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.

  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s always so funny when Americans on here, including me, are openly willing to discuss how shitty, racist, and full of bigots the United States is. Around 40% of the population is complete filth and we’re happy to openly acknowledge that.

    Meanwhile, Canada, the UK, and Australian users, even if they’re on the left, try to find excuses to not acknowledge that their general public is also significantly racist and bigoted. And always have been.

    • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lefty Canuck here - Very willing to admit my country is full of racist pieces of shit. And so is every other country. 30% of the world is made up of trash humans who would fuck over their mother for a dollar, or to get to their destination 10 seconds faster.

    • EnderMB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Afraid I have to agree on the UK front. It shocks me how so many people refer to the UK as a multicultural, tolerant nation.

      London, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, and Birmingham, perhaps? Outside of maybe 5-8 major cities, the amount of sexism, racism, and general hate for anyone poor or not of Anglo origin is unreal.

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I remain weirded out that the racist response during Brexit was a bunch of harassment of Polish immigrants.

        Why Polish? I assume it has to be some internal thing that the rest of the world doesn’t have information about.

        • macrocephalic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Polish people are like the Mexicans (previously Irish) are to the US. They’re foreigners who move to another country to do manual work cheaper than locals are willing to.

          In the words of one of my favourite comedians “They’re going to come over here and take all of the jobs we didn’t want to do!”

    • LavaPlanet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m Australian and I acknowledge the levels of racism. I think it’s the racists who think it’s not racist here. One guy told me he wasn’t racist, his hatred and disdain for ALL aboriginal people was valid because he had had traumatic experiences, first hand. (makes me so freaking angry even typing this) his traumatic experiences were absolute bullshit. Racists justify thier racism as “a valid explanation” so they don’t call themselves racists. So if people are saying it’s not racist here you’re probably talking to the racists. And Facebook. I also blame Facebook for this.

    • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Canadian government loves to advertise how open and inclusive they are, while at the same time oppressing indigenous people. For example (although it was a while ago, I don’t think a lot has changed), the Oka crisis started over a Golf Course wanting to expand into indigenous territory, which the Canadian Government eventually deployed the military (largest deployment since WWII) to support… the Golf Course.

      Even elected representatives have to deal with racist bullshit while serving their country (like Mumilaaq Qaqqaq of Nunavut). It’s so intertwined in Canadian society it often isn’t recognized, likely because for the most part it isn’t overt. A lot of the racism is subtle, reinforced by inequitable laws & policies and almost always acted on if there’s plausible deniability (that is, unless they screw up). It’s almost like a lot of Canadians are politely racist.

      • IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The origin of the horsy police was to control indigenous peoples and take their children away to residential schools. Not much has changed in the meantime. They just pretend to police in the off hours when they aren’t ignoring forced sterilizations and disappearances of native women, giving starlight tours, and pointing AR-15s at unarmed protestors in their own homes on behalf of the oil pipeline companies.

    • Woht24@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think it’s a cultural difference honestly.

      I’ve only travelled the US, haven’t spent a significant amount of time there, about 6 weeks.

      I’m Australian and growing up, I was quite shocked to learn at different points of my life that a few fair people were actually racist, sexist, very right or even religious.

      These things just aren’t overly openly discussed. Maybe in small groups etc but a lot of the population are quite apathetic (a whole other issue) and I think there apathetic tendencies both mask their own racism or whateverism but also make them not really speak out against others.

      On the other hand, America embraces individuality, fame, speaking out and standing up for your rights etc. As a whole, I feel a racist American is far more in your face than a racist Australian.

      I’m curious to know if this vote really is a racist result or if a large percentage of the population got caught up with the ‘no campaign’ which was pushing things like ‘separating us in the constitution is going to create a divide, we are ALL Australians’ etc.

      Interesting none the less and a shit result.

      • Kayel@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The 1967 amendment already did that. But yes, the campaigns were about the voice, not recognition of first nations people

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair enough. I think every democracy needs to have the compulsory voting system that Australia does.

