• Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    That seems to be the problem after reading these - there is no clarity by design of the government. They aren’t telling us what the thing we’re voting on actually is.

    • hitmyspot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      In a way it needs to be like that. If we are voting on the detail, which can be changed, people will feel misled. Were voting on the concept only.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately we’re voting on them to put something that we don’t know the details on into the constitution, something that is not taken lightly. I’d kinda like to know.

        • hitmyspot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, the voice has no real power over government. The senate does. The method of electing the senate is also left up tot he government. If we trust them with that power, why would we not trust them with the power to legoslate for the voice in the same way.

          As it’s in the constitution, they could not remove it. They could change it, and I would expect changes over time to make it more effective.

          If the detail is being voted on now, we would need to have another referendum every time we make a change.

          For me, it comes down to whether the concept of a voice is a good idea. Assuming we think it is, it’s up to the parties to campaign on how that should be. We can vote accordingly, just like every other policy. The only option off the table is no voice, unless they want to run on having another referendum.

          Sure, there are those that think it shouldn’t be in the constitution. They are the same ones that removed it before, which is why it needs to be in the constitution. There are those that think it won’t work. They offer no alternative, and if it doesn’t work, we can vote again to remove it.

        • billytheid@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          it’s been explained to you clearly and concisely here. If you’re too stupid, listen to legal experts or better yet, well regarded constitutional lawyers(they’re all yes voters)

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You really need to stop this “the only right vote is a yea vote” holier than thou garbage. You realise that you’re telling indigenous people that they’re bigots and wrong for voting no, don’t you?

            • billytheid@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s hardly garbage to assert that bigots are bad people, moreover I’m saying indigenous people voting no are looked at as cookers(not bigots). Try to read before responding please.

    • ijustdoeyes@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s because Parliament will decide.

      The change of the Constitution says it must be created and that it’s not at the whim of a future government to abolish it.

      The meat and potatoes of how many, who, when etc will go through as an act of Parliament so your local MP gets a say