![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://slrpnk.net/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Faussie.zone%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2Fbf34d5d9-d3e7-4014-8d92-00020a911ed4.webp)
61·
1 year agoI agree 100%
The voice to parliament isn’t a privilege attributed to a race, it’s a privilege for the traditional owners of the land.
I agree 100%
The voice to parliament isn’t a privilege attributed to a race, it’s a privilege for the traditional owners of the land.
This article didn’t actually have any information about Americans being puzzled, only that once, in a different episode, someone didn’t recognise a cricket bat.
It’s not about inequality. The problem is that currently as it stands there is no special status in the constitution for the voice of the traditional owners of a land on which sovereignty was never ceded. It’s a permanent problem that the voice will address.
The voice to parliament isn’t about race, it’s about ensuring that the traditional owners have constitutional right to advise parliament.