Impending trouble for crow eaters.

Originally posted by pints ↑

Misinformation about South Australia’s Indigenousvoice to parliament spreads online
Story by ToryShepherd
• 2h • 4 min read
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT

Kyam Maher, SAattorney general: ‘There’s nothing at all to fear with the SA First Nationsvoice to parliament.’ Photograph: Matt Turner/AAP© Photograph: MattTurner/AAP
Misinformation about South Australia’svoice to parliament is spreading online and factcheckers say the claims arefalse and echo those spread before last year’s federal voice referendum.
The state’s voice has been legislated and elections will be held on 16March.
RMIT CrossCheck, an online verification service, said one of thedominant narratives that “marred” the federal voice was that it would be “racially divisive”. (Correct)!That claim has nowresurfaced, along with false claims the voice was set up in “secret”.
CrossCheck said that a claim theelection is “race based” echoes “a dominating narrative circulating in the yearahead of the 2023 federal voice, arguing that the proposal would grantIndigenous Australians ‘special rights’ and that since it would only serve onegroup of people, it is ‘racist’ by design”.(Correct again!)
Related: Australian states to push ahead with voice and treaty processes inabsence of federal body
Multiple posts claim, wrongly, that thestate government is forcing a voice on SA despite the no vote getting amajority at the election – the state voice was not put to a referendum and is markedlydifferent from the federal version.(BS!)
“Some social media users appeared to be confusing the SA voice and theupcoming election with last year’s federal voice,” the factcheckers said.
The attorney general, Kyam Maher, said it was a “very different proposition”.(BS AGAIN!)
“The referendum was about changing the federal constitution, which we dovery rarely,” he said.
“What we have is a legislated voice to parliament that will haveAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people elected by members of their owncommunities to give advice to government to help them make decisions.”
. National Public Radio said the theory was “framed as a matter ofindividual freedom and government control”.
“There’s nothing at all to fearwith the SA First Nations voice to parliament,” Maher said.
“It’s an advisory body and at the end of the day the government willstill make decisions.
“The government will decide what laws to pass and what money to spend,but this advisory body will give advice to government to help us make betterdecisions.” Better? For who? Loud minoritygravy train lovers
Under the state legislation, First Nations communities will vote toelect two levels of representatives, a local voice and a state voice.
Voters will choose seven elected members in six regions (except theregion which includes Adelaide, which will have 11 representatives) for thelocal voices.
Two representatives from each region – making a total of 12 representatives –will form the state voice, which will engage with theparliament, ministers and the government.
Aldridge, who is also the former director of the Australian Federationparty, said that he believed people would falsely claim Aboriginality in orderto vote, and that he still thought there had not been enough consultation.

Expand

Legislation can be changed ?