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.

    • 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.

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

                    I guess it depends which media you use. My mother watches channel 7 mostly and she seemed puzzled as to why anyone would vote yes. “Apparently even the Aboriginals don’t want it.” And this was a few weeks ago. I think the mainstream media’s been pushing “no” pretty hard throughout.

      • 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.