You're viewing a single thread.
-
I think more needs to be done when it comes to First Nations people and closing the gaps but just can't get past the fact of allowing a group based on race to hold a position in parliament without being voted in each term by Australian voters.
-
Except they're not in Parliament. The Voice is a body that can make submissions to Parliament; they don't get to make the decisions. Parliament is still made up of elected representatives.
-
This is why I don't see the point of the whole thing. If it gives no special powers/rights... whats the point? I'd rather see an official treaty than a powerless voice.
-
We can still have both. This isn't a valid argument against the voice.
-
I don't follow. I'm not saying its either/or, I'm saying the voice looks like it will achieve nothing if it has no powers or additional rights. If it has the same access to parliament as existing lobbying bodies, why is it needed?
I understand the need for reconciliation and to improve outcomes for indigenous people, I just don't see how a body with no power can achieve it.
It seems like the yes camp are trying to have it both ways. To those leaning towards yes: "Yay its going to make a difference!" While at the same time those wary and leaning to no: "It won't change anything or have any real power". Which is it? I'm confused.
-
-
-
So if they can make submissions to parliament and the executive on matters, which don't have to acted upon, why do we need constitutional reform to allow it as part of our government. Aren't their numerous other organisations that do this already, provide advice to parliament on matters affecting First Nations people though their representatives?
-
It needs a constitutional change to ensure that it stays around and can become a part of the fabric of how things are done in the longer term. Even though it is relatively powerless, there is potential for it to provide influence over time for the betterment of First Nations People, but that would be lost if the next government just disbanded it as has happened in the past.
-
-
-
They won't hold a position in Parliament. That is not how this works at all.
-
I understand they won't hold a position within the upper or lower house but is it incorrect to say they won't hold a position in parliament?
-
Yes, that is incorrect. The Voice would be an advisory committee that could make proactive and reactive recommendations to parliament and government. It would not be part of the parliament itself.
-
No worries. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Definitely need to read more before the referendum.
-
Yes, everyone needs to learn more. As this article showed, the trouble with referendums in Australia is that it is too easy for the No side to win just by sowing doubt amongst people who haven't educated themselves. So many people who want to vote No don't like the idea of change because they don't understand what it means.
-
-
-
it is not correct. a position IN parliament is a very different thing; the voice is effectively a lobby group. The kind of thing BHP and Chanel 9 get without being a valuable part of Australia
-
-
-
They're not in parliament; literally all this does is mandate that their lobby group exist, not that anyone has to listen to them... it's not exactly a big ask
-
It's not a voice based on race, this is the biggest fallacy. It's a voice for the traditional owners of a land that was never ceded.
Is not because they're aboriginal, it's because they were here first.
-
See analogy above re ducks and quacks
-
It's nonsense mate, just because you say it a little louder doesn't make it any truer.
I can do analogies as well,
Let's give a special privalege to all fruit that are really high in potassium.
No it's unfair to give bananas special treatment just because they're yellow!
-
-
-