy the recognisability and concise goals atm. If the body is implemented, the official name might make more sense however. Safes007 (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we would have to look at some data for this, "Indigenous Voice to Parliament" might be a bit hard to distinguish the proposed Commonwealth body from the South Australian First Nations Voice. I also think that it's potentially doing a disservice to say "to Parliament" in the title, as the proposed federal body makes representations to Parliament and the executive government. Tim (Talk) 02:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Quotation marks

Because the page is in Australian english, shouldn't the quotation marks be singles not doubles? I tried to change this but was reverted so I am asking here. Safes007 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing in either MOS:DOUBLE or MOS:ENGVAR that suggests that single vs double quotation marks is part of any national variety of English. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Lidia Thorpe stance on Indigenous Voice to Parliament

Didn't Lidia Thorpe say when quitting the Greens that she still has not made her mind up on the Voice? This web link says Lidia Thorpe has not decided and directly quotes her resignation from party speech. This wiki states she opposes the Voice. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I've added a reference (dated Sep 2022, so 6 months old) to the Wikipedia article; the article accurately reflects the reference, in that she said the referendum was a waste of money that would be better spend on communities. https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/now-i-will-be-able-to-speak-freely-lidia-thorpe-announces-shock-resignation-from-the-greens/a145tux3u does not say that she has not decided. It says "she has not yet formalised" her opposition to the Voice, and "[is] not announcing my final position on the Voice today [6 Feb 2023]". Mitch Ames (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Userbox

Hello everyone, I have created a userbox for those who are supporting the voice amendment...

This user voted YES for a
Voice to Parliament

To use, copy the following onto your userpage:

 {{User:GMH Melbourne/Userboxes/Yes for the Voice}}

- // GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Article WP:TOOBIG

I have tagged this article for being too long. I think that some sections of this article should be moved to 2023 Australian constitutional referendum (inline with WP:SECMOVE). I am not too sure of the section(s) that should be moved or is the article fine as is? // GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with moving sections to the referendum article - we need to draw a line between the proposed body itself (i.e. this article - history, design principles, rights and responsibilities), and the vote on if the body should be established (i.e., the referendum - the vote and question, public perception, position of political parties/notable people). I also think Indigenous Voice to Parliament#Public opinion needs to have fewer tables and graphs, and combine the key metrics into one table, which should help cut down the length. Tim (Talk) 05:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I will work on decluttering #Public Options  Done. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with too big, and will see if I can go through it and shave off some of the past detail that is less relevant now. Also, to me the Opposition to the Voice section still looks disproportionate (WP:UNDUE) - after I tried to knock some shape into the bit about what the various parties have said and done, yesterday - and has too many unnecessary and repetitive quotations. Thoughts? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Overlap

I see that there is a "Positions" section in the referendum article, which means there is overlap and probable omissions and inconsistencies. Can we have a discussion about where these opinions should go, and keep them in one place? Also (in the other article) there is a "Stances of public figures" section, which as I'm sure everyone agrees could be a very long list by October. Before a lot of random and disparate info gets added into one or the other article, can we reach a consensus on structure and how many groups or people's opinions Wikipedia should record? Next year it will be stale news. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO I don't think there should be a stances of public figures section. I've just deleted the handful that was there, because they are completely non-notable for anyone with a cursory knowledge of Australian politics. Noting that Andrew Bolt opposes the Voice would surprise no one and is not useful information, and at best should be on the referendum article. I'd say the only notable one is Gary Foley's opposition, which should be fleshed out as part of the Blak sovereignty opposition to the Voice.

There's also way too much information on the Coalition's opposition to the voice and I will be trimming it down significantly.

If there is a need for such a section, perhaps it should be formatted based on headings of arguments, rather than a list of people. Poketama (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth reshaping the Opinion polling for the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum article to move a lot of this info into? So the landscape would look like:

• This article: who, what, when, why, history of the Voice proposal - about the proposed body
• Referendum article (2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum): the referendum questions, mechanics, funding, results (later) etc - about the legal mechanisms involved and operationalisation
• Opinion article: general population polling, political parties, notable individual

Tim (Talk) 13:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good overview thankyou! I think there should also be an abbreviated opinion polling section on the referendum page as well. Poketama (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing work on this article

Atleast for tonight I'm moving things around, trying to shape this into a readable and usable article. Please bear with me as I will likely be editing while you're looking at it. My view is this page should primarily serve to explain the who, what, when, where, why of the Voice itself. At the moment it covers waaay too much and needs to be heavily trimmed, as well as content added in certain places like the history of Voice proposals.

