• FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, I was reading about this in another thread and as I understand it this “advisory council” would have no actual authority, it would just hold meetings and make suggestions to lawmakers who could then take it or leave it. Left me with no idea why something like that needs to be in the constitution of a country. Just pass a law establishing it.

    • Suspiciousbrowsing@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because laws can be repealed ? The purpose was to make it binding so there was always a indigenous body, unlike all of the previous bodies that cease to exist with change in government. Granted none were legislated I don’t believe

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        According to the text of the amendment laws would have to be passed to set the body’s “composition, functions, powers and procedures” anyway.

        I’m not saying this body would be a bad thing, I’m just unable to see why it needs to be in the constitution itself. The failure of the referendum doesn’t seem like it really impacts anything.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your suggestion has been tried repeatedly and the moment the right-wing have the power needed to tear it down, that’s what they do.

      • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        ok so heres the timeline for all representative bodies:

        1973: The National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC) was established by the Whitlam Government (Labor Party) as the first national body elected by Aboriginal people. Its main role was advisory only.

        1977: The NACC was abolished by the Fraser Government (Liberal-National Coalition) after a review found it ineffective. It was replaced by the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC), which was supposed to be a representative body for Indigenous people to advise the government on policy matters and to promote self-determination.

        1985: The NAC was dissolved by the Hawke Government (Labor Party), which established the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) in 1989 as a new representative body2. ATSIC had both representative and administrative functions, and was composed of elected regional councils and a national board of commissioners.

        2005: ATSIC was abolished by the Howard Government (Liberal-National Coalition) after allegations of corruption, mismanagement, and lack of accountability. It was replaced by a network of government-appointed advisory bodies, such as the National Indigenous Council and the Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs.

        2010: The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples (NCAFP) was established as an independent and representative body for Indigenous people, with funding support from the Rudd Government (Labor Party). The NCAFP aimed to be a national voice for Indigenous rights, interests, and aspirations.

        2019: The NCAFP ceased operations due to lack of funding from the Morrison Government (Liberal-National Coalition). The government instead supported the development of a new representative body, called the Indigenous Voice, which would provide advice to parliament and government on matters affecting Indigenous people.

        2023: A referendum on whether to enshrine the Indigenous Voice in the constitution was held on October 14, 2023. This referendum was rejected but does not necessarily mean it cannot still be enshrined in legislation (which I and I think many other people are in full support of).

        From this it does not seem that they where dissolved due to right wingers being racist but a multitude of other reasons in addition to potentially racist fuckwits and not all where dissolved by right wing parties either.

        • Spzi@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Interesting, thanks. Could you please add the source?

          • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Couldnt be bothered bing ai puts sources at the bottom cos microsoft devs have iqs lower than the average house brick. But ur welcome to go check it i wish u luck finding any discrepencies.

            • Spzi@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh, the list was generated by Bing AI? Then it’s likely it contains untrue statements; hallucinations.

              For this reason, you should fact check the output with independent sources and/or mention it was generated using a LLM.

              Sometimes the model adds a source but quotes something which the source does not say. Cannot trust these.

              • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Likely to contain untrue statements is a bit of an exageration. Yeah i checked sources (not independant ones cos is recon the australian government is a devent source for such a topic), plus sydney is prety decent at just pulling info out of websites.

                If ur so concerned be my guest to independantly verify.

    • CalamityJoe@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The answer to that lies within the question: why put anything in a constitution? Why have a constitution?

      Anything could be made using laws or rules. And anyone can then undo and rewrite them.

      It’s because countries generally need a foundational document outlining how government will operate, and how laws will be made, and what the country stands for. And have the stability and security of knowing that those operating principles can’t be easily changed.

      So the idea was, by incorporating the Voice within the constitution, you recognise indigenous Australians in your foundational document as having the right to have a recognised voice on what concerns them, and having unique aspects of history, and historical treatment, that make that appropriate.

      Not a right to dismiss laws, or change them. Not a right to create laws. Not a right to ignore laws, or amend proposals. Just to have a recognised voice on issues affecting them, and ask the “lawmakers” to do any of the above.

      This is important, because yes, you don’t want to enshrine anything that gives a small proportion of the population the ability to sidestep the legislative and political process.

      But as a country, we do want to enshrine a means by which indigenous Australians, - a historically extremely disadvantaged group of people, who form less than 4% of the population, and don’t have the financial or organisational means to engage expensive political lobby firms like large corporations and mining companies- can participate more directly with the political process of laws affecting them, and therefore feel symbolically “seen”.

      An analogy: If a public company wanted to create a Disability and Equity officer position, and wanted that position enshrined in the company charter to show the public that: the company was really serious about that position; provide good PR; signal to the public the company’s values; and protect it from being included in future job cuts, or made redundant in future for economic or ideological reasons under a different CEO, they would present shareholders with the question and put it to a vote.

      The company would not include within that question, details about how much that position would be paid. Or what room of what building they would work in. Or how they would communicate. Or what restrictions would be put on the position. Or how candidates would be interviewed, assessed, and hired.

      Shareholders would just see something like: “The company resolves to include the position of Disability and Equity Officer in the company charter, as an indication of the company’s desire that it become a more inclusive workplace, and to signal those values to the general public.”

      Because while you want people to know the position is permanent, you also want to leave the nitty gritty details to being guided by other processes, so that they can be changed more flexibly then once a year or more at a General Meeting of all shareholders

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

    • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly we already have many bodies which function in that way and none of them are enshrined within the constitution. And even tho the voice has been rejected as part of the constitution it can still be implemented through legislation.