Nachorella @ Nachorella @lemmy.sdf.org

Just a silly feller

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

383

Joined

2 yr. ago

A cheeky global cannibal cabal never hurt anyone!

What did we do!?

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.

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.

If a community feels their needs will be best represented by a non indigenous person why not let them be elected? It's probably unlikely but seems like an odd restriction.

It literally says that parliament will decide, not some random individual, the people we elect to make laws. You seem to have some weird idea of how government works. You're right it doesn't mention specific term limits but again, these are decided by parliament. I pasted you the constitutional changes and none of it is unreasonable, I'm not sure how any of it got confused with land rights, or how any of it is worth saying no to.

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

No, it's not broad. Please for the love of christ read: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; 

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;

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.

Nothing anywhere that would have any say in land rights, it's a completely separate issue.

Yeah there's nothing in there anywhere about land rights, it was purely about recognition. I have no idea how the issue got conflated by that nonsense, all I know is it's being peddled by a bunch of racists. You do seem to genuinely care but imo it just makes this all sadder. I do agree Labour did a horrible job with all this but I still see no good reason for anyone to vote no. It's all written in the information, and no you don't need to answer every question before hand, it says in the information that parliament gets to decide the functions, composition and procedures. It had absolutely nothing to do with land rights, there was so much disinformation spread about this and I hate everyone who couldn't just read it and instead trusted whatever some moron on sky news or facebook said.

Recognise aboriginals in the constitution and add an advisory board that can't simply be removed by the next government. It says it right there. The advisory board wouldn't change how our government is run in any way, it would just be there to help decision making on things specifically relating to aboriginal affairs. I'm not sure if you're actually being sincere here, it's not a nefarious plot or anything. Advisory boards are a very common normal thing and you can read about them here: https://www.directory.gov.au/boards-and-other-entities/what-board There's also a list of all the advisory boards we currently have. But seriously, there's a ton of information on how it would have worked. https://voice.gov.au/resources/information-booklet This mentions it would have members from each of the states, territories and Torres Strait islands. So now you know, had you done some basic research you would have gotten your answer.

It's kind of a moot point, no? More privileged nations should be helping reduce emissions globally, though. Not optimistic of that, though.

We're not going to be able to answer those questions because you voted no, were those really your hangups, though? How many people would be on the advisory board? If you're actually curious to learn more, go have a read https://ulurustatement.org/the-voice/what-is-the-voice/ It's a bit late, though.

As much as I hate the result I still feel like this is a good way to go about things, the prime minister shouldn't be able to alter the constitution willy nilly, it's not their country it's ours.

I haven't gotten to try too many yet, but I like tactiles. I got some Akko lavender ones which I've been enjoying and some boba U4T's for work which I also quite like. Other than those I've just tried mx browns and reds, The browns aren't as nice as the others. I don't mind the reds but I miss the tactile bump.

All the details were on the sheet you wrote No on. Looking forward to all the helpful progressive policies getting passed now that you've voted no, what a champ.

Hey now, I said let's not worry about that.

I think some of them are pretty low maintenance, just keep them outside all the time and give 'em a water every day, twice if it's hot and dry. I was initially sad because I wanted it inside but it's not so bad, I go outside to water and talk to them. That said I haven't had to do any pruning or repotting yet so I suppose it does get a bit trickier eventually.

If you're not willing to vote for the bare minimum you're not going to vote for anything. The status quo got us into this mess and you're expecting it to get us out, pathetic.

I have been picking up hobbies at an alarming rate lately. Got into custom keyboards, crochet, bonsai, magic (card tricks) possibly something else I've forgotten, too. I think it's probably a sign that something is wrong but let's not worry about it.

I think you've misunderstood this. Sure it's 'virtue signalling' and not gonna do anything. But that's all it was meant to be, recognising the original owners of the land in our constitution was really all it was meant to do. And so what if that's literally all it did? How is there any reason to vote against that? What has anyone achieved by voting no? We could have had a more respectful constitution today but instead we've got nothing. Well done, we've denied Aboriginals the smallest bit of acknowledgement and respect. Good job Australia. Fuck I wish Sky News would start telling people to jump off a cliff.