I think some of the "No" reasons are valid questions to ask, so simply brushing them off as irrational is not going to win over anyone sitting on the fence. When I have spoken with family & friends, some of their uncertainty and concerns can be found amongst the ten No arguments.

For example, the question of inequitable representation (point #3 of the No arguments) is a fair one. Shouldn't all Australians, regardless of their gender, race, or ancestry be represented equally in the Constitution?
In 1962, all Indigenous Australians were given the fair right to vote, giving them the same level of voice and representation as that of any Australian citizen. This resolved the issue of equal voting rights, which allows all Australians to have their voice equally represented in parliament. The Voice would now add an additional representation above what voting provides to the average Australian and it will be mandated in the Constitution.
Which personal factors determine if one can be awarded this additional amount of representation? Do you have to prove you are Indigenous by way of a blood test, a written exam, a form of ID, or just by stating that you identify as an Indigenous Australian? I even know of some people who have claimed benefits of Indigenous Australians (e.g. scholarships) when they themselves were Pacific Islander. How pure does your bloodline need to be in order to receive additional representation?

[–] syntacticmistake@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your argument is driven by racism. The same old tired racist arguments that have been floating around since time immemorial.

“People are just claiming they are Aboriginal to get government handouts”

“They’re not really asylum seekers they are economic migrants looking for government handouts”

“They are going to create a new level of government so they can claim government handouts”

They are not getting inequitable representation. They are effectively being given a constitutionally recognised lobby group. The Government of the day will be able to completely ignore them like they ignore climate scientists and environmentalists.

Ok yes. “But then why does it need to be in the constitution” because the Coalition disbanded every non constitutionally recognised group that has ever been created.

[–] ZodiacSF1969@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So lame when legitimate points are dismissed as 'racism'. It is absolutely possible to make these arguments, not all of which I even agree with, or present these issues, without having a racist intent.

I was hoping the level of discourse would be better here, sadly it's just /r/Australia2

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

It wasn't "dismissed". They clearly outlined why these are long-standing racist tropes and why the "inequitable representation" argument is dishonest. Did you actually bother to read the whole comment or did you just get to "racism" and have a mental breakdown?