Australians vote No in referendum that promised change for First Nations people but couldn't deliver
Australians vote No in referendum that promised change for First Nations people but couldn't deliver
With a two-letter word, Australians struck down the first attempt at constitutional change in 24 years, a move experts say will inflict lasting damage on First Nations people and suspend any hopes of modernizing the nationās founding document.
I said do you speak my language
He just smiled and gave me a genocide sandwich
Kangaroo
Add it to our list of embarrassingly backwards decisions as a country.
What's depressing is that they lost to a āIf you donāt know, vote Noā slogan:
During months of campaigning, the No vote gained momentum with slogans that appealed to voter apathy ā āIf you donāt know, vote Noā ā and a host of other statements designed to instil fear, according to experts, including that it would divide Australia by race and be legally risky
I saw about a million different posters campaigning for yes. A million different peolpe getting up in my face while im trying to walk somewhere saying fight racism vote yes. I saw 1 single person campaigning for no didnt even have a slogan and that was as i walked into the polling booth. The yes vote did not lose to a slogan it lost cos it divided the people by race.
The proposal, to recognize Indigenous people in the constitution and create an Indigenous body to advise government on policies that affect them, needed a majority nationally and in four of six states to pass.
Jeez
The text of the proposed constitutional amendment can be found here. The entire extent of its "recognition" was to create a body that can make presentations to Parliament.
No, it was to give the government of the day the power to create that body however they saw fit.
anytime the government seeks to expand it's powers you need to ask yourself "Do I want the other guys to exercise this power?"
Labor already listens to our elders, the voice only needed to force future conservative governments to do the same and it failed miserably.
That wording is emotional manipulation, they are as recognised as any other Australian citizen
Edit: do you guys know the difference between "recognised" and "disadvantaged"? Because you're arguing against a point that I didn't make
No, it's not, native ppl don't live the same way as westerns, not acknowledging this is forcing them to live the way of colonizers. When you talk about sociological equality you are not talking about treating everyone the same, but respecting the differences, and this referendum is just forcing the colonizer way of living over the colonized without any dialogue, because creating the body would not mean actually a change, but even this is denied.
they are as recognised as any other Australian citizen
It's not what it seems, when you have a 17.5x more chance to the incarcerated only because where you were born, independently of why, it's clear that you is not like any other and there is a big gap between groups of power.
Most Australian thing ever. Im.not surprised in the slightest
This is a very deceptive headline a majority of australians support the idea of a reccomandary body for indiginouse peoples (the voice what was proposed). However, the reason i beleive it failed is because it would have direcrly made a devision of race within our constitution. I would define any devision of race regardless of purpose as textbook racism but i seem to get a lot of pushback from such an idea. I think the thing that ultumatly caused it to fail was not the concept but the unesaasary implementation within the constitution.
There have been a dozen or so advisory bodies since the 60s and most of the time they're been disassembled when the following party gains controll of parliament. The only thing that would have changed would be to protect the body from being dissolved without another referendum, that's it... All these people that have a problem with the voice probably have nfi these bodies already exist and have never been concerned with any recommendations they've made.
Yeah, I was reading about this in another thread and as I understand it this "advisory council" would have no actual authority, it would just hold meetings and make suggestions to lawmakers who could then take it or leave it. Left me with no idea why something like that needs to be in the constitution of a country. Just pass a law establishing it.
The answer to that lies within the question: why put anything in a constitution? Why have a constitution?
Anything could be made using laws or rules. And anyone can then undo and rewrite them.
It's because countries generally need a foundational document outlining how government will operate, and how laws will be made, and what the country stands for. And have the stability and security of knowing that those operating principles can't be easily changed.
So the idea was, by incorporating the Voice within the constitution, you recognise indigenous Australians in your foundational document as having the right to have a recognised voice on what concerns them, and having unique aspects of history, and historical treatment, that make that appropriate.
Not a right to dismiss laws, or change them. Not a right to create laws. Not a right to ignore laws, or amend proposals. Just to have a recognised voice on issues affecting them, and ask the "lawmakers" to do any of the above.
This is important, because yes, you don't want to enshrine anything that gives a small proportion of the population the ability to sidestep the legislative and political process.
But as a country, we do want to enshrine a means by which indigenous Australians, - a historically extremely disadvantaged group of people, who form less than 4% of the population, and don't have the financial or organisational means to engage expensive political lobby firms like large corporations and mining companies- can participate more directly with the political process of laws affecting them, and therefore feel symbolically "seen".
An analogy: If a public company wanted to create a Disability and Equity officer position, and wanted that position enshrined in the company charter to show the public that: the company was really serious about that position; provide good PR; signal to the public the company's values; and protect it from being included in future job cuts, or made redundant in future for economic or ideological reasons under a different CEO, they would present shareholders with the question and put it to a vote.
The company would not include within that question, details about how much that position would be paid. Or what room of what building they would work in. Or how they would communicate. Or what restrictions would be put on the position. Or how candidates would be interviewed, assessed, and hired.
Shareholders would just see something like: "The company resolves to include the position of Disability and Equity Officer in the company charter, as an indication of the company's desire that it become a more inclusive workplace, and to signal those values to the general public."
Because while you want people to know the position is permanent, you also want to leave the nitty gritty details to being guided by other processes, so that they can be changed more flexibly then once a year or more at a General Meeting of all shareholders
Exactly we already have many bodies which function in that way and none of them are enshrined within the constitution. And even tho the voice has been rejected as part of the constitution it can still be implemented through legislation.
This is why they should have a explain in your own words why you are voting this way on referendums
Because it gives a lot more feedback than the binary yes or no option
Solicit feedback, definitely - but soliciting that feedback in the moment that people are voting on the constitutional amendment that would implement that feedback is a little late, no?
Nope. It failed cause of racists. Case closed.
That was the concerning part. Defining, very permanently, a group of people from all the others based on race. That's literally anti-equality.
It was a very disheartening thing to happen and I couldn't participate. Both options supporting going backward.
I think most people that spoke proudly of their choice didn't fundamentally understand what was going on, how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their nations work, nor the history of support to this point. Australians should be pissed off that it even happened and that was the choices. They shouldn't be pissed off at the outcome or people's choices. If they can point that energy toward the governments, we'd be progressing. Though, I'm sure it'll all go back to business as usual and people will be on something else, doing nothing to educate themselves and be proactive.
Think of an outcome metric by which indigenous Australians aren't materially worse off. As you struggle, I'd like you to tell me if you think that gap a product of inferior genetics or institutional racism?
If it's institutional racism, why would you call solutions targeted at closing that gap and reaching something resembling racial equality racist?
That was the concerning part. Defining, very permanently, a group of people from all the others based on race. That's literally anti-equality.
Be well, but be better, my guy.