Talk:Australian Indigenous advisory bodies

Scope and existence of this page
I'm not sure this page should exist in its current form scope. Only SA and the ACT have elected Indigenous consultative bodies, with bodies in other states a part of the treaty processes. The page could be about Voice, Treaty and Truth progress in the states, but a page on treaties already exists. Otherwise, the page seems merely speculative and just a page of two topics. Perhaps something like Indignenous policy in the states or something like that? Safes007 (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Originally created when it was assumed that after the Australian Voice to Parliament was passed, that the states would follow. I figured that it was a reasonable assumption at the time. Many states at the time stated that they were following the Uluru Statement from the Heart, ergo a state based Voice. Many Premiers were in the process of setting it up. Considering that it was a Labor Party position, and the majority of the states and territories had a Labor government, it was assumed that this would be non-controversial.
 * The article was also created as a spin off to narrow the scope of other articles related to the National Indigenous Voice to Parliament. It was also created to avoid confusion between what was being discussed.
 * Maybe something along the lines of proposed legislation inspired by the Uluru Statement from the Heart? Proposed legislation on Voice, Treaty and Truth progress?
 * To me, I wouldn't mind this article being renamed as opposed to its content moved. I do think that a Voice, or an Indigenous advisory body is different than a treaty. With it being implied that a Voice will lead to or assist with the process of a treaty.
 * Are there any rules about speculative articles? Maybe a notability argument could be made?
 * Let me know if this makes any sense. AverageFraud (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No this all makes sense and the article was definitly a good idea at the time it was made. There is WP:FUTURE, but it basically just says pages has to be verifiable and notable, and not mere speculation. How about "State and territory Indigenous advisory bodies" as a new name? This would allow inclusion of appointed bodies, the treaty advisory bodies, as well as the voice bodies. Also removing voice from the name might be needed as any future bodies are probably not going to be called "Voices" for political reasons. Safes007 (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. AverageFraud (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Should this page become more general and include Cth bodies? I don't there's a page specifically for them. I was thinking mostly a short summary of the previous ones like the NAC and ATSIC. Does this sound like a good idea, or does it make the page too broad? Safes007 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well it has to go somewhere, I'm not opposed to this. AverageFraud (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)