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

    Your first sentence is a tautology because that’s what has been proposed, that isn’t in question at all.

    “ It’s really all about having the best information available to parliament when needed so good legislation and informed debates can be had.”

    Nothing I’ve seen about the structure of the proposed Voice guarantees that the advice will be listened to, acted on or fact based.

    What I would like to see is a meritocratic process for membership to the Voice, a term limit on its establishment and actual power in government.

    • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree, they have been pretty light on the details and if the referendum fails then this will have been the reason.

      The way I’ve heard it put is that the workings of the voice will be handled by further legislation. Which while allows for great flexibility in the constitution, unfortunately leaves Australians on the outside.

      I think the yes campaign would have much better success if there was some draft legislation to show us what this would look like.

      • Cypher@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree, there’s nothing stopping Labor from Legislating the Voice now and then asking for a referendum to make it permanent, it would lack some of the Consitutional power in the interim but would be a far fairer method of going about it.