They'll just keep rollin'.
Echinoderm
joined 1 year ago
Are you a lawyer? Have you read the actual wording of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023?
The proposed amendment says:
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
That last paragraph means that the government of the day can still functionaly gut the Voice by altering its "composition, functions, powers and procedures" and then ignoring its representations anyway.
To me the only real value I see is the first paragraph, which formally acknowledges the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as First Peoples.
Edit: typo, no one will be recognised as "Dirst Peoples"
I don't see how it wouldn't apply to Lemmy, since the exposure draft expressly includes 'content aggregation services.'
What's not clear is who would be liable for potential breaches. All the liability seems to fall on the 'digital platform provider' meaning ' a person who provides a digital platform service.' That's easy to determine for a centralised corporate entity like Reddit or Twitter, but who is providing Lemmy? Is it the person who owns the server? It doesn't seem broad enough to include mods.
I've never understood the argument that more taxes will drive away foreign businesses. Say a big multinational is making $4b profit from the Australian market (even if it's shifted overseas and so not 'profit' on paper), and they would have to start paying $2b more tax following a reform. Sure, their profit would be cut in half, investors would be unhappy. But would they really say, "well it's not worth making the remaining $2b profit" and pull out?
I don't see a strawman there. You seem to be assuming that women were originally forced to start working because suddenly dual incomes became necessary. In reality many women and men prefer the satisfaction of being able to exercise skills and perform work beyond housekeeping. Saying one income should be enough ignores the fact that in many couples, neither partner wants to have no career.
If nothing else, it's not pragmatic to be the one that doesn't work. Divorce or the death of a spouse can happen. If a person who never worked is suddenly left to fend for themselves, they find themselves in a job market with no experience or job history.
Once you have both people in a household wanting to work, and the resulting higher spending capacity of double incomes, inflation starts to take effect and drag everyone else along.