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.
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.
That’s what the current system is. It’s not working for the indigenous communities.
I’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. https://www.pc.gov.au/closing-the-gap-data/dashboard https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-30/closing-the-gap-report-released/101713892
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.