        The perceptual downside to the system though is that it definitively and accurately tells you out of the entire population the amount that are bigoted POS’.

        • Cypher@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There were many ATSI people who voted no because they want treaty, not an advisory committee with no veto powers.

          Not everyone who voted no is racist and proclaiming they are is far more reminiscent of US divisive politics than how Australian politics works.

            • Cypher@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              For progressive no voters, that is correct.

              There is of course an element of society who want to ignore or bury any discourse on issues impacting ATSI Australians but they’re not the full picture either.

          • Welt@lazysoci.al
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            First person who’s bothered to try and understand the result rather than denouncing the country. The No campaign was deliberately divisive, like Abbott’s 2013 election or Howard’s manipulation of the republic referendum in 1999. Not only that, lack of political engagement and awareness - most embarrassingly from our most prominent left party, the Greens, who get so embroiled in internecine disputes that they seem not to really get what a political party does. The LNP may not be doing well at the moment but they’re a true coalition and trusted voting bloc.

            In short, people just don’t want to run headlong into progressive politics without thinking it through. We’re tired of government interference following years of lockdowns, don’t trust our state and federal governments because of repeated betrayal by the Morrison government and broken promises there and elsewhere, and Indigenous people were divided and made the perfect the enemy of the good.

          • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s why access to quality education is tantamount to functioning democracy.

        • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You actually think 55% of Australians are racist?

          You understand that the vast majority of No voters voted that way because they didn’t understand what it was, and the No campaign very deliberately did everything they could to make it unclear and confusing.

    • canuckkat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m Canadian and yeah… Even IRL a lot of people refuse to admit it.

      I’ve been forced to educate people about the Chinese Head Tax and the 2 very distinct Chinese Exclusion Acts and how that on top of Yellow Peril still affects Chinese disapora today in government regulations including immigration and social programs, which is super traumatic as a Hong Kong diaspora who is also trans, queer, female-bodied, and neurodivergent.

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      yeah nah cus. we’re racist as and generally the progressives are willing to admit it.

      Our cities don’t have shit like the stark divide I saw over in Atlanta Georga usa where there’s like the black side and the white side (was 20 years ago, better now?) but like even in sydney we have the red rooster line. Beyond that the wealthy east likes to assume everyone on the other more non white migrant side is an ignorant moron.

      But especially to blackfellas we’re horrible. I remember being told not to walk down streets because an “abbo” lived there as a kid. Like what the flying faaaark?

    • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I personally didn’t pay close attention to the campaigns, and think it pretty obvious Australia has a fair way to go on indigenous issues, but my impression is also that the Yes campaign was poorly executed and thought through, failing, in part, to recognise how much of an uphill climb it was going to be and how easy the No campaign was going to be. For instance, while reading the ballot, I was taken aback by how vague and confusing the proposal was, despite having read it before.

      Otherwise, I’m hoping there’s a silver lining in the result where it will prompt an ongoing conversation about what actually happened and get the country closer to getting better at this.

      • zik@zorg.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        There was a massive, heavily funded FUD campaign by the “no” proponents. Sadly, it was very effective.

        • Wooki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The yes campaign did it to itself with its vague and questionable impact.

          • zik@zorg.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The mining lobby funded some of the yes campaign and then proceeded to put out those vague and questionable messages. They really played both sides very effectively.

            • Wooki@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have no doubt they had vested interests because the cultural sites get in their way (that’s reparations of its own!).

              The yes vague campaign started day 1, that was on them entirely. They were proposing changing the constitution with very little detail out of the gate. Conducting and listening to a pole would have helped immensely.

              • zik@zorg.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The weight of the media was against them from day 1. It doesn’t really matter what your messaging is if it doesn’t get reported. What did get reported was whatever Murdoch’s news media wanted to be reported, and if they reported the “yes” side only in terms of weak points then that’s what people think the “yes” side had to say.

