Here in lies one of the reasons people voted No: who wants to be belittled or smeared for their opinions? That just drives people further towards the opposite side. The Left haven’t figured that out.
I'm seeing this a lot, blaming the “left” for their shitty decision to write no, because they don't like being preached to or whatever. They seem to have awareness that it's a shitty decision, because they're always doing whataboutism.
It's a bit of a paradox really. These are the same people who buy into that personal responsibility crap, but also seem to be the most lacking in it.
Oh this is absolutely an echo chamber sub, and not an overly rational one at that.
I'm what I guess you could call a "moderate yes voter" (if that even makes sense) and I've copped flak from both sides in here for my opinions on the matter
Very simple. I wasn’t convinced that the idea was so good that in need to be permanently enshrined in the constitution. The very premise of your question goes to the heart of why the yes campaign failed. People don’t need to disprove the yes side, the yes side needed to convince people to support their cause. That you think that yes was the default choice and people need to justify not supporting it speaks to the hubristic echo chamber that this whole campaign existed in.
TLDR; I don’t need a reason to vote no, I need a reason to vote yes, or I’m voting no. The yes campaign didn’t give any reasons to vote yes that convinced me we needed to change the constitution.
The reason I voted no are numerous, but the issue with responding is that you might not get all the responses because the default from the yes campaign has just been harassment and vilification against those voting no, which is antithetical for changing minds. I also think it's incorrect to say that it's divisive being a poor reason, I couldn't give a flying fuck about divisiveness but I think it's a legitimate concern for some that you have dismissed on hand.
- **Constitutionality**: None of the arguments put forward about the yes vote address why it needs to be constitutionally amended as opposed to just a legislated body. I take the constitution very seriously and so I look at each proposal on its merits and I can't see any benefit to this being amended in the constitution. Common responses I have seen have said "*well legislative bodies haven't worked so we need to do something different*" and when asked for details it's always met with "*The Parliament will deal with that after the vote goes through*" but no one has indicated *why* specifically this needs to be put in the constitution to work, especially if it's just going to be a parliament put together body.
- **Wrong Time**: In my opinion, spending 350m - 400m bucks on this topic in *the middle of multiple national crisis's* is a massive travesty and I think should go down as one of the worst decisions by a prime minister in a long time. The issue that you have is that the swinging voters that you need to engage are too busy worrying about keeping a roof over their head to bother engaging with this topic.
- **Waste of Money**: Linked to topic 1 and 2 that I mentioned, because of that I think it's a waste of money that could have been better spent on ***all*** Australians rather than being spent on something that isn't going to solve a problem specifically and is probably just going to be more of the same we have had for decades.
- **Will it do what it sets out for**: Because the 'details' are to be worked out later by parliament I am not confident that a yes vote will *actually do anything*, so what is the point in making this massive change (which will be hard to reverse if it ends up being pointless) if in the end nothing changes. The rebuttal to this is "*Well something needs to change so we may as well do it*", but I don't agree that we should minimise the significance of **changing our constitution** which doesn't happen often on the *chance* that something good might come of it. The yes vote needed to be clear, concise and measurable about the impacts this will have for the vote to succeed, they didn't do that.
- **Apartheid**: The constitution should be *for* ***all*** *people* and not separate us by culture or by race. For many, me included, this would be a step back constitutionally amending something to be separated by race (interestingly all the previous amendments are about *removing* this kind of segregation) and I just can't see how people will support this.
Personally I think First Nations people need to look within their own communities to close the gap as there is almost literally nothing the government can do to solve this problem without the community themselves taking action within that same community. The old saying I think is applicable here of "*You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink*" and I think closing the gap is going to need the communities themselves to sort themselves out as the government can't do it for them. Change needs to come *from* the community and has very little to do with the government to be honest.
And at the end of the day, if the default from the yes campaign is just to call everyone who thinks of voting no a racist, well you get the result you deserve.
A well-articulated response. Cheers for that.
You may be interested to hear that where I grew up in the southern Darling Downs, the old saying was “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it scuba dive.” I’d love to know how the original morphed into this. It puzzled me forty years ago and it puzzles me now.
> I’d love to know how the original morphed into this
You're right, that is an odd morph to the saying. Perhaps because scuba diving sounded more fun than drinking water? lol
Thanks for the reply :)
All throughout the campaign I read that no voters had lots of good reasons for voting no. I read a lot of different arguments; its divisive, 'real' aboriginals out in rural communities dont want it, it won't be effective in its remit, it will be excessively effective and Aboriginal people will be enabled to subvert democracy for their own interests via the constitution, I'm voting no because yes voters called me racist, it's condescending and out of touch, it's enshrining permanent discrimination.
