You must log in or register to comment.
I hear Gina Reinhardt and her mining buddies are quite happy there isn’t an Aboriginal advisor that could cause problems with digging up sacred sites and blowing up ancient art.
Then they should leave a 5-star review of the sleazy marketing companies they hired with no offices at their registered address.
Many of those leaders would have worked for years with the Coalition to get them onside for this referendum. It was a massive betrayal of trust.
“Indigenous leaders break their silence…”
Mmmmm. Perhaps the time for leadership and not being silent was before there was a vote …
In their defence the moment an Indigenous leader engages in anything other than peace, love, and harmony rhetoric they are treated as an ‘angry black’ and taken less seriously. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t type situation.
Yeah, you’re right. It’s easy for me to type it on a keyboard, and totally different living it.
I’m half frustrated and half in despair that I just can’t see a way forward. With the way the Voice campaign went, my god, just imagining the level of FUD around a treaty hurts.
Honestly I’m a pretty cynical person but even I overestimated how ready Australia was to discuss these issues. Misinformation certainly played a role in how things played out but I can’t help but think there wasn’t already quite fertile ground within our culture for it to grow. I personally think if people couldn’t really get behind the voice then treaty is going to be very tough.
Yeah - they’re all calling out the coalition now, but they should’ve done that before. Maybe they hoped that the coalition might change their minds
considering the death threats they and their families faced from Australians, I don’t blame them for keeping a low profile.
What was this vote even about? Weren’t people of aboriginal descent already able to be MPs and influence the country? If they want some sort of quota where there must be aboriginals in parliament that sounds like ‘positive’ discrimination, and it’s good it didn’t get passed.
Edit: I am a non Australian interested in this from an outside perspective. I have since been corrected on what the vote was actually about.
I think your comment sums up what a large portion, more than 60% of the country, felt about that referendum.
And thats the unfortunate thing because the Voice was none of what you’ve suggested.
At its simplest it was, ‘hey politicians! You can’t get rid of this government department because things are awkward for you on the news.’ It was a more complicated, and interesting proposal than this, but that part drove necessary constitutional change and thus required a referendum.
But the change was declined. Most reasons i suspect have their root at: Lack of engagement with the subject matter due to unclear/tenuous benefits to their own lives. Not to mention a fair amount of ambivalence rising to dislike of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia in the broader community.
Noel Pearson’s statement, “we are a much-unloved people.” was and is very poignant.
This atmosphere meant anything, and i mean anything, (even contradictory statements from the same person days apart), could be thrown around as possible effects of the referendum and people would latch onto those reasons as an answer then carry on with their lives.
Sorry, i’ve rambled a bit. There was a lot to it.
So you obviously know nothing about what was proposed if you’re spouting nonsense about MPs and Aboriginals in parliament.
It was an advisory board to give some representative to the people who’s entire country we stole and people we genocided.
There was no discrimination, except from the No voters.
I’m Australian citizen and did not stole and did not kill anyone. If you did than it is your crime not mine.
Neither yourself or I did.
Australia did.
Hence why the government was not asking for Aboriginal people to have a voice in my household and instead in Australia.
Your personal issues are irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
You have a point but what are you saying looks to me as same old “white man” chauvinism. “We will desire for you what you are own to others”. Sorry, I treat all people equally, regardless of their race,culture or believes. Please do not force apartheid on me or now mine country.
Yawn.
Good thing literally no one was forcing apartheid on you. Go make up something else to feel like a victim.
I have no reason to feel a victim. I just do not want make aboriginals a victims again, many of them are in deep shit already.
Many of the reasons they’re “in deep shit already” come back to governments making unilateral decisions for easy media and corporate donor ‘reasons’ - specifically targeting Aboriginal people (as allowed under the constitution) rather than listening to what the communities actually need or want.
Hence the Voice. But now we can keep doing the same old shit, targeting the same old Aboriginal communities, but 60% of the population can keep kidding themselves there’s no victims and they’re absolutely not racists at all, oh no no.
I did start my first sentence asking what the vote was about. And then the rest of my comment was just my opinion if it meant a certain thing. If it didn’t mean that thing, all I need it a clear explanation of what it did mean.
Giving your opinion on something before you’ve even thought about doing some research is part of the problem here
You were awfully opinionated on the topic for an ignorant fuck.
It’s honestly a little sad that you didn’t find out the answer before the vote…
Indigenous leaders have been asking for “proper” representation in the Australian parliament since 1933 and there have been multiple failed attempts to grant them that. Some have tried to do too much and outright failed like this one did, others took a softer approach and essentially were a waste of time - the chances didn’t actually achieve the intended goal of providing better representation.
The voice would have made sure there is a body of people dedicated to advising parliament on matters that are important to indigenous Australians. It was only an advisory body, they wouldn’t have had any votes or anything, but whatever they said in parliament would have been an official government record and the response by politicians would also be officially recorded (even no response, would still be recorded).
The problem, right now, is indigenous people are 3% of the population and therefore they are routinely ignored. Politicians wouldn’t have been able to ignore them anymore… the could still have chosen to do nothing at all, but if a sensible proposal was presented in parliament (such as a solution to the alarming fact that indigenous Australians have in the highest incarceration rate of any people in the entire world) and the government chose not to implement those changes they’d be raked over the coals.
Solving those problems is good for everyone, it’s not free to put people in prison for example. It costs tax payers tens of billions of dollars… assuming you’re an Australian who pays tax, thousnads of dollars of the tax you pay each year goes towards imprisoning indigenous Australians and far too often for ridiculous charges like “failing to appear” in court for a court case they either couldn’t physically get to (e.g. you live on Mornington Island and were given a court date in Cairns) or sometimes might not have even known they were summoned to court in the first place.