A lot of information on the campaign should not be as heavily fleshed out here as it is on the Referendum page, as its not as relevant to the topic at question. Poketama (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I've also added an unbalanced tag to the page, as most of the information is on the opposition to the Voice. eg. in Jurisprudence section, in political parties section. Poketama (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm moving things around — Consider adding {{In use}} or {{Under construction}} as appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Poketama (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok there's still a lot of work to do on this very disjointed article but I made a start at trimming alot of the fat and rewriting wordy sections. Please feel free to continue! Poketama (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Poketama. It sounds as if you're doing much of what I'd like to see done, and Tim, that structure sounds more logical, thank you. I'm unfortunately just too busy (and stressed!) in real life to be doing much at the moment, but will get back to it in fits and starts. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Poketama and others, a quick observation - IMO Background should come first, but could be hugely reduced into brief summaries. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I made a start on trimming the whole Background section a bit, and created some subheadings for the bodies. I still think it needs to go ahead of the info about the current proposal, but not going to attempt that shift now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Minor editing thing

Does anyone know off the top of their head how to get rid of the "</noinclude>" that's floating around at the end of the excerpt section (Legislation and referendum)? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Managed to fix it myself. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Characterisation of the body in the first paragraph

I have re-reverted the edits to add "race-based" into the first paragraph. This is because this claim is unsourced and does not appear to be true. The basis of the body is to recognise Aboriginal and Torres-Strait Islanders in the constitution and to create a body that can make representations to the government. It is true that the body will be made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, but that follows from the purpose of the body and is explained in the next paragraph as to how the body will be formed. Safes007 (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This might resolve the disagreement. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The word race is not used in any part of the proposal for the referendum. This is simply an extension of the fact that the government does not use the word race to classify any people in Australia at all. The national census reflects this too, by asking about ancestry rather than race. The word IS used as part of the No campaign. There have been several attempts by an IP editor to add it here, presumably by someone opposed to the Voice. After once explaining the reason, to no avail, I have taken to simply reverting on sight. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

While I agree with you that "race" is not part of the proposal, the IPs have a point - albeit badly worded - that eligibility for membership of the Voice is based on a specific criteria. My edit is an attempt to explicitly state that fact, with appropriate words and a reference, in the hope that it would resolve the dispute. Apparently it has not stopped the dispute. The IPs, of course, are invited to discuss the matter here. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Article protection requested. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

First-Nation based is better than "race based", but I think it unnecessary given "... body comprising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people". Also "First-Nation based" is not directly supported by the reference whereas "comprising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people" is, per the quote for the ref. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Race based" doesn't sound correct, and "First Nations based" (Note that it is 'First Nations' not 'First-Nation') also doesn't sound correct.

I think that the sentence needs to be rewritten as to not repeat Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the sentence. Because to me I would not consider this "race based", due to the how that may be perceived due to historical reasons. As "race based" is usually associated with race based discrimination or violence.

When people discuss "race based" legislation, they are usually discussing exclusionary policies, i.e. White Australia Policy or the US Chinese Exclusion Act. Not really applicable to legislation designed for better representation of minorities. Just for example in Australia, members of minority groups make up about 6 percent of the federal Parliament

To be honest adding "race based" is, in my opinion, was unnecessary. The sentence clearly clarifies that it is for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Also, in Australia, we don't really use race anymore. Like we aren't "multiracial" but instead we are "multicultural". Now we can acknowledge that Racism does exist, but "race" isn't really part of the conversation, with it being more towards specific ethnic groups (for example Lebanese and Greek Australians).

I think that editors are just trying to add "race based" in bad faith, rather than encyclopaedic reasonings. By adding "race based" they are implying that it is a discriminatory policy, due to the current and historical usage of the phrase, "race based".

I hope this makes sense, if anyone would like to discuss this further on my talk page that will be fine. I just think that we probably need to understand exactly what we are implying if we are going to be using such charged terminology in an already controversial legislation.

Thanks! AverageFraud (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@AverageFraud The only caveat to this is that current positive Indigenous legislation (such as the native title act) is passed under Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution of Australia as a 'special law for the people of any race' (paraphrasing). However race in this context is defined more broadly than relating to "biology" or "genetics” and also includes common culture, beliefs, history etc. with an element of biological descent.

However, all of this is irrelevant to the voice, as it will stand on its own, without reference to s 51(xxvi). Safes007 (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It's true that we do have "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" twice in:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, also known as the Indigenous Voice to Parliament or the Voice, is a proposed Australian federal advisory body comprising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to represent the views of Indigenous communities.

I don't think it's excessive here in this context. Given the sensitivity of the terminology, I think it's better to keep that wording - because it accurately reflects the source - rather than trying to reword just for the sake of removing the duplication of the phrase. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Local, regional, national voices - capitalisation

I think we can reasonably treat the subject of the article, the (national) Voice as a proper noun, and capitalise it thus. But what about "local voice", "regional voice", "national voice"? Are they proper nouns? Currently we have a mixture, including "Local and Regional voices" - and I can't think of any rationale for capitalising "Local" and "Regional" here but not "voice".