                • Wooki@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  ABC ran non stop opinion pieces and articles on the yes vote. None stop from before the referendum was announced. The guardian same game. Early on the no campaign had no idea where or how they were going to oppose the vote. They just knew they were.

                  So no I kindly disagree the yes campaign can’t cry fowl here the no campaign didn’t find its feet until the last maybe week or two.

      • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Iirc it was a very popular idea when it was first proposed, but a bunch of right-wingers spent a shitton of money spreading misinformation which swung it towards being unpopular.

        Once again, the right-wing is responsible for being garbage people.

          • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Bruh, over the past 6-7 years we’ve been shown time and time again how incredibly powerful media manipulation is, both when it comes to traditional media and social media. Seriously?

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree that Labor very badly misread the room. I’m a bit grumpy about it TBH.

        I don’t think Australia is really ready for a meaningful conversation about issues relating to first Australians - hell, I’m not if I’m really honest.

            • Welt@lazysoci.al
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That’s perpetuating the racist myth that Tasmanian Aboriginal people were exterminated entirely. The Black War in Tassie arguably was a genocide but there are some Indigenous descendants today.

              But with Tasmania’s functional literacy below fifty percent (never mind two-thirds of the island’s population being welfare dependent), it’s never going to be the centre of intellectual discourse of any kind in this country.

              • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                So… you agree then? That Tasmania has done more / come closer to achieving that horrific goal than other states?

                I didn’t say “exterminated entirely”. I said “taking point”. As in leading the nation (state-wise).

                I can understand the misunderstanding from an implication - but remembering the Black War is a good way to help fight against it happening again.

                • Welt@lazysoci.al
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I mean, to be perfectly fair it happened in the Van Diemen’s Land colony, around seventy years before statehood, it was far from the only atrocity committed against Aboriginal people, and Indigenous Tasmanians were in a much worse state (no pun intended) at the time than those on the mainland. But if you want to add it to the list of Tasmania’s achievements alongside those othet two nation-leading measures I mentioned, I won’t stand in your way!

      • Lintson@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even 10 years ago the topic of this referendum would have been political suicide. Remember Rudd got crucified for apologising. It’s actually pretty positive that this referendum, as poorly executed as it was, actually happened.

    • canuckkat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, from the article:

      Opposition to the voice seized on this ambiguity, adopting a campaign slogan of “if you don’t know, vote no”.

      • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is the slogan contracted for brevity. The context is, if you do not know, and none of us do as their is NO detail, then do not give the government a blank cheque. People are rightfully cautious about government and possibly giving it more power.

        • vantlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          At NO point has there ever been no detail about this. It is an advisory body to Parliament. When Parliament is making decisions, it can seek advice from this Indigenous-focused body. It is that simple. But by having the Murdoch press and Liberal government shovel this “ohhh but but but there’s no detail!” line over and over and over again, people started to believe it. For no fucking reason, since the purpose of the Voice has been clear since day 1.

      • liamwb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just learned about the native police the other week. I can’t believe that we didn’t learn about that shit at school! Honestly our education system is so inadequate that I can hardly blame such No voters.

    • Seudo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wot? Absolutely nothing stoping parliament from listening to the numerous recommendations that would improve the standard of living or life expectancy of indigenous people. Why would you think a few token lines in the constitution will change that?

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because they’ll have an official body they’ll be dismissing rather than one of many groups, which aren’t always unified - it forces nothing, but does give a go-to body that the government will need to take an optical hit to ignore.

        The constitutional amendment helps because the deserve recognition, and because it stops the next government disbanding the body.

  • gorkette@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the Yes campaign are serious about the Voice to the nation being important to the Indigenous people, then no-one is standing in the way of making it happen. The vote to enshrine it in the Constitution failed, but the body can still be created and can still function primarily the same.

