With a two-letter word, Australians have struck down the first attempt at constitutional change in 24 years, major media outlets reported, a move experts say will inflict lasting damage on First Nations people and suspend any hopes of modernizing the nation’s founding document.
Early results from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) suggested that most of the country’s 17.6 million registered voters had written No on their ballots, and CNN affiliates 9 News, Sky News and SBS all projected no path forward for the Yes campaign.
The proposal, to recognize Indigenous people in the constitution and create an Indigenous body to advise government on policies that affect them, needed a majority nationally and in four of six states to pass.
After a definite disinformation campaign with a side of racist fear mongering…ffs. I’m embarrassed to be an Australian.
It’s humanity bro. Humans are the baddies.
I would disagree i think you would be hard pressed to find a large amount of peole against an advisary body. You might see a very large pushback however if u wanted to make a devision based on race within the constitution.
This is a very sad day in Australia’s history. Many of us thought we were a more progressive nation than we are.
We are more progressive. The trouble is the amendment was too vague and if anyone asked questions or suggested that they might vote no, they got called a racist and told to educate themselves.
The Yes campaign ended up mostly using the argument that you should vote yes because conservative are telling you to say no.It’s a toothless advisory body that could make (ignorable) representations to parliament about matters relating to the indigenous community. What else do you need to know?
There were 2 main issues for me.
- The wording did not specify how they would be selected.
- The voice did not require that the members needed to be Aboriginal. So it would have been a bunch of non Aboriginal mates of politicians in the voice. Just like how Tony Abbott got to be the minister for women.
The yes campaign just said trust us it will do nothing so you don’t need to worry. What was the point then?
https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles
The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities
Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.
Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities.
To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process.
I think it would be bad to specify that the members be indigenous - it needlessly restricts options, which seems unproductive if the indigenous community are doing the selection. If they choose the likes of Tony Abbott (not likely), that’s their perogative.
The Voice establishes a constitutionally enshrined body, so beyond recognition, it facilities better input from the community into affairs relevant to them, and makes it optically bad for the government if they choose to ignore that input while forcing nothing. The point is to close the gap in outcomes between the indigenous and broader communities.
This is about ensuring it can’t be abused. They could have specified how the members would be selected in the wording of the referendum.
They wanted to leave the door open for them to abuse it down the track.How would it be abused, exactly?
tfw all those jokes about Australians being racist is put to a national referendum and turn out to be true.
A toxic mix of the social heritage of brutal colonialism, domestic racism, and the trolling money from China and Russia.
Follow the money…fossil.fuel and other mining extraction companies would lose if the first nations took more control of parts of land
Relying on scared white supremacists to not be white supremacists is foolish.
deleted by creator
absolute horseshit. this entire post is disingenuous. the voice was supported by the vast majority of first nations people.
The amendment had roughly 80% support from indigenous Australians, and I’m pretty confident the majority of the remaining 20% rejected it because it didn’t go far enough, and they want treaty.
deleted by creator
This is why I voted no.
Indigenous Australians are striving for equality but are given special treatments with healthcare, loans, employment and education compared to every other Australian that is struggling with all those areas of their day to day and this yes vote will give them more special perks to try “fit in” with everyday Australians. If you give the indigenous special perks it will further divide resentment.
The whole referendum needed more explaining as all the media did was say vote yes but not explain why to vote yes or vote no, people are lazy and don’t wanna google either and will just go off the rumour mill like when the COVID rumours were rampant.
There was also alot of miss information about what was in the referendum and if it was iron clad or would it be a brexir moment and people vote not knowing and then get screwed by their own government.
TL:DR; I’m sure about 60% of other Australians felt the same way, we’re not rasicts we just want indigenous to be with us, not have perks given out at tax payer cost creating animosity within a race.
So you were capable of, and advocate for doing your research, did the research you’re advocating for then tossed it and voted no purely because there wasn’t enough information actively pushed out? Never mind the multiple info packs mailed to you, etc.
Brexit had very predictable results that were called out loud and early. Sun and Daily Mail reading dipshits ignored all that and cut off their noses to spite their racist faces. An entirely toothless indigenous voice to parliament has similarly predictable results - they’ll either be ignored, or will have a greater say in how money allocated to closing the gap in indigenous outcomes is spent.
What would a similar situation to Brexit actually look like to you?
Yeah. Seeing tons of people claiming the vote was too vague and that people wouldn’t understand while also clearly understanding what this amendment was and what it’s implications are has been pretty odd to say the least
Yeah that tracks.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Supporters of the Yes vote had hailed it as an opportunity to accept the outreached hand of First Nations people and to work with them to solve problems in their most remote communities – higher rates of suicide, domestic violence, children in out-of-home care and incarceration.
Constitutional experts, Australians of the Year, eminent retired judges, companies large and small, universities, sporting legends, netballers, footballers, reality stars and Hollywood actors flagged their endorsement.
Aussie music legend John Farnham gifted a song considered to be the unofficial Australian anthem to a Yes advertisement with a stirring message of national unity.
Kevin Argus, a marketing expert from Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), told CNN the Yes campaign was a “case study in how not to message change on matters of social importance.”
Argus said only the No campaign had used simple messaging, maximized the reach of personal profiles, and acted decisively to combat challenges to their arguments with clear and repeatable slogans.
Maree Teesson, director of the Matilda Center for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use at the University of Sydney, told CNN the Voice to Parliament had offered self-determination to Indigenous communities, an ability to have a say over what happens in their lives.
