I thought a group dedicated to ensuring the matters affecting any group of peoples are represented in Parliament would be a good thing. And if this is not “good enough”, how will it have a worse outcome than voting no.
In my mind there are two main branches of reasoning: One comes from either racism or a feeling of aggrievement (“why do they get something I dont” kind of thing). The second stems from a misunderstanding of systemic issues, a sort of demographic blindness like “this is a policy that only affects X and that’s racist” kind of thing. Arguably the aggrievement fits in here too. This obviously ignores the fact that demographic differences do exist.
Of course there’s also the “progressive no” argument that people like Lidia Thorpe argue for, but imo the other two are more common.
Yours is the most just understandable explanation so far. But I don’t know if I understand this ‘progressive no’ argument.
I believe we, the Australian people, owe the indigenous peoples a greater weight on those opinion. This is their land after all.
I don’t think a lot of the public understand that the point of it is to give indigenous people a voice on indigenous issues. I think a lot of people believe it’s giving disproportionate indigenous representation into all issues.
Please correct me if I am wrong - my research on what the voice actually is extends to remembering a podcast I heard six months ago when I made up my mind that I thought it was something I wanted to vote yes on and have drowned out a lot of the noise on it since.
I’ve had a bit of trouble getting my head around this one, and have wanted to take it seriously, so have listened and read up on it a bit. The Calma/Langton report has an exec-summary, which could be seen to give a broad brush stroke of the ‘Voices’ structure. I found it useful to read.
But the best piece I’ve found is a Podcast episode from ‘The Tally Room’ with Ben Raue. Episode 92 - How Did We Get to the Voice. The pair spend just under an hour going into details that seem to be glossed over in a lot of other media. They have a discussion, not a talking-points-bazaar.
Because news corp need a villain. That’s legit 90% of the no campaign right there. I suspect it’s gonna be 50/50. 50% yes from the cities and 50% no from the country towns that only get sky news.
It would literally be a non-issue if it were simply an advisory body as has been done in the past. The issue is that the supporters want to alter the constitution.
The systematic oppression of indigenous Australians started around 1869 with the introduction of the “Aborigines Protection Act”, and indigenous Australians were only ceded the right to vote in 1962. So, it’s no surprise that we have issues currently, as people alive today were directly or indirectly affected by those policies (and others).
In a thousand years time (hopefully a hundred years, if we’re lucky), these issues will no longer be present. But the constitution will still exist, and hopefully exist far into the future. So, why add wording to a long-lived document for problems which are so short-term? Especially when altering the constitution is not necessary to effect change?
