this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
29 points (93.9% liked)

Australia

3605 readers
64 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

literally everything you just asked is answered in the links, maybe try learning how to read lol

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

Literally none of it is.

What was this Albanese governments makeup of the voice going to look like? How were they going to be selected? What were the term limits?

[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They list the constitutional amendment process on the page, a lot of the finer details are decided on afterwards, this has been the case for almost all referendums. It mentions specifically that consultation with aboriginal leaders, parliament and the broader public would help design the voice. It also mentions that it would work alongside existing organisations and structures, again, advisory boards are very common.

They also explicitly state that the voice would be chosen by aboriginal and torres strait islander people based on the wishes of the community. It also says members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the torres straight islands.

If it's the structure of a referendum that you have a problem with then cool, but it wasn't a good reason to vote no.

Also please read, it talks about all of your questions. It's honestly frustrating to hear you say it doesn't talk about any of it when all of these things are covered in the official literature.

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

This isn’t one of the things that should be out in the constitution and “have the finer details decided on afterwards”. An advisory board with no power doesn’t belong in the constitution.

There is no “official literature” with what it would look like if it won. There are lots of ideas, but nothing concrete. It can’t be both “we’ll work out the details later” and “here are the details”.

[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They give you the details in the literature but parliament is still the one to decide what it ultimately looks like if it passed so what's the point in making it all "concrete" if it all changes? I really feel like you have no idea of how any of this works. And they tell you exactly what would have went into the constitution, if they changed the law so that the board had no power it would be unconstitutional.

I'm not going to respond anymore because honestly you just seem willfully ignorant.

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

You yes voters just can’t help but keep trying to make everyone think that you’re so much smarter than us no voters can you? 😂

I know how it works, which is why I think attempting to make a Constitutionally protected advisory group is stupid.

Labor didn’t even put out a “if this succeeds this is what we will do and this is what the voice will look like”. Something as simple as that would have made a world of difference.

I’m happy you won’t respond anymore, I’ve had enough smug virtue signalling.