Scotty I have read through this and basically it says (to my...

  1. 399 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 71
    Scotty I have read through this and basically it says (to my non-legal brain anyway): The voice can advise on any matter relating to aboriginals or the wider australian community, but the govt can ignore them no problem.

    To me that sounds like a pretty impotent body, I can see why some of the aboriginal activists are saying vote no.

    There is also no mention of the cost or size of the body, saying $59M this year to set up the referendum, and unspecified more to come if it gets up.
    I would love to know how this will impact all the other funds already used in indigenous stuff (some of the angry mob on here often quote 100M a day, but I dont know how true that is).

    Also how long can one serve etc, this is the text from that doc:
    Composition29. The Parliament’s power to make laws with respect to the composition of the Voice would support laws about the membership, structure and legal form of the Voice. This could include matters such as how members of the Voice will be selected, the number of members of the Voice, any eligibility criteria to be a member, and the length of members’ terms.
    That sounds a lot to me like they are just gonna wing it and decide later. Which makes many people uncomfortable

    How can people apply/vote/prove their aboriginality are all legitimate questions.

    My biggest problem is the assumption that the indigenous are a big monolith and can agree on anything.

    This seems like it will upset the right wingers who call it apartheid daily, but also will upset the true progressives who want a voice with acutal power, not a body on the side that can be legally ignored. I can see why that nutter Thorpe is against it reading about the lack of actual power it has, which begs the question what is the point of all this if its just a wet newspapaer of a department?

    Cheers


 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.