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.

  • Affidavit
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s clear that most of the people responding to you are being deceptive and crying ‘racism’ to make themselves feel superior.

    This was not a referendum to recognise indigenous people. Whomever titled this article is a liar. It was a referendum to create an advisory body that makes representations to parliament to support a specific race. Contrary to the holier-than-thou crowd around here, many people voted ‘No’ because they do not agree with permanently enshrining this in the Constitution.

      • TrippaSnippa
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I never saw any arguments against the Voice that weren’t either simplistic ideology (“it’s racist to have an advisory body for indigenous people!”) or outright lies and conspiracy theories. Claiming that it wouldn’t have gone far enough isn’t a good argument to do nothing instead. Does anyone really think that a treaty is more likely now than if we had voted yes?

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

        Why does an advisory body belong in the constitution?

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

            Voting rights and an advisory body aren’t even remotely the same thing.

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

                Why should it? Why do they need a constitutionally protected advisory board that’s not guaranteed to be gutted by the government of the day and has no power?

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

                    What they should have done is just gone for recognition in the constitution. No stupid toothless advisory board, just constitutional recognition. That would have passed.

                    The voice tagging along is what killed the whole thing. We’re not “not ready to listen”, we’re just not wanting to put a powerless advisory board in the constitution. Labor can have an indigenous voice every time they’re in power, nothing is stopping them. If the liberals get rid of it then it’s just showing that they’d completely gut and ignore the constitutionally protected voice anyway.