For progressive no voters, that is correct.
There is of course an element of society who want to ignore or bury any discourse on issues impacting ATSI Australians but they’re not the full picture either.
For progressive no voters, that is correct.
There is of course an element of society who want to ignore or bury any discourse on issues impacting ATSI Australians but they’re not the full picture either.
A few of the arguments or concerns voiced by Australian’s included:
-A Voice with no power is pointless
-Lack of detail in the proposal
-Separating Australian’s by race is divisive (note there’s already constitutional race powers, which I disagree with and hope will be scrapped)
-ATSI people would have more representation than others (they actually have proportionally higher representation in Parliament today than their percentage of population)
-Leaving the exact details of the Voice to legislation means any future government could gut it without violating the constitutional amendment
-concerns this is the first push on a path to treaty and reparations as a percentage of GDP (which WAS discussed as a possibility by the people who worked on the Uluru statement)
I’ve left out the outright lies, though I guarantee someone will take issue with me simply mentioning the talking points to give you context.
Bit of a weird take from the ABC, that Canberrans aren’t different despite demographically being different.
It almost seems like an attempt to downplay the ACTs voters.
A more nuanced and less navel gazing take would be that future generations will likely support a similar referendum, assuming that those generations are afforded a quality education.
I’m off to the Botanic gardens, it’s a great day for it, and hopefully I will see some of the beautiful snakes that have been scaring nitwits silly.
Your post is poorly framed, I assume the title is something your partner said and not your actual thoughts.
“it’s a shame too, because they’re messaging wouldn’t have been so useful to a civil debate.”
Not the best quality from the editor there but given it’s in quote I wonder if it was intentional? Still doesn’t play well even if it is.
Literally everything owned by Murdoch is spewing non-stop propaganda.
There were many ATSI people who voted no because they want treaty, not an advisory committee with no veto powers.
Not everyone who voted no is racist and proclaiming they are is far more reminiscent of US divisive politics than how Australian politics works.
The only Territory to vote yes, out of all our States and Territories, was the Australian Capital Territory which is the most educated and most involved with governance.
There are essentially two parts to what was proposed, the first is that having mention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island (ATSI) peoples in the constitution is recognition.
The second part, which is actually the exact mechanism which was proposed, was a permanent advisory body made up of ATSI representatives with constitutional power to give advice to the Government on issues related to or impacting ATSI people.
The exact details of the advisory body were up to legislation which we will probably never see.
There’s a lot to break down about your post with half truths but it’s a perfect microcosm of the Yes campaign and why it failed.
The exact wording of the Constitutional amendment was released 6-7 months ago.
The Legislation has not been, and likely won’t be seen.
If you have seen the legislation somewhere please share a link.