I thought it was a poorly designed question but felt you only get one go at it (a bit like the referendum debate). The other reason why I voted yes, in addition to the embedded post in the opening post of mine, is here - Post #:70227360
Interesting question - what do you think since you have asked it.
I would say a number of the reasons are environmental. The things you do and consume are environmental in nature, and how you live or decide to live is an environmental issue. Some environmental issues cannot be overturned, but Australia provides opportunity, opportunity which migrants like me took up and worked hard to make a better life.
Yes some health issues are hereditary, but when it comes to schooling/education/non attendance at school that is not hereditary. Working and wanting to work is not hereditary - if I could not work I would have in my days not worked, but it is how you buy things and live.
If you are defining cultural (and religious) issues as predominantly hereditary, I use the term predominantly, we probably have a slightly different viewpoint.
At the end of the day, you operate under the laws of the land and adapt. It does not mean you have to completely give up your cultural issues - you adapt to the circumstances you face, as did Australia's migrants during the post war years.
If you believe culture is hereditary, then changing the date will achieve nothing because Australia is vastly different to when it was discovered and always will be
