With a referendum on the Voice to Parliament approaching in the second half of the year, there's one myth about the proposed body which refuses to die, despite repeated debunking.
It is sad to see this style of post-truth politics come to something as basic as giving indigenous Australians a voice. Hopefully enough of the public see through the manipulation.
Why implement a permanent solution to a temporary problem of inequity?
Surely the inequity can be dealt with and then the need for special representation will cease to exist?
I seriously don’t understand why this needs to be in the Constitution. It is too permanent and removing it later, when its original purpose no longer applies, will be a costly and ugly argument.
It’s not about inequality. The problem is that currently as it stands there is no special status in the constitution for the voice of the traditional owners of a land on which sovereignty was never ceded. It’s a permanent problem that the voice will address.
The way I see it is that we’re creating an advisory body to advise parliament on how to deal with issues affecting indigenous Australians. It’s really all about having the best information available to parliament when needed so good legislation and informed debates can be had. Whether parliament actually uses it or not is another thing entirely.
With it being in the constitution, I suppose only the people of Australia can remove it whether that be in 10, 20 or 200 years time have decided that we don’t need it any more.
I agree, they have been pretty light on the details and if the referendum fails then this will have been the reason.
The way I’ve heard it put is that the workings of the voice will be handled by further legislation. Which while allows for great flexibility in the constitution, unfortunately leaves Australians on the outside.
I think the yes campaign would have much better success if there was some draft legislation to show us what this would look like.
I agree, there’s nothing stopping Labor from Legislating the Voice now and then asking for a referendum to make it permanent, it would lack some of the Consitutional power in the interim but would be a far fairer method of going about it.
It is sad to see this style of post-truth politics come to something as basic as giving indigenous Australians a voice. Hopefully enough of the public see through the manipulation.
Why implement a permanent solution to a temporary problem of inequity?
Surely the inequity can be dealt with and then the need for special representation will cease to exist?
I seriously don’t understand why this needs to be in the Constitution. It is too permanent and removing it later, when its original purpose no longer applies, will be a costly and ugly argument.
It’s not about inequality. The problem is that currently as it stands there is no special status in the constitution for the voice of the traditional owners of a land on which sovereignty was never ceded. It’s a permanent problem that the voice will address.
No one should get a “special status” based on race, ever, for any reason.
I agree 100%
The voice to parliament isn’t a privilege attributed to a race, it’s a privilege for the traditional owners of the land.
The way I see it is that we’re creating an advisory body to advise parliament on how to deal with issues affecting indigenous Australians. It’s really all about having the best information available to parliament when needed so good legislation and informed debates can be had. Whether parliament actually uses it or not is another thing entirely.
With it being in the constitution, I suppose only the people of Australia can remove it whether that be in 10, 20 or 200 years time have decided that we don’t need it any more.
Edit: Missing words
Your first sentence is a tautology because that’s what has been proposed, that isn’t in question at all.
“ It’s really all about having the best information available to parliament when needed so good legislation and informed debates can be had.”
Nothing I’ve seen about the structure of the proposed Voice guarantees that the advice will be listened to, acted on or fact based.
What I would like to see is a meritocratic process for membership to the Voice, a term limit on its establishment and actual power in government.
I agree, they have been pretty light on the details and if the referendum fails then this will have been the reason.
The way I’ve heard it put is that the workings of the voice will be handled by further legislation. Which while allows for great flexibility in the constitution, unfortunately leaves Australians on the outside.
I think the yes campaign would have much better success if there was some draft legislation to show us what this would look like.
I agree, there’s nothing stopping Labor from Legislating the Voice now and then asking for a referendum to make it permanent, it would lack some of the Consitutional power in the interim but would be a far fairer method of going about it.
Yeah and certainly get a much stronger backing if we get to “try before we buy” so to speak