We were saying "No"

this time last year, "No" to the "Voice to Parliament" for "indigenous" people.  Saying "No" cost the country more than a billion dollars in the end. The referendum alone was expensive.

The cost of that could have been greatly reduced by holding it at the same time as an election.  It would surely be a very good idea to hold more referenda at the same time as elections?

I can imagine this. You enter the polling station and make the declaration you have not voted before in this election and the electoral official hands over the voting papers. You head off and mark them and put them in the boxes holding the ballot papers under the watchful eye of yet another official. Would it really be that hard to add a question at the same time? It has been done of course - and no doubt it will be done again.

So, why didn't they do it this time? There were reasons of course. Most of them had to do with "keeping a promise" if you believe the Prime Minister. Yes, there was a lot of political pressure - mostly from within his own party. The media did not help of course. It never does. 

And then there was arrogance. How could the proposal possibly fail? I was reminded of the vote for this country to "become a republic". Those who failed to get it up like to say it was the way the question was asked. No, it was not. It failed in every state and territory as well as across the country. The majority was not there and those advocating for it knew that. They insisted on going ahead anyway. They tried to tell us that it was a "simple" matter, that it was about "growing up" and "being truly independent". It was all nonsense of course. There would have been a massive shift in the way we are governed. Looking at events in America right now I am glad we did not go down that path even if others still advocate for it.

Last year's referendum was the same. There was no way this was going to fail was there? The demands grew louder and more strident as time went on. How dare we vote against it? To do so would be "racist" and cause more "division". We would not be "acknowledging" the wrongs of the past.

It seems we have not actually manage to learn the lesson. States our still going ahead with "treaties" and "truth telling" and "voices". All this is doing is continuing to fan the flames of discontent among the activists who like to claim "disadvantage". Yes, there is disadvantage out there but it is being perpetuated by those very activists who insist on holding others back.  

It is not special recognition that indigenous people need. They need the same recognition...and perhaps the so-called "Voice" would have denied them that. I don't know but I still think we are approaching the very real issues from the wrong angle.