There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Australia rejects proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in constitution

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.

MisterFrog ,
@MisterFrog@lemmy.world avatar

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 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 ,

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 ,

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?

Faceman2K23 ,
@Faceman2K23@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

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 goving them the right to have your home demolished, to some bizarre thing about the pope or some shit.

ReverseThePolarity ,

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.

Colorcodedresistor ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    38fhh2f8th5819c7 ,

    We just proved 60% of the country are dumbass racist hicks, we don’t need dumbass racist hicks armed with assault rifles. It’s bad enough here with the spiders and snakes.

    As for the no voting, the US could certainly take a leaf from our book. The republicunts would evaporate overnight if you had mandatory voting with ranked choice and meaningful minor parties.

    Alexstarfire ,

    Well, that’s going to age like milk.

    karlach ,
    @karlach@lemmy.world avatar

    https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a67eda73-1be5-4044-9707-0575d601bc1e.png

    karlach , (edited )
    @karlach@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    Seudo ,

    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?

    lemmington_steele ,

    some injustices are structural

    Seudo ,

    Which a token gesture does absolutely nothing to change…

    WaxedWookie ,

    What’s token about forcing the government of the day to take the optical damage from publicly dismissing the guidance of the official body representing indigenous community? Seems it would give them reason to reconsider as well as a great body to consult on how to best prioritise and address the issues facing the community.

    Seudo ,

    Entirely depends on how it’s to be structured. Which the public didn’t vote on. Done correctly I do agree on the optics of an official body though.

    WaxedWookie ,

    So it’ll be good, or ineffective at worst. What’s the issue?

    Seudo ,

    Either way, some of us whities just don’t feel comfortable determining the future of indigenous people.

    WaxedWookie ,

    That’s the point of the Voice though, isn’t it - to give a body representing indigenous Australians a say in decisions relating to them.

    That’s contrasted with the current situation, where the government selects an indigenous affairs minister, then optionally cherrypicks the indigenous representative bodies that support their agenda.

    Seudo ,

    There’s nothing in the legislation that prevents the (predominantly white European) government from continuing to cherry pick. We don’t need another excuse to be apathetic about indigenous issues.

    WaxedWookie ,

    As I’ve said, they’ll need to take the optical damage.

    So as you’ve said, you’re not comfortable determining indigenous Australians’ future, but you’ll block the change supported by 80% of indigenous Australians, formed at the Uluru statement from the heart it because it isn’t good enough for you - how on earth do you rationalise that obvious, massive contradiction?

    Seudo ,

    So every time you buy a coffee you’re actively killing a starving child? Struth!

    WaxedWookie ,

    I’m going to need you to join the dots on that one, champ. It’d be great if you explained the massive contradiction in your statements while you’re at it.

    WaxedWookie ,

    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.

    Seudo ,

    So there will be just as many people saying the voice doesn’t represent them or their country but white folks can feel like everything is fine and dandy. Swell

    WaxedWookie ,

    Would you mind clarifying what you mean? There’s a few ways to interpret this.

    If you mean that it’s not a perfect representation of the views of the indigenous community, that’s obviously true, but unavoidable in any representative body. What it does is solicit feedback from the community and effectively pushes that forward as a single, strong voice. This works in the same way that a union brings together workers that are powerless as individuals and small groups, into a single, far more powerful, though not perfectly representative body that’s able to campaign for meaningful positive change for all members.

    Sounds swell to me.

    set_secret ,

    you absolute donkey.

    Seudo ,

    Deviating argument!

    canuckkat ,

    Also, from the article:

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

    Ilandar ,

    It won’t change until Australians learn about, and accept, the real history of their country. Many No voters fundamentally do not understand the simple point you are making about colonisation and sovereignty. To them, Indigenous Australians are just another minority group. People do not understand why they are inherently different and special when we are talking about these issues.

    liamwb ,

    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.

    MargotRobbie ,
    @MargotRobbie@lemmy.world avatar

    Disappointing, to say the least.

    Gerula ,

    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 ,

    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.

    Gerula ,

    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 ,
    @DessertStorms@kbin.social avatar

    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?

    Gerula ,

    Ok, thank you for your patience.

    Sanity_in_Moderation ,

    He is flat out wrong. Or lying, not sure which. Of course they have the right to vote.

    Spzi ,

    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.

    Ilandar ,

    What are the extra rights and representation needed?

    Because they are Indigenous. Do you understand the difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in a colonial state?

    miridius ,

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

    comfy ,

    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 ,

    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?”

    canuckkat , (edited )

    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 pretty sus.

    Gerula ,

    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?
    Peddlephile ,

    I remain hopeful. Even though a vast majority voted no to establish a body, I certainly hope that we have a government that can put something into action and that the Libs stay stuck in the weeds until they find what they stand for again.

    mwguy ,

    Is there currently an Australian equivalent to the BIA? If not, is a Constitutional Amendment required to establish one or can one be established by legislation?

