Although I couldn't vote on this (because obviously), I did follow this quite a bit because my girlfriend is Australian. This was about adding a Chapter 9 to the Australian Constitution (there are...
Exemplary
Although I couldn't vote on this (because obviously), I did follow this quite a bit because my girlfriend is Australian. This was about adding a Chapter 9 to the Australian Constitution (there are currently only 8 Chapters). There were indeed plenty of fearmongering on YouTube, Herald news, Sky News, physical snail mails, and various forums. All in all, the fact that the Voice Referendum even exists and needs to be made is just a testament to how privileged the ruling class in Australia is. The ruling class doesn't need a referendum because they are already the ones leading the country and carving up land and how to use them without any input from the indigenous. The indigenous population had to literally beg the high council for the preservation of spiritually relevant landmarks like Uluru. People don't seem to understand this point.
They said a lot of really crazy things like how enshrining the mere acknowledgement of the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the constitution would allow said indigenous peoples to take away your land whenever they wanted, to be impervious to the law when they commit crime, and to be able to dictate how people lived. All of this are untrue. In fact, the present government had to formulate the Voice so that it explicitly explained that "the Executive Government would not be required to consult with the Voice prior to developing any policy or making any decision" like holy fuck it's literally symbolic. The Executive Government does fuck all already!
Really crazy shit was espoused among the general populace. And it ended up that a lot of the the major demographics turned against it - Asians, Greeks, Turks, Italians, etc. because fuck no one gives a shit about the Indigenous really. They think any group that gets ahead of them (as long as they're not the white ruling class) needs to be dragged down to at most their own levels. It's such a despicable monkey-brain feedback loop.
More sophisticated dissent centred around the lack of details regarding this addition to the Constitution. But what they didn't say was that this addition followed the already existing ways the other constitutional items were written. That is, Chapter 9 would have followed how other Chapters were created. Not only that but if you read the other Chapters like Chapter 6's Section 122, it gets wild by stating "The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth....and may allow the representation of such territory in either the House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit," which is in the same vein as Section 129 of Chapter 9. So this "fear-questioning" was really a strawman and a misdirection to the whole thing.
“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
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;
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.”
Thank you, this comment was incredibly informative. (And reminds me, a US citizen, that my country hardly has a monopoly on being sh!##y to indigenous populations ☹️)
Thank you, this comment was incredibly informative. (And reminds me, a US citizen, that my country hardly has a monopoly on being sh!##y to indigenous populations ☹️)
My wife is an Aussie mate, I hear your concern and pain mate. She's actually worried about talking to her folks about it as her Da is a tradie and her Mom voted for the WAP (Once) some 30-40 years...
My wife is an Aussie mate, I hear your concern and pain mate. She's actually worried about talking to her folks about it as her Da is a tradie and her Mom voted for the WAP (Once) some 30-40 years ago. Brexit tore my family apart in a big way (Irish family) and this has the makings of something that could do the same for Aussies, the same as Trump did for the US.
The PM's remarks of not being divided were really good on it though.
They said a lot of really crazy things like how enshrining the mere acknowledgement of the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the constitution would allow said indigenous peoples to take away your land whenever they wanted, to be impervious to the law when they commit crime, and to be able to dictate how people lived. All of this are untrue. In fact, the present government had to formulate the Voice so that it explicitly explained that "the Executive Government would not be required to consult with the Voice prior to developing any policy or making any decision" like holy fuck it's literally symbolic.
"If you don't know, Vote no" is probably the funniest one of this nonsense I've heard. Literally from the same people who pushed as hard as they could for Brexit... where was that opinion then?
Oh yeah. Bought and paid for by the wealthy so they can continue to strange the little guys.
demographics turned against it - Asians, Greeks, Turks, Italians, etc. because fuck no one gives a shit about the Indigenous really
During the Brexit campaign in the UK, the biggest voters FOR Brexit in some areas... were the Asian populations. When confronted, the attitude of "I've got mine, fuck yours" was painfully prevelant. I'm from a city of multicultural goodness and it scared the bejesus out of me to see that attitude get banded about so freely. This feels no different.
