this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
57 points (95.2% liked)

Australia

3507 readers
78 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] -1 points 1 year ago (12 children)

If you're racist, vote no. It's that simple.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Voting no doesn't make you racist. Voting no means you do not support the proposed change to the Constitution.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...Change to the constitution to allow first peoples more say over things that directly affect them via establishing a representative body.

Voting no means that you are against the above. Voting yes means you're for it.

If you're against it, it does feel quite racist as you're voting not to have an indigenous voice enshrined in our constitution. Why not let them have a fair go?

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

The representative body can be established without a change to the Constitution.

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

But since colonisation, there hasn't been one. There was a committee briefly appointed by Rudd but then abolished by Abbott.

I'd like it enshrined because then we would have one regardless and it would take a huge effort to get it removed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

A Government that did not want it in, would simply reduced it to 1-2 people and ignore it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

It would still be better than creating a committee and then abolishing it completely until any leadership decides it's in their interests to establish one.

We also won't be in charge of how it's going to work, remember. This referendum is just whether or not it should be in the constitution as a requirement.

I believe it should be.

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

It literally does. By voting no you're saying you do not believe there should be a council that advises on first people's affairs. So either;

  • you think we've done a cracker of a job without them so far in relation to policies that affected them
  • you think they shouldn't have a say in laws that may negatively affect them
  • you've listened to one of various no campaign myths that has been debunked and are worried about paying more tax,or being negatively affected by this somehow.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The representative body can be established without a change to the Constitution.

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

Not really. Because if it could, it would have. This forces it to happen without liberal/conservative interference.

The fact that it's been impossible thus far to create a significant body to the point where said group of people have forced a referendum to occur should be enough proof that it needs to occur.

The other part of this is it's not the US. No one knows our constitution, and up until this point most probably didn't even know we had one..

load more comments (9 replies)