I thought a group dedicated to ensuring the matters affecting any group of peoples are represented in Parliament would be a good thing. And if this is not “good enough”, how will it have a worse outcome than voting no.
I thought a group dedicated to ensuring the matters affecting any group of peoples are represented in Parliament would be a good thing. And if this is not “good enough”, how will it have a worse outcome than voting no.
I 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.
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.
Yes but the traditional owners of the land are just one ethnic group on the continent now. I don’t find historical claims to ownership compelling - the people who conquered and were conquered are gone now.
I 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.
Edit: though it is a different situation I see some parallels with Zionist arguments for the establishment of Israel (which obviously went much further than the creation of a dedicated voice.) I don’t believe that historic claim to land is a good argument.
Neither did removing the whites from the farms in Zimbabwe.
Exactly. For the indigenous vote thing to be a good step for me it has to be a move forward not an attempt to atone for the past.