Honestly? This failed vote absolutely shames both Australia AND the UK for the garbage we dealt out when Aus was ours.
Yeah it's a sad but predictable outcome. Constitutional amendments are (understandably) incredibly hard to get across the line, so once the Liberals and Nationals made it clear they'd rally...
Yeah it's a sad but predictable outcome. Constitutional amendments are (understandably) incredibly hard to get across the line, so once the Liberals and Nationals made it clear they'd rally against it things were looking pretty dire.
There was a hell of a lot of misinformation floating around for what would have been a pretty tame and symbolic first step in actually listening to a marginalised and disenfranchised community about how best to support them.
As a relatively recently colonized country, a lot of our worst scars aren't all that far back. Genocide, breeding programs, some really dark stuff. Hell, it's barely been more than 50 years since we started counting indigenous Australians as people in the census or stopped state-sanctioned kidnapping of their children.
There was a hope we might have reached a point as a country where we could turn a corner and start a serious conversation about how to have a more respectful and open relationship going forward. Which is why the scare-mongering being so immediately successful is so saddening.
Putting minority rights to a vote is always a terrible idea. Like, I know it was done to enshrine it into the constitution, but almost always this is the result; the majority votes that the...
Putting minority rights to a vote is always a terrible idea. Like, I know it was done to enshrine it into the constitution, but almost always this is the result; the majority votes that the minority can go fuck itself.
If you really want something, you commit your majority to it. And then the opposition wins and disbands it. And then you win again eventually and you do it again and again and again until it sticks.
When Colombians voted against a peace deal with FARC (also rife with misinformation), Santos said fuck em and did it anyway. He lost the election, but guess what? The peace deal stands. When Tsipras was told that the deal with North Macedonia would cost him his election, he said fuck them, did it anyway. Lost the election. Guess what? The deal stands, and a decades long international issue is solved permanently.
Power exists to be used, not hoarded. Australia voted against this? Fuck em, do it anyway, and take the electoral hit. Now, they won't do this, because that takes a brave political class.
I’m in agreement. I think labor is terrified of doing a lot of stuff, because they get burnt by the media and lose the election. Here’s the thing though, with our media landscape the way it is,...
I’m in agreement. I think labor is terrified of doing a lot of stuff, because they get burnt by the media and lose the election.
Here’s the thing though, with our media landscape the way it is, they’re likely to loose the election anyway. May as well get something done in the interim, because you just know that the LNP wouldn’t waste any time in power.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised. The amount of misinformation from the 'No' side has been shocking. Billboards in my town were running this ad: Needless to say, nobody was ever at risk of...
I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
The amount of misinformation from the 'No' side has been shocking. Billboards in my town were running this ad:
YOU WILL LOSE EVERYTHING
VOTE NO
Needless to say, nobody was ever at risk of "losing everything", but the Voice could have helped Indigenous Australians.
If the government actually wanted to have a chance of getting a successful referendum on this they really should have legislated it first and let it run for a few years. If it was successfully...
If the government actually wanted to have a chance of getting a successful referendum on this they really should have legislated it first and let it run for a few years. If it was successfully closing the gap after that time and had been seen to do so then people would have been more likely to allow it into the constitution.
If a later referendum on an already existing voice body didn't get over the line then at least you'd still have a legislated body and the results of however many years of work they had done (and potentially many more years of work from the body). As it is they've spent a lot of money and time and have nothing to show for it.
We kind of already do have one: NIAA. And there are a number of previous bodies. The hope was that the voice would be more effective than the prior bodies, and permanent.
We kind of already do have one: NIAA. And there are a number of previous bodies. The hope was that the voice would be more effective than the prior bodies, and permanent.
I agree the NIAA does have a lot of similarities in intention, though a lot of people were adamant that the voice would be different and more effective. What doesn't make sense IMO is the...
I agree the NIAA does have a lot of similarities in intention, though a lot of people were adamant that the voice would be different and more effective.
What doesn't make sense IMO is the government not working to legislate a voice while they were spending over a year saying how much of a difference having one would make. If they believed it would be effective at closing the gap surely it would have been better to have a functioning body and then take a chance of also having constitutional inclusion rather than take the (pretty high) risk of a choice between constitutional voice or no voice at all.
As someone who hasn't been following the whole saga/drama/situation and only learned the voting was compulsory past Friday, I'm bit surprised No won (my simple mind says the No voters might be...
As someone who hasn't been following the whole saga/drama/situation and only learned the voting was compulsory past Friday, I'm bit surprised No won (my simple mind says the No voters might be accused of the R word if I'm frank or maybe just dont care or follow the sheep mentality). Looking at the voting leaflets the No one basically said Division. That's it. While the Yes one gave a lot of detail.
If you’re explaining, you’re losing. No was able to make a short, digestible, arguably powerful point. Yes wasn’t, even though the opportunity was there.
If you’re explaining, you’re losing. No was able to make a short, digestible, arguably powerful point. Yes wasn’t, even though the opportunity was there.
Although I couldn't vote on this (because obviously), I did follow this quite a bit because my girlfriend is Australian. This was about adding a Chapter 9 to the Australian Constitution (there are currently only 8 Chapters). There were indeed plenty of fearmongering on YouTube, Herald news, Sky News, physical snail mails, and various forums. All in all, the fact that the Voice Referendum even exists and needs to be made is just a testament to how privileged the ruling class in Australia is. The ruling class doesn't need a referendum because they are already the ones leading the country and carving up land and how to use them without any input from the indigenous. The indigenous population had to literally beg the high council for the preservation of spiritually relevant landmarks like Uluru. People don't seem to understand this point.
They said a lot of really crazy things like how enshrining the mere acknowledgement of the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the constitution would allow said indigenous peoples to take away your land whenever they wanted, to be impervious to the law when they commit crime, and to be able to dictate how people lived. All of this are untrue. In fact, the present government had to formulate the Voice so that it explicitly explained that "the Executive Government would not be required to consult with the Voice prior to developing any policy or making any decision" like holy fuck it's literally symbolic. The Executive Government does fuck all already!
Really crazy shit was espoused among the general populace. And it ended up that a lot of the the major demographics turned against it - Asians, Greeks, Turks, Italians, etc. because fuck no one gives a shit about the Indigenous really. They think any group that gets ahead of them (as long as they're not the white ruling class) needs to be dragged down to at most their own levels. It's such a despicable monkey-brain feedback loop.
More sophisticated dissent centred around the lack of details regarding this addition to the Constitution. But what they didn't say was that this addition followed the already existing ways the other constitutional items were written. That is, Chapter 9 would have followed how other Chapters were created. Not only that but if you read the other Chapters like Chapter 6's Section 122, it gets wild by stating "The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth....and may allow the representation of such territory in either the House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit," which is in the same vein as Section 129 of Chapter 9. So this "fear-questioning" was really a strawman and a misdirection to the whole thing.
Edit: Here is the link
“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
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;
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.”
Again, note Sec 129 and Sec 122.
Thank you, this comment was incredibly informative. (And reminds me, a US citizen, that my country hardly has a monopoly on being sh!##y to indigenous populations ☹️)
My wife is an Aussie mate, I hear your concern and pain mate. She's actually worried about talking to her folks about it as her Da is a tradie and her Mom voted for the WAP (Once) some 30-40 years ago. Brexit tore my family apart in a big way (Irish family) and this has the makings of something that could do the same for Aussies, the same as Trump did for the US.
The PM's remarks of not being divided were really good on it though.
"If you don't know, Vote no" is probably the funniest one of this nonsense I've heard. Literally from the same people who pushed as hard as they could for Brexit... where was that opinion then?
Oh yeah. Bought and paid for by the wealthy so they can continue to strange the little guys.
