• LowExperience2368
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?!

    • fosstulate@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      The money was actually well spent because the will of Australian electors was ratified. It’s a snarky point yes, but one worth making.

    • Anonbal185
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Whirlybird
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          And with how vague the voice constitutional change was, it would be able to be dismantled in every meaningful way another 11 times in the future. It would just have to exist, but it could have been comprised of a 19 year old white intern who supported anti-indigenous things.

            • Whirlybird
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Says the person saying how frequently they’re disbanded 😂. You’re literally arguing against yourself.

                • Whirlybird
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t say it would be abolished, just that it could and likely would essentially be completely gutted many times over because like I said, the only thing that’s protected is the thing existing.

                • Whirlybird
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t say it would be abolished, just that it could and likely would essentially be completely gutted many times over because like I said, the only thing that’s protected is the thing existing.

      • danl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

    • TheHolm
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because giving voice to mining companies is oligarchy and giving special treatment to any race is racism. Both disgusting but first one much less.

      • phonyphanty@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • TheHolm
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          “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.

          • phonyphanty@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • mranachi
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.