• @0ddysseus
    link
    English
    -41 year ago

    Right here:

    “its composition, functions, powers and procedures”

    There is literally no scope included - they’ll decide after

    • g0nz0li0
      link
      English
      31 year ago

      They will decide after how to establish the advisory body that has no legislative, executive, or judicial power and can only advise parliament (who will then decide what actions are taken or even if any action is taken at all).

      They cannot make decisions with respect to giving the Voice Constitutional powers to make or change legislative, executive, or judicial decisions unless there’s another referendum. They can legislate powers, but they can already do that without the referendum.

      What specifically do you object to about this?

      • @0ddysseus
        link
        English
        -21 year ago

        Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around “powers”

        And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.

        Those specifically are what I object to

        • g0nz0li0
          link
          English
          31 year ago

          Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around “powers”

          They can do that right now. Albo can legislate what you’re describing and the next government can de-legilsate it. If the referendum passes it has no bearing on what powers are legislated.

          The referendum does not give the powers you’re describing and does not impact whether those kinds of powers are granted or revoked in the future.

          You are misunderstanding what the Yes vote is. The referendum would only establish a voice in the Constitution that “may make representations” while specifically outlining that only “Parliament shall make laws”.

          And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.

          Again, all of this is explained in the resources I linked to earlier, and the only reason you’re ignorant to that fact is because you haven’t bothered to do your research.

          Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.

          Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities.

          To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice would be chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process.

          Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three part test. Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands. The Voice would have specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population. The Voice would have balanced gender representation at the national level.

          So, again, what’s your issue here?

          • @0ddysseus
            link
            English
            -11 year ago

            None of that actually says anything. Its just wide open phrasing that allows for limitless scope. Can you not see that somehow?

            All this is way out in the fucken weeds anyway man.

            Why the fuck are people trying to create a less inclusive and egalitarian society instead of trying to find and implement actual solutions to solve the problems that exist. And why do people who apparently think of themselves as progressive and socialist think any of this is OK?

            Use the mechanisms we have to push for positive long term structural change, using the huge moral and political advantage gained at the election. Build, change, organize, grow systems that actually help people who need it.

            Everyone is just going along with this stupid pointless circus because they feel guilty about British crimes and think this will somehow help people who died 200 years ago.

            Get a fucken grip and use your Democratic power to help, don’t throw your weight behind people who are making the world less inclusive ffs

            • g0nz0li0
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              None of that actually says anything. Its just wide open phrasing that allows for limitless scope. Can you not see that somehow?

              How? You refuse to explain. Every gap you identify I dispute and you go “nah man” and act like that’s as good as actual facts.

              How does the No vote lead to the actual change you’re describing? You won’t even answer that.

              Get a fucken grip and use your Democratic power to help, don’t throw your weight behind people who are making the world less inclusive ffs

              I’ve been nothing but respectful toward you, even in disagreement. You’re being an absolute cunt. This is the no vote in a nutshell n

        • g0nz0li0
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          there is no limiting phrase around “powers”

          There is! The power is limited to “may make representations”. It’s written in stone, what more do you need than official, published documentation that clearly refutes what you claim is the position of the Yes campaign?