Voice to parliament referendum fails in defeat that Indigenous advocates will see as a blow to progress towards reconciliation

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.

    • canuckkat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      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.orgEnglish
        45·
        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.worldEnglish
          62·
          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.

        • Ilandar@aussie.zoneEnglish
          32·
          1 year ago

          and possibly giving it more power.

          Did you read the constitutional amendment? The advisory body had no power.

    • Ilandar@aussie.zoneEnglish
      82·
      1 year ago

      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@lemm.eeEnglish
        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.worldEnglish
      815·
      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.worldEnglish
        13·
        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.

        • Seudo@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          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@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • WaxedWookie@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            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@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              1 year ago

              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.

                • Seudo@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

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

                  • WaxedWookie@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    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.