Personally I think "local", "regional" and "national" should never be capitalised. I'm inclined to think that "voice" (singular or plural) after any of those words ought not be either, because there is only one proper named "Voice" - the "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice", or "Indigenous Voice ...". But comments are sought before I make any related edits. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames The way I was trying to do it (probably with mistakes) was to use small v for the concept and big V for a specifically proposed body. For example, I used National Voice and Local and Regional Voices for the proposed bodies in the liberal 2021 co-design report as they used capitals in the final report, but small v to describe the proposed bodies before the report was released.

However, I also see how that can have edge cases (like reports by non gov bodies), so the general rule you proposed above is also good, for the context of this page whose scope (I believe) is mostly focused on the currently proposed Voice. Safes007 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

Under Jurdaical concerns, there is a sentence describing a quote by Chris Merrit, which is quite poorly written. It currently reads; "It has also been described by Rule of Law Institute of Australia Vice-President, Chris Merritt, as “...clearly restrict the sovereign power of the Commonwealth in a way that nobody has even considered. It's very, very worrying.”. The current inclusion of the quote doesn't make much gramatical sense. Merrit, and the Rule of Law Institute of Australia have also expressed opposition to the current Voice Proposal, and i think this information should be included.

I suggest changing it from"It has also been described by Rule of Law Institute of Australia Vice-President, Chris Merritt, as “...clearly restrict the sovereign power of the Commonwealth in a way that nobody has even considered. It's very, very worrying.”, to "In response to their submission, Chris Merrit, the Vice President of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, who opposes the Voice, said; “It would clearly restrict the sovereign power of the Commonwealth in a way that nobody has even considered. It's very, very worrying.” BlueKnight04 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That wording change makes sense to me. Although it may also be useful to clarify the usual position of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia. Noting that Chris Merrit writes for The Australian, a long-term opponent of the Labor Party, I wondered how independent its position really is on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The current wording is a direct quote from Chris Merrit. If we change it then it will no longer be a quote. Note that he also described the implications as “terrifying” but I thought “…its very, very worrying” was a more neutral. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You are ignoring my point that both Merritt and the Rule of Law Institute of Australia are perennial opponents of anything the Labor Party does. It's a perfect example of WP:MANDY. HiLo48 (talk)

The proposed change by BlueKnight04 does not sense when you include the previous sentence, ie it would read:

The submission has been highlighted as contradicting the government's Constitutional Expert Group's advice and counteracts the solicitor-general’s advice. In response to their submission, Chris Merrit, the Vice President of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, said; “It would clearly restrict the sovereign power of the Commonwealth in a way that nobody has even considered. It's very, very worrying.”

I also disagree with including “…who opposes the Voice,” as the reference makes no mention of whether Chris Merrit supports or opposes the Voice. You would need to provide a reference to support this assertion.

Finally, regarding HiLo48 quoting the essay WP:MANDY, thats a new one, had’nt read one that before. Really struggling to see how this is relevant. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's relevant because opposing the Voice is exactly what one would expect from someone who writes for NewsCorp and is Vice President of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia. In other words, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?". HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

MANDY is a disputed essay.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is. But that doesn't change the fact that he would say that, does it? HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Is Murdoch really the ONLY source for negative comments?

In the section Juridical concerns, as far as I can see, EVERY negative comment about the Voice comes directly from a NewsCorp source, or from someone who writes for NewsCorp. These include The Australian, the Australian Financial Review, and even SkyNews.

Given that NewsCorp is openly and aggressively opposing the Voice, this isn't a healthy situation. Other sources really must be found for this section to have any credibility at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The recent addition I did to the judical section is based on Constitutional law professors Nicholas Aroney and Peter Gerangelos’s opinion. As far as I’m aware they have no connection to News Corp. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Your source is Sky News. Chris Merritt writes for The Australian. Couldn't get more NewsCorp than that. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48.

You are making it appear as if the opposition to the Voice is larger than it actually is by only using sources from NewsCorp.

Maybe some overseas newspapers have covered opposition to the Voice, but you can't just keep sourcing from NewsCorp.

Maybe some overseas newspapers have covered opposition to the Voice, but you can't just keep sourcing from NewsCorp. AverageFraud (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

