Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney names four priorities for the proposed Voice to Parliament in a speech to the National Press Club, after growing pressure to detail how it would benefit First Nations people.
By engaging with the existing representative body that has already been established - The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA).
It employs 1,023 full time staff and manages a budget of $285M each year specifically for the purpose to “lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.” https://www.niaa.gov.au/who-we-are/the-agency
“The referendum is about whether we should change the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.”
So a bit of a difference in scope… one’s about constitutional recognition (with a side of a government advisory body) and the other is a government agency.
It’s a bit of a shame that everyone’s removed about the ill-defined government body part of it (including me, I’ll admit it…) and we’re all glossing over the constitutional recognition aspect of it.
True, didn’t know that was a thing. I assume people who are leading the Voice movement don’t find it to be sufficient enough – I wonder why? I suppose because it has no constitutional recognition? But why not use the NIAA as a basis? Would be interesting to learn the reasoning there.
By engaging with the existing representative body that has already been established - The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA).
It employs 1,023 full time staff and manages a budget of $285M each year specifically for the purpose to “lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.”
https://www.niaa.gov.au/who-we-are/the-agency
@morry040 @Ilandar @UnfortunateDoorHinge @phonyphanty
From the NIAA website about the voice:
“The referendum is about whether we should change the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.”
So a bit of a difference in scope… one’s about constitutional recognition (with a side of a government advisory body) and the other is a government agency.
It’s a bit of a shame that everyone’s removed about the ill-defined government body part of it (including me, I’ll admit it…) and we’re all glossing over the constitutional recognition aspect of it.
True, didn’t know that was a thing. I assume people who are leading the Voice movement don’t find it to be sufficient enough – I wonder why? I suppose because it has no constitutional recognition? But why not use the NIAA as a basis? Would be interesting to learn the reasoning there.