• ryannathans@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Literally nothing stops the government making “the voice” without changing the constitution. The only reason they want it in the constitution is so future governments can’t change the function of the body.

    The whole thing is an organised circus for political gain and dividing the population.

    In the past, the government had a “voice” for the indigenous for like 10 years. Just bring it back, no constitutional change needed.

    If you’re going to try put an aboriginal rights group in the constitution, just make it basic human rights group with representation for everyone. Basic human rights that are severely lacking in Australia. Freedom of speech? We don’t even have that.

    • Skua@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Isn’t the fact that it was taken away before a justification for enshrining it in the constitution?

      • ryannathans@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Like every other advisory body, it’s the role of the elected government to manage (as it would continue to be if added to the constitution, they could just reduce it to one underfunded person instead of disbandening it, or create a new group).

        Just vote for the party you want to represent you. The current government doesn’t have a “voice” for the indigenous despite proposing this constitutional change.

        It’s like complaining about others possibly hampering your climate change efforts so you instead make none at all