Hand-picked advisors and no power. The Voice referendum offers no solution when it comes to Aboriginal rights, argues Martin Greenfield
In the wake of the delivery of a resounding no to this proposed constitutional change, this article offers a very measured analysis of the problems with the Voice proposal and rejects the simplistic idea that a "no" is simply due
to Australians being racist. This article is from before the referendum.
Did you read the article? I don't think its the correct conclusion to draw that people voted no because of racism. At the start of the year there was around 70% in favour of the voice on polls. The author makes the point, people haven't suddenly become racist in this time. Certainly a proportion of people voted no because they're racist but its not the whole story. Outer suburban areas in major cities which are poor and very multicultural all voted no quite resoundingly, while inner city liberal areas were the only areas that voted yes.
How about you also read the article and understand the historical context:
The past two First Nations advisory organizations have been shut down by the conservative parties each time they won government. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) shut down in 2005. National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples shut down in 2019. These advisory bodies already existed before.
Having won the federal election, Labor knew if they didn't put a change IN THE CONSTITUTION, as soon as they lost an election then all the years of work they might put into funding and creating another body would get thrown in the garbage by the FUCKING SCUMBAG parties.
So the referendum was about giving Aboriginal leaders back what they PREVIOUSLY HAD in a permanent way RATHER than creating another advisory body and then taking it away with the next change in government under the DOGSHIT two party system in Australia. But Australians are too fucking conveniently ignorant to remember the past. Hence the no vote.
So for the article to talk about boycotting the referendum when the federal government has previously abolished the parliamentary Aboriginal advisory bodies ..... Let's just say it's rage inducing.
Prime minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government and conservative Aboriginals, such as Noel Pearson, have been bending over backwards to assure the electorate that the Voice will have no powers: it will not lead to reparations for stolen lands and will only have an advisory role (one that can be ignored).
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Australian_Indigenous_Voice_referendum#Advertising_and_media :
Mass media in Australia are highly concentrated, with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp Australia dominating the landscape, owning over two-thirds of leading newspapers along with most online news websites ; three News Corp outlets occupy the top three positions in the nation, based on popularity and viewership.
The majority of News Corp's content was commentary, not reporting, so when the various articles and videos were examined together, around 70% of the coverage favoured "No" arguments.
People are saying that referendums represent the will of the people, as if it was unmoving. How many people would have changed their minds after the u.s.s.r. dissolution of 1991 for example ?
Also, i've looked at the opinion surveys for presidential elections of the last decades and it always moved a lot in the last weeks, a proof that they're consciously manipulative/lying i.m.h.o.
There is no real attempt to win the mass of the population to the idea that this will be of mutual benefit through shared justice - because in reality, no justice can be delivered through the Voice
classic reform or revolution moment. not throwing in behind this has handed the libs a thing to point to "reconciliation has been rejected by democracy", but if it had passed they'd have their little rubber-stamp council to endorse any kind of monstrous policies in future. what marvelous choices bourgeois democracy delivers