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

Australia

3588 readers
106 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
71
The Voice debate is yet another ugly chapter in Australia's history (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Apologise accepted.

Now, back onto the topic:

We can agree that “make representations” usually means an advisory role, the issue is it introduces ambiguity. The referendum specifically used the word “representations”, which is the same word used to assign seats in parliament. If “make representations” means make recommendations, then why don’t just say “make recommendations” instead? The less ambiguous the wording is more support it will get, i see no reason to use a word that foreseeably stirs up so much controversy.

Also keep in mind that despite what the legal experts says, their interpretations are not legally binding, but words in the constitutions are. If me (and many others) can interpret “make representations” as potential extra seats in parliament, there’s always the risk of this phrase getting reinterpreted later for political reasons to actually give extra seats.

As for the executive branch, the Voice is too vague at its current stage to have it involved. Now, this wouldn’t an issue if we actually reach the treaty stage of the Uluru statement and we have a well-thought out treaty that designates the executive rights of aboriginals. It would be cool if we do that. But with how overarching the executive government is, the Voice should either be more specific (i.e. ditch the “we’ll figure it out once it passed” mentality), or leave it for the next stage of negotiation with aboriginals.

A well-thought out referendum needs to address concerns for everyone across the political aisle before getting pushed forward, especially if a major concern is just the wording. The two issues above should be easily identified at the drafting stage and both have relatively simple fix (i.e. no fundamental disagreement on the underlying purpose), but here we are. I feel bad for the aboriginals, fingers crossed this doesn’t make too much trouble for future referendums.

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

I decided to do a bit of research on the wording and came across this AAP articel which lead me to the explanatory memorandum for the constitutional amendment bill which uses the term "make representations" extensively.

  1. A representation is a statement from the Voice to the Parliament or to the Executive Government, or both. A representation would communicate the Voice’s view on a matter relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Parliament or the Executive Government may decide what action, if any, to take in response to a representation by the Voice. The Parliament may provide for the procedures to be followed by the Voice in making a representation
  1. Under s 129(ii), the Voice ‘may’ make representations. It is not obliged to do so in relation to any particular matter. While the Voice would be able to make representations on a broad range of matters, it would be both impractical and unrealistic to require or expect the Voice to make representations about all matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
  1. Subsection 129(ii) would not require the Parliament or the Executive Government to wait for the Voice to make a representation on a matter before taking action. Nor would s 129(ii) require the Parliament or the Executive Government to seek or invite representations from the Voice or consult it before enacting any law, taking any action or making any decision. Subsection 129(ii) would also not require the Parliament or the Executive Government to furnish the Voice with information about a decision, policy, or law (either proposed or in force) at any time.

With respect to your concerns:

If me (and many others) can interpret “make representations” as potential extra seats in parliament, there’s always the risk of this phrase getting reinterpreted later for political reasons to actually give extra seats.

That is certainly possible but I assume it would require someone else (likely the opposition) to not challenge it in the High Court. To get past that the judges who would have extensive knowledge of the constitution and legal language to approve whatever the parliament tries to do