this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023

2 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

4414 readers

157 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

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:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Fluid@aussie.zone

bestusername@aussie.zone

eatham@aussie.zone

Nath@aussie.zone

Historic Indigenous voice referendum bill passes parliament (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 years ago by poohbear@toons.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A bill to alter the constitution and enable the Indigenous voice has passed the federal parliament ahead of Australia’s first referendum in 24 years to be held later in 2023.

The Senate passed the bill on Monday 52 votes to 19, confirming the wording of the constitutional change to be put to the Australian people. The draft legislation passed the lower house last month.

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I’m voting yes because I don’t want to empower the subset of “No” voters who will take a “no” win as a sign that Australia approves of their racism views and become a louder voice in political discussion.

But I don’t believe the voice to parliament will be useful in anyway or something we want to lock into our constitution till the end of time.

I’m open to civil discussion with anyone here to convince we the voice to parliament is actually a good thing. Or indigenous sovereignty in general. Not convinced in that either.

[–] Knoll0114@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't think it makes sense to vote for something you don't believe in just because others you disagree with will make the same vote.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago

I can see where you’re coming from. But a no vote will make australia a shittier place for our nonwhite members. So I don’t see it as voting for the voice, I see it as voting not to empower racist shitheads. Voting yes will at least not make the situation worse.

[+] Ilandar@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Anyone but I don’t think it would affect anyone but first Australians. I think everyone in Australia deserves the same rights. Having a seperate or parallel legal system/government doesn’t seem like a good idea. What if they have some backwards ideas on the rights of women, the lgbt or on corporal punishment.

To be fair I haven’t looked to see how it works in other countries with the similar First Nations issues, but the Indian Reservation system in the US doesn’t seem like something to copy.

The argument that they never conceded defeat doesn’t hold much water with me; it was an assimilation that’s not how that works.

[+] Ilandar@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What a strange assumption to make. Why would Indigenous Australians be any different in this regard? This sounds like some flawed “white knows best” thinking.

These are contemporary modern issues too. Plenty of the rest of Australia have backwards beliefs on these issues. Our society has only made progress on these issues in the last decades. Other contemporary societies haven’t made any progress on these issues. (See the Middle East or Africa.)

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge this argument does lear close to white-supremacists white-society arguments. I don’t think race has anything to do with it. I think economics do. Prosperous societies become more liberal. Western society has just been the most prosperous society in the last few hundred years. Previous nonwestern societies have had periods of liberalism during prosperous times (see the Middle East). I think this is also an argument that giving sovereignty to non-prosperous regional communities is a bad idea.

Men and Women’s business is a thing in aboriginal lore. With “harsh punishment” if the rules are broken.

The elders of 70 aboriginal communities delivered a petition against gay marriage to the government.

Corporal (and capital) punishment was used in aboriginal lore.

Your “white knows best” comment reeks of moral relativism. And while I’m not a moral realist you’d be pushing shit uphill to win an argument against individual rights.

[+] Ilandar@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No I didn’t ? I specifically called out that this exists in modern Australian society? I provided examples of indigenous issues so you couldn’t accuse me of making this out of whole cloth.

I don’t think every aboriginal community will have these issues. I think it’s a bad idea to have multiple (hundreds of) smaller governments where these issues could pop up. Every Australian deserves the same and the best rights we can give them. Our job isn’t done in that regard and it would be a backward step to allow small communities to “decide for themselves” in these regards.

[+] Ilandar@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Dear god your reading comprehension is terrible.

Who is “we”?

Society, everyone, progressives, anyone who agrees everyone was created equal and deserves equal respect, anyone who agrees the system is still fucked and we can and should change it for the better.

What do you mean by “our job”?

Improving the system to improve the rights, respect and outcomes for everyone.

We only just legalised gay marriage and homosexuality was still illegal in some places in Australia under 25 years ago. There is still plenty of discrimination going on in this place that needs sorting out.

Stop trying to play the white saviour card. It’s bullshit. I fully acknowledge the British invaders where shit to the First Nations and committed genocide. It’s been a shit time for the original inhabitants for the first two hundred plus years of colonisation. No white saviour going on there. But now we have an option to decide what we can do to make the world a better place and it’s not to set up hundreds of semi-sovereign enclaves that will turn out shit for the marginalised individuals in them.

[+] Ilandar@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I believe the civility of this conversation is coming to an end. Both of you are entitled to your opinions. Neither of you seem to be convinced by the other, this I believe it is time to agree to disagree. I recommend that this conversation end here.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

@billstickers@aussie.zone, @Ilandar@aussie.zone.

I will give you both the benefit of the doubt, please read the above message.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

Thanks. I hadn't seen your message, but I did come to the same conclusion. I do honestly want to have my mind changed. It seems to be the progressive stance, but I cant see any upside and there is plenty of downside.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

Correction. I don’t believe anyone can be trusted to run their own affairs. And I’ve explained why. The best we can do is group together and try and make the world a better place.

Why do you think it would be a good idea? And do you think that marginalised groups losing rights and equality is an acceptable trade off ?

[–] Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago

I'm in a similar vein, and as of yet I've still yet to hear a convincing argument as to why this body is different from the multitude of other advisory bodies the government has, and will continue to soundly ignore, or why a well-funded statutory body can't achieve the same role.

Racists will claim anything other than a 100% yes vote as a 'win' so don't let their backwardsness stake a claim in your mind.

[–] Flippyfloppy@prxs.site 1 points 2 years ago

Highly recommend listening to Noel Pearson’s Boyer lectures (can be found on ABC audio)- he makes some excellent points about why recognition for First Nations people is so vital. I will be voting Yes in the referendum.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone -2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

It is how racism becomes enshrined in law. Vote no, before it is too late.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with people, however, it is difficult to see how this could lead to an insightful discussion. Please consider expanding upon your thoughts if you wish for insightful discussion to follow.

[–] Dalek_Thal@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

...silly duffer, the constitution already empowers the government to make laws about race (s 51 xxvi). This power has been used regularly against Indigenous Australians.

Or is it only racist when it's against white people?

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

Any differential treatment based on race is racism. Only way to stop it is not having it mentioned anywhere in the law. We need to stop this practice not enshrine it.

[–] sycamores@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The voice to parliament isn't about race, it's about ensuring that the traditional owners have constitutional right to advise parliament.

[–] makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

I have family in the yidingi in Cairns. It's a separate nation, as are all the aboriginal nations.

There are many separate nations.

My family member was just last week asking me how the hundreds of other nations will all agree and find a common ground. I had no answer as, just like he said, there is no one aboriginal nation, rather many individual nations.

One group of people from a nation or two, or ten even, can't make a decision for all aboriginal nations. That was his take anyway.

So he's voting no.

I am not aboriginal. I don't have full info on what the decision means. So I have no idea how I can vote either way.

Transparency is important. Inclusion of, and working with all aboriginal nations is also important.