0
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] morry040@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

I think some of the "No" reasons are valid questions to ask, so simply brushing them off as irrational is not going to win over anyone sitting on the fence. When I have spoken with family & friends, some of their uncertainty and concerns can be found amongst the ten No arguments.

For example, the question of inequitable representation (point #3 of the No arguments) is a fair one. Shouldn't all Australians, regardless of their gender, race, or ancestry be represented equally in the Constitution?
In 1962, all Indigenous Australians were given the fair right to vote, giving them the same level of voice and representation as that of any Australian citizen. This resolved the issue of equal voting rights, which allows all Australians to have their voice equally represented in parliament. The Voice would now add an additional representation above what voting provides to the average Australian and it will be mandated in the Constitution.
Which personal factors determine if one can be awarded this additional amount of representation? Do you have to prove you are Indigenous by way of a blood test, a written exam, a form of ID, or just by stating that you identify as an Indigenous Australian? I even know of some people who have claimed benefits of Indigenous Australians (e.g. scholarships) when they themselves were Pacific Islander. How pure does your bloodline need to be in order to receive additional representation?

[-] syntacticmistake@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Your argument is driven by racism. The same old tired racist arguments that have been floating around since time immemorial.

“People are just claiming they are Aboriginal to get government handouts”

“They’re not really asylum seekers they are economic migrants looking for government handouts”

“They are going to create a new level of government so they can claim government handouts”

They are not getting inequitable representation. They are effectively being given a constitutionally recognised lobby group. The Government of the day will be able to completely ignore them like they ignore climate scientists and environmentalists.

Ok yes. “But then why does it need to be in the constitution” because the Coalition disbanded every non constitutionally recognised group that has ever been created.

this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Australia

3579 readers
115 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 @Tau@aussie.zone 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: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS