You're viewing part of a thread.
It got conflated because there are multiple global examples to where the constitutional change that passed was equally broad and has created a situation where you cannot sneeze in your back garden without first asking a first nations corporation for permission and paying the tithe. I'm not saying that some form of financial reparations should be ruled out, but landing it on the heads of people who purely through accident of birth grow up in a former colony is not going to fly. It ends up in a circular argument every single time. Perhaps the British crown should own their crimes and shoulder the financial burden of making things right? Certainly no questioning the lineage of those responsible there.
No, it's not broad. Please for the love of christ read: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
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.
Nothing anywhere that would have any say in land rights, it's a completely separate issue.
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.
It certainly isn't specific.
Who will this person be, claiming to represent the interest of 200 distinct language groups? What laws will be made?
It's little wonder it failed. You and I can't even agree and it seems like we're ostensibly on the same side of the issue.
It literally says that parliament will decide, not some random individual, the people we elect to make laws. You seem to have some weird idea of how government works. You're right it doesn't mention specific term limits but again, these are decided by parliament. I pasted you the constitutional changes and none of it is unreasonable, I'm not sure how any of it got confused with land rights, or how any of it is worth saying no to.
Who will this person be, claiming to represent the interest of 200 distinct language groups? What laws will be made?
The person you're talking to thinks those details are irrelevant and we should have voted yes in order to find out. For crying out loud, it's not even in the constitutional amendment that there needs to be an indigenous person on the Voice lol.
If a community feels their needs will be best represented by a non indigenous person why not let them be elected? It's probably unlikely but seems like an odd restriction.
They also didn't tell us how the people would be selected btw. They weren't necessarily elected, which is yet another problem people had with it. It would no doubt have just been more "jobs for the boys".