ah. that helps. Thanks. What do you think the likely outcomes will be if the voice is decided upon?
Comment on Families distressed after 'highly misleading' video used by anti-Voice campaigners goes viral
looeee@lemmy.world 1 year ago“Should aboriginals have a say in parliament?”
What that means is saved for future debate. Is deliberately vague so that parliament can decide how it’s implemented and most importantly change it in the future without having another referendum.
The referendum is necessary to change the constitution, as that’s the only process available to do so.
So all they’re asking is whether the aboriginal voice should be heard when deciding on laws.
The no campaign are calling it racist because it’s giving special treatment to one group. Of course, if most of them hadn’t been slaughtered then they would not be such a minority in the first place.
aeternum@kbin.social 1 year ago
ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone 1 year ago
There has been a bit shared on that. From memory it would be a body made up of a few aboriginal people from different areas, that would exist to consult with parliament on issues that concerned aboriginal people.
unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Be careful with that language, it could be interpreted as giving them special powers or even a presence within parliament, which the amendment provides neither. The voice will purely be an advisory body which can express their opinions (“make representations”) to the parliament. It doesn’t necessarily give them any power over any other citizen, at the end of the day the parliament can simply ignore them.