This isn’t one of the things that should be out in the constitution and “have the finer details decided on afterwards”. An advisory board with no power doesn’t belong in the constitution.
There is no “official literature” with what it would look like if it won. There are lots of ideas, but nothing concrete. It can’t be both “we’ll work out the details later” and “here are the details”.
The same exact thing would essentially happen with a constitutionally protected voice though, that’s the thing. Under the LNP they’d just strip it right back till the point where it may as well have been legislated out of existence. The referendum protected a name only basically.
They also didn't tell us how the people would be selected btw. They weren't necessarily elected, which is yet another problem people had with it. It would no doubt have just been more "jobs for the boys".
Who will this person be, claiming to represent the interest of 200 distinct language groups? What laws will be made?
The person you're talking to thinks those details are irrelevant and we should have voted yes in order to find out. For crying out loud, it's not even in the constitutional amendment that there needs to be an indigenous person on the Voice lol.
Yet they wouldn't legislate any real power for it, nor even the size or makeup of the advisory board. Note the proposal didn't even say that the advisory board had to be made up of or even include an indigenous person.
No one is asking for the "perfect" solution, just not a shitty virtue signalling one that will change nothing.
Recognise aboriginals in the constitution and add an advisory board that can’t simply be removed by the next government. It says it right there.
That's not the details people are asking for. How many people would be on the advisory board? How would they be selected? How long would their terms be?
They. Would. Not. Give. Us. Any. Details. This is a huge part of the reason why they lost. People don't trust the government, and this was a huge "trust us, we'll definitely do the right thing this time" move. It's no surprise it backfired so badly.
So now you know, had you done some basic research you would have gotten your answer.
Maybe try not being so smug when you're incorrectly answering questions next time.
No, that couldn’t have been the start because it likely would have been the end too. What was proposed wasn’t the bare minimum, it was a complete embarrassment. It was a giant “trust us guys, we’re the government and we’ll definitely do the right thing”.
No one got played. Maybe, just maybe, the majority of people saw this ridiculous waste of time and money as just that. A virtue signalling waste of time and money so the rich inner city lefties can feel good about themselves for ending racism by doing the absolutely smallest thing possible.
I don’t say it would be abolished, just that it could and likely would essentially be completely gutted many times over because like I said, the only thing that’s protected is the thing existing.
I don’t say it would be abolished, just that it could and likely would essentially be completely gutted many times over because like I said, the only thing that’s protected is the thing existing.
I would have voted yes if we were guaranteeing something to indigenous people that would actually be guaranteed to help, like 10 senate seats or something. A new indigenous government agency that gives indigenous people money and say over all indigenous things.
You know what would also really help? Details about the thing I’m voting on, not a vague “just leave the details to us, the government, who have shown we’re not to be trusted over and over again”.
Voting for the voice as it was was essentially maintaining the status quo while being able to pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves we saved the indigenous people.
It literally would be another toothless advisory panel because it was not going to have any power. Being constitutionally supported just means it has to exist in some unspecified form. There was no “demonstrated will of the Australian people” in it.
You know what does have the demonstrated will of the Australian people? That the proposed voice was a bad idea. That shouldn’t be ignored.
That’s reason to vote against it because it’s pointless. It achieves nothing positive, and likely leads to decades more of inaction because “but we put you guys in the constitution and gave you a voice, what more can we do?!”.
I’m not voting to change our constitution for something this pathetic. It’s not a shopping list.
This isn’t one of the things that should be out in the constitution and “have the finer details decided on afterwards”. An advisory board with no power doesn’t belong in the constitution.
There is no “official literature” with what it would look like if it won. There are lots of ideas, but nothing concrete. It can’t be both “we’ll work out the details later” and “here are the details”.