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.

  • SuperJetShoes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • danl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

          • Staccato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just Google it, the advice you always hear when the other person is shutting down any more conversation. What an unfortunate result

            • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Google it” vs “no”. The point of the slogan was to highlight a) how the other side was shutting down the conversation and b) that their premise of ignorance was stupid, in a short pithy way.

              It wasn’t saying “go find out”, so much as “you CAN find out if you care, there is no reason to not know”

              That said, without question, the Yes campaign’s official messages were pretty poor. Supporters have been far more eloquent.

              On the “just google it” topic, this short video was brilliantly well done: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SAqIypjk-5A

          • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Which isn’t in any way how it works. You’re making the claim, you sell it. I’m not going digging to make someone’s claim on their behalf.

    • MüThyme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • SuperJetShoes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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!

        • snoopen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • buddhabound@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          43
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • CybranM@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            I dont understand people who complaining about other people asking simple questions. What a waste of time to make such a pointless and angry reply.

          • SuperJetShoes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your point is a valid one, so I’ll answer it. Initially I did use Google. I was overloaded with a mash-up of sites from which it would have been difficult to resolve right from wrong. As this doesn’t relate to my country I’d have simply moved on.

            Instead, I feel much more informed from all the considered, well-written responses which people were kind enough to write here.

      • Seudo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’d say an excuse for politics to ignore indigenous issues for another decade by placating the white masses for the next few election cycles would be a lil worse.

      • fiat_lux@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Seudo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Seudo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Peddlephile@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • chrishazfun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only case against it was that at best it would be symbolic, as if there isn’t dozens of symbolic bodies around the world providing suggestions to governments that are nothing more than just that, being another opinion on a matter.

    • PatFusty@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Seudo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

      • fiat_lux@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • PatFusty@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Again, I’m not from the area and i only have what I was told. I was just putting what I was told how I understood it, maybe I misunderstood, maybe its Maybelline.

        • PatFusty@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe I misunderstood my friends position… but yeah your post is the only one showing both positions.

      • TheDankHold@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • PatFusty@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol i dont know, i was playing telephone… I may have just jumbled it all up. You guys are ridiculous.

    • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      The majority of Australians are decendant from the colonists, an they’re against it. They’re never going to leave