Australia rejects proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in constitution
Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues. Saturday’s voice to parliament referendum failed, with the defeat clear shortly after polls closed.
New to the subject here: why is it a desirable thing to recognise Aboriginal people in the Constitution?
As I read through the article in the Aboriginal camp not everyone wants this. So I’m puzzled.
It’s complex. Quite a few in the indigenous “no” camp want treaty instead; a formal legal recognition of aboriginal rights and representation, not just an advisory voice in parliament. Voting no for them was as much a protest as an attempt to send a message saying this should be much more. For them it’s all or nothing.
Others didn’t see the point, yet others don’t see the problem in the first place, comfortable with the status quo.
Their argument is that the Voice isn’t even something good. It doesn’t give Indigenous people any powers they didn’t already have, and the Voice can be ignored just as easily as the advice of the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody.
But even if that weren’t the case and they did think it wasn’t worthless symbolism, successful collective bargaining doesn’t just settle for every first offer. So I don’t know why you’re claiming it’s a bad strategy, it’s how unions have won important gains for workers. It’s a strategy that has been historically shown to work when applied correctly.
GreyShuck
Gerula
comfy