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.

    • TheChurn@kbin.social
      141·
      1 year ago

      Global North/South is a socio-economic and political grouping.

      Developed countries = global north
      Developing = global south

      It does originate in geography, as the vast majority of wealth and high-tech industry is in the geographic North, but countries like Aus and NZ also fit, despite being South of the equator.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
        41·
        1 year ago

        is a more appropriate way

        No it isn’t. It’s a silly less clear way. And it doesn’t add anything, because any judgment that might be implied by the use of the term “developed” or “developing” is still carried by the terms “global north” and “global south”, because the terms are nothing other than a euphemism for the same thing.

        • Nonameuser678@aussie.zone
          32·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t come up with these terms. That’s just what I was taught in an international development class. But you’re always welcome to publish your criticisms and contribute knowledge to this discussion if you feel that your expertise in this area is sufficient.

    • billytheid@aussie.zone
      26·
      1 year ago

      it’s a silly way of saying undeveloped versus developed. in itself it is a misnomer as Australia still has a backwards, absurdly outdated, colonialist constitution. we’re not a developed, or ‘first world’ state, democratically anyway…

      • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
        4·
        1 year ago
        1. We are a developed nation.
        2. “First world” doesn’t mean developed, it means “NATO or NATO-ally during the Cold War”. So we are a first world nation. (2nd world being USSR and its allies, and 3rd world being unaligned nations.)
        3. We are a very democratic country. We’re not the best in this regard, but top 20 isn’t too bad.
        4. Our “backwards, absurdly outdated, colonialist constitution” has no bearing on whether or not we are a developed country. It’s a completely orthogonal issue, and is also specifically the subject of this discussion.