• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s still not really giving any specifics. How many people? How are they selected? Do they have any power? How long is their term?

    That’s just more waffle about “giving them a seat at the table”.

    These questions are not just trivial details that don’t matter. What if it’s a single person with a lifetime appointment?

    • @c15co
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      The government has rightly said that what the voice exactly looks like will be decided after the vote, because there’s no point putting the investment in (both in time and funding) to flesh this out, if the public doesn’t back it.

      The specifics to the level you’re asking, in my opinion, make no difference to how you vote, with the exception of “Will they have power”, and that has been answered - the voice is to be consulted and their feedback collected, they have no power to enforce anything, but consulting them really is the least the government should do.

    • @Selmafudd
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      What if I told you it was going to be set up like the NAC or the NACC or the ATSIC or the NIC or the NCAFP??

      And if you don’t know or weren’t concerned how any of these were structured or operated why are you concerned about the next version of an advisory body?

      How much do you know about the structure and functions of other advisory bodies?