this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
29 points (93.9% liked)
Australia
3523 readers
84 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 @Tau@aussie.zone 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:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
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: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So disappointing that the government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this referendum only for the majority of people to vote no (well if the ABC have called it right). I'm interested in seeing what the government does next.
Why the fuck do mining companies get a voice in parliament but the oldest living culture in Australia does not?!
The money was actually well spent because the will of Australian electors was ratified. It's a snarky point yes, but one worth making.
I think if they passed the legislation first as a trial and then if it went well put it through a referendum there would be more support.
I'm not saying he would but he could just force it through legislation now, with the greens support and independents support, Pocock is in ACT who was the only place to vote yes, I think they have enough to pass.
Sure it will go against the results of the referendum, or "the will of the people" but it will be a legal way to do it. I think if it went through legislation it would become like GST, deeply unpopular at the time but it just becomes fait accompli and noone would dare reverse it. Because once in noone wants the optics of being "the racist in the parliament" besides maybe ONP.
Legislated Indigenous advisory bodies have been dismantled on 11 occasions already.
And with how vague the voice constitutional change was, it would be able to be dismantled in every meaningful way another 11 times in the future. It would just have to exist, but it could have been comprised of a 19 year old white intern who supported anti-indigenous things.
Baseless speculation.
Says the person saying how frequently they’re disbanded 😂. You’re literally arguing against yourself.
There is a clear political difference between abolishing a body that has been purely legislated versus one that Australians have directly voted in favour of establishing through a referendum.
I don’t say it would be abolished, just that it could and likely would essentially be completely gutted many times over because like I said, the only thing that’s protected is the thing existing.
I don’t say it would be abolished, just that it could and likely would essentially be completely gutted many times over because like I said, the only thing that’s protected is the thing existing.
You literally just quoted me with regards to this as part of your argument. Stop shifting the goalposts.
Read my post again. I didn’t say it would be abolished, I said it would be essentially dismantled since it would be reduced to nothing.
??????????
Legislation first would have been the winner for the Yes campaign. Their weakness was in the lack of detail. As soon as they launched “If you don’t know, vote No” It was sunk.
Because giving voice to mining companies is oligarchy and giving special treatment to any race is racism. Both disgusting but first one much less.
Sorry man, but that's not racism. That's equity. Some kinds of people need certain kinds of privileges, because they've been disenfranchised by a racist system for years and years and years. Giving them a leg up is a reasonable and empathetic thing to do.
"Giving some race a privilege" is definition of racism. As long as we continue to mention race in any contents it is racism. We are australian and all australian should be treated equally. Yes they need help but not because their race but because they need help. Just ask yourself why do you consider chinese descendants are second class citizens? They are second members of second oldest cultural tradition in this country.
Races of people exist in our society. Observing that, or mentioning race in any contents, isn't racism. I totally agree though -- all Australians should be treated equally. Unfortunately, since colonisation, Indigenous people have not been treated as equal to the settlers. In fact, they've been treated like shit. The system they live under is incentivised to treat them like shit, because it gives other people money and power and land. Crafting special solutions for them, based on their race in a racist system, their culture, their individual needs -- that's the only effective way to help. Every other way is blind. This goes for any group of people. We can give separate, necessary privileges to both Indigenous and Chinese people. It's not a zero sum game.
That's not the definition of racism.
Giving people in a wheelchair a ramp onto the train is not ableism.
Giving children a booster seat in a car is not ageism.
Bigtory is about discriminating against people based on an attribute. So you'd need to argue that the rest of Australia is having their government representation taken away by the voice.
The entire point of the voice is try and treat people equally by addressing the intergenerational issues caused by systemic racism.
It was never about race. It was about recognising that there are two competing forms of sovereignty in this nation, and that it is within everyone's best interests to find a way of reconciling them. Indigenous Australians are not just another racial group in competition with the rest of us.