this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
21 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

3598 readers
123 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
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
21
Why is the indigenous voice to Parliament so controversial? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by Narc082@lemmy.world to c/australia@aussie.zone
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Knoll0114@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] sycamore@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] TheShane@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Knoll0114@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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.