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.

  • @bennysaurus
    link
    English
    581 year ago

    It’s complex. Quite a few in the indigenous “no” camp want treaty instead; a formal legal recognition of aboriginal rights and representation, not just an advisory voice in parliament. Voting no for them was as much a protest as an attempt to send a message saying this should be much more. For them it’s all or nothing.

    Others didn’t see the point, yet others don’t see the problem in the first place, comfortable with the status quo.

    • @miridius
      link
      English
      181 year ago

      Ah the classic “I’m going to vote no to something good for me because I wanted something even better” argument 🤦‍♂️

      • comfy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        35
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Their argument is that the Voice isn’t even something good. It doesn’t give Indigenous people any powers they didn’t already have, and the Voice can be ignored just as easily as the advice of the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody recently was. Interview with the Black Peoples Union describes in better detail.

        But even if that weren’t the case and they did think it wasn’t worthless symbolism, successful collective bargaining doesn’t just settle for every first offer. So I don’t know why you’re claiming it’s a bad strategy, it’s how unions have won important gains for workers. It’s a strategy that has been historically shown to work when applied correctly.

        • @Wrench
          link
          English
          61 year ago

          Except when it’s put to a general vote like that, all the nuance is lost, and the voters remember “well we resoundingly voted no on the last one, why vote this one in?”

    • @Gerula
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      But aren’t Aboriginal people citizens of Australia and so already part of the Constitution thus having legal rights like everyone else? What are the extra rights and representation needed?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        What are the extra rights and representation needed?

        Because they are Indigenous. Do you understand the difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in a colonial state?

      • DessertStorms
        link
        fedilink
        -37
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But aren’t Aboriginal people citizens of Australia and so already part of the Constitution thus having legal rights like everyone else?

        No, obviously not.

        What are the extra rights and representation needed?

        Basic human rights and equal representation, for starters.

        How about instead of spending your time here making such outlandishly ignorant comments, you spend it instead looking up for yourself how Aboriginal people are treated, and what equal rights they’re fighting for?, rather than sit back and demand others do the work for you?

        • @Gerula
          link
          English
          121 year ago

          Ok, thank you for your patience.

          • @Sanity_in_Moderation
            link
            English
            13
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            He is flat out wrong. Or lying, not sure which. Of course they are citizens and have the right to vote.

        • Spzi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          Another way to view it: It’s not about the individual person you’re replying to. Even unreasonable questions are a chance to bring more quality content into the thread, so more people can see it. It’s a chance to highlight things you value. It also makes nicer answers.