  • Gerula@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • bennysaurus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • miridius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah the classic “I’m going to vote no to something good for me because I wanted something even better” argument 🤦‍♂️

        • comfy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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 recently was. Interview with the Black Peoples Union describes in better detail.

          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.

          • Wrench@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except when it’s put to a general vote like that, all the nuance is lost, and the voters remember “well we resoundingly voted no on the last one, why vote this one in?”

      • Gerula@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        But aren’t Aboriginal people citizens of Australia and so already part of the Constitution thus having legal rights like everyone else? What are the extra rights and representation needed?

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          47
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          But aren’t Aboriginal people citizens of Australia and so already part of the Constitution thus having legal rights like everyone else?

          No, obviously not.

          What are the extra rights and representation needed?

          Basic human rights and equal representation, for starters.

          How about instead of spending your time here making such outlandishly ignorant comments, you spend it instead looking up for yourself how Aboriginal people are treated, and what equal rights they’re fighting for?, rather than sit back and demand others do the work for you?

          • Spzi@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Another way to view it: It’s not about the individual person you’re replying to. Even unreasonable questions are a chance to bring more quality content into the thread, so more people can see it. It’s a chance to highlight things you value. It also makes nicer answers.

    • canuckkat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure why you’re confused because the first sentence of the article literally says:

      Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in the country’s constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues.

      Which sums up why they were trying to make this happen, which also sounds like they don’t have an official group of Indigenous peoples advising the government on anything that is an Indigenous issue, which is super bad.

      • Gerula@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Thank you for your reply. It’s simple:

        • if they have Australian citizenship (I think in 67 was a push for this) then they already have all the Constitutional rights and obligations like every other Australian citizen. Why are these extra steps necessary?

        • if they don’t: what is their current legal status? Why not just give them citizenship and thus having the right of representation in the Parliament and so forth?

  • Sparking@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    A sad day for Australia. It was cool to see a lot if Australian celebrities come out in support of a yes vote.

  • DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    American here, what does it mean to recognize a class of indigenous people in Australia?

    Because we have a very different understanding of the word lol

    • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was to put them in the constitution as the original inhabitants of Australia and give them the right to a mostly powerless advisory body to the Commonwealth government called “the Voice”.

      It was a pretty conservative idea but unfortunately the conservative opposition leader is the arch-racist piece of shit who will never win a real election, but in his desperation to make a name for himself he campaigned against the referendum, and referendums traditionally only succeed with bipartisan support. So now all that’s really been accomplished is to disenfranchise our indigenous population even more.

      • garbagebagel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know it’s a lot more nuanced than this but the idea of history being like “yes these people were unarguably here first” and government going “nah we created this place” is so fucking ridiculous.

        • Welt@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s not far from how it is here - but I’d say it’s more dishonest politicians tokenistically acknowledging Country (such a performative exercise) and capitalising common nouns in that way. Nobody’s really saying “we created this place”, more that we have this culture of falling over ourselves to recognise Traditional Owners while not actually doing much to address Indigenous disadvantage. Referenda are seen as a big deal and usually fail, especially where they’re not led by those who care about the movement, AND are completely transparent about what the result will mean. This referendum was led by the governing party of Australia as an election commitment, and what would result was neither well thought out nor explained adequately. Australia voted not to support the vague word of hand-wringing do-gooders we don’t trust.

      • Wooki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a lot of hate you assume was caused by the opposition. Australia voted them out big time a few months ago so that’s a lot of reach.

        It was the yes campaign that did it to themselves. They needed to have CLEAR impact statements about what it will do before they put it to the public. Their campaign created its own vague outcome and stink of virtue signalling. Not good enough. Especially considering what happened in WA weeks before announcement.

    • snippet@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a good breakdown on the whole thing here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/13/what-is-the-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-australia-when-referendum-2023-explained-yes-no-campaign-wording

      The recognition aspect was basically the creation of an advisory body to the government with members selected from indigenous groups. The idea being that the govt has historically poorly managed indigenous issues so by having them directly advising govt there should be better policy outcomes

      • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In retrospect they really should have set it up first and let it run for a bit before they tried to put it in the constitution.

        • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, but they didn’t have time for that in this election cycle. Fuck I hate it when progressives play the conservative handbook, follow fuck ups become fuck ups.

          Went for a slam dunk but didn’t tie their laces.

        • Benj1B@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The context is important here - Australia had a continuous indigenous population for over 60,000 years before white settlement. White Australia never had an agreement with indigenous peoples at large, and through relentless expansion of colonies, spreading diseases like smallpox, introducing alcohol and drugs, forcibly abducting and schooling children, heavy incarceration and a slew of other typical British colonial shit ended up leaving them disenfranchised, alienated, and excluded. Indigenous Australians prior to colonisation had a deep affinity with the land and tended it like custodians, but because they didn’t build towns or farm like Europeans, they were just swept aside without ever really being acknowledged or addressed.

          The Voice was asked for as a product of the Uluru Statement of the Heart - not long, worth a read- https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/

          It was really first and foremost about having an acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, the settlers cocked things up and that it’d better to fix things together. It’s not asking for anything “more” or extra, it’s about correctly telling history and reframing our national dialogue to be coming from a place of partnership, instead of colonialism, so we could fix some of the very real issues modern Australians face as a result of hundreds of years of callous racism. It was a chance for white Australia and government to really listen and maybe find better ways of doing things.

          But now instead we get to try to explain to our kids why 60% of the country don’t think representation or inclusion matters while indigenous Australians will continue to struggle without a government that can listen to them.

          • canuckkat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are correct except for calling the white colonizers “settlers”.

            Settlers in this context typically means immigrants who came over after Australia became a British colony. Usually non-white but there are plenty of Scottish and Irish families who are settlers because of the whole British enslaving them part.

    • TheControlled@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I don’t get it either. I know a lot of Natives hate the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but is that what Aus is trying to get too (within the Constitution)?

      • Cypher@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are essentially two parts to what was proposed, the first is that having mention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island (ATSI) peoples in the constitution is recognition.

        The second part, which is actually the exact mechanism which was proposed, was a permanent advisory body made up of ATSI representatives with constitutional power to give advice to the Government on issues related to or impacting ATSI people.

        The exact details of the advisory body were up to legislation which we will probably never see.

          • Cypher@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            A few of the arguments or concerns voiced by Australian’s included:

            -A Voice with no power is pointless

            -Lack of detail in the proposal

            -Separating Australian’s by race is divisive (note there’s already constitutional race powers, which I disagree with and hope will be scrapped)

            -ATSI people would have more representation than others (they actually have proportionally higher representation in Parliament today than their percentage of population)

            -Leaving the exact details of the Voice to legislation means any future government could gut it without violating the constitutional amendment

            -concerns this is the first push on a path to treaty and reparations as a percentage of GDP (which WAS discussed as a possibility by the people who worked on the Uluru statement)

            I’ve left out the outright lies, though I guarantee someone will take issue with me simply mentioning the talking points to give you context.

          • Cypher@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The exact wording of the Constitutional amendment was released 6-7 months ago.

            The Legislation has not been, and likely won’t be seen.

            If you have seen the legislation somewhere please share a link.

    • Welt@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s basically why the Voice to Parliament failed. It wasn’t clear what that would mean, and our utter garbage media fanned all the flames they could - raising the fear in people’s minds that we’d be ‘giving away’ some part of our democratic process. It’s not what would have happened, but it’s a not unfounded fear that in this age of doublespeak and militantly progressive movements, ‘recognition’ of Indigenous Australians could be manipulated into something we didn’t agree to. The result - keep the status quo.

      • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The result - keep the status quo.

        I feel like the result was different from my perspective.

        The result - stop planless virtue signalling and prevent the government sweeping the real issue under the rug with a token gesture.