    Peddlephile ,

    Wow. I just looked at the front page and that’s actually amazing.

    Short answer - no. Australia does not have such a thing, especially with that much support. We have some indigenous people in government but they represent their seat, not specifically indigenous affairs. There is currently no body that represents indigenous affairs as a whole.

    It can be established by the government of the day, which it was back when Kevin Rudd was our PM (Labor Party). However, this body was then abolished by the next government, run by Tony Abbott and others since (Coalition).

    Now, we have Labor in power again and this referendum was called to have a voice enshrined in our constitution so that it couldn’t be abolished by future governments. Since we nationally voted no, our current Labor government can establish something like the BIA, however there is a high risk that this will be yet again abolished like last time.

    mwguy ,

    Hmm, maybe it’s because in our western states Indian tribes are a larger percentage of the population, or maybe it’s because our mistreatment of the various tribes has led to countless wars and atrocities; but I couldn’t imagine a scenario where one party established this branch and another removes it. But I’m not from Australia.

    Peddlephile ,

    This is where the US is waves ahead of Australia. The indigenous population is small now (2%) but hasn’t always been, and we put them (and still do) through many, many atrocities… If you’re at all interested, check out indigenous deaths in custody. There’s also the constant destruction of their traditional heritage (birthing trees, rock art etc.). The stereotype here for an Aboriginal is that they’re drunkards and drug users. This is not reality but a huge majority think this.

    As a country, we have deep seated institutionalised racism that has taken root and flourished over the last few decades. We have this national way of thinking where the indigenous population needs to comply to our laws, our way of life. If an indigenous family wants traditional education, nah - go to one of the ‘normal’ schools. Want to learn an indigenous language? Nah, learn German or French or Japanese.

    We also have severe tall poppy syndrome where we can’t let anyone have it better than anyone else. Our Australia Day is also a huge issue since it’s on the day of the first colonists landing.

    All in all, we don’t have an equivalent because we have a rotten attitude to our first nations.

    WilliamTheWicked ,

    How the hell are we taking so many steps backwards as a species? “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”

    pdxfed ,

    I’ll answer your question if you can tell me why you put quotes around your second sentence?

    HejMedDig ,

    It’s in quotes, because it’s a quote from Zoolander

    pdxfed ,

    Ah, an actual quote, thought you might be one of those brutes who use quotation marks instead of any other form of punctuation. In the Old Forum, there was a good community for signage with this kind of thing. My favorite was a marijuana dispensary sign with “taxes and fees included”.

    The answer to your question is greed enabled through capitalism; it makes people think there isn’t enough because most people are constantly being abused by the system and don’t have enough, as it was designed.

    WilliamTheWicked ,

    Noooo. Sorry. Just a regular brute, I fear . I do comprehend sentence structure.

    kromem ,

    At what point backwards in time was it normative indigenous peoples get representation in government?

    Sometimes progress is slow, and many younger people being upset about a ‘no’ to indigenous representation is exactly the kind of thing that eventually leads to steps forward.

    It’s just very much the case that many people today are upset with how slow social progress seems to be taking. But in large part, that’s because of how quickly social issues are socially advancing relative to how slowly older generations set in antiquated ways are disappearing from the equation.

    What was the average age of who voted on the measure?

    What’s the average age of the people looking at the result with disappointment?

    The gap will tell you roughly how long it’s going to take for that change to start to meaningfully happen.

    Getawombatupya ,

    www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-15/…/102978520

    Also, not yet explored - theguardian.com/…/election-2022-seat-explorer-how…

    I hope there is a bit of analysis done about new Australians vs how they voted, given they are likely to be even farther removed from the issues

    kaffiene ,

    Stay classy, Australia

    ZenkorSoraz ,

    The Aborigines were Mauri Rebels forced to play the role of “savage” for colonization part of Australia co’s production they still haven’t been paid and are still underpaid by Australia Co.

    lolcatnip ,

    Let’s get you back to the home, grandma.

    LemmysMum ,

    No plan. No vote.

    I don’t give a shit which side of history you want to fall on, no democratic society can be expected to make a cognizant decision without knowledge. I want for our Aboriginal people’s to have as much support as they deserve, however making a constitutional change before you write the plan is fucking ignorant.

    I might vote Labor, but I don’t support aggrivated ignorance, lack of conviction, and poorly thought out attempts at virtue signalling without putting any real weight behind it. If you want to act like you’re want to make a change, prove it by coming up with a plan before you choose to start the plan.

    DogMuffins ,

    Sorry mate, this is basically a misunderstanding of the process.

    For example, the constitution empowers the government to raise taxes. The constitution doesn’t include any “plan” for raising taxes, it’s up to our elected representatives to argue over the best way to do that and write and maintain legislation to do that.