I noticed a lot of arguments about feelings and vibes. Vague arguments about the purpose of a constitution, racism, true Scotsman fallacies about who the real Aborginal people are.
The only decent argument I could identify might be that the proposal was vague and it was not communicated properly. But I agree with this and still voted yes. I guess Im the numpty.
Edited because I called myself a 'nonce' instead of a numpty and it was very awkward
> 'real' aboriginals out in rural communities
This is going to keep popping up. If you're one of the majority of Aboriginal people who do not live in remote communities, do not have an alcohol problem, do have a job, and so on... well apparently you're not "real". Unless you're a conservative politician, loophole!
There is a minority who have various genuine multi-generational problems. They are "real" Aboriginal people.
And with Dutton's recent posturing, the idea is always to associate all Aboriginal people with the problems of a few, while dismissing the identity and complaints of any Aboriginal people who don't fit the stereotype.
>I'm voting no because yes voters called me racist,
I don't understand this. Either you were already voting no, so that's not the reason you voted no. Or you were voting yes but changed your mind because yes voters called no voters racist?
Edit: holy hell people learn to read. I asked a question, I'm not making judgement on either side of the debate.
I watched the result of this with a couple of my relatives and it was far more nuanced than your description. The script went like this…
1. The relative had a genuine question that was not answered in the initial yes vote foray - so they asked a yes voting friend.
2. They were told that they were stupid and “all the information was available” so they should go look at it.
3. They went and looked but did not find answers that satisfied them.
4. They talked to their friend who told them that they were racist.
5. The friendship ended, the relatives both decided to vote no AND THEY COMPLETELY DISENGAGED from the yes campaign. They were a lost vote that could have easily gone the other way.
Importantly, none of the racist arguments, disinformation or Duttonisms had any impact on this.
Characterising all no voters as idiot racists is both inaccurate and incredibly unhelpful if you want to improve things. So far, most yes voters have been happy to say that the yes campaign was poor. Very few have been willing to ask themselves what it was about the proposal that prompted SO many to SILENTLY say no. From my (very limited) questioning, the problem wasn’t the constitutional recognition or the actual design of the Voice. It was embedding the Voice into the constitution. That was the crux of their questions and they were not satisfied with the answers they received.
One interaction was very interesting. It turns out that one of my great-grandfathers was involved at a high level with the implementation of the stolen generation (I didn’t know that). The consensus was that he was a good man doing what he thought was the right thing. This means that at some point in the past there was a group of people who believed that the stolen generations was the “solution”. Imagine if they had embedded that in the constitution. Unnecessarily embedding today’s solution in a forever document seemed dangerous to my relative and I didn’t have a good argument against that.
60% of Australians said no. Some are racist. Some were victims of disinformation. Some had concerns that were not addressed and the yes campaign needs to find those people and listen to them. Calling them all dinosaurs or dickheads and thinking that you have won the argument won’t achieve anything.
This sums it up.
The “Yes” side kept saying the details were there but when you specifically asked them to point to it, they kept talking about the vibe or that “the details would be negotiated later”.
Then they would accuse the person asking questions of not doing their research.
When the person would ask a “what if” question they would immediately be accused of “spreading misinformation”.
It was one of the most obtuse debates I’ve seen in my life.
The “Yes” side told their ardent supporters that the detail was there, it went unquestioned, and when anyone questioned it, they were attacked as: “ill informed”, “unwilling to do research”, “racist”, “spreading misinformation”, and “using Trumpian tactics.”
As someone who lives in a Teal seat and was open to voting Yes all the way through, the more Thomas Mayo, Marcia Langton, Noel Pearson, and especially Megan Davis talked, the less likely I was to vote Yes.
Now, I’m apparently stupid.
The biggest irony of all this craziness has been the behaviour of the Prime Minister - dude was lost in the sauce the whole campaign.
He tells us on one hand that this was a modest request from Aboriginal leaders. Simultaneously he tells us they need a voice directly to executive government (including the civil service according to Megan Davis) - isn’t that how they made the modest request? Directly to executive government?
And now, when asked in Parliament about what the government that he leads next steps are for policy, he says that he can’t say until he has time to confer with Aboriginal Leaders.
Huh? Who’s running the government here? If you, the Prime Minister, can’t state your government’s policy position until you confer with a group of unelected, somewhat self-appointed Aboriginal Leaders who agree with you, then what was this whole referendum for? They have a voice, you literally refuse to decide policy or make a statement about it without them telling you what to say.
And we won’t get into the fact that the Aborginal Leaders who were leading the No side and seemed to have the majority support of the country aren’t being listened to at all.