  • MooseBoys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The preview image looks like the lady on the right just let loose the most foul stench imaginable and the other two are being forced to deal with it.

  • Faceman🇦🇺@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Thanks to the media shovelling fear, misinformation and lies into our minds. I blame Facebook, Twitter and Murdoch for this one.

    The conspiracy theories around this issue were fucking wild. Ranging from the UN taking control of our government, to abolishing all land ownership and giving them the right to have your home demolished, to some bizarre thing about the pope or some shit.

    • ReverseThePolarity@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t just dismiss those that disagree with you as conspiracy theory believing nut jobs.
      The Yes campaign majorly dropped the ball. They alienated the voters.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Australian Brexit moment. Some “action committees” with questionable financial sources managed to manipulate public opinion.

    • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not really. This is a tragedy but historically referendums in Australia only pass with bipartisan support.

      Also historically, the side that wins the referendum doesn’t win the next election, because our referendums are zero-sum yes or no choices akin to FPTP elections which favours American-style extreme politics, whereas our general elections employ preferential voting and compulsory suffrage which requires potential governments to appeal to the political centre. The referendum has shown people who the opposition party really are, and they won’t be able to walk that back.

      • Welt@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tragedy’s a bit maudlin, but otherwise totally agree with your point about referenda being like a dry run FPTP early election.

      • Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hardly anything will ever be – Brexit was stupidity on a whole other dimension.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I did see something that reminded me of the last two UK referendums.

      Leading figure Warren Mundine in the No camp said the referendum was “built on a lie” and a waste of time and resources that could have been better spent on struggling communities

      Ah, where have we seen that pile of bullshit before?

      Oh yes, Brexit saying they’d give all the EU money to the NHS, and the NoToAV lot saying that babies needed incubators, not a new voting system.

      Of course none of it was actually spent on those things, it was merely a suggestion, leaving it free to be simply embezzled by Tory cunts.

  • Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah this fucking sucks. I have to admit I was expecting Yes to win by a landslide, but I guess I give people too much credit.

    • Wooki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was a constitutional change. Yes campaign was nothing more than virtual signalling with vague impact. End result a visibly risky change (see WA recent change that went really bad) that will do bugger all maybe maybe not and it’s easy to see where it would end.

    • themajesticdodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes vote had been polling poorly from the launch. Can I ask why you thought it would win?

      I know a large amount of Yes23 campaigners were shocked, but I chalked that up to them existing in an echochamber and lacking the awareness to factor that in.

      • Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess I must live in an echo chamber. I’ve been staying away from larger socmed and news for my own mental health, and my area was a pretty solid yes so that’s kinda all I saw.

  • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It would have made more sense to just legislate an advisory body to parliament as envisioned and planned, to show people: see, it’s literally just an advisory body with no veto or other legislative power, and then put it to a refenedum to enshrine it in the constitution afterwards.

    Would have given the no campaign less space. “If you don’t know, vote no” would have had less traction.

    • ReverseThePolarity@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The whole thing was a fumble. They picked the wrong time and appealed to the wrong people. They also never sold why it needed to happen.
      What does a Chinese, Afghan or Sudanese citizen even understand or care about a group of people when they probably have never even met one.
      They appealed to the inner city rich snobs and no one else. The inner city was going to vote yes anyway. Why didn’t they go where the no votes were?

      • AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not an Aussie and I’m not following this in particular, but from what I’ve seen that’s how bad ideas work: you don’t want to start a dialogue where the noes point out all the flaws in your ideas. In the US the extreme of this is legislation passed in a specially coordinated session at midnight with an absolute minimum of debate.

        With that said, why the hell does a budgeted program belong in a constitution and not in a regular legislated budget? And why the hell does one specific group need specific recognition defined at the level of a constitution, as opposed to broad rules changed in such a way that their specific exclusion is forbidden with a catch all that also benefits other minorities?