Comment on Why did there need to be a vote?
plumbercraic@lemmy.sdf.org 8 months agoamending 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.
PlogLod@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Fair enough, but then why did Albanese suggest he had the ability to override the vote but was opting not to?
Nath@aussie.zone 8 months 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.
alex@agora.nop.chat 8 months ago
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.
PlogLod@lemmy.world 8 months ago
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 won’t reverse the decision?
Peddlephile@lemm.ee 8 months 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.