Whirlybird

joined 2 years ago
[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago (2 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”.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The same exact thing would essentially happen with a constitutionally protected voice though, that’s the thing. Under the LNP they’d just strip it right back till the point where it may as well have been legislated out of existence. The referendum protected a name only basically.

Upvote for father Ted ❤️

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Said no to enshrining an advisory group in the constitution, nothing more. There’s nothing even stopping them from making the voice via legislation.

What’s with the new narrative of “it was the voice or nothing for decades! You’ve killed us all!” coming from the virtue signallers?

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -1 points 2 years ago

They also didn't tell us how the people would be selected btw. They weren't necessarily elected, which is yet another problem people had with it. It would no doubt have just been more "jobs for the boys".

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -1 points 2 years ago (4 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?

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Who will this person be, claiming to represent the interest of 200 distinct language groups? What laws will be made?

The person you're talking to thinks those details are irrelevant and we should have voted yes in order to find out. For crying out loud, it's not even in the constitutional amendment that there needs to be an indigenous person on the Voice lol.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Yet they wouldn't legislate any real power for it, nor even the size or makeup of the advisory board. Note the proposal didn't even say that the advisory board had to be made up of or even include an indigenous person.

No one is asking for the "perfect" solution, just not a shitty virtue signalling one that will change nothing.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago (6 children)

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.

That's not the details people are asking for. How many people would be on the advisory board? How would they be selected? How long would their terms be?

They. Would. Not. Give. Us. Any. Details. This is a huge part of the reason why they lost. People don't trust the government, and this was a huge "trust us, we'll definitely do the right thing this time" move. It's no surprise it backfired so badly.

So now you know, had you done some basic research you would have gotten your answer.

Maybe try not being so smug when you're incorrectly answering questions next time.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

It wasn’t going to be the start of anything other than another waste of time. How many indigenous advisory boards have the government already had?

This was the equivalent of putting a black square as your social media profile picture.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Those were some of my hangups, yes.

That site doesn’t tell me what the Albanese government were going to do if it passed.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago (10 children)

All the details? Really? How many people would this government put on the board? How would they be selected?

Point me to those details please.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (8 children)

No, that couldn’t have been the start because it likely would have been the end too. What was proposed wasn’t the bare minimum, it was a complete embarrassment. It was a giant “trust us guys, we’re the government and we’ll definitely do the right thing”.

No one got played. Maybe, just maybe, the majority of people saw this ridiculous waste of time and money as just that. A virtue signalling waste of time and money so the rich inner city lefties can feel good about themselves for ending racism by doing the absolutely smallest thing possible.

view more: ‹ prev next ›