    This was a question to the Australian people as to whether you / we wanted parliament to develop a plan, and maintain that plan as society evolves in the decades to come.

    liquidate the Australian billionaires who raped our country for it’s resources for profit and give those proceeds to groups dedicated to improving indigenous people’s situation

    I also disagree on this I’m sorry. I mean yeah we need to address the lack of royalties being charged for our resources and IDGAF what happens to billionaires, but it’s well established fact that money can not solve this problem. Sure any actions will require some amount of money, but just giving money to indigenous corps in and of itself does not solve inequality.

    LemmysMum ,

    Sorry mate, this is basically a misunderstanding of the process.

    That’s exactly my point. Can’t expect a democratic population to vote on a lack of information.

    Kayel ,

    The title is hugely misrepresenting the referendum.

    Not even our conservative party, the liberals, opposed recognition of aboriginal and Torres islander people as the traditional owners of the land.

    The neo liberal progressive party, labor, put in a change to political process. This is what people disagreed with.

    DogMuffins ,

    I think most people didn’t understand what was being proposed.

    LavaPlanet ,

    The obfuscation was purposeful. The mining / oil industry were backing the no vote, and there’s no onis to be truthful in political advertising. That’s what needs to change.

    Misconduct ,

    Just knowing the oil industry doesn’t want something to pass should automatically be a ringing endorsement for it imo

    UnfortunateDoorHinge ,

    Bhp put their support behind the yes campaign. And Albo voted down the need for truth in advertising

    zik ,

    BHP was the one behind the weak messages attributed to the yes campaign. They deliberately played this one to lose.

    Capricorny90210 ,

    A bit off topic but, American here, the liberals are your conservative party? Interesting.

    LemmysMum ,

    American politics are all right wing compared to other socially democratic countries.

    Our major political parties are the Australian Labor Party (progressive/socialist), Liberal Party of Australia (capitalist/liberal), The Greens (environmental/progressive), National Party of Australia(authoritarian/regressives).

    The Liberals and the Nats have a coalition called the Liberal National Party (LNP) because it’s the only way they can get enough representation to get majority government.

    Greens typically vote along Labor lines.

    Capricorny90210 ,

    I see. That’s really interesting, thanks for the reply!

    JackFrostNCola ,

    Further to this, Labor is Centre-Left, Greens are far-left, Liberal and Nationals are both far-right, with liberals being business interest focoused and the nationals being strongly rural community focused.

    EmilyIsTrans ,
    @EmilyIsTrans@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    It’s worth noting that Australian and American interpretations of liberalism differ quite significantly. The modern Liberal party and its predecessors formed in direct opposition to the Labor party, in direct opposition to the labor movement. They formed as a party against radical social change, against socialism, and for free-market policies and laissez faire capitalism, describing themselves as “classical liberals”. On the other hand, “liberalism” in the US more refers to social liberalism, but it’s actually the exception in that regard.

    All that is to say that, when Australians refer to someone as a liberal, we mean a different interpretation of the word closer to classical liberalism.

    Capricorny90210 ,

    For an American, that’s so counterintuitive lol.

    Cryophilia ,

    I think the American definition of Liberal is the one that’s different from the rest of the world.

    ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

    No, liberals are liberal. The Liberals (capital L) are fiscally liberal (good at wasting money) and socially conservative.

    Ilandar ,

    It wasn’t a change to political process. It was to be another advisory body, of which we have many over several decades.

    Kayel ,

    Agreed, my bad

    UnfortunateDoorHinge ,

    Yep very misleading. There’s recognition, and then there’s the advisory board question. The Yes campaign did a shoking job and alienated everyone by calling people racist who asked questions about the Voice.

    ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

    No. Asking questions is one thing.

    Sealioning is another.

    comfy ,

    Do you mean ‘concern trolling’ or ‘sealioning’?

    ‘Concern trolling’ is falsely pretending to agree with an idea but raising concerns, in order to sew discontent. Something like, "I agree with giving them a Voice, but I’m concerned that … ", an insincere astroturfing attempt.

    ‘Sealioning’ is when someone relentlessly stalks a person asking them for evidence or arguments, in order to ‘just try and have a debate’ when the other person doesn’t want to. The term comes from from this comic, which describes it well. It’s personal harassment pretending to be civil debate.

    Ilovethebomb ,

    “sealioning”, in my experience, is also a way to attack someone asking you to back up your claims in any way.

    ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

    No.

    Ilovethebomb ,

    Source?

    ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

    Sealioning.

    Though JAQing Off would probably be more accurate.

    rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

    comfy ,

    Ah, that sucks to hear about.

    ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

    Yes, it sucks that people were disingenuously asking questions to try and hide they were overt racists, and then cried when they called out for their behaviour.

    JokeDeity ,

    White people were a mistake.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •