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.
I’m sorry, I’m stupid and not up-to-date with this.
Taken at face value, Constitutional Recognition for the indigenous population sounds correct.
So what was wrong with it?
Nothing.
The no and yes sides to a referendum prepare an informational pamphlet that everyone receives but there’s absolutely no requirement that any of it be truthful, so the opposition just openly lied until the whole thing died.
Actual information was obscured, fear mongering was rampant, the voice was harmless at worst, but could have been the spark that changed Australia for the better.
Thank you. But I’m still not sure I get it. Could you maybe give an example of what kind of lie or fear mongering would make people want to say:
“No, I don’t want the constitution to recognise that there were an indigenous people here before us.”
That seems like an unarguable fact, isn’t it?
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to put you on the spot but since you were kind enough to take the time to give an overview, it makes me hungry for more detail!
The referendum was (if I understand it correctly) about adding an advisory body of indigenous people to parliament. This wouldn’t have given them any power to make decisions, only to advise parliament on things.
The No Campaign just straight up lied to people saying it would let them write laws, take away your land, etc…
First off to be precise, this was a ”proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues".
Some examples of what I think were sadly effective for the no campaign:
“This will allow indigenous peoples to reclaim your land”
“It will only further divide our nation”
“We don’t know how this might be misused”
These all play on peoples fear. On the other hand some indigenous peoples also were campaigning for a no vote, primarily because they thought it wasn’t strong enough.
This gave voters a lot of reasons to hide behind while voting no.
And all this was not helped by a rather poor yes campaign that barely did anything to address misconceptions.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/fact-check-yes-no-campaign-pamphlets-aec/102614710
There’s the bare bones of the thing. The yes side had the exact same grasp of messaging that the Democrats in the US do. Which is to say none.
Arguments included:
“If you don’t know, say no” Incredibly reductionist, could be used to justify any position, but a very effective soundbite. It’s only when you extrapolate it, that you realise the issues. Imagine if someone told you “If you don’t know whether a girl/boy will say yes to you, never ask them out on a date”. Uncertainty is an inherent part of most of human nature. A lot less humans would be born if no one had the presence of mind to find out more about whether a person liked them, or just took a gamble and asked for a date.
“This will allow aboriginals to claim and take your land” Because Australia was declared “terra nullus” on ‘discovery’, and therefore regarded as uninhabited under English law, colonisers basically took and claimed all the land and dispossesed the Native Australians. And ever since, there’s been a resistance to recognising prior ownership and use by native Australians, because that might threaten current ownership of land. No one wants land and property they own to be arbitrarily taken away from them with no recompense (ironic, yes?), so it’s very easy to create fear in current landowning/propertyowning Australians by saying increased recognition of indigenous Australians in any form could have their land taken from them and given back to indigenous Australians.
“This will be a 3rd chamber of parliament” There are currently two houses of Parliament of government, in which candidates are voted and elected by a majority of their constituents. The houses form the core mechanics of how laws are created, debated and enacted. By portraying the proposed advisory body as a 3rd legislative body on par with the 2 existing houses, and pointing out the body was to be formed from indigenous Australians, the no campaign capitalised on fears of changing our entire political system, and the false impression of giving indigenous Australians incredibly disproportionste and unfair weighting within the political system.
“Enshrining a specific ‘political’ body made up of only indigenous Australians in the constitution makes us unequal, because they don’t do that for other Australians”. This one tries to capitalise on feelings of equality, and therefore fairness. Because I don’t get X, they shouldn’t have X. And neatly creates the assumption that the status quo is equal, so why change it. Ignoring that indigenous Australians are a very small percent of population, and therefore less than 5% or so of the voting population, so unlikely to ever form an effective voting bloc or have their needs and desires reflected in mainstream politics like the average Australian might. Also, the statistics for quality of life are extremely poor when compared to the average Australian, in terms of social and financial mobility, education, health, prison incarceration rates, birth complication rates etc. The average life expectancy of an indigenous Australian is at least 8 years lower than the average Australian. These have been persistent gaps in societal outcomes that haven’t closed despite decades of government focus and money, hence trying something new, like the Voice.
“It won’t do anything, so there’s no point creating it” The argument was that this body has no executive powers, and can only talk ‘at’ the government, and there’s no obligation in the current wording in the referendum, that the government even needs to listen. So it won’t achieve anything at all, it will be useless and ineffective.
“It does too much” The argument was that it was too powerful, and would put too much unequal power in the hands of indigenous Australians, and that it would therefore be unfair and unequal. That it would allow indigenous Australians to create laws, change them, create treaties between them and Australia, recognise indigenous land rights etc.
Lots more out there, but that’s it for now from me
The problem is you’re trying to rationalise racism, which isn’t rational.
Then go look it up, lazy. That other person has no obligation to teach you a customized course on the Australian referendum to recognize indigenous peoples. Use the internet that you’re reading their post with to look it up yourself if you’re so hungry for detail. I’d be willing to bet you can find scanned copies of each pamphlet if you tried. I’d Google it to find out for sure, but then you’d want me to read them to you.
Also generations of non-ATSI Australian children being taught total dehumanising racist bullshit, and never being corrected largely because the genocide was very successful.
A society can’t just start trying to correct some of the history taught to children over the last few years, and then be surprised by the outcome of a referendum when success relies on the judgement of people who grew up on the old lies. Correcting the record for the next generation is necessary, but it doesn’t fix the existing damage the lies have done and continue to do.
