Brisbane

12 readers

2 users here now

Home of the bin chicken. Visit our friends:

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

deadcat@aussie.zone

gronax_au@aussie.zone

brisbot@aussie.zone

Tens of thousands of Australians hit the streets in support of the October 14 referendum (www.abc.net.au)

submitted 1 year ago by trk@aussie.zone to c/brisbane@aussie.zone

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

While polling for Brisbane has suggested the majority will vote No, one supporter of the Yes campaign, Nathan Appo said the large crowd was an indication of strong support.

Gotta say, I think it's going to be a fairly conclusive "NO" result unfortunately.

It's not really something that gets brought up in conversation all that often, but when it does I'm still kinda surprised at how many people plan on voting no. It's always the same arguments too... typical "no" talking points that have been parroted all over the major news channels and what not.

Bit disheartening to be honest, but I've kind of accepted we live in a pretty backwards part of Australia (let alone the world) in so many ways.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] samson@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

I kind of feel this is false. Not only has there been advisory bodies and committees in the past regarding other issues, but all the detail you need is in the constitutional amendment.

there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

The biggest concern that No has is some sort of High Court challenge in which the Voice could be allowed some sort of enumerated legislative capacity, the second is that it could provide "cover" to a government to introduce bills.

The first one is explicitly denied in the amendment; Government has the ability to make laws subject to the current constitution, and retains all ability to make laws regarding the composition and powers of the Voice. There's a potential that a High Court ruling could one day decide on such things as minimum standards for composition (such as being composed of Aboriginals) and representation (can't force them to fax only documents).

The second is true, but ignores the 10s of major think tanks, the media, public opinion and reactions, foreign representations and every other excuse under the sun a politician can use as cover for their decisions.

A lot has been said about lack of detail, but the important thing is looking at the constitutional amendment, all the cards are in Parliament's hands. If the Liberals think the Voice as it stands is bad, all they need is a simple majority to change the composition etc. Truly, they think a voice is a bad deal entirely.