This constitutional change is too much. We don't want a body we didn't elect having a voice to parliament.
This constitutional change doesn't do nearly enough. We don't want a toothless voice that can't really affect anything. We want a full treaty.

The first camp I can't find common ground with. Every Billionaire in the country is an unelected individual who has a pretty big voice to parliament with their political donations and nobody bats an eye. But how dare we give a voice to the most powerless people in the country!

The second camp, I see their point. They're worried that this will be an end to discussion regarding indigenous issues. They don't think the voice is enough. They're right - if you read the Uluru Statement from the heart, you'll see that the voice is the first step towards a treaty. I personally don't think this topic will come up again for a generation if the no vote wins, so I can't really agree with them at all.

[–] Custoslibera@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (8 children)

The Voice is one pathway to treaty.

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 1 year 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.

[–] Echinoderm@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While there is plenty of scope for justifiable criticism about the form of the amendment that's going ahead, it's too late for that argument to achieve much. The wording is set, the date is set, the taxpayer money is already being spent.

Since it is going ahead anyway, do you think voting no will make governments revisit further steps in the future faster than a yes vote?

Personally, I doubt it would. Progress is more likely to be gained by having something, no matter how small, already in place so that a future amendment can build on it, rather than trying for something more substantial from scratch.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -4 points 1 year ago

Honestly I don’t think voting no will hold it back more than voting yes. I think Yes winning would just allow the slacktivists to put the cue back in the rack and pat themselves on the back and say they solved racism so don’t need to do anything else. Either way I’m not expecting anything more to be done for a decade or 2 anyway unfortunately.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)