HiLo48’s statement that “In the section Juridical concerns, as far as I can see, EVERY negative comment about the Voice comes directly from a NewsCorp source, or from someone who writes for NewsCorp.” is an exaggeration. Their are also negative comments which are referenced to ABC News, The Conversation and APH. There are also references to NewsCorp sources that either argue for the Voice, or contain both positive and negative comments, including 1 2 There are also plenty of positive / supporting comments and references. Therefore I do not believe their is an WP:NPOV issue with the Judical concerns section. Ilenart626 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a single ABC source, used several times. It says "Constitutional lawyers remain divided..." That's balanced. Not completely negative like almost all the Murdoch stuff. The SINGLE Conversation article discusses one person's suggested change. Nowhere near as negative as most of the Murdoch stuff. The APH source is simply fact. Neither negative nor positive. The rest is ALL NewsCorp. Whether you agree or not with the Murdoch line, it's simply a bad look. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This article might be helpful for balance. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-14/voice-to-parliament-referendum-committee-inquiry/102222928 Poketama (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with citing Murdoch publications.Jack Upland (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that EVERY negative comment about the Voice comes directly from a NewsCorp source, or from someone who writes for NewsCorp. It's perfectly valid to use such sources. The problem is that we don't have any other sources for the negative position. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It's NewsCorp that has decided to take the stand they have. Provided that it is presented in a neutral way (which it is), there is no issue with NewsCorp sourcing. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I NEVER SAID THERE WAS!!!!!!! What is wrong with people's comprehension here? HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Ilenart and Jack Upland here, the section cites sources from a variety of publishers. Even if only News Corp sources were cited, this would only be an issue if these sources were unreliable. I don't see a problem here. – Teratix ₵ 08:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You're missing my point. HiLo48 (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me make it as clear as I can. You seem to be making two claims: (1) Opposition in the juridicial concerns section is entirely sourced to News Corp publications (descriptive claim); (2) having this opposition entirely sourced to News Corp publications is a bad thing (normative claim). As Ilenart has already said, (1) is just false on the facts. AFR, ABC and The Conversation are cited to support negative perspectives on the proposed constitutional wording, none of which are published by News Corp. I would also disagree with the normative claim (2). What is important is whether the sources cited are reliable, not whether they are published by News Corp. And you don't seem to be alleging News Corp sources are unreliable. So, once again, I don't see a problem here. – Teratix ₵ 13:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You are misreading my position. Almost all the negative comment is from NewsCorp. THAT is a bad thing, NOT because Murdoch is a bad source, but because it is a single source. My position is nothing more than that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's just not true that "almost all the negative comment is from News Corp". I'm not sure how to respond except to urge you to double-check the article. And, to reiterate, even if I were to take that comment as true, I don't even see a problem with relying on News Corp sources – which are not "a single source", but multiple articles from multiple sources that happen to be published by the same entity. – Teratix ₵ 02:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You are making it appear as if the opposition to the Voice is larger than it actually is by only using sources from NewsCorp. AverageFraud (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Well the opposition to the Voice seems |pretty large now. As Teratix has said, I don't really think there's an issue with the sourcing, and it is easy to find opposition in the ABC and the Guardian. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

So find it and add it!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this really an issue? I'm finding the ABC is pretty even-handed on YES and NO. This article, for example.

The Guardian has a big graphic here showing steadily declining support.

As the referendum date nears and public interest grows, of course there are more stories and of course they report various aspects of the public debate.

As with the republic thing, the more people learn about a change, the less they support it because they are exposed to views from those opposed, rather than the generally positive views expressed by those initiating the move who control the early spin.

Support - and news stories from all sources - seems pretty evenly divided right now. I think that our article should reflect the diversity of views on the basis of WP:NPOV --Pete (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to add a background to the logo?

Currently the logo for the voice is a svg that doesn't display properly when using a dark theme. Does anyone know of a way to add a white background to the image? Safes007 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to insist that the logo be viewed against a white background? Seriously, perhaps it's intended to be transparent - is it worth checking with the NIAA media team? Mitch Ames (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames I don't really mind what the background is, I just want to solve this problem - https://imgur.com/a/e5yZ93N Safes007 (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Does the Voice need constitutional change?

In the lede we say:

If approved in an upcoming referendum called by the Albanese Government, the Voice would be empowered by the Australian Constitution to make representations to the Parliament of Australia and executive government on matters relating to Indigenous Australians.

This cannot possibly be true. Section 51(xxvi) as amended in 1967 - the races power - gives the Commonwealth this power, and has been used already to create similar groups. ATSIC, for example, of which we say,

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) (1990–2005) was the Australian Government body through which Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were formally involved in the processes of government affecting their lives…

Perhaps we could reword our misleading statement to reflect the reality; the power exists but the referendum is aimed at giving symbolic recognition. --Pete (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The lede sentence that you quoted is correct. Although the government could create the Voice without a referendum or Constitutional change, the Voice will - if approved by referendum - be added to the Constitution, and thus "empowered by the Constitution". The fact that the govt could create a non-constitutional Voice does not invalid that it could added to the Constitution. (Whether it is purely "symbolic" is a matter of opinion that does not affect the fact of the current sentence.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It is - as noted - misleading in that it suggests that a referendum is required. I don't think we should be in the business of misleading our readers. Constitutional powers are specific entities, more the subject of debate in the High Court than off-the-cuff opinions in newspaper articles, and in a constitutional sense, the Voice is not empowered so much as enabled or constituted in much the same way as the Inter-State Commission defined in ss101-104. --Pete (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording is misleading, but nor is it cast in stone. What do you suggest changing it to? Mitch Ames (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

