You must log in or register to comment.
Fuck. I’m sad. I’m sorry to be Australian right now.
Yeah - the voice didn’t really mean much to my day to day at all, but this loss is indicative of our deepening conservative bent.
With any luck it would have meant something to mine. I’m devastated.
Genuinely sorry for your loss.
Thanks, sadly I’ve learned a lot about my country and my local areas in how they’ve polled
Deepening? How new are you? Homosexuals were criminals until recently.
One of the most stagnant democracies in the west.
We’d rather spend time talking about franking credits than lend an ear to the suffering.
Some of the people receiving the franking credits believe they’re suffering… somehow.
deleted by creator
Yeah, I hear you. With an election the country is choosing between two different paths. In this case we’re either choosing progress or… not.
One of Dutton’s talking points over the last few weeks was that he would propose some alternatives after the referendum. I imagine that will be part of the forthcoming “Albo is out of touch” campaign.
deleted by creator
Yeah. Forgive me for saying so but this outcome is more or less a mandate to not do anything.
deleted by creator
I feel like anyone who seriously thought a No vote would lead to a better outcome are going to be disappointed when indigenous rights are not revisited until 2050.
More importantly, Dutton or other LNP government can use this result to justify cuts to funding and whatnot.
Awful time to be an Australian. How utterly embarrassing.
Did anyone really deep down think that “no” was a better outcome for the indigenous tough?
deleted by creator
Yeah in the world news thread there’s multiple links to the guy from Black Peoples Union doing an interview.
It’s infuriating to watch for many reasons. IMO very flawed logic, and ulterior motives.
It’s a false dichotomy that you need to choose between the voice “or” something better.
The voice would have paved to road to something better.
im sad for those that is would have actually mattered, its a shame the ‘tyranny of majority’ can decide things that apply to minorities. I refuse to go to any cooker pages tonight, no doubt there will be a lot of gloating
Albanese’s defeat speach fell flat and was weak. Just more dithering and deflection. For a self proclaimed conviction politician he sure can’t muster any fire in his rhetoric.
Dutton’s speach was solid, hit all the talking points and will likely see an approval rating rise. Yet it was full of lies, promises of action on housing and cost of living issues which his government created. Promises to improve defence which rotted under Liberal leadership.
Promises for funds to communities in need, the same communities the Liberals stripped $500 million in funding from.
I was happy to hear a journalist call out Dutton’s claim that an audit into where the money is spent, as Liberals were in power for a long time and should know exactly where it went!
Imagine if Albo had decided to make his PM’s legacy in to being the one that started fixing wealth inequality and the housing crisis. Instead economically they are sticking with the shit-party-lite approach. Housing being pushed further out of reach for those without due to added demand.
His failure to read the room on the voice will mean his legacy is this failed referendum and fact that it poured more fuel on the division fire.
So disappointing that the government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this referendum only for the majority of people to vote no (well if the ABC have called it right). I’m interested in seeing what the government does next.
Why the fuck do mining companies get a voice in parliament but the oldest living culture in Australia does not?!
The money was actually well spent because the will of Australian electors was ratified. It’s a snarky point yes, but one worth making.
I think if they passed the legislation first as a trial and then if it went well put it through a referendum there would be more support.
I’m not saying he would but he could just force it through legislation now, with the greens support and independents support, Pocock is in ACT who was the only place to vote yes, I think they have enough to pass.
Sure it will go against the results of the referendum, or “the will of the people” but it will be a legal way to do it. I think if it went through legislation it would become like GST, deeply unpopular at the time but it just becomes fait accompli and noone would dare reverse it. Because once in noone wants the optics of being “the racist in the parliament” besides maybe ONP.
deleted by creator
Legislation first would have been the winner for the Yes campaign. Their weakness was in the lack of detail. As soon as they launched “If you don’t know, vote No” It was sunk.
Because giving voice to mining companies is oligarchy and giving special treatment to any race is racism. Both disgusting but first one much less.
Sorry man, but that’s not racism. That’s equity. Some kinds of people need certain kinds of privileges, because they’ve been disenfranchised by a racist system for years and years and years. Giving them a leg up is a reasonable and empathetic thing to do.
“Giving some race a privilege” is definition of racism. As long as we continue to mention race in any contents it is racism. We are australian and all australian should be treated equally. Yes they need help but not because their race but because they need help. Just ask yourself why do you consider chinese descendants are second class citizens? They are second members of second oldest cultural tradition in this country.
Races of people exist in our society. Observing that, or mentioning race in any contents, isn’t racism. I totally agree though – all Australians should be treated equally. Unfortunately, since colonisation, Indigenous people have not been treated as equal to the settlers. In fact, they’ve been treated like shit. The system they live under is incentivised to treat them like shit, because it gives other people money and power and land. Crafting special solutions for them, based on their race in a racist system, their culture, their individual needs – that’s the only effective way to help. Every other way is blind. This goes for any group of people. We can give separate, necessary privileges to both Indigenous and Chinese people. It’s not a zero sum game.
