Indigenous Voice: Australians reject historic Indigenous referendum - BBC News
Indigenous Voice: Australians reject historic Indigenous referendum - BBC News
Australian national broadcaster ABC has projected three states voted No, effectively defeating the referendum.
Australian national broadcaster ABC has projected three states voted No, effectively defeating the referendum.
You're viewing a single thread.
Dispelling Australia's Referendum Misunderstandings
I thought i'd start a discussion on this as there is an international reputation forming that may not be justified due to misinformation. The vote was to change the Australian Constitution to include a section giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a voice in parliament, which they already have through inner dialogue between their mobs and local governments. How this constitutional change would look or be enacted was not known and very vague, with the crux being that it would still be government controlled, there was widespread animosity from First Nations people about it being another 'white-man's decision', it would create division by being unequal when indigenous Australians are striving for equality. These are the key reasons behind the nation's 'No' vote. It was never a vote about if you 'like Aboriginal Australians or not' as many of the articles here seem to indicate.
Yes the proposed change to the constitution lacked detail, but that is entirely in keeping with the constitution as a whole, it is a "high-level" document after all. The detail would have come in the legislation that enacted it, with plenty of public consultation and discussion in parliament, no different to any other legislation. In its final form it would have probably looked a lot like previous advisory bodies that we used to have, with the critical difference being that it could not be disbanded just because the government of the day didn't like it.
I'm not familiar with the Australian political terms, can you share what this means:
inner dialogue between their mobs and local governments
To me, that sounds like the Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islanders are free to think about what they want, and then form a potentially violent, roughly organized group of people to confront local officials... But I assume I'm missing something.
From google: 'Mob' is a term identifying a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people associated with a particular place or Country. 'Mob' is an important term for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as it is used to describe who they are and where they are from.
In Australian slang a mob can just mean any grouping of people, not necessarily a criminal group or a group of rioters. It's not uncommon for people to refer to their own ethnic or political grouping as a mob; at least from what I've seen when reading Australian websites.
And by local government I think they are referring to the states and territories governments.
This is correct, mob in this context is a number of indigenous people belong to one particular community. There are various different mobs out there which is one of the reasons why a singular controlled voice was never going to work.
Local governments come down to regions a member of Parliament holds. In Sydney, there are local 'seats' that are very small in geographical size due to population, whereas in Western Australia, there is one 'seat' that is equal in size to France and Spain combined, because the population is similar. The indigenous communities in these seats already have large political sway and a 'voice' in matters concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, through a combined council of elders from the various 'mobs' (yes the term is the politically correct one) that traditionally were part of the land the political seat stands on.
Yeah as someone outside Australia I've been surprised at how biased and simplified the reporting has been. A complex constitutional issue is being painted as a simple "good people, bad people".
When I read about the changes myself (after having to go hunting for some actual detail - the reporting is pretty poor on this) it honestly seems more like virtue signalling rather than useful or meaningful reform.
And unfortunately the vitriol from the 'YES' campaign that is now surfacing has sullied a democratic process. This was never about a like or dislike of First nations people, but that's how it's now being painted. There were no winners or losers in this referendum. It was just the wrong idea and poor lip service to the Uluru Statement of the Heart. It's why over 40% of First Nations Australians voted against the constitutional reform.
The result has produced a lot of sore losers. The campaign involved a lot of just straight up losers.
Its the eternal false dichotomy of "one side of a dispute must be the good guys, meaning the other side are therefore the bad guys."
Last time I looked at the count 40% of indigenous people voted against the voice, there's definitely no good/bad side in this regardless how some might choose to vilify others. We have compulsory voting as well.
How old are you?
Relevant: the Black Peoples Union position on the referendum (interview on ABC).
An aggregation of written statements collected from socialist, anarchist and radical Indigenous groups, showing the diversity of thought on the matter: http://old.reddit.com/r/AustralianSocialism/comments/161r8r1/megathread_of_leftist_statements_on_the_voice/
(PS: don't just take all the 'yes' and 'no' summaries in that list at face value, a couple of them are misinterpretations or oversimplications)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Black Peoples Union position on the referendum
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Did you write the 'no campaign' booklet by any chance, temp_acct_001?
Lol, no. In fact, before I did any research, I was a firm YES supporter at face value. But I researched, I interviewed, I allowed myself to be neutral and hear all the facts, and I made a very informed decision on voting day. You can guess at my vote, but you may be surprised. My comments here are for the uninformed, global community, who immediately jump to the conclusion that the referendum was about racism.
I voted Yes in the end, but I definitely understand the journey you've taken and respect your informed voting. I think a big part of the problem is people's attention is so divided these days that complexities are oversimplified to one-word descriptors like "racist" that are facile and inaccurate.
Lol, fair enough. Are you a researcher travelling and interviewing different groups - or just rural living?
Dispelling Australia's Referendum Misunderstandings
Facts without evidence presented as if they are self-evident.
The vote was to change the Australian Constitution to include a section giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a voice in parliament, which they already have through inner dialogue between their mobs and local governments.
The current system is definitely not effective. There is a massive gap where due respect, health outcomes, opportunities, and sovereignty are lacking at the least.
You can argue that this is piecemeal, and it is - but its a step from the current status quo.
How this constitutional change would look or be enacted was not known and very vague, with the crux being that it would still be government controlled...
Misleading. The constitution is high-level by design, that is not how that document works.
there was widespread animosity from First Nations people about it being another 'white-man's decision', it would create division by being unequal when indigenous Australians are striving for equality.
Show me evidence again, temp account.