I accept that there are people who genuinely believe in the ‘progressive no’ vote but I still think if you want a treaty and indigenous sovereignty recognised the Voice is a great opportunity for that.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I on the other hand think it will basically stop that pathway in its tracks and will be pointed at for generations to say “look what we already gave you! You’re in the constitution and have a voice! Problem solved”.

We don’t change the constitution often or lightly. When we do it should be for something meaningful that makes an actual immediate difference. Another advisor position doesn’t do that in any way.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

This sounds a lot like the 'Yes republic, but not like that' position of 2000. And here we are 23 years later, and the entire republic debate was dropped.

I believe the same thing will happen with a no vote on this. "We had a whole referendum on this question and the people voted no".

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

They should have come up with a better proposal before bringing it to a referendum then. Give me something that meaningfully and permanently provides actual change for indigenous people. Another advisory position is pointless.

Also I believe a huge part of the swing towards the No vote is due to the over the top aggression and abuse that’s thrown at anyone that even dares to question voting yes, being called racists and the like. The communities in here are as guilty of it as any. All that type of activism does is turn people against your cause.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)