this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
29 points (91.4% liked)

Australia

3606 readers
81 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 @Tau@aussie.zone 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: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] macrocephalic@lemmy.fmhy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that it will be a non voting position for an indigenous person in parliament to directly address parliament. Indigenous people have been very marginalised and suffer from multi generational discrimination. This will just be a way to hear and recognise their opinions directly rather than it having to go through the filter of politicians.

The counter to it is that it undermines democracy where the majority speaks. Personally I don't buy that; the hallmark of a civilised society is helping those in need - and we've pushed our indigenous people into a deep hole.

I have never heard of it being a 'non-voting indigenous representative in parliament'.

If this was the plan for the Voice, then all we would really be doing is adding a representative with less sway in the parliament than an Independent, think Kate Chaney, Helen Haines. They can get things done, but their resources are limited. A 'non-voting indigenous representative in parliament' wouldn't have the bandwidth for the amount of projects they'd be expected to take on, on day one.

To be clear, per the constitional proposal, i think a 'non-voting indigenous representative in parliament' could fit the constitutional requirement, as it doesn't impose any organisational structure requirements on the Voice. The constitutional language, (aka what us plebs are voting on), is kept vague deliberately to allow change over time, but hard to abolish altogether. Thats how i've come to understand it.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that it will be a non voting position for an indigenous person in parliament to directly address parliament.

This is misleading, the Voice is not one person nor is it "in parliament". It is a permanent advisory body that can make recommendations to Parliament and/or government. If you are confused on the difference, just look at the name; it is a Voice to Parliament, not a Voice in Parliament.

[–] macrocephalic@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Fair enough on it being a board rather than a single position, the intent is still the same, it's a way for indigenous issues to be presented directly to parliament without being filtered by existing politicians.