There were many reasons voted 'no'. I was on the booth so have...

There were many reasons voted 'no'. I was on the booth so have some understanding of people's reasons. The issue of indigeneity was my main reason - but of all the people I spoke to that was not their concern. In my opinion: 1. The proposal was too complicated and didn't make sense. 2. Making a permanent change to the constitution rather than legislation. 3. Where is the money going? (for which false aboriginals was clearly an implied factor - but noone wanted to explicitly mention it) 4. The negativity of the 'yes' campaign (insults and abuse). 5. The blatant contradictions of the yes campaign, about a treaty/ not about a treaty.

I did not speak to one person who made negative comments about actually helping (true) indigenous Australians. However 3. nullified that good will.

What I think is particularly sad is that the vote was a binary system. 'Yes/No' which means the strong No vote is open to interpretation. So it is easy to say the 'no' vote was due to racism. This is the way the 'yes' campaigners have read the situation and they are completely wrong.

I read an earlier defense of Wesfarmers supporting the Yes vote - and they either didn't understand the issues or were telling porkies. I tended to think the second - but I am happy to accept their argument at face value meaning they are just plain ignorant.

i.e. arguments like 'we should listen to 'indigenous Australians' were obvious and supported by both 'yes' and 'no' and simply had little to do with the proposal.

My point being (in the context of Wesfarmers) that they totally failed to understand what the proposal was about - and should do everyone a favour and keep out of politics. Those who supported 'yes' without understanding the proposal not only failed in their objective but also led to confusion of indigenous people both prior and after the vote. I think they caused irreparable damage to reconciliation. I do not think we can say they pushed back reconciliation say 10 years as I think it is a lot worse than that. I believe the referendum will be misunderstood by Australians for at least 100 years.

What the 'elites' should have done was talk to the indigenous Australians and discussed how to create a proposal that would have generated positive momentum. (I agree some tried to do that but their needed to be more active discussion) Personally I would have supported a legislated 'Voice' (albeit I hate that description) to provide a democratic-based representation group to negotiate a treaty. In this sense I partly agree with the likes of Lidia Thorpe (which I found at least consistent)

Recently the Qld LNP has walked away from the process of negotiating a treaty. This is because we now do not have a positive framework to move forward.

I do agree (100%) with the concept of social license - and as stated I support Wesfarmers making practical steps.