• Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • GombeenSysadmin@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well you’ve all made sure nothing will change for 20 years, because no politician is going to want to touch it because “the people said no the last time”, so well done there.

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

            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?

            • GombeenSysadmin@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              …which the next shower will legislate out of existence again.

              Look, maybe they’ll go the Irish route like with the Treaty of Nice, where there was a referendum that was ill defined, it was voted down, so in true Mrs Doyle style they made small amendments and said “you will, you will, you will” and it got through.

              I certainly hope so, because regardless of why you voted against it, it’s not a good look internationally.

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