That’s not the definition of racism.
Giving people in a wheelchair a ramp onto the train is not ableism.
Giving children a booster seat in a car is not ageism.
Bigtory is about discriminating against people based on an attribute. So you’d need to argue that the rest of Australia is having their government representation taken away by the voice.
The entire point of the voice is try and treat people equally by addressing the intergenerational issues caused by systemic racism.
deleted by creator
Passing referendums is very difficult in Australia. People are easily scared away from change with emotional arguments unless there is a very clear message and benefit and I think the voice proposal was lacking. The only reason I voted Yes was to show solidarity with indigenous Australians and to oppose some of the ugly characters and lies coming from the No campaign. Try as I could reading the Uluru statement and other supporting arguments I couldn’t get excited about it and I can understand why people on the fence would reject constitutional change.
The government should put as much as they can into legislation and be satisfied and I think we should move on.
Unfortunately I think this result has huge lessons for the republican cause. I suspect there won’t be a republican referendum this decade now.
I think as long as Chuck or his sons don’t come over here expecting some big royal event, there is no real impulse for change our system of government.
A key difference in the campaigns would be the fact that the Voice referendum didn’t include the element ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Everybody agrees theres a gap between First Nations people and the rest of Aus, (We don’t agree on the cause). A Rebublican proposal is trying to change a system that, when comparing to other systems around the world, is working quite well.
Indigenous disadvantage is a huge issue and I don’t want to trivialize it by comparison to less important topics but as far as these constitutional referendums are concerned there is some commonality. Both seek to add recognition and self-determination for Australians that are far more appropriate for current and future Australia than was anticipated in a document written near the height of the British Empire.
Parliament can legislate indigenous consultation and although it isn’t as resilient as a constitutional change it can achieve much the same outcome for now. We have gone as far as we can legislatively to become an independent sovereign nation and the replacement of the head of state with an Australian citizen is the last obstacle to assert our full nationhood.
Realistically both were going to be lost outside the inner cities. Neither are going to give a No voter cheaper beer and smokes. As long as we have a regional divide in economic status and education, conservatives have an almost insurmountable advantage. Racism might have played a role in the Voice outccome but it is just one of many buttons for a disinformation campaign to exploit.
Yeah, theres certainly some commonality, between the two. Its a general needs problem with the Republic idea getting up in Australia though:
-
We are to all intents and purposes an independent nation. I would cite the fact that we are far more dependent on the US than the UK as a sign of our independence from our notional parent state (the UK). So there is no improvement, perceived or real, in driving further separation.
-
Unlike other countries who approach the question of independence we have peaceful and extremely friendly relations with the UK. Not to mention close family ties between the country’s.
-
The idea of Republics around the world are sufferring from a reputation problem. The abuse of the concept by all manner of abhorrent ‘leaders’ over the 20th century and continuing in this century has diminished the idea of freedom through the creation of a Republic. A key issue is Presidents have seemed to be able to gain and retain too much power, then if they’re able to get the military on side, well, at what point do we stop calling it a Republic? Again i only mean it has a reputational problem, not that, that would happen in Australia.
Your right about the City/Country divide.
I think this referendum was also a reiteration of the importance of having regard to people’s self interest. The Yes camp didn’t connect the Voice to how it will benefit everyone in the nation. While the No camp had no qualms about heaping theoretical loss at the doors of all self interested Australians. (I do not mean greedy btw, i only mean self interested).
-
this comment is a good example of how profoundly ill-informed Australians are with regard to our politics; our constitution is a colonialist relic with no inalienable rights and colossal centralisation of power, and people act like it’s actually somehow modern or progressive.
by and large Australians are unsophisticated, easily manipulated, political idiots.
anyone with half a brain would look at our system and laugh at the corruption it encourages, here sadly, we don’t have half a brain between us.
I wouldn’t call the constitution a relic, it is, albeit imperfectly, a functioning document, that maintains a certain cohesion in this country. Calling it a relic somewhat undermines that important use to the nation. I don’t argue with the characterisation of Colonialist. It very much was set in these terms.
Colossal centralisation of power is an odd thing to claim, and possibly ill-informed.
- The primacy of Parliaments, made up of many people, over Governors, single people, is very much established in this country but even the Governors retain some power away from Parliament in limited circumstances, think of GG’s power of dismissal,
- The system of exclusive powers to the federals with the states retaining all other powers is an extremely important partition of power,
- Each state retained their own Courts, Parliaments, and Governors and much of the public service supporting those remits separately from the Federal government, who also gained the full set of those positions to represent the country as one.
The country took lots of opportunities to ensure the dilution of power. And much of that is contained within the Constitution. So i would say it protects the devolvement of powers from any one body.
