this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
27 points (80.0% liked)

Australia

3616 readers
79 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 @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:

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
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
27
Why did there need to be a vote? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by PlogLod@lemmy.world to c/australia@aussie.zone
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
[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Aren't y'all in the southern hemisphere?

[–] TheChurn@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Global North/South is a socio-economic and political grouping.

Developed countries = global north
Developing = global south

It does originate in geography, as the vast majority of wealth and high-tech industry is in the geographic North, but countries like Aus and NZ also fit, despite being South of the equator.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Ah. Thank you!

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And it’s such a ridiculous term because of how little sense it makes.

Just using developing/developed.

[–] Nonameuser678@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep but global north is a more appropriate way of saying 'developed' nations.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

is a more appropriate way

No it isn't. It's a silly less clear way. And it doesn't add anything, because any judgment that might be implied by the use of the term "developed" or "developing" is still carried by the terms "global north" and "global south", because the terms are nothing other than a euphemism for the same thing.

[–] Nonameuser678@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't come up with these terms. That's just what I was taught in an international development class. But you're always welcome to publish your criticisms and contribute knowledge to this discussion if you feel that your expertise in this area is sufficient.

[–] billytheid@aussie.zone -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

it's a silly way of saying undeveloped versus developed. in itself it is a misnomer as Australia still has a backwards, absurdly outdated, colonialist constitution. we're not a developed, or 'first world' state, democratically anyway..

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. We are a developed nation.
  2. "First world" doesn't mean developed, it means "NATO or NATO-ally during the Cold War". So we are a first world nation. (2nd world being USSR and its allies, and 3rd world being unaligned nations.)
  3. We are a very democratic country. We're not the best in this regard, but top 20 isn't too bad.
  4. Our "backwards, absurdly outdated, colonialist constitution" has no bearing on whether or not we are a developed country. It's a completely orthogonal issue, and is also specifically the subject of this discussion.
[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago

“First world” doesn’t mean developed, it means “NATO or NATO-ally during the Cold War”. So we are a first world nation. (2nd world being USSR and its allies, and 3rd world being unaligned nations.)

That's not how it is used colloquially, though. Very few people using these terms in everyday discourse are referring to Cold War era definitions (or are even aware of them).