• Whirlybird
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s still not really giving any specifics. How many people? How are they selected? Do they have any power? How long is their term?

    That’s just more waffle about “giving them a seat at the table”.

    These questions are not just trivial details that don’t matter. What if it’s a single person with a lifetime appointment?

    • Selmafudd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What if I told you it was going to be set up like the NAC or the NACC or the ATSIC or the NIC or the NCAFP??

      And if you don’t know or weren’t concerned how any of these were structured or operated why are you concerned about the next version of an advisory body?

      How much do you know about the structure and functions of other advisory bodies?

      • Whirlybird
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Was I asked to vote on if those bodies should become part of our constitution?

      • Almighty Olive 🫒@aus.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not op, and I agree with you…

        My issue is that the libs get in and then we get the watered down mixed NBN that’s worse every way compared to the original NBN.

        Basically, with no safeguards any government will shape the body as they see fit.

        Still voting yes

    • c15co@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The government has rightly said that what the voice exactly looks like will be decided after the vote, because there’s no point putting the investment in (both in time and funding) to flesh this out, if the public doesn’t back it.

      The specifics to the level you’re asking, in my opinion, make no difference to how you vote, with the exception of “Will they have power”, and that has been answered - the voice is to be consulted and their feedback collected, they have no power to enforce anything, but consulting them really is the least the government should do.

    • JuicyGyri@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Stop spreading misinformation. You were replied to elsewhere in this thread by Kerr, with the following:

      As a result of this, and through careful deliberation, the final proposal for a National Voice is a 24-member model including 5 members representing remote regions, and one member representing the significant number of Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland. (p. 12)

      Members of the Local & Regional Voices within each state and territory would collectively determine National Voice members from their respective jurisdictions. (p. 12)

      Members would serve 4-year terms. These terms would be staggered, with half the membership determined every 2 years to ensure continuity. There would be a limit of 2 consecutive terms per member. (p. 108)

      • The National Voice would be an advisory body to the Australian Parliament and Government. These relationships would be two-way interactions, with either party able to initiate advice or commence discussion around relevant policy matters… The National Voice would have no power to veto laws made by the Parliament or decisions made by the Australian Government. (p. 109)