• Australis13@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • chug@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

    • IncongruousMonkey@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • IncongruousMonkey@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.