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.

  • TheControlled@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah I don’t get it either. I know a lot of Natives hate the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but is that what Aus is trying to get too (within the Constitution)?

    • Cypher
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are essentially two parts to what was proposed, the first is that having mention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island (ATSI) peoples in the constitution is recognition.

      The second part, which is actually the exact mechanism which was proposed, was a permanent advisory body made up of ATSI representatives with constitutional power to give advice to the Government on issues related to or impacting ATSI people.

      The exact details of the advisory body were up to legislation which we will probably never see.

        • Cypher
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          A few of the arguments or concerns voiced by Australian’s included:

          -A Voice with no power is pointless

          -Lack of detail in the proposal

          -Separating Australian’s by race is divisive (note there’s already constitutional race powers, which I disagree with and hope will be scrapped)

          -ATSI people would have more representation than others (they actually have proportionally higher representation in Parliament today than their percentage of population)

          -Leaving the exact details of the Voice to legislation means any future government could gut it without violating the constitutional amendment

          -concerns this is the first push on a path to treaty and reparations as a percentage of GDP (which WAS discussed as a possibility by the people who worked on the Uluru statement)

          I’ve left out the outright lies, though I guarantee someone will take issue with me simply mentioning the talking points to give you context.

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

          Mainly because of this

          The exact details of the advisory body were up to legislation which we will probably never see.

          We wanted to see them, they just wouldn’t show us. “Trust us bro, we’re the government”. Unsurprisingly it didn’t go down well.

          We were essentially being asked to change our consitution to add some vague advisory body of unspecified makeup and details but that has no powers, so why exactly would we vote for that?

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

          The exact wording of the Constitutional amendment was released 6-7 months ago.

          The Legislation has not been, and likely won’t be seen.

          If you have seen the legislation somewhere please share a link.

            • Cypher
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Design principles are not legislation, it seems you are unfamiliar with Parliamentary process.

              Additionally he (Anthony Albanese) stated that if the referendum is successful, another process would be established to work on the final design, with a subsequent government produced information pamphlet stating that this process would involve Indigenous Australian communities, the Parliament and the broader community, with any legislation going through normal parliamentary scrutiny procedures.

              The final design being the legislation.

              I hope that clears things up for you.

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

                  You claimed the legislation had been shown, it has not.

                  Your misinformation helps no one.

                  • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Except… That it had. No matter how much you wish your narrative to be real, you have no clue how the world works. 🤦

                    But, whatever. You want to stay ignorant and stupid, you do you.