You must log in or register to comment.
The no argument was basically:
FEAR CHANGE! IF THINGS CHANGE THEY WONT BE LIKE THEY WERE AND YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THAT! BOO!
There are two “no” camps:
- 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.
second camp has a point…but it’s still not a good reason to vote no.
There is no good reason to vote no.
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.