A Voice COULD be created without constitutional change, but if it was, a new government with a different view on the matter could immediately demolish it upon taking power. Given that the Opposition Leader is publicly opposing it, that would seem to be likely in the present circumstances. A constitutional change would ensure that the Voice lasts longer than the duration of one government. Maybe we need to somehow reflect that reality in our wording. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Mmmm, but have a look at sections 101-104 I mentioned. They establish an Inter-State Commission which was later implemented in detail in legislation. You will, however, search in vain for this constitutionally-enshrined body. It was abolished by a later government. Sure, we could all vote YES in the referendum but a later parliament could repeal the legislation. The High Court has no ability to enforce its interpretations; that's up to the government. Just because something is in the Constitution doesn't mean that it's set in stone.

You want a government that listens to Indigenous Australians, vote for it. Albo, I suggest, has his ears wide open, along with eyes, heart, mind and soul. Vote for that guy. --Pete (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a clarifying sentence nearby in the lead: Under alternative proposals, or in the event of an unsuccessful referendum vote, the Voice may be introduced by legislation rather than enshrined in the Constitution. If we take this into account I don't think the wording is misleading. Although as Mitch said, if you have an alternate wording proposal, that would be helpful for comparison. – Teratix ₵ 02:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the phrase "empowered by" that jars. There's no new head of power being created. I'd make a simple change:

If approved in an upcoming referendum called by the Albanese Government, the Voice would be recognised in the Australian Constitution to make representations to the Parliament of Australia and executive government on matters relating to Indigenous Australians. (suggested change italicised)

That's accurate and doesn't mislead our readers. I could quibble about the phrase "Parliament of Australia" but I don't think anyone is going to be misled there. --Pete (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

the Voice would be recognised in the Australian Constitution — This makes it sound like the Voice already exists (but is not recognized), which is not the case. I propose:

If approved in an upcoming referendum called by the Albanese Government, the Voice would be prescribed by the Australian Constitution, to make representations to the Parliament of Australia and executive government on matters relating to Indigenous Australians.

which is more accurate. The Constitution causes the creation of the Voice, it does not empower/recognize an existing Voice. Alternatives to "prescribed" could be "decreed" or "mandated" or similar. Note the addition of the comma before "to make representation", because it is a non-restrictive clause - the Voice is not required to make representation, it is allowed to.

Or perhaps:

If approved in an upcoming referendum called by the Albanese Government, the Voice would be added to the Australian Constitution, to make representations to the Parliament of Australia and executive government on matters relating to Indigenous Australians.

An alternative would be to reword to sentence to match the legal reality - technically we are voting for the Constitutional change, not the Voice, so:

If approved in an upcoming referendum ... the Constitution would decree/prescribe/mandate the Voice, which could make representations to the Parliament ...

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I like

If approved in an upcoming referendum ... the Constitution would prescribe the Voice, which could make representations to the Parliament ...

Not sure that "prescribe" is absolutely the best choice because as with the case of the Inter-State Commission, Connstitutional recognition does not mean practical reality, but if a doctor prescribes a drug it doesn't mean it's going to be actually applied. --Pete (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Pete, I'm not sure that your take on the Inter-State Commission is accurate. It has always existed, in a constitutional sense, since 1901, and will continue to exist until such time as a referendum removes it from the Constitution. Why? Because the Constitution says it exists. Yes, the Constitution also says that the Parliament has the power to decide how it will operate in a practical sense, and that includes circumstances in which it is NOT operating in a practical sense (such as 1901-12, 1920-75, and since 1990). If the current government chose to remake the ISC in the form it once had, it wouldn't require any new laws, simply an Administrative Arrangements Order signed by the G-G.

Similarly, if the Voice referendum gets up, the Voice will exist because the Constitution will say it does. The Voice will have been created BY the Constitution, exactly as the ISC was created BY the Constitution. The fact that a form of a Voice could be created by legislation doesn't alter this. Any Voice created by legislation would have the character of impermanence, and any and all of its fundamental properties, features, rights and responsibilities could change whenever the parliament decrees; while the fundamental aspects of a constitutionally created Voice could not be changed except via another referendum. So, we're essentially comparing apples and oranges. Yes, I know nothing in the Constitution is ever truly permanent, which is why there's a mechanism for changing it, but that argument leads us down ferret burrows and places we don't need to go. (Nothing in the entire Universe is ever truly permanent, except the Universe itself.) So, the Voice that will be created if the referendum passes will indeed be a new head of power.

