Voice referendum

One of the main arguments for the No campaign in the referendum on 14 October 2023 to create a Voice for first Australians was that a Yes vote would enshrine a right (or privilege) in the Constitution for a section of the Australian community that would give them an unfair advantage over the rest of the population.

Any reasonable person would have to concede that Aborigines as a sector of society have, to put it mildly, been treated pretty unfairly since the arrival of the First Fleet, and giving them an extra voice in deciding their own affairs would help to redress this long-standing injustice.

However, considering that the very purpose of the Voice was to improve all of the vital statistics associated with the Aboriginal community (eg life expectancy, health, etc) that fell below the general standard of the rest of the population, there had to come a time in the future when parity would be achieved, and Aborigines would then look forward to the same expectations that we all share.

It would then be at this future point in time - Aborigines having achieved full equality with the rest of the population - that the case for having a discriminatory clause enshrined in the Constitution would lose its justification. Therefore, in all fairness, any future proposed amendment to the Constitution should include a 'Sunset Clause' that still maintains recognition of Aborigines as Australia's first peoples, whilst cancelling the Voice which would have become redundant now that this state of equality had finally been achieved.

In view of the snail's pace at which societal improvements progress in this country, I would suggest that 'Sunset' should be scheduled to happen in around 40 years time - approximately the extent of 2 generations, and about the same length of time that the Jews had to wander around in the desert before they were allowed to enter the promised land.

 Transgender sports

Transgender athletes have been in the news lately with some authorities arguing that, generally because of their stronger build, males who have undergone procedures leading to female status should not be allowed to participate in female sports events. 

To allow their participation would give them an unfair advantage over other women, whilst to exclude them from participation would be unfair to those athletes seeking inclusion.

There is a way around this that would be fair to both sides. 

Take the 100 metres event in the Olympic Games for example. If a trans woman was included and won the event, she would gain a special Gold Trans medal to acknowledge her achievement, whilst the runner up would be awarded the usual Gold medal acknowledging her place in the event. If the trans woman came second in the event she would gain a special Silver Trans medal whilst the runner coming third would win the usual Silver medal for second place getters....and so on for the bronze medals.

In this way we can acknowledge the excellence in performance of all competitors irrespective of their genetic makeup in a manner which, I feel, would be acceptable to all participants and their supporters, without ruffling too many feathers.

 

Just a footnote about the AFL (Australian Football League):

The women's AFL league has been named the AFLW, whilst the men's teams are still known as the AFL. This gives the impression that the women's teams are some sort of appendage to the AFL and true gender equality demands that this should be corrected by calling the men's teams the AFLM.

 

 Governor General

With the demise of Queen Elizabeth 2, it is inevitable that the push to proclaim Australia as a Republic will re-emerge sometime in the not too distant future, and so too will emerge the problematic process of selecting the Governor General.

The Governing party of the day and indeed, the Opposition as well, would prefer the GG be selected by the Parliament from a field of eminent citizens acceptable to the major parties to maintain the status and integrity of the position. 

However, Australians, not being particularly well disposed toward politicians, would prefer a non-political appointment, and would demand the post be filled by popular plebiscite. Unfortunately the result of such a selection process would counterintuitively lead to just the opposite of what the Australian people would have expected, because each of the political parties would pour finance, advertising and resources into the selection of the candidate whose background best matched their philosophical agenda, and the country would end up with a head of state biased toward one side or other of the political spectrum, just as is the American President beholden to the agenda of the party which supports his candidature.

I suggest that to satisfy both the People and the Politicians, the Governing and Opposition parties draw up a list of candidates acceptable to both sides of Government and follow up with a plebiscite allowing the People to vote for the person on that list whom they find most suited for the position.

Button batteries

Approximately 200 children per year are potentially exposed to button battery injury in Australia, with at least a dozen per year experiencing severe injury. Since 2013, there have been three deaths from oesophageal button battery injury. 
I suggest a possible solution to this problem would be introduction of legislation requiring button batteries to be coated with an unpleasant (bitter?) substance to discourage children from putting them into their mouths.