• morry040@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Notice how they continually refer to “rights” as if they are careful to only address that word specifically. I wonder what their response would be if the question was whether the Voice would be giving unfair representation to Australian citizens of a particular background.
    As they point out, other bodies makes representations to Parliament, but none of those required a constitutional amendment yet they seem sufficiently represented.

    • Ilandar@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Notice how they continually refer to “rights” as if they are careful to only address that word specifically.

      It’s almost as if the claim they were debunking was literally about “special rights”.

    • StoryTooMany@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re sufficiently represented because those bodies are resourced by companies and NGOs. Indigenous people don’t have those same resources, and simply allocating them through normal government process (as has happened in the past) can simply be undone by successive governments for political/ideological reasons.

      Constitutional amendment prevents that from happening. It guarantees they always have a voice.