Australia

3376 readers

241 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why did there need to be a vote? (self.australia)

submitted 8 months ago by PlogLod to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If Anthony Albanese, current prime minister, is in support of and vowed to install the Indigenous Voice advisory board, why can't he just do it? He also made a comment beforehand that he would respect people's decision if they vote no, implying that he might be able to override it if he wanted to.

"the PM on Sunday said Labor would “respect the response of Australians next Saturday”.

“If Australians vote no, I don’t believe that it would be appropriate to then go and say, ‘Oh, well, you’ve had your say, but we’re going to legislate anyway’.”

I personally believe that what white Australians want is irrelevant to the fundamental rights that the original owners of this land deserve, and he should have just done it if he was able to.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He doesn't have the power to override the vote and put it in the constitution, but the body doesn't need to be in the constitution to exist.

They could form it legally without that section, there's just nothing stopping it being torn down after the next election if he does, because the constitution wouldn't be enforcing it. The whole point was to make it more resilient to attacks.

Even if it were in the constitution, the government of the time would be able to choose the shape the Voice took, but I suppose the expectation would be that, if it were enshrined in the constitution, that's a very strong message that messing with it would put the majority of the country against you.

[–] PlogLod 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe he should just form the body anyway and hope that by the time the opposition are in power, people have realised it's a good thing and they won't reverse the decision?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

That's what's likely going to happen, and there is a very high chance that it will get dismantled again, just like Abbott did after Rudd set up that very thing.

All it will take is a media barrage in favour of the Coalition and we'll be right back to where we started. History repeats, and so on, and so forth.