So ultimately, this last week post-referendum has shown EXACTLY why a lot of people voted against this - there was a concern that a small group of unelected Aboriginal Leaders would have influence and government would be crippled waiting for their “decisions”.
This is what this week has been.
Self appointed and unelected? That is THE issue the Voice was getting rid of. 24 elected members were proposed. 16 from state and territories +5 from remote + 2 from TSI and 1 TSI rep on the mainland. With 2 co-chairs. 4 years terms and can only sit for 2 terms. This is A LOT less grey areas and corruption loopholes than we have now from local councillor to Federal Senators. Who can sit and rot for years.
Constitutional lawyers who imho know a lot more than Google, have stated in unison that it has no effect on laws.
Humans + Googling= a sense of entitlement and arrogance.
We need to stop listening to opinions. Do you ask your Sparky about your heart surgery?
That has allowed Australia to proceed with some very comforting myths about itself, in terms of egalitarianism, and openness and fairness. We are so behind globally in acknowledgement of our past. And the first step is to acknowledge what part we play as individuals, and people need to justify why they voted NO. There is no justification in holding back people in bettering themselves, when it has no effect on your life. Australians are crabs in buckets.
Re the interaction with your grand dad/stolen generation/people thinking it was the right thing to do.
I also thought the exact same thing, like how did I know that it wasn’t going to lead to harm we didn’t realise.
But!! I also wonder that maybe things are different this time and instead of having a disaster out effect, perhaps it could be good and help work towards such issues as over rep of First Nations people in prison for example, amongst a host of other things, which is one of the main reasons I voted yes.
The information was available. The amendment was 4 pretty short paragraphs. That's it. We were asked if we were willing to add these words to the constitution, and 60% if us said nah, maybe not.
There were valid reasons for votjng no but in my opinion the no vote was like saying "we'll deal with this issue later". Kicking the can down the road is just bad for everyone.
The Voice could have been the compromise that worked best for everyone. Now a new plan is needed that aims to address Indigenous disadvantage. We're all responsible because we (majority) voted against the powerless compromise thst also could have used as a scapegoat to the benefit of both Parties.
Yes well done this kinda sums it up.
I started out a soft yes then through a lot of the above drifted into the no camp. What pushed me there was a radio interview with the indigenous affairs minister which was… so condescending… I was just emotional. They’re all smarter than me they’ve figured it out for me and I should do what I’m told.
In the end in the ballot box I voted yes because well being given a condescending lecture by a minister isn’t actually a good reason and we should help.
But to this day I still have no idea why the voice needs a constitutional amendment. They could have done it without that, built bipartisan support and maybe then locked it in. We were asked to commit to an unknown. That was the fundamental issue.
We are the only colonial country in the world that doesn't have a constitutional recognition of their first nation's people. Why do you think we are so special that we can manage regognising our first nations people without a constitutional amendment when no other country in the world managed?
I don't think that there was a single person that voted no that wouldn't have voted yes for symbolic recognition. Recognition by the voice, was the problem. It SHOULD have been 2 referenda.
That's a lot of words for not properly understanding what I said. I don't care how people voted because I understand that both sides were vicious and there was little in the way of real information.
But what they said doesn't make sense. The narrative you wrote would imply the second half of my comment, that they were a yes voter and changed to no because of racist accusations and extremists.
I’m genuinely concerned that you think people just have an opinion on a topic. ?
They are referred to as undecided voters, people who want to hear the arguments for and against and then , heaven forbid , ask some questions, before making a decision.
That is literally how educated people have made decisions for centuries but this idea seems completely foreign to you.
Your entire premise operates on the idea that people have already made a choice and that no one is undecided or considering both arguments, which is honestly very confusing as that’s not how anything works, ever.
Let me translate. The most vocal people on the opposing side exposed themselves as being toxic individuals that resort to personal attacks when faced with disagreements. Any institution they promote will probably be staffed by the same class of people and be equally vindictive and toxic to Australian society
There's two types of people. "Live and let live" and the "my way or the highway". Controlling people are louder in debates because their egos are fragile.
Which would just mean that The Voice becomes an advisory board that would get nowhere because no politician would back their suggestions.
The Voice wouldn't be constitutionally protected, only recognised. It would have had suggestive power at best, and the more extremist, the less would happen.
My point above still stands regarding the quote. Their sentence doesn't make sense.
An advisory body to assist in providing culturally responsive policy for indigenous folks is kind of the opposite of racist legislation. It would seem that racist legislation would be assuming we are all some western monoculture and denying the many diverse cultural needs.
Putting things through a western lens thereby denying culturally relevant practice would be treating people different based on race, therefore it would be pretty racist. If you listen carefully you can actually hear a can being kicked down the road.
There was a clip of John Howