this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
71 points (91.8% liked)

Australia

3588 readers
111 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 @[email protected] 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: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (3 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?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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