This is why I would prefer to say: "If approved in an upcoming referendum ... the Constitution would establish the Voice, which could make representations to the Parliament .." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

My point is that the I-SC is mentioned in the Constitution but has no physical existence. I think it exists in a notional sense in that some public servant has the title of Inter-State Commissioner in a Chiltern Hundreds way.

But if we say that such things are established in the Constitution then we are getting into misleading our readership, who might imagine that merely inserting words brings something into physical existence. Schrodinger's Cat or Santa Claus occupy the same sort of imaginary reality.

The Constitution itself goes into some detail about the Commonwealth, who its officers are, its powers, composition, procedures and so on. Did the Commonwealth have any actual existence when the Constitution was signed into law on 9 July 1900?

Saying that the Voice will exist if the referendum passes, or when the constitutional alteration bill is signed into law, or when the wording becomes effective is smoke and mirrors and while that's fine in a discussion about imaginary cats or gift-distributing reindeer riders I think we should try to keep our article as clear and accurate as possible. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The ISC has no physical existence at the present time. That could all change tomorrow with no more than the stroke of a pen. That's because it does have a constitutional existence, and always has had since 1 January 1901.

"Did the Commonwealth have any actual existence when the Constitution was signed into law on 9 July 1900?" - No, simply because it was deemed to be effective from 1 January 1901, not a second before. I don't know exactly when Barton was sworn in as PM that day, but I promise you it wasn't a moment after the stroke of midnight. There was a period of time that day - presumably quite a few hours, during which it was possible for all manner of events to have occurred - when the Commonwealth of Australia existed but there was no government. Literally no government. But the Commonwealth existed, because the Constitution which created it said it did.

I don't think many, or any, people interested enough to read our article think that merely inserting words actually brings anything into physical existence. That would be tantamount to magic, because bringing things into existence takes work, human effort, organisation, all the rest of it. But the words lie behind that activity, and authorise it, and not just permit it, but demand that it occur. This is the very real difference between a doctor's prescription and the Voice constitutional provision. A patient has to decide to go to the chemist to have the script filled, and then has to decide to take the pill, and decide to keep on taking it for as long as the script indicates. But once the Voice is in the Constitution, the Voice will exist, full stop. What happens next in terms of parliamentary activity about its operating rules etc cannot ever make the Voice cease to exist. Only another referendum could do that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

My point about the Commonwealth is that the Constitution became law on 9 July 1900 but the Commonwealth had no physical existence until 1 January 1901, nearly six months later. Just a potential. The timings on that day aren't critical. I think that the ceremonies took place at noon, or possibly on the stroke of the new millennium in London, but whatever, the thing was up and running after that moment. Something real, something tangible, something costing money, owning assets, employing staff, holding proceedings and taking notes.

I don't think it's quite so (so to speak) black and white as existence/non-existence. We say

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, also known as the Indigenous Voice to Parliament or the Voice, is a proposed Australian federal advisory body comprising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people…

What sort of existence does a federal advisory body have if it has no bodies? I think a reasonable person would say there is a potential existence but not an actual tangible fungible corpus.

Anyway, this is all getting rather arcane. Once Albo is voted out (or booted out by his own party, both apparently equally popular ways for Prime Ministers to leave the stage nowadays) the mere fact of whatever sort of constitutional existence the Voice, the Inter-State Commission, the right to trial by jury and so on might enjoy does not mean that any of those things will have anything that an ordinary mortal might latch onto.

The next PM along could repeal the Voice legislation or modify it into irrelevance or simply dump it out the door. The words of the Constitution have no power in themselves, the High Court cannot force the government to implement it in a form of the High Court's choosing, the thing would have a notional existence but there would be no advisory body to offer advice.

Simply holding a referendum and getting a YES vote doesn't mean there is an actual advisory body. It would not have the solidity of constitutional permanence that a person lacking constitutional understanding could imagine it might have. Governments could tinker with it any way they wanted. --Pete (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

WTF? My presence in a discussion, even if only in a small way, really seems to trigger you. Please stop talking about me, again. I am simply NOT the topic! HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You raised the subject of constitutional permanence and I responded. The Voice, even with a YES vote, doesn't have any real solidity. Firstly there is the example of the constitutionally-enshrined Inter-State Commission that no longer exists because a PM simply abolished it. And secondly, the Voice itself would be set up and administered through ordinary legislation that could be modified and repealed in exactly the same way as ATSIC and other advisory bodies were established and demolished through whims of democracy.

I am sorry that your comment above was seized upon by others. I took no offence, and let it be known that I will never seek to goad you or complain about your behaviour. I would prefer that we discuss issues where our views might differ in an atmosphere of mutual respect for each other, if not our political opinions. --Pete (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

once the Voice is in the Constitution, the Voice will exist — I'm not a Constitutional lawyer so I don't know if this is actually the case, but it seems there are two possibilities:

1. the Constitution is a command, telling the government that it must create the Voice (but the voice does not exist until the government creates it)
2. the Constitution is a performative utterances, whose writing creates the Voice

Mitch Ames (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

We define the Voice as a "federal advisory body" and I don't think such a body can have any sort of actual existence if it has no membership and hence no capacity to advise. Would it be an empty vessel or would it be thoughts and prayers?

