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.

  • Seudo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wot? Absolutely nothing stoping parliament from listening to the numerous recommendations that would improve the standard of living or life expectancy of indigenous people. Why would you think a few token lines in the constitution will change that?

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they’ll have an official body they’ll be dismissing rather than one of many groups, which aren’t always unified - it forces nothing, but does give a go-to body that the government will need to take an optical hit to ignore.

      The constitutional amendment helps because the deserve recognition, and because it stops the next government disbanding the body.

      • Seudo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So there will be just as many people saying the voice doesn’t represent them or their country but white folks can feel like everything is fine and dandy. Swell

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

          Would you mind clarifying what you mean? There’s a few ways to interpret this.

          If you mean that it’s not a perfect representation of the views of the indigenous community, that’s obviously true, but unavoidable in any representative body. What it does is solicit feedback from the community and effectively pushes that forward as a single, strong voice. This works in the same way that a union brings together workers that are powerless as individuals and small groups, into a single, far more powerful, though not perfectly representative body that’s able to campaign for meaningful positive change for all members.

          Sounds swell to me.

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

            What it does is solicit feedback from the community and effectively pushes that forward as a single, strong voice.

            There are hundreds of indigienous mobs around Australia. They do not all agree. They do not all get a long. Having a single voice wouldn’t work. It’s not like workers for a company unionizing at all. There are still disagreements among indigenous groups over land ownership and who was the rightful original owner etc.

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

        And what if that official body is filled with government cronies and yes men, since the only thing protected in the constitution is that the body exists. It doesn’t even specify that it has to be made up of indigenous people.

        Think about the next time the LNP get in power. Do you really think they wouldn’t kick out everyone in the body and fill it with their own people that will support their agenda? Think about if One Nation got in power one day - they could then fill the Voice with literal neo nazis who would be the ones in charge of representing the indigenous people.

        Do you see why what was proposed was pointless and could lead to more harm than good?

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

          What’s token about forcing the government of the day to take the optical damage from publicly dismissing the guidance of the official body representing indigenous community? Seems it would give them reason to reconsider as well as a great body to consult on how to best prioritise and address the issues facing the community.

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

            What’s token about forcing the government of the day to take the optical damage from publicly dismissing the guidance of the official body representing indigenous community?

            There was nothing in the amendment stopping the government of the day from filling the official body representing the indigenous community with white mining magnates and skinhead nazis who all agree that all of the sacred indigenous sites should be mined.

          • Seudo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Entirely depends on how it’s to be structured. Which the public didn’t vote on. Done correctly I do agree on the optics of an official body though.

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

                Either way, some of us whities just don’t feel comfortable determining the future of indigenous people.

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

                  That’s the point of the Voice though, isn’t it - to give a body representing indigenous Australians a say in decisions relating to them.

                  That’s contrasted with the current situation, where the government selects an indigenous affairs minister, then optionally cherrypicks the indigenous representative bodies that support their agenda.

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

                    There’s nothing in the legislation that prevents the (predominantly white European) government from continuing to cherry pick. We don’t need another excuse to be apathetic about indigenous issues.