this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
66 points (91.2% liked)

Australia

3600 readers
22 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (21 children)

Is there a decent write up somewhere about what the voice actually is? I've heard a lot of debate about it, I'd like to read an impartial write up about it.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 17 points 1 year ago (9 children)

It will be a government body to advise the government on aboriginal laws. The government will need to listen to them but does not need to follow their advice. The problem, many Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people say, is that there are programs and funds to help but they are often misdirected and end up wasted or they target things the communities don't need. The idea is to ensure their voice is heard when the government legislates about them.

It's pretty uncontroversial when you strip it back.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

The government will need to listen to them but does not need to follow their advice

I'm almost certain I'm misunderstanding something, but this sounds like an aboriginal filibuster. If the government is 'required' to listen, and no time limit is spelled out in the amendment, could the voice be used to filibuster?

[–] morry040@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I doubt it. The whole "representation" part seems over-hyped. It's being promoted almost as if it will be a dedicated seat in parliament. The more likely outcome that it will just end up being a committee that reports into the existing NIAA structure and we don't end up seeing anything more impactful than what the NIAA is currently delivering.
If the Voice goes ahead, we can look forward to it running into the usual government bureaucracy, leading to disappointment once it becomes clear that government legislation doesn't solve issues that are occurring at the local, community level.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Calling it "representation" probably reading it wrong. To "make representations" means to complain officially to a person or organization

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think it means a complaint. It's just to speak officially for. You linked an idiom rather than the definition.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the clarification, still a far cry from a seat in parliament

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)