DEAR News Of The Area,

IN NOTA of September 28, your correspondent makes the claim that Aboriginal people have no need of the proposed Voice because they already have one in the form of the NIAA (National Indigenous Australians Agency).

Your readers may like to know that this claim originated from a Sky News Australia commentator (Rowan Dean) on March 12 of this year, but that it was thoroughly discredited as being false on March 28 by the highly reputable RMIT Fact Lab.

A summary of RMIT’s verdict on the claim appears below, but one has to ask, are proponents of the “No” case so bereft of valid argument that they have to resort to falsehoods?

“The verdict

False. There are several differences between the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) and the proposed Voice to Parliament, according to constitutional and legal experts.

Firstly, the NIAA is an internal agency accountable to the executive government.

The proposed Voice, on the other hand, is an independent body that sits outside of both the executive and parliament.

Secondly, the NIAA can only advise the executive government, while in contrast the proposed Voice can advise both the executive and parliament.

Thirdly, the NIAA is not an entirely Indigenous organisation, whereas the proposed Voice would be composed entirely of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Lastly, the NIAA can be abolished by an executive order, while the proposed Voice would have its existence guaranteed by being enshrined in the Constitution.”

Regards,
Peter OUTHWAITE,
Hawks Nest.