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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      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.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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.

      • liamwb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              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.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

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

                  • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    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.