this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
60 points (96.9% liked)

Australia

3588 readers
126 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

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:

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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those looking for detail will be disappointed. These pamphlets don’t provide clarity either way. I don’t think it’s the fault of the aec, but rather how something like this is inserted into the constitution.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That seems to be the problem after reading these - there is no clarity by design of the government. They aren't telling us what the thing we're voting on actually is.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

That's because Parliament will decide.

The change of the Constitution says it must be created and that it's not at the whim of a future government to abolish it.

The meat and potatoes of how many, who, when etc will go through as an act of Parliament so your local MP gets a say

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In a way it needs to be like that. If we are voting on the detail, which can be changed, people will feel misled. Were voting on the concept only.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Unfortunately we’re voting on them to put something that we don’t know the details on into the constitution, something that is not taken lightly. I’d kinda like to know.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Well, the voice has no real power over government. The senate does. The method of electing the senate is also left up tot he government. If we trust them with that power, why would we not trust them with the power to legoslate for the voice in the same way.

As it’s in the constitution, they could not remove it. They could change it, and I would expect changes over time to make it more effective.

If the detail is being voted on now, we would need to have another referendum every time we make a change.

For me, it comes down to whether the concept of a voice is a good idea. Assuming we think it is, it’s up to the parties to campaign on how that should be. We can vote accordingly, just like every other policy. The only option off the table is no voice, unless they want to run on having another referendum.

Sure, there are those that think it shouldn’t be in the constitution. They are the same ones that removed it before, which is why it needs to be in the constitution. There are those that think it won’t work. They offer no alternative, and if it doesn’t work, we can vote again to remove it.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

it’s been explained to you clearly and concisely here. If you’re too stupid, listen to legal experts or better yet, well regarded constitutional lawyers(they’re all yes voters)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You really need to stop this “the only right vote is a yea vote” holier than thou garbage. You realise that you’re telling indigenous people that they’re bigots and wrong for voting no, don’t you?

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago

It’s hardly garbage to assert that bigots are bad people, moreover I’m saying indigenous people voting no are looked at as cookers(not bigots). Try to read before responding please.