this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
27 points (80.0% liked)

Australia

3595 readers
290 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If Anthony Albanese, current prime minister, is in support of and vowed to install the Indigenous Voice advisory board, why can't he just do it? He also made a comment beforehand that he would respect people's decision if they vote no, implying that he might be able to override it if he wanted to.

"the PM on Sunday said Labor would “respect the response of Australians next Saturday”.

“If Australians vote no, I don’t believe that it would be appropriate to then go and say, ‘Oh, well, you’ve had your say, but we’re going to legislate anyway’.”

I personally believe that what white Australians want is irrelevant to the fundamental rights that the original owners of this land deserve, and he should have just done it if he was able to.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

But the Australian people already voted in Anthony Albanese, so whatever he does as the democratically elected leader is basically democratic isn't it? Why would we need a separate vote for each decision when he could just make those decisions as the elected head of parliament?

(Also I would add that when people chose Anthony Albanese as PM, they would have known he intended to strengthen indigenous representation and rights, so a Yes vote for Anthony was already a yes vote for Indigenous Voice, in my view).

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

amending the constitution of Australia requires a referendum in which the proposed amendment must be approved by a "double majority": a majority of voters nationwide and a majority of voters in a majority of states.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fair enough, but then why did Albanese suggest he had the ability to override the vote but was opting not to?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

He can put a body in place. We've had them before. The trouble is: the opposition gets in and gets rid of it again.

By having the body enshrined in the constitution, it's permanent. Another party can't come along and get rid of it again.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He doesn't have the power to override the vote and put it in the constitution, but the body doesn't need to be in the constitution to exist.

They could form it legally without that section, there's just nothing stopping it being torn down after the next election if he does, because the constitution wouldn't be enforcing it. The whole point was to make it more resilient to attacks.

Even if it were in the constitution, the government of the time would be able to choose the shape the Voice took, but I suppose the expectation would be that, if it were enshrined in the constitution, that's a very strong message that messing with it would put the majority of the country against you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Maybe he should just form the body anyway and hope that by the time the opposition are in power, people have realised it's a good thing and they won't reverse the decision?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

That's what's likely going to happen, and there is a very high chance that it will get dismantled again, just like Abbott did after Rudd set up that very thing.

All it will take is a media barrage in favour of the Coalition and we'll be right back to where we started. History repeats, and so on, and so forth.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Australians do not vote for a Prime Minister, we vote for a political party which nominates its Prime Minister in the event of an election victory.

By convention parties nominate the PM before and promote them during the campaign. PMs can however be chucked out by their own party without a vote by the public, as happened with Kevin Rudd.

PMs do not simply have a carte blanche “mandate” to implement their election promises and must follow all parliamentary process.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

we vote for a political party

We vote for a local representative, who may or may not be a member of a political party.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are correct, I will leave my post as is though.

(To avoid confusion or making your comment seem irrelevant)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

PMs can however be chucked out by their own party without a vote by the public, as happened with Kevin Rudd

Infact, Scott Morrison was the first PM to last a full term since John Howard

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Ain’t nothing democratic about the same two parties always winning.

Albo was simply the least shit option, not chosen because he represented our wishes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

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.