‘Inalienable rights’ has been considered by many in Australia. I think the closer you get to the detail the less atractive that proposition becomes. People have a responsibilty when they speak, ‘inalienable rights’ has proven to lead to a reduction in peoples calculation of their own responsibilties when speaking. The provisions for this in the US have been an example where such a rigid code can lead to poorer outcomes. The calculation here is, our system gets protection of speech about the same as places with the explicit right, but without some of the adverse consequences, because the protection remains somewhat fungible. Fungibilty is important to courts where they may wish to distinguish from precedent for legitimate reasons.
‘Modern’ should be left as a concept of the Post WW2 period. We are, as a whole, more like our ancestors than the word ‘modern’ allows. Modern has become a hopeful term that things are ‘better today than yesterday’, and thats not always true. Modern clouds the nuance. This isn’t a bad or good thing, only an observation that the term ‘modern’ or ‘life today’, etc, is a mental separation from history that has proven unhelpful.
I never said the constitution or the nation is progressive, nor should it be assumed that is the goal. There are people who aren’t progressive in this nation, just as there are progressive people. A well functioning founding document should seek to balance the views of the many without trampling the rights of the few. Thats not a progressive sentiment, thats a utilitarian sentiment. This is a strategy to stop endless cycles of violence/repression, allowing people to live in reasonable liberty. A strength of the Constitution is that it isn’t particularly prescriptive.
Of to a very “no” leaning start.
If it’s a “no” outcome I’m gonna have to avoid any Australia related news. Couldn’t bare to see Dutton congratulating himself.
ABC just called it as defeated, all over before WA even got to start counting…
deleted by creator
It’s only 5:30 here in WA. Results have been known for over an hour. Polls are still open for another half an hour.
I get why people are voting: they have to or will get a fine. What I don’t understand is why people are still handing out ‘Vote Yes/No’ flyers. What is the point in that?
The outcome still has potential to sway politicians I suppose. If it’s closer than they expect, some will have to tread more carefully and make some concessions, or risk losing their seat next election.
deleted by creator
Antony Green was calling 2 states No at 7:01pm AEDT, and that meant only 1 more No state was required.
He called SA as No at 7:24pm. Not even close…
Needs both majority of states and population, so if its defeated in the east, it’s too late.
deleted by creator
The next time someone tries to tell you that most Aboriginal people didn’t want The Voice:
https://twitter.com/AntonyGreenElec/status/1713353768706928912
Antony Green:
Results for Remote Mobile Teams in the NT electorate of Lingiari. Number columns are first % Yes, then % No and total votes. #auspol #referendum2023
This is really interesting in many ways.
6 months ago, if you had have told me that these communities would be less than 90% yes I would’ve been surprised.
What a shit show.
Don’t forget these remote sites will still include non-indigenous Australians who were in the area too. So it may be still a little imprecise, but highly indicative nonetheless.
Yeah, but I had thought the non-indigenous living in those communities would still be yes voters.
Stands to reason, for sure.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah I noticed that everyone has jumped on the “Australia is racist” bandwagon. I think there is that element but I’m optimistic that the referendum failed for other reasons and we can all move on.
deleted by creator
And I mean if you find yourself frequently susceptible to racist propoganda… Well, maybe…
Albo’s looking like a one-term prime minister at the moment.
I don’t understand how this became a party issue. There are practically no LNP members here in WA, so they don’t need to follow the national LNP directives.
The result is: the opposition leader here said she’s resigning and voting yes. Our two most well-known Libs (one the former deputy PM) are both publicly in the ‘yes’ camp.
Not that any of it matters.
Yeah see this is the part that really grinds my gears. Labor has wasted a lot of political capital on this. They didn’t have much to start with. I’m not looking forward to a decade of Dutton.
Something I’d read/listened to recently suggested that it might have more of a detrimental affect on Dutton when it comes to the election - people will remember his campaigning during this, and be really turned off it when voting for a leader. On the other hand, Albanese has done some work towards keeping his leadership separate from the outcome of the result.
deleted by creator
Yeah the yes vote is crushing it in traditional Liberal seats, and they are going to remember this.
The swinging seats were largely the apolitical suburbs, who aren’t idealistic lefties but aren’t rusted-on megachurch culture-warriors either. They bend with the wind. Morrison was on the nose, so they swung to Labor; whether they stay with Labor or conclude, after surveying the famously impartial media, that we need a change is an open question.
Given he’s just pissed $450m up the wall for nothing, that seems appropriate
deleted by creator
Hey, just a little nudge, if you’re keen to chat about the Voice to Parliament, we’ve got this corker of a megathread where we can all have a good chinwag in one spot. But if you’re not up for that, no worries, it’s business as usual. Gotta keep things fair dinkum!
deleted by creator
