this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
205 points (93.2% liked)

World News

38987 readers
1847 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Unfortunately those words are largely wasted IMO. If you read the text of the constitutional amendment itself you'll note that the constitution itself would have only established the existence of the council. Every other detail of it is left up to legislation:

the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

So again, why is this in the constitution? The Parliament could neuter it on a whim by passing a law at any point that established its composition is one guy and its sole function is to publish a pamphlet for sale in the Parliament gift shop. It wouldn't make much difference if they could simply abolish it.

[–] CalamityJoe@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Because even with that additional wording was in the constitution, any law or changes that prevented the Voice from existing, and being able to make representations to Parliament, would be unconstitutional.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Alright, its sole function is to present that pamphlet to Parliament itself. Still pointless.

[–] CalamityJoe@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Not pointless at at all, and I'm not sure why you believe that.

Do you think mining companies and large corporations spend the 100s of millions of dollars they do on political lobbyists, to approach parliament and put forward the companies' views on their behalf, if it was pointless?

No. Lobbyists achieve results, and at a minimum, make the companies feel like they're part of the political process, and that their concerns and needs are being voiced, and a much healthier chance of having proposed legislation amended due to that lobbying. It's political participation.

Lobbyist don't get to change laws either. They don't get to amend or dismiss laws, or sidestep the political process. They communicate and voice their concerns to those that do have that ability. I don't see anyone saying lobbyists are useless pamphlet sellers.

The Voice was essentially a proposal to enable the creation of a constitutionally recognised lobbying entity that would work on Indigenous Australians' behalf, since Indigenous Australians don't have the financial or organisational capacity to create such an entity themselves, and