After many months of bitter debate about the Voice, an address to the National Press Club this week reminds us that we are back at a point where it seems that, no matter what the truth may be, we will not let it lead to any change, writes Laura Tingle.
  • Cort@lemmy.world
    43·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      61·
      1 year ago

      Parliament is able to legislate, like with literally everything in the constitution. Parliament could legislate that all pollies need to be holding a special duck blessed by the king’s chief bum wiper to speak in the house if it wanted to.

      Provided the constitutional requirements are fulfilled (there’s a voice, they can make representations on indigenous issues) the precise nature of those representations, the composition of the voice etc are all a matter of legislation.

      It’s the same as every other constitutional requirement. The constitution provides minimum standards to meet and curtails certain powers, Parliament passes acts to fulfill those.

    • morry040@kbin.social
      53·
      1 year ago

      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.