is still not being debated in the way I hoped it might be. I know it is unlikely to happen but I am still hoping that there will be a sensible, calm debate on this issue.
The Prime Minister is clearly not happy with the idea of allowing a debate. It seems he believes we should all simply vote "yes" without knowing anything more than the wording of the proposed change to the Constitution.
It is a much more complex issue than that.
Instead the Prime Minister brought in a former basketball player from America. Shaquille O'Neal may well be a very pleasant and interesting person. I know nothing about him. I had never heard of him until the Prime Minister insisted on bringing him to "support the Voice to Parliament". No, I do not follow American basketball - or any sort of American sport.
I know other people do but was this appropriate? Why was the Prime Minister using a man who, however well regarded, is not even a representative of the First Nations people in his own country? What does it tell us this proposal is about?
Constitutional law is a very complex thing. It formed two compulsory units in my legal training and I know we barely touched the surface. Constitutional change in this country is difficult to achieve. It requires two majorities, a majority of the people and a majority of the states.
Since Federation there have been forty-four attempts to change something and only eight of them have succeeded. Of these there was one in 1967 which allowed the Federal Government to make special laws with respect to "aboriginal people" and that did succeed.
So why now do we need a special Voice to parliament for one group? I'll come back to the issue as I gather more information from people who know more about these things and from those it is intended to benefit.
Let it be said here though that the desire of some to debate it and perhaps even eventually oppose it should not be seen as "racist". It may be something much more complicated than that. Our Constitution may appear simple but it is a very, very complex document.
Posts
1 comment:
Yes - the Australian Constitution is a very very very complex document.
I do know something about Shaq. [though probably not as much as I know about the Harlem Globetrotters or Michael Jordan - and two years ago I did spend time watching THE LAST DANCE - or Scott Pippin - or even Luc Longley or Andrew and Lindsay Gaze or Lauren Jackson and Liz Cambage and Michelle Timms or indeed the Boomers and Opals and the Charlotte Hornets - and LeBron James].
He was one of the heroes of the three-pointer fad ca: 1993-2002.
And he was in lots of advertisements and endorsements.
I understood the Shaq promotion as a larger thing with his visits to Sydney and Melbourne as a public speaker [indeed: a promoter for a gambling / sports betting organisation which is problematic in itself].
And he had been in movies and TV over those years.
He was arguing the common cause of civil rights and freedoms in the larger picture of athletics and sport - that was what Albanese wanted him for.
[while watching the ABC news at noon Shaq came up live and so did Linda Burney - she being the Indigenous Affairs Minister].
[and the team sports I was required to know something about - if not participate in - were basketball and association football - and an extended sports project on table tennis/ping pong - and ping-pong diplomacy!]
Post a Comment