• Ilandar@aussie.zoneOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They won’t hold a position in Parliament. That is not how this works at all.

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

      I understand they won’t hold a position within the upper or lower house but is it incorrect to say they won’t hold a position in parliament?

      • Ilandar@aussie.zoneOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, that is incorrect. The Voice would be an advisory committee that could make proactive and reactive recommendations to parliament and government. It would not be part of the parliament itself.

        • chug@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No worries. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Definitely need to read more before the referendum.

          • Kevster013@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, everyone needs to learn more. As this article showed, the trouble with referendums in Australia is that it is too easy for the No side to win just by sowing doubt amongst people who haven’t educated themselves. So many people who want to vote No don’t like the idea of change because they don’t understand what it means.

      • billytheid@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        it is not incorrect. a position IN parliament is a very different thing; the voice is effectively a lobby group. The kind of thing BHP and Chanel 9 get without being a valuable part of Australia