Narc0Why is the indigenous voice to Parliament so controversial?
Knoll0114I think it's controversial because it is a dedicated group/voice for 3.2% of the population which no other minority group would be getting (eg. Croatian-Australians or Mauritian-Australians etc.) That means the indigenous vote would mean more on certain issues (by design) than the non-indigenous. Arguably this can be a good thing because indigenous people have been marginalised more than other groups, and it may lead to better outcomes for them. However, it still represents decision-making/representation becoming distinguished by ethnicity in a codified way.
The ShaneI think - and I'm open to being corrected - that percentages aside, the fact that the Aboriginal people have been dispossessed of their lands, enslaved, had their children taken, and been denied voting rights... I do believe that wanting to right wrongs is a good aim.
I honestly don't know if this voice to parliament is good or not, because I'm not sure what it will achieve. If it is in order to better protect traditional and sacred places, then let's go. However, if it allows removing landowners from their farms etc, then that's a hard no from me.
As I said though, I'm not sure what the final aim is here. Hopefully in the next 6 months, someone will make it clear for me.
I would agree with all that and I'm not yet convinced of my vote. However, I don't really see how the wrongs could ever be righted without more wrongs (eg. Removal of non-indigenous people from land.) We cannot change history, so for me I would need to believe the indigenous rep is a move forward.
You need to stop thinking about the voice to parliament in terms of ethnicity, it's not a voice of an ethnic group, it's a voice of the traditional owners of a land which was never ceded and who were in the land before we came and set up a parliament.
Parliament is a group dedicated to ensuring matters affecting any group of peoples are represented.
I am against the voice because it prioritises things based on who people are and not what their needs are. E.g. I would happily vote yes to a voice to parliament for domestic abuse survivors, but I would not for a voice to parliament for Chinese international students.
I suppose the counterargument would be that being indigenous is both an identity and a need. I do agree with you though that this isn't a good solution.
That’s what the current system is. It’s not working for the indigenous communities.
LenguadorI've seen this sentiment before, but what evidence is there that the current system isn't working?
For example, this chart shows remarkable improvement for Indigenous Australian infant mortality (source).
What metrics are you looking at which are not trending in a favourable way for indigenous Australians?
And, as indigenous Australians were only given the right to vote in 1962, how quickly do you expect parity with non-indigenous Australians to happen?
The Closing the Gap reports are a good benchmark. The graphs give you a good idea of the discrepancy between indigenous and non-indigenous outcomes.
www.pc.gov.au/closing-the-gap-data/dashboard
www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-30/…/101713892
In my mind there are two main branches of reasoning: One comes from either racism or a feeling of aggrievement (“why do they get something I dont” kind of thing). The second stems from a misunderstanding of systemic issues, a sort of demographic blindness like “this is a policy that only affects X and that’s racist” kind of thing. Arguably the aggrievement fits in here too. This obviously ignores the fact that demographic differences do exist.
Of course there’s also the “progressive no” argument that people like Lidia Thorpe argue for, but imo the other two are more common.
Because news corp need a villain. That’s legit 90% of the no campaign right there. I suspect it’s gonna be 50/50. 50% yes from the cities and 50% no from the country towns that only get sky news.
Because Australia hasn’t acknowledged its true history. It has told itself lies and thrown token white guilt bones, but it cannot bring itself to actually accept reality. Until this happens, there will be no significant change and any attempt at progress will be met with widespread pushback.
Gorgritch_Umie_KillaI’ve had a bit of trouble getting my head around this one, and have wanted to take it seriously, so have listened and read up on it a bit. The Calma/Langton report has an exec-summary, which could be seen to give a broad brush stroke of the ‘Voices’ structure. I found it useful to read.
But the best piece I’ve found is a Podcast episode from ‘The Tally Room’ with Ben Raue. Episode 92 - How Did We Get to the Voice. The pair spend just under an hour going into details that seem to be glossed over in a lot of other media. They have a discussion, not a talking-points-bazaar.
I don’t think a lot of the public understand that the point of it is to give indigenous people a voice on indigenous issues. I think a lot of people believe it’s giving disproportionate indigenous representation into all issues.
Please correct me if I am wrong - my research on what the voice actually is extends to remembering a podcast I heard six months ago when I made up my mind that I thought it was something I wanted to vote yes on and have drowned out a lot of the noise on it since.
It would literally be a non-issue if it were simply an advisory body as has been done in the past. The issue is that the supporters want to alter the constitution.
The systematic oppression of indigenous Australians started around 1869 with the introduction of the "Aborigines Protection Act", and indigenous Australians were only ceded the right to vote in 1962. So, it's no surprise that we have issues currently, as people alive today were directly or indirectly affected by those policies (and others).
In a thousand years time (hopefully a hundred years, if we're lucky), these issues will no longer be present. But the constitution will still exist, and hopefully exist far into the future. So, why add wording to a long-lived document for problems which are so short-term? Especially when altering the constitution is not necessary to effect change?