I think that mentioning the Voice in the referendum doesn't actually create it so much as reserve a space for it in the same sense that gaining council approval for a building does not do any actual construction work but is a step along the journey.

One could build the house without the council approving the plans, and one could assemble the Voice without any constitutional mention. As indeed Albo could do if the vote turns out to be NO. In that case we would then have a Voice proffering advice and so on, without either a command or a performative utterance in our Constitution.

On that note, may I take you to the third sentence of Section 128 of the Constitution (it is 150 words long, you cannot miss it) which purports to allow a referendum bill to be passed by one house alone and has been used - once - by the Senate to attempt to amend the Constitution. The Governor-General on that occasion took the position that they could only be advised by the Prime Minister and hence the bill passed by the Senate alone did not proceed.

Does the Constitution create the possibility of the Senate amending the Constitution without government approval, or is it a nullity due to the inconvenient convention of responsible government?

There are any number of such oddities in the Constitution. It is full of dead ends and moribund clauses. We could add in a section for a Voice that never became implemented in law if there was a YES vote but for some reason the enabling legislation never made it through Parliament - a very real possibility if the Senate cross-bench was to object to the details of the proposal - and in such a case, the new section would be neither a command nor a performative utterance but merely a languishing potential. --Pete (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe the Interstate Commission exists.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Member representing views of the community

I don't think its correct to say the voice will be made up of members to represent to views of Indigenous communities. The constitutional amendment requires the Voice to be comprised of Indigenous people and to make representations on matters affecting indigenous people, but there is nothing that requires the members of the body to represent the views of Indigenous communities (wherever they may be). Assuming a member is elected to represent a certain community, on deciding whether or not to vote on giving a representation to parliament, they may (and probably usually will) decide to base their decision on the views of the community, but will ultimately make the decision themselves based of various factors. The Voice isn't just a conference of delegates bound to act a certain way, there's a broader purpose and discretion. Similarly, MPs aren't elected to represent their seats views, they also need to consider party politics and compromise. Safes007 (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The constitutional amendment requires the Voice to be comprised of Indigenous people — No it does not. The proposed 129(i) says it shall exist; (ii) says it "may make representations ... relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples", but not that it shall comprise Indigenous people; (iii) says "the Parliament shall ... make laws with respect to ... its composition". The government will almost certainly legislate (per the design principles) that it comprise Indigenous people, but the Constitution itself will not required it.

If we are going to accept that the design principles are "almost certain to take place" (if referendum result is "yes") and say "to comprise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people", then we ought to be able to accept them to say "to represent the views of Indigenous communities". Mitch Ames (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that the constitution doesn't require the members to be indigenous, I got completely mixed up there.

I don't think it's a problem saying the members will represent the views of Indigenous communities, my problem is the form of the sentence '... to be comprised of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to represent the views of Indigenous communities.' It makes the role of members seem more prescriptive and limited than anything the design principles say. For example, the design principles say 'Members of the Voice would be expected to connect with – and reflect the wishes of – their communities.' 'Reflect the wishes of their communities' is a much broader idea than representing the views of a community, as the former gives more leeway to consider other factors.

I think '... to be comprised of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, chosen according to the wishes of Indigenous communities' gets across this leeway, while still maintaining the link to Indigenous Communities, with the fact that they will reflect the views of their communities being an obvious implication, but one that arises structurally, not due to a legal requirement. Safes007 (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I still think that, for the first sentence, it is more important to mention the mandatory constitutionally-required purpose of the Voice (make representation to government) than it is to mention how it is chosen (which is not constitutionally required). However we could probably do both. I propose

... the Voice is a proposed ... advisory body to comprise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, chosen by Indigenous communities to represent their peoples.

First "people" is singular, denoting many individuals. Second is plural, denoting many Indigenous nations. This matches the design principles and the Constitution wording.

(Note: "comprise", not "comprised of" - see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/comprise)

Mitch Ames (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I think putting the membership of the Voice in the first sentence is confusing things, because it is the Voice that has the constitutionally-required purpose of making representations to Parliament, not individual members. Perhaps something like (if my grammar is right),

... the Voice, is a proposed Australian federal body that would represent the views of Indigenous Communities by providing advice to Parliament. It would comprise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, chosen according to the wishes of Indigenous communities.

