Indigenous leaders who supported the Yes case at last week’s Voice referendum have written to the prime minister saying the No vote was a “shameful victory”.
Indigenous leaders who supported the Yes case at last week’s Voice referendum have written to the prime minister saying the No vote was a “shameful victory”.
A week ago, more than 60 per cent of Australians rejected reforming the constitution to create a new Indigenous Voice, which would have advised the parliament on First Nations affairs.
The statement says it is made up of “collective insights and views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, community members and organisations who supported the Yes campaign.”
The Indigenous leaders who endorsed the letter attributed the historic referendum loss to a lack of bipartisanship, as well as “lies in political advertisement and communication” and racism.
The Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, told NITV this week that she would conduct further consultations with First Nations people “about next steps”.
The letter sent to the prime minister said some leaders now want an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice established without constitutional change or legislation.
The original article contains 497 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
some leaders now want an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice established without constitutional change or legislation
What does this mean? I thought one of the campaign points was that due to being included in the constitution it couldn’t be dismantled like it has time and time again previously. Wouldn’t this just be more of the same?
As disappointing as it is I really don’t see a way forward after losing a popular vote.
For the pollies, i reckon you’re right, there is no clear way forward. I think it’ll be on the States to take a leading role.
I heard during the week, the problem with a referendum is its a blunt yes/no answer. So we’ll never really know what people were actually saying no to. Focus groups and surveys will only get us so far. Makes it hard to know where to go next.
Exactly, and when the question posed was open to so much interpretation everyone has their own idea of what they voted yes/no for. It wasn’t like the “gay marriage yes or no” referendum that was clearly understood by most people. Such a mistake to call it “the voice”. Isn’t that a TV show?
Haha, it was a mistake to call it the Voice. I’m waiting for the Got Talent commission to get going.
Unfortunately the nature of the constitution meaned that it needed to be a bit vague. But that was always one of its strengths. Over time, as life changes, the nation isn’t codified into too strict a system. The Voice reflected that essence very well.
They could create an organisation which represents all First Nations Peoples through a series of treaties and just make loud public statements. By being a representation of all First Nations Peoples their opinions would carry some weight.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Indigenous leaders who supported the Yes case at last week’s Voice referendum have written to the prime minister saying the No vote was a “shameful victory”.
A week ago, more than 60 per cent of Australians rejected reforming the constitution to create a new Indigenous Voice, which would have advised the parliament on First Nations affairs.
The statement says it is made up of “collective insights and views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, community members and organisations who supported the Yes campaign.”
The Indigenous leaders who endorsed the letter attributed the historic referendum loss to a lack of bipartisanship, as well as “lies in political advertisement and communication” and racism.
The Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, told NITV this week that she would conduct further consultations with First Nations people “about next steps”.
The letter sent to the prime minister said some leaders now want an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice established without constitutional change or legislation.
The original article contains 497 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
What does this mean? I thought one of the campaign points was that due to being included in the constitution it couldn’t be dismantled like it has time and time again previously. Wouldn’t this just be more of the same?
As disappointing as it is I really don’t see a way forward after losing a popular vote.
For the pollies, i reckon you’re right, there is no clear way forward. I think it’ll be on the States to take a leading role.
I heard during the week, the problem with a referendum is its a blunt yes/no answer. So we’ll never really know what people were actually saying no to. Focus groups and surveys will only get us so far. Makes it hard to know where to go next.
Exactly, and when the question posed was open to so much interpretation everyone has their own idea of what they voted yes/no for. It wasn’t like the “gay marriage yes or no” referendum that was clearly understood by most people. Such a mistake to call it “the voice”. Isn’t that a TV show?
Small nitpick: it was a plebiscite - not a referendum. Our marriage laws aren’t contained in the Constitution, so a referendum wasn’t required.
Didn’t even realise that, thank you.
With the sheer volume of political nonsense surrounding the question at the time, it sure felt like a referendum!
Haha, it was a mistake to call it the Voice. I’m waiting for the Got Talent commission to get going.
Unfortunately the nature of the constitution meaned that it needed to be a bit vague. But that was always one of its strengths. Over time, as life changes, the nation isn’t codified into too strict a system. The Voice reflected that essence very well.
They could create an organisation which represents all First Nations Peoples through a series of treaties and just make loud public statements. By being a representation of all First Nations Peoples their opinions would carry some weight.