• Ilandar@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    Legislated Indigenous advisory bodies have been dismantled on 11 occasions already.

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Says the person saying how frequently they’re disbanded 😂. You’re literally arguing against yourself.

          • Ilandar@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

            • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Ilandar@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t say it would be abolished

                You literally just quoted me with regards to this as part of your argument. Stop shifting the goalposts.

                • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.