LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Changing the Constitution Opinion Property/Sports/Opinion - popup ad by News Of The Area - Modern Media - June 23, 2023 DEAR News Of The Area, REFERRING to Mr Weyling (NOTA 16 June), changing the Constitution is a big deal but he must ask himself if an Act of the British Parliament conceived over a hundred years ago has kept up with advances in our Commonwealth for which it was designed as a means of making six individual states equal. Equality of our citizenry does not rest in our Constitution but, without a Bill of Rights, is via Common Law and a document known as the Magna Carta, written in 1215 and is the foundation of justice in our Constitution. To pontificate by quoting the Bible is nothing more than religious selectivity trying to address a pluralist society. Yet, the author goes on to say he will accept differentiation by accepting the inclusion of Aboriginal peoples as a distinct group in our Constitution if the Voice is omitted. Bit like having your cake and… I for one will be voting for recognition. If this includes the Voice, so be it. Regards, Peter FARQUHAR.
Considering the change to the constitution is based on the current Aboriginal people being descended from the original inhabitants which, which hasn’t been proven and judging by paleoanthropology, is false, how can a change to the constitution be permitted. Considering the majority of people who identify as Aboriginal are of mixed heritage, who would this represent. As for the Voice, it seems some are ignorant of the multiple corporations, organisations, agencies and services, run by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people, that already exist and liaise with government. Plus the eleven Aboriginal representatives in parliament and the minister for Aboriginal affairs. Either someone isn’t doing their job or ,considering the minority of Aboriginals who are no longer marginalised, living in urban areas with access to to to the services and privileges available to all Australians, the organisations have succeeded and are no longer necessary . Therefore showing another voice is not needed. If this referendum had been raised sixty years ago , before the steps were implemented to address Aboriginal issues, then it would be understandable but the issues have been addressed and proven to be successful by the majority who have integrated and become successful. Again, good reason for not adding another voice. Neither will change the lives of the most marginalised Australians. Those who live in remote areas ,have not been consulted and don’t support the Voice or the uluru statement. Why are the voices of these people not being heard even when there are Aboriginal people in parliament who are sharing their voices. There is no reason for anyone’s voice to be ignored yet this is happening, not because they don’t have a voice but because some people ignore them all the while shouting about them needing a voice. Why. Why are the voices of those who need support not being heard by government when other Australians can hear them. Why are the issues facing women and children in remote communities not being heard by the government when other Australians can hear them. Why , if these issues are being downplayed by the government, are they pushing for a voice. Shouldn’t those politicians who are supposed to represent their constituents, those in current government , not be listening to the people. Neither a change to the constitution or the voice is necessary especially considering the lack of consultation with Aboriginal people and their lack of support for either. Reply
