He didn't violate it.
samson
joined 1 year ago
Unless you can point to an animal that destruction is actively supported by aboriginal people on the basis of culture, this is a straw man argument.
Yep, there's eligibility requirements, but in practice that means just lie about a reasonable one for you.
There can never be enough ways to force parliament to respond to an issue, but they could of course let it sit in the gazette and never respond to it. It's my hope though that the high court will weigh on this and say that response is a requirement to fulfill the spirit of the amendment.
What a sad day it is 😂
It's not just religion, it's culture. You can legislate against hurting animals and you can have your reason and those who have cultural practices that align with it can have theirs. It's really not a problem.
Yep, the caveat is if you're voting interstate you need to find an interstate voting centre. If you go through the aec site and hit I don't live in X state it will show you the interstate centres.
Ooo will there be how to vote ~~cunts~~ beautiful people hanging about at the polls?
You can check the aec site to see what is opening near you. My local will open shortly for early voting, but a few nearby opened on the second.
Crazily enough, you can actually do both without being a dick.
I'm a yes supporter and aboriginal. This same recommendation would get ignored by parliament if recommended by a voice. Inquires and commissions not being listened to by govts will still exist with a voice and will still happen when it's the voice issuing those recommendations.
We're talking about a lever more than anything against the government. It's still up to regular Australians to take up the cause, to protest and to drive change by directly voicing to representatives. The fact we vote in people who don't care enough to listen to the recommendations of commissioners and coroners is a whole problem as well.
It's a fantasy though. An extremely competitive market would be nice, but in reality it would be a race to the bottom and those who started with more cash would win out, buy up or starve the competition and monopolise, giving them the extra space to be lazy and pass on profits to their shareholders, who dictate increased prices to increase their margins.