I’m not Australian, just interested in this from an outside perspective. You make good points, and, to be fair, as a non Australian I hadn’t heard much about this vote at all. I may have been a bit hasty to form opinions based on what I thought the vote was about.
Ah I see. A little more background then…
The indigenous people of Australia have never formally accepted the rule of the current government — legally, the Australian government was founded on a bullshit declaration that there was no human life living on the continent - only animals lived here according to the documents and formal letters and statements made when white people settled on this land. The continent is massive and had thousands of tribes who spoke 250 individual languages. It’s estimated humans have been living here for somewhere between 60,000 and 120,000 years (there’s strong archeological evidence for “at least 60k”, and work is ongoing to verify evidence that suggests 120k years).
The current government was forced on those people, and there horrific crimes committed (mass murder, arbitrary killings, children were systematically stolen from parents and raised by the church, in some regions the local government paid a cash bounty for anyone who brought an indigenous head to them, etc. It was bad). Things are not that bad now, but they are still far from perfect, and they need to be solved. There also needs to be some form of treaty between Australia and the indigenous nations who’s land was blatantly and obviously stolen (some of the land that white people aren’t using has been given back, but that’s not a treaty).
Our constitution does not acknowledge the existence of indigenous people. Our national anthem claims this is a “young” country when, at 60,000+ years the indigenous people of this country are in fact the oldest still living civilisation in the world. It’s very very clear that the founders of this country did not consider indigenous people to be part of the country, and the constitution needs to be updated to reflect the modern legal state where they are an integral part of Australia.
Just a quick response about the National Anthem. The official words were changed to “for we are one and free” to remove the reference to the age of the country.
… that’s nice, although I’m struggling to understand how we changed that line but kept the “free” bit.
And are we “one”? Seems pretty clear we are a nation divided especially when athletes representing our country refuse to even sing the national anthem.
Your ideas about what quotas and positive discrimination are almost certainly wrong and the work of people who either heard the words ans assumed they knew everything there was to know or who are seething that they can no longer discriminate.
The reality is that for any given position, there is a range of applicants of different races and genders, any of whom is qualified for the role.
The belief that organisations are forced to say “Well this person has every degree offered by Harvard and is a leader in our field. Unfortunately the quota says we need a black person so let’s hire this high school drop out who turned up to the interview drunk” is pure bullshit.
Also, the absense of these systems doesn’t create a meritocracy, it creates discrimination. We know this from seeing it over and over again before these systems were implemented. Straight white men of a social class hire other straight white men from the same social class and then claim that they just always seem to be the most qualified candidate.
If they genuinely are, it shouldn’t be difficult to prove it should it?
It is unclear who signed the letter but the ABC understands some Aboriginal leaders had distanced themselves from an earlier draft of the statement, and did not want their names associated with it.
Seems like a lot of anger in the community that they are no longer waiting for leadership and there true feelings are being posted.
Here’s a link to the actual letter: https://ugc.production.linktr.ee/2e09849a-25e6-4743-8317-e33dfb437728_Statement-for-our-People-and-Country.pdf
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Indigenous leaders who supported the Yes case at last week’s Voice referendum have written to the prime minister saying the No vote was a “shameful victory”.
A week ago, more than 60 per cent of Australians rejected reforming the constitution to create a new Indigenous Voice, which would have advised the parliament on First Nations affairs.
The statement says it is made up of “collective insights and views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, community members and organisations who supported the Yes campaign.”
The Indigenous leaders who endorsed the letter attributed the historic referendum loss to a lack of bipartisanship, as well as “lies in political advertisement and communication” and racism.
The Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, told NITV this week that she would conduct further consultations with First Nations people “about next steps”.
The letter sent to the prime minister said some leaders now want an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice established without constitutional change or legislation.
The original article contains 497 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
some leaders now want an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice established without constitutional change or legislation
What does this mean? I thought one of the campaign points was that due to being included in the constitution it couldn’t be dismantled like it has time and time again previously. Wouldn’t this just be more of the same?
As disappointing as it is I really don’t see a way forward after losing a popular vote.
For the pollies, i reckon you’re right, there is no clear way forward. I think it’ll be on the States to take a leading role.
I heard during the week, the problem with a referendum is its a blunt yes/no answer. So we’ll never really know what people were actually saying no to. Focus groups and surveys will only get us so far. Makes it hard to know where to go next.
Exactly, and when the question posed was open to so much interpretation everyone has their own idea of what they voted yes/no for. It wasn’t like the “gay marriage yes or no” referendum that was clearly understood by most people. Such a mistake to call it “the voice”. Isn’t that a TV show?
the “gay marriage yes or no” referendum
Small nitpick: it was a plebiscite - not a referendum. Our marriage laws aren’t contained in the Constitution, so a referendum wasn’t required.
Didn’t even realise that, thank you.
With the sheer volume of political nonsense surrounding the question at the time, it sure felt like a referendum!
Haha, it was a mistake to call it the Voice. I’m waiting for the Got Talent commission to get going.
Unfortunately the nature of the constitution meaned that it needed to be a bit vague. But that was always one of its strengths. Over time, as life changes, the nation isn’t codified into too strict a system. The Voice reflected that essence very well.
They could create an organisation which represents all First Nations Peoples through a series of treaties and just make loud public statements. By being a representation of all First Nations Peoples their opinions would carry some weight.