I don’t know what Labor was thinking when they took this path. From the outside it looks like a huge unforced strategic failure.
Shit’s fucked and there are no simple solutions and I hate it.
Our history is shameful but also our efforts to redress past wrongs recurrent and inspiring. Negativity about a well-intentioned referendum helps nobody. I’ll note that this was driven by the Labor Party, not by Indigenous Australians, who don’t trust the good intentions of politicians who carried out policies like the Stolen Generations on behalf of the poor unfortunate blacks of the time. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Leaving the moral arguments aside, there were also massive campaign failures on the Yes side. No had two clear cheerleaders with an absurdly simple catchphrase: “If you don’t know, vote No”. Meanwhile Yes didn’t have a star for the campaign and had made the amendment way too simple/general so there weren’t any included details of the practicalities. So they ended up with 100 people having to re-explain their plans every campaign stop and occasionally tripping over each other’s messages. As a result, the complicated sell from Yes played right into No‘s hands.
So the No side’s campaign was one of deliberately not educating people? To me that just says that people educated on the subject are voting Yes.
While that may be an absurdly simple slogan, it is also absurdly stupid.
Also, the Yes slogan eventually became “if you don’t know - find out” and “just Google it”.
The ‘No’ campaign was largely nonexistent. The ‘Yes’ campaign was enough reason to vote ‘No’. And the ‘No’ voters are just as educated as ‘Yes’ voters. It’s just that some people can’t understand why other people would disagree with them.
It’s clear that most of the people responding to you are being deceptive and crying ‘racism’ to make themselves feel superior.
This was not a referendum to recognise indigenous people. Whomever titled this article is a liar. It was a referendum to create an advisory body that makes representations to parliament to support a specific race. Contrary to the holier-than-thou crowd around here, many people voted ‘No’ because they do not agree with permanently enshrining this in the Constitution.
I never saw any arguments against the Voice that weren’t either simplistic ideology (“it’s racist to have an advisory body for indigenous people!”) or outright lies and conspiracy theories. Claiming that it wouldn’t have gone far enough isn’t a good argument to do nothing instead. Does anyone really think that a treaty is more likely now than if we had voted yes?
The referendum isn’t about recognition of the indigenous population. That was 1967, which overwhelmingly passed.
This referendum was to add into the constitution that a body (a group of people) that represents the voice of indigenous and Torres strait Islander people must exist.
That’s it.
The obfuscation occurred when people expected more from it, which a constitution does not do. That’s a legislative power, which the current government of the time will then determine how the body is made up, how people will be chosen for the Voice etc. Additionally, there was a huge misinformation campaign and we have a media monopoly with an agenda here, so many, many people voted No as a result of the confusion.
The No vote was very, very largely done in good conscience. I firmly believe that these voters want what’s best for Australia and I’m glad for that. I wish it was a Yes, but hopefully this will spur more conversation on what we can do to bridge the gap.
A decade ago our PM said sorry. Twenty years ago we were told the gap in life expectancy would be closed. One of our most famous moments in history is a PM giving old Lingari a handfull of dirt.
The majority of indigenous people I’ve spoken to have said they’re voting no or don’t care. Another empty gesture to placate the white population for another election cycle isn’t what we need. An official voice that can make recommendations to the same governing body that has oppressed them for a century and to this day continue to ignore or obfuscate the most basic voices of reason from academics, human rights experts and elders?.. Yeah nah fuck that for a solution.
I didn’t vote because I think each country should decide how and if they want to be incorporated into the Western system. The polarisation in the media compared to the results on the day make me think I made the right choice. Australians famous laconic apathy is ripe for spin masters to manipulate by only giving extreme minority groups the mic and as usual the actual victims are doubly fucked.
It was never “a solution”, it was “part of solution”. The world isn’t so simple.
More autonomy and self determination is a big one. More so than land rights or any sort of reparations in my experience, but different regions face very different issues. Unless we’re just looking for a token gesture, it’s a bit daft to lump a hundred diverse aboriginal countries together and expect them to all agree.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/fact-check-yes-no-campaign-pamphlets-aec/102614710
Absolutely nothing. Just racists being racist.
Sunce Lemmy constitutes 99% ‘Yes men’ circlejerks ill try to rationalize the opposition. From what I was told, there is no language in the proposal to suggest the extent of how the Aboriginals power over any matter. It gave them the freedom to be a blockade in matters that dont even affect them. This is what an aus friend has told me.
The amendment if full,
i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures
So… No. Your friend is full of shit. It provides no powers whatsoever.
The same parliament ignoring indigenous voices for a century will be the only one free to listen to “the” indigenous voice.
Your friend was wrong. All it required was that a designated group of people be consulted with to discuss an issue - if they wanted to discuss it. There was no veto power attached or any other additional rights or privileges conveyed.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/fact-check-yes-no-campaign-pamphlets-aec/102614710
Try again. Your friend was lied to.
Now that two people have shattered the circlejerk you live in are you going to reassess anything? Maybe let your Australian friend know that he was duped too.
The majority of Australians are decendant from the colonists, an they’re against it. They’re never going to leave
Majority of people here descended from people who arrived well after the colonists. About a third of us were born overseas. Around half have a parent born overseas.
