Are you a constitutional lawyer? If not, then I don't think you're qualified to talk about flaws in a constitutional amendment. Instead, listen to the ones who are (who overwhelmingly support it).

[–] Echinoderm@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Are you a lawyer? Have you read the actual wording of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023?

The proposed amendment says:

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

ii. 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;

iii. 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.

That last paragraph means that the government of the day can still functionaly gut the Voice by altering its "composition, functions, powers and procedures" and then ignoring its representations anyway.

To me the only real value I see is the first paragraph, which formally acknowledges the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as First Peoples.

Edit: typo, no one will be recognised as "Dirst Peoples"

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But what about Durst Peoples?

[–] Echinoderm@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

They'll just keep rollin'.

load more comments (3 replies)