Safes007 (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be going in circles. That's similar in principle (but more verbose) than what we had before you started changing it here!I still think we should keep the first sentence relatively short (MOS:LEADCLUTTER), but including the essence of the important points: "... to comprise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, chosen by Indigenous communities to represent their peoples." Note that the (current) 2nd sentence already has "make representations to the Parliament ... relating to Indigenous Australians", so there's no need to duplicate that ("represent the views of Indigenous Communities by providing advice to Parliament") in the first sentence . Other editors are invited to comment ... Mitch Ames (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The distinction I think I am making from the original and this one is separating out members from the body. For example, as an analogy, I don't think the sentence 'The Australian Senate, is an Australian house of parliament comprising members to represent the views of their States.' is correct as someone like Pauline Hanson or other minor parties aren't merely representing the views of their state. They also seek to change the views of their state, campaign on issues or just represent a subset of the State. Collectively, the members of the senate represent the states, but to say *a* member represents a State isn't correct.

In the meantime, I'll revert to the original version in the absence of a consensus. Safes007 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

References

This article on the voice

Its very informative but when i went to share on my fb, it has a pic of Neville Bonner?? Why is that? 2001:8003:7480:2F00:4DB7:219D:85:C6B5 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Per the caption under the image, and the article text (under Background, Indigenous Australians in Parliament, for context), Bonner was the first Aboriginal federal parliamentarian - a significant event in the history of Aboriginal representation to / in Parliament. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The technical reason is Bonner's picture is the first freely-licensed image to show up in the article and so the thumbnail may use it by default. – Teratix ₵ 15:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

How about using an image of the three flags, towards the top of the article, so that it shows first, such as [[File:The 3 Flags of Australia.jpg]]? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

oops

Sorry, Safes007, of course you are correct. I was tired when I made that change and I think that my brain had jumped to the earlier working parties in the co-design process. I'm not sure that it's necessary to repeat "Albanese government" there though (note that "government" doesn't need initial capital here, btw), having just mentioned it in the paragraph above. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good Safes007 (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of History of Indigenous Australians section

I don't see why this section needs to be included at all. Especially under the heading "Legislation and referendum". Are we just padding out the article to fit a word count? Just add it to the see also section, or if you must link it in the article use the excerpt template or the further template.

Cheers, AverageFraud (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd also argue that the "Indigenous Australians in Parliament" section is also not needed. The only sections that I believe would be relevant to this article would be "Indigenous Australians in the Constitution" and "Previous national Indigenous advisory bodies", and even then these need to be shorter and put into their own articles. Also the last section "State and territory voices" just needs it's own article/s and should be linked in see also. The current article is bloated and is in desperate need of some copyediting. I will begin doing this work tomorrow if no one is opposed. AverageFraud (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

arguments in favour and against

Re: arguments in favour and against, removed here... I think there's a reasonable case for include a short summary of the arguments for/against - but in 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum, rather than Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

The recently removed text was reasonably worded in Wikpedia's voice "Proponents/Opponents of the Voice argue that ...", and it needs to be balanced, neutral, and well sourced, which that text appeared to be. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried my best. AverageFraud (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@HiLo48 AverageFraud (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

There are many arguments, both for and against. Some are good arguments. Some are crap. Among us we would probably not always agree on which are good and which are crap. How do we choose which ones to include? HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

So the issue is the scope of how many arguments there will be? AverageFraud (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "scope". I believe it would be too difficult to choose which arguments to include to make the exercise doable. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll concede on that. A similar approach to the Brexit article, might be appropriate. I guess we could also look to maybe something similar to how these articles might handle it: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, General Data Protection Regulation, 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum AverageFraud (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

For “scope” a good place to start maybe the official referendum pamplet. I also agree it would be better in the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum rather than this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe establishing the goals of the proposal and why it failed might be better than an argumentative essay format, and only allow what's heavily sourced with hidden text urging people not to add whatever their opinion is. We could also very easily tie in reasons for opposition/support as well in that way, without having a per se section on it. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Lost content

Somewhere along the way, this article has lost a lot of content of the development of the previous government's design (Indigenous voice to government), and along with it, a few redirects to sections to people and things which no longer exist, apart from section redirects on various other pages. I have just removed one from a DAB, but someone should look at these redirects and get rid of any that no longer apply, or change accordingly. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

And what has happened to the South Australian Voice to Parliament? That was a significant event, and relevant to the national Voice, but somehow that has been entirely lost, so the redirects to the now non-existent section go nowhere. Can whoever removed these things please replace them? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I've just re-targeted those redirects by expanding the targets a bit - but it is unfortunate that content has been lost like this. I wish people would think about the broader impact when they just remove content because it seems like a good idea. There is housekeeping to be done. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Would it be better to link to the SA section on the state and territory voices to parliament page? It seems to have more detail, but there might be other considerations. Safes007 (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Safes007 - that would be a better target. In my haste and tiredness, and having only edited this article minimally recently, I was not aware or had forgotten about the existence of the Australian state and territory Indigenous voices article. I will change the redirects. This article should really include a link to it somewhere more prominently in the article, but thank you for adding it to the See also section. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)