• macrocephalic@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that it will be a non voting position for an indigenous person in parliament to directly address parliament. Indigenous people have been very marginalised and suffer from multi generational discrimination. This will just be a way to hear and recognise their opinions directly rather than it having to go through the filter of politicians.

    The counter to it is that it undermines democracy where the majority speaks. Personally I don’t buy that; the hallmark of a civilised society is helping those in need - and we’ve pushed our indigenous people into a deep hole.

    • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have never heard of it being a ‘non-voting indigenous representative in parliament’.

      If this was the plan for the Voice, then all we would really be doing is adding a representative with less sway in the parliament than an Independent, think Kate Chaney, Helen Haines. They can get things done, but their resources are limited. A ‘non-voting indigenous representative in parliament’ wouldn’t have the bandwidth for the amount of projects they’d be expected to take on, on day one.

      To be clear, per the constitional proposal, i think a ‘non-voting indigenous representative in parliament’ could fit the constitutional requirement, as it doesn’t impose any organisational structure requirements on the Voice. The constitutional language, (aka what us plebs are voting on), is kept vague deliberately to allow change over time, but hard to abolish altogether. Thats how i’ve come to understand it.

    • Ilandar@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that it will be a non voting position for an indigenous person in parliament to directly address parliament.

      This is misleading, the Voice is not one person nor is it “in parliament”. It is a permanent advisory body that can make recommendations to Parliament and/or government. If you are confused on the difference, just look at the name; it is a Voice to Parliament, not a Voice in Parliament.

      • macrocephalic@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair enough on it being a board rather than a single position, the intent is still the same, it’s a way for indigenous issues to be presented directly to parliament without being filtered by existing politicians.