this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
38 points (97.5% liked)

Australia

3962 readers
98 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chug@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I think more needs to be done when it comes to First Nations people and closing the gaps but just can't get past the fact of allowing a group based on race to hold a position in parliament without being voted in each term by Australian voters.

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Except they're not in Parliament. The Voice is a body that can make submissions to Parliament; they don't get to make the decisions. Parliament is still made up of elected representatives.

[–] IncongruousMonkey@aussie.zone 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is why I don't see the point of the whole thing. If it gives no special powers/rights... whats the point? I'd rather see an official treaty than a powerless voice.

[–] sycamore@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We can still have both. This isn't a valid argument against the voice.

[–] IncongruousMonkey@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago

I don't follow. I'm not saying its either/or, I'm saying the voice looks like it will achieve nothing if it has no powers or additional rights. If it has the same access to parliament as existing lobbying bodies, why is it needed?

I understand the need for reconciliation and to improve outcomes for indigenous people, I just don't see how a body with no power can achieve it.

It seems like the yes camp are trying to have it both ways. To those leaning towards yes: "Yay its going to make a difference!" While at the same time those wary and leaning to no: "It won't change anything or have any real power". Which is it? I'm confused.

[–] chug@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So if they can make submissions to parliament and the executive on matters, which don't have to acted upon, why do we need constitutional reform to allow it as part of our government. Aren't their numerous other organisations that do this already, provide advice to parliament on matters affecting First Nations people though their representatives?

[–] Kevster013@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago

It needs a constitutional change to ensure that it stays around and can become a part of the fabric of how things are done in the longer term. Even though it is relatively powerless, there is potential for it to provide influence over time for the betterment of First Nations People, but that would be lost if the next government just disbanded it as has happened in the past.

[–] billytheid@aussie.zone 6 points 2 years ago

They're not in parliament; literally all this does is mandate that their lobby group exist, not that anyone has to listen to them... it's not exactly a big ask

[–] sycamore@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's not a voice based on race, this is the biggest fallacy. It's a voice for the traditional owners of a land that was never ceded.

Is not because they're aboriginal, it's because they were here first.

[–] Affidavit@aussie.zone 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

See analogy above re ducks and quacks

[–] sycamore@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It's nonsense mate, just because you say it a little louder doesn't make it any truer.

I can do analogies as well,

Let's give a special privalege to all fruit that are really high in potassium.

No it's unfair to give bananas special treatment just because they're yellow!