• Anonbal185@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think if they passed the legislation first as a trial and then if it went well put it through a referendum there would be more support.

    I’m not saying he would but he could just force it through legislation now, with the greens support and independents support, Pocock is in ACT who was the only place to vote yes, I think they have enough to pass.

    Sure it will go against the results of the referendum, or “the will of the people” but it will be a legal way to do it. 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. Because once in noone wants the optics of being “the racist in the parliament” besides maybe ONP.

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

      Legislation first would have been the winner for the Yes campaign. Their weakness was in the lack of detail. As soon as they launched “If you don’t know, vote No” It was sunk.

    • Ilandar@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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
        1
        ·
        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
            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
              0
              ·
              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
                2
                ·
                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
                0
                ·
                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
                  0
                  ·
                  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
                    1
                    ·
                    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.