- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues.
Saturday’s voice to parliament referendum failed, with the defeat clear shortly after polls closed.
What’s token about forcing the government of the day to take the optical damage from publicly dismissing the guidance of the official body representing indigenous community? Seems it would give them reason to reconsider as well as a great body to consult on how to best prioritise and address the issues facing the community.
Entirely depends on how it’s to be structured. Which the public didn’t vote on. Done correctly I do agree on the optics of an official body though.
So it’ll be good, or ineffective at worst. What’s the issue?
Either way, some of us whities just don’t feel comfortable determining the future of indigenous people.
That’s the point of the Voice though, isn’t it - to give a body representing indigenous Australians a say in decisions relating to them.
That’s contrasted with the current situation, where the government selects an indigenous affairs minister, then optionally cherrypicks the indigenous representative bodies that support their agenda.
There’s nothing in the legislation that prevents the (predominantly white European) government from continuing to cherry pick. We don’t need another excuse to be apathetic about indigenous issues.
As I’ve said, they’ll need to take the optical damage.
So as you’ve said, you’re not comfortable determining indigenous Australians’ future, but you’ll block the change supported by 80% of indigenous Australians, formed at the Uluru statement from the heart it because it isn’t good enough for you - how on earth do you rationalise that obvious, massive contradiction?
So every time you buy a coffee you’re actively killing a starving child? Struth!
I’m going to need you to join the dots on that one, champ. It’d be great if you explained the massive contradiction in your statements while you’re at it.