As other commenters have pointed out, anything coming out of the Voice is non-binding, so it’s powers have been already decided and it will be effectively powerless. There are legitimate arguments that have been made for and against, but I don’t think yours is one of them.
Moreover, I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It’s not so much that it is giving a specific racial group a special government body as it’s giving a group of people that stand apart from the Australian government a voice. If this group of people were not a single racial group, but otherwise everything was exactly the same, would you still vote no?
As other commenters have pointed out, anything coming out of the Voice is non-binding, so it’s powers have been already decided and it will be effectively powerless.
On first sight, coming from a German perspective, I’m asking “why put it in the constitution if everything is non-binding”, over here we we have various councils that represent minorities and they’re all plain and simply registered associations, nothing special. But, well, then they’re also actually listened to. So on second sight given the degree of ignorance aboriginals are generally afforded I’d say it’s probably a good idea to make the “fucking listen” part mandatory.
…and now my head is playing the dead heart on repeat, should’ve seen that one coming.
I’m not campaigning here so I’m not really making a coherent argument, and I know that isn’t helping.
Still, here’s the main point - look at the constitution. What’s it about and what’s it for? It starts by outlining theformationa and function of the house of reps, senate, and judiciary. There’s a section on the states and one on commerce. That’s it. Its a how-to manual for the federal government.
So how then does an advisory body fit into thatdocuments? What’s its purpose? It can only be as a third (fourth?) Branch of government because that’s what the document is.
When you get all these people saying “oh its just this or that it has no power its just so they get a say” - that’s not the function of the constitution and its parts. By putting it in there with a legislative blank check - that’s the creation of a part of the government.
I would not support the creation of that body regardless of its makeup. For 300 years no we’ve been running vaguely successful democracies (that’s a whole other conversation) with two legislative branches and a judiciary. Nobody through this whole process has given any reason why this should change or even given a thought to a change management process.
What’s the actual reasoning, the actual effect, the actual risks? Nobody knows! Because if you dare to raise any question you’re clearly just a fucken racist.
Final question - people that stand apart from the Australian government? Can you clarify that? Because that sounds like insurrection to me. If this is some sort of soft revolution, I’m even more against it.
So your argument boils down to, “I don’t want to change the constitution?” If a purely advisory body was created by an act of parliament then you’d be okay with it?
What I meant by standing apart is that there is this group of people that were living their best lives for 60k years and then another group of people came and said, “This place is ours now and we are going to run it like we want and we don’t give a shit about your customs, so either start doing things our way or fuck off.” They are standing apart because they weren’t included.
My argument is that this is the shut way to make a change and does nothing to address any issue that . All it does is create a new branch of government that is exclusive to one type of people. That’s the start of apartheid, not a solution to the issues of health education and opportunity.
They were and are included you fucking moron. How many first nations people are currently sitting members of state and federal parliament? And besides that every fucking person in this country has council members, state MPs and federal MPs already. Not included my shiny metal ass
