• Ilandar@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    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”.