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.

  • canuckkat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also, from the article:

    Opposition to the voice seized on this ambiguity, adopting a campaign slogan of “if you don’t know, vote no”.

    • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is the slogan contracted for brevity. The context is, if you do not know, and none of us do as their is NO detail, then do not give the government a blank cheque. People are rightfully cautious about government and possibly giving it more power.

      • vantlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        At NO point has there ever been no detail about this. It is an advisory body to Parliament. When Parliament is making decisions, it can seek advice from this Indigenous-focused body. It is that simple. But by having the Murdoch press and Liberal government shovel this “ohhh but but but there’s no detail!” line over and over and over again, people started to believe it. For no fucking reason, since the purpose of the Voice has been clear since day 1.

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

          At NO point has there ever been no detail about this.

          How many people would be on the advisory board?

          How would they be chosen?

          How long would their term lengths be?

          Do they all have to be indigenous?

          Things like that are the details we’re wanting but were refused.

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

        and possibly giving it more power.

        Did you read the constitutional amendment? The advisory body had no power.

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

          Cautious of giving the government more power. Government.

          The voice as it was would have been ripe for abuse by the government. They could just put any of their cronies in the voice advisory role and just have it go “yeah the indigenous people agree that you should make more mines where our heritage sites are”.

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

            It still wouldn’t have given them any more power, because it fundamentally did not have any power to give.

            One of the main arguments you kept making throughout this entire debate was that the advisory body had no power. You repeatedly suggested this was a reason to vote No. Now you’re turning around 2 days after the result and claiming the complete opposite. You could not be any more mask off if you tried.

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

              It still wouldn’t have given them any more power, because it fundamentally did not have any power to give.

              It would though, because it would now give the government the ability to say that they listened to and consulted with the indigenous advisory board, made up of white mining magnates and pauline hanson, and then went ahead and leased out the indigenous cultural land for mining for 100 years. See? The government can no go ahead and do things that harm indigenous culture and people while being able to have the full backing of the indigenous voice to parliament.

              You not understanding the ways that this position was ripe for abuse by the government isn’t suprising, nor is your trying to pass it of as me changing my tune.

              I didn’t say the Voice has any power. It doesn’t. What I’m saying is that the voice existing gives the GOVERNMENT more power.

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

                it would now give the government the ability to say that they listened

                They have been doing that forever. It’s not “more” power, it’s exactly the same power the government has always had.

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

                  No, they didn’t have an indigenous voice behind their decisions before. Now they would have.

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

                    This is what I mean when I say you are completely fake and full of shit. Literally your last reply to me:

                    now give the government the ability to say that they listened to and consulted with the indigenous advisory board, made up of white mining magnates and pauline hanson

                    First the Voice is “powerless”, then it gives “more power”. One minute the Voice has no credibility because it is “made up of white mining magnates and Pauline Hanson”, the next minute it has credibility because it is “Indigenous”. You shift the goalposts in every single comment you make. You stand for absolutely nothing and have never made a single argument in good faith throughout the months of debate here.