Oversimplification Does Not Help.
We have the Referendum sometime before Christmas, presumably in October or November.
Whilst we don't know, as yet when it will be, we do know what the question is, and what the proposed Change to the Constitution is.
I think one of the things that does not help is the lacklustre arguments from both sides of this debate. In the end, of course, when it comes to a change in the Constitution, it is the advocates for change that are duty-bound to put the case clearly and convince us of the advantage of the change. There may be a place for the people who do not what the change to make a case, and on balance we should be aware of that argument, however, the duty is really on the proponents of change to make a case.
On the news.com article today, I was presented with the case for and the case against in dot point form.
Reasons to Vote Yes
The eight reasons are here in the bullets with my comments in italics.
- This idea came directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
That is useful to know, yet, this hardly constitutes a reason. - Constitutional recognition for concrete results
I believe Constitutional Recognition would have more than 80% support, however, I am not sure what is meant by concrete results - Ensure people have a better life
I don't see how - Bring our country together
I would hope so too, yet, the tenor of the debate so far has it appears done quite the reverse. - Save money
Oh please!? - The time is now
Nice nod to Gough, however, the time was not a substantial argument then or now. - Practical advice that works
I would love for this to be true, yet, practicality and government do not go together in my experience. - Making government work better
Be nice if it worked at all.
Reasons to Vote No
The eight reasons are here in the bullets with my comments in italics.
- This voice is legally risky
Whilst there is significant legal advice that suggests otherwise. - There are no details
That seems to be a semi-valid argument, and it is to lack of details that suggest that if we knew what it meant we may not be in favour. - It divides us
It seems to have, despite my belief that most Australians support Constitutional Recognition - It won't help Indigenous Australians
There is no basis for this argument - No issue is beyond its scope
This is disingenuous fear-mongering - It risks delays and dysfunction
I suppose this means there will be another opportunity to stall things beyond the endless committees and subcommittees whose current function is to delay and dysfunction. - It opens the door for activists
I would be more concerned about political parties trying to manipulate it. - It will be costly and bureaucratic
It may be - This voice will be permanent
This is an observation, not an argument - There are better ways forward
This is also not an argument unless you are going to prove some ideas (see point 2 above)