• Nath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are two “no” camps:

    1. This constitutional change is too much. We don’t want a body we didn’t elect having a voice to parliament.
    2. 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Taleya@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      second camp has a point…but it’s still not a good reason to vote no.

      There is no good reason to vote no.