The original article contains 945 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Marketing, image, and ads are everything with these kinds of things. Seems like the “Yes” campaign fucked that up.
From the article it seemed that a big criticism of the amendment was that it was too vague. There were people from different political beliefs and some aboriginals who didn’t like how vague it was, though the aboriginals wanted it to further.
That’s because it was a constitutional amendment.
The legislation (details) that would come out afterwards has been out for 6-7 months now.
I’m sorry. I did heaps of reading about this and I couldn’t find any details. If it was out they did a terrible job of making it available.
Did you check Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament
(It’s there, under “Structure and powers of the Voice”)
It even says in the Wikipedia article that they would design it after the referendum. They just had a couple of ideas about how it might work.
Now, that’s not what they said, as much as you wish it.
The Yes campaign did a shit job of publicising it though. I’ve consistently heard that people were told to educate themselves which is generally a bad way of getting someone to agree with you when the opposition is all to happy to fill in the gaps with disinformation. The fact that we are still telling people why the wording was vague should be enough to tell you that the Yes campaign failed.
There’s quite a few things they did poorly, sure. Which is a shame, since they did everything else well.
Every news article I see anymore makes me lose a little more faith in humanity. I don’t have much left…
Australia is just US without the introspection.
Australia is way more racist than the US. And more right-wing.
The US just doesn’t have compulsory voting, which means a minority of nutjobs can dictate politics. And even then, Trump lost.
Australia has compulsory voting and voted this way lol.
US is going through a labour organising revolution right now. While unions are left in the cold and experience dwindling power in Aus, even with the Labor party in power.
This is a very deceptive headline a majority of australians support the idea of a reccomandary body for indiginouse peoples (the voice what was proposed). However, the reason i beleive it failed is because it would have direcrly made a devision of race within our constitution. I would define any devision of race regardless of purpose as textbook racism but i seem to get a lot of pushback from such an idea. I think the thing that ultumatly caused it to fail was not the concept but the unesaasary implementation within the constitution.
The thing is though, Indigenous Australians ARE distinct from other races in Australia. They are indigenous, and they have been colonised. They have strong justifications to seek the right to determine their own future in this country.
They have a vote like everyone else. Im all for the concept of the voice itself just not within the constitution.
Why not within the constitution? The only distinction is that it can’t be removed by the Liberal party, again.
Putting it in the constitution devides race in the constitutuion i dont compromise of equality. Plus heres the history of the variouse bodies and why they where abolished https://lemmy.world/comment/4547041
You keep replying to people rephrasing the same dumb lie. No, the majority of Australians clearly don’t support an advisory body, as demonstrated by the vote being discussed. The fake nuance you try to apply to the vote is transparent and it’s fooling no one. A majority of Australians are racist against the native population, and that’s painfully obvious to anyone who’s spent time there. A beautiful country, but the racism is absolutely blatant. You just refuse to acknowledge that.
Are you saying the 11th most ethnic and culturaly diverse nation in the world is blatantly racist? Im not sure if ur a CCP shitposting bot ur just think that australians not voting for a racial divide in the constitution is racisist. We must fight the racial divide with another racial divide sounds like doublethink to me. Its a bold statemwnt to go and call an entire nation racist one i would hope u can back (and no the vote for the voice does not count that was about wether its in the constitution nothing more nothing less).
So, what does a right way to accomodate indigenous groups look like? Has any country accomplished it?
What rights or opportunities are these groups lacking?
A good way to start would be making sure they have adequate political representation. Shutting them out of the politically. When you don’t get a groups voice in when making decisions that can lead to consequences. Big issues that aboriginals face in extremely high unemployment, decaying infrastructure and high incarceration rates.
Do they not get a vote? And all i hear is the negative statistics, never what people think should be done to address them. Are employers discriminating?
Does any of it stem from them wanting to live more primitively? Are they turning down education opportunities, or are they not available to them?
Do they not get a vote?
Oh hey look, every indiginous person voted for racial bias training for police, but guess what? The millions of white people voted that they don’t think they really need it so we’re not gonna spend the money on it.
Giving a relatively tiny disparate population “a vote” doesn’t actually address any of their needs.
Are employers discriminating?
Yes.
Does any of it stem from them wanting to live more primitively?
No.
Are they turning down education opportunities, or are they not available to them?
High quality education is not readily available to them, nor is the infrastructure they need to thrive and the government has invested little to nothing into their infrastructure in comparison to what they invested in abusing them over decades, what they’ve invested in white cities and towns, and what the value of the land and resources that were stolen from the indigenous people actually are.
Them wanting to live on their ancestral lands to which they have a deep cultural and spiritual connection isn’t “wanting to live more primitively”. Because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples often live in remote communities they do not have anything like the educational or employment opportunities that most of the country get.
I love democracy
As an aside for people reading the comments here, and I’m not going to comment on people’s comments correcting them because this isn’t the place ( and it says it in the article as well)
I was told recently, that we should not be using the word Aboriginal. I know this will cause an onslaught of people saying "what do they want to be called now?! " but when you think about the word “Aboriginal” and other words like it, it’s not very friendly. “abhorrent”, “abnormal”, etc. Aboriginal means not original.
We should be saying “indigenous peoples” as it encompasses all and is more accurate. I’ve been told First Nations is also acceptable.
You raise an important point, though “Aboriginal” doesn’t mean “not original”. It’s derived from the Latin “ab origine”, meaning “from the beginning”.
Uhh… So it means the opposite of what that person thinks it does? lol.