During the Brexit campaign in the UK, the biggest voters FOR Brexit in some areas... were the Asian populations. When confronted, the attitude of "I've got mine, fuck yours" was painfully prevelant. I'm from a city of multicultural goodness and it scared the bejesus out of me to see that attitude get banded about so freely. This feels no different.
Honestly? This failed vote absolutely shames both Australia AND the UK for the garbage we dealt out when Aus was ours.
Yeah it's a sad but predictable outcome. Constitutional amendments are (understandably) incredibly hard to get across the line, so once the Liberals and Nationals made it clear they'd rally against it things were looking pretty dire.
There was a hell of a lot of misinformation floating around for what would have been a pretty tame and symbolic first step in actually listening to a marginalised and disenfranchised community about how best to support them.
As a relatively recently colonized country, a lot of our worst scars aren't all that far back. Genocide, breeding programs, some really dark stuff. Hell, it's barely been more than 50 years since we started counting indigenous Australians as people in the census or stopped state-sanctioned kidnapping of their children.
There was a hope we might have reached a point as a country where we could turn a corner and start a serious conversation about how to have a more respectful and open relationship going forward. Which is why the scare-mongering being so immediately successful is so saddening.
Putting minority rights to a vote is always a terrible idea. Like, I know it was done to enshrine it into the constitution, but almost always this is the result; the majority votes that the minority can go fuck itself.
If you really want something, you commit your majority to it. And then the opposition wins and disbands it. And then you win again eventually and you do it again and again and again until it sticks.
When Colombians voted against a peace deal with FARC (also rife with misinformation), Santos said fuck em and did it anyway. He lost the election, but guess what? The peace deal stands. When Tsipras was told that the deal with North Macedonia would cost him his election, he said fuck them, did it anyway. Lost the election. Guess what? The deal stands, and a decades long international issue is solved permanently.
Power exists to be used, not hoarded. Australia voted against this? Fuck em, do it anyway, and take the electoral hit. Now, they won't do this, because that takes a brave political class.
I’m in agreement. I think labor is terrified of doing a lot of stuff, because they get burnt by the media and lose the election.
Here’s the thing though, with our media landscape the way it is, they’re likely to loose the election anyway. May as well get something done in the interim, because you just know that the LNP wouldn’t waste any time in power.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
The amount of misinformation from the 'No' side has been shocking. Billboards in my town were running this ad:
Needless to say, nobody was ever at risk of "losing everything", but the Voice could have helped Indigenous Australians.
If the government actually wanted to have a chance of getting a successful referendum on this they really should have legislated it first and let it run for a few years. If it was successfully closing the gap after that time and had been seen to do so then people would have been more likely to allow it into the constitution.
If a later referendum on an already existing voice body didn't get over the line then at least you'd still have a legislated body and the results of however many years of work they had done (and potentially many more years of work from the body). As it is they've spent a lot of money and time and have nothing to show for it.
We kind of already do have one: NIAA. And there are a number of previous bodies. The hope was that the voice would be more effective than the prior bodies, and permanent.
I agree the NIAA does have a lot of similarities in intention, though a lot of people were adamant that the voice would be different and more effective.
What doesn't make sense IMO is the government not working to legislate a voice while they were spending over a year saying how much of a difference having one would make. If they believed it would be effective at closing the gap surely it would have been better to have a functioning body and then take a chance of also having constitutional inclusion rather than take the (pretty high) risk of a choice between constitutional voice or no voice at all.
As someone who hasn't been following the whole saga/drama/situation and only learned the voting was compulsory past Friday, I'm bit surprised No won (my simple mind says the No voters might be accused of the R word if I'm frank or maybe just dont care or follow the sheep mentality). Looking at the voting leaflets the No one basically said Division. That's it. While the Yes one gave a lot of detail.
If you’re explaining, you’re losing. No was able to make a short, digestible, arguably powerful point. Yes wasn’t, even though the opportunity was there.