this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
71 points (91.8% liked)

Australia

3616 readers
69 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
71
The Voice debate is yet another ugly chapter in Australia's history (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 1 year ago by unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

When explaining the concept to my parents and grandparents, it has been challenging to convince them that this is not just ATSIC 2.0. Their concerns are that the corruption that occurred within that former organisation will be harder to control as the organisation would now have a constitutional shield to protect against criticism or accountability.

The difference here is that the Voice doesn't have a budget, run programs or deliver services. It can only make recommendations. I'm not sure what your relatives think corruption would look like in this case.

Regardless, their concerns that the Voice would have a "constitutional shield" are completely unfounded, because there is nothing in the amendment to prevent the government from completely restructuring it in the future. And if such a thing were to occur, since Australians are only voting on the concept of the Voice, and not the exact design of the Voice, no one can use the defence that the government is "ignoring the will of the people".