not sure about generation but 1 or 2 election cycles for sure. this is the main problem with the outcome, it will be presented as a rejection of action and not of the voice itself. I would like to see the case from both major parties for what next, they both have said they have a plan so let's hear it

[–] Nonameuser678@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Constitutional change isn't on the cards, not in the near future. We're not doing another referendum. Dutton fucked up when he said he would support one on just constitutional recognition alone because the conservatives do not support it. Sure, the government can legislate a voice but there's always a chance that it will be dismantled like every other advisory group - that's why it needed to be enshrined in the constitution. I think there's more that can be achieved for voice and treaty now at the state level. That might even be more effective because states are responsible for health, education, child protection and justice, which are all areas that can be aligned to the close the gap outcomes. I would support a federal treaty process, hands down, but I'm sceptical that the majority of Australia will.

[–] samson@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

States are responsible for everything in our federal system, only the federal government is limited in scope. A state voice will be a truly great thing to pursue for each state.

[–] abhibeckert@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The Uluru Statement literally asked for constitutional reforms.

I'm not sure the indigenous peoples of this country are willing to work with the state governments. Obviously they're many people, and some of them are/will be willing to go down that path. But it's not what they asked for in 2017.

The only thing that's changed since 2017 is 60% of the country clearly stated they not willing to acknowledge the indigenous peoples of this country. I think reconciliation is further away than it was a few months ago. As some have said the road forward isn't always a straight line... but this has been a pretty big step backwards.

[–] samson@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know, I'm Aboriginal. I completely supported the voice as it stood. I think that it's something worth persuing due to how much states control in our system, but it could very well lead to fragmentation etc. It's definitely been a massive step backwards and I think there's going to be a lot off the cards from now for a long time sadly.

[–] abhibeckert@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The thing is the states were unanimously in line with the national consensus on this. The only outliers were a few tiny pockets (like remote communities of indigenous people and a handful of inner city suburbs).

The more I come to terms with the referendum the more I'm convinced that any attempt to move the needle on this issue is doomed to failure. It's a sure path to losing an election and giving whoever wins a mandate to entrench the status quo even stronger than it already is.

I said it was a step backwards yesterday but I think I was wrong. It's a reality check. I think the referendum has brought to light what the Australian people really think (and we are clearly divided on this issue, don't forget almost ten million people voted yes...). As shitty as it is to learn how many people are against us, it's better to know that than to be blissfully ignorant.

We have failed to constitutionally enshrined a Voice, but doing so still needs to be the next thing we do on this subject. It's more important than it ever was. The people who voted No need to admit they were wrong and I want to see evidence that millions of people have changed their mind before I can see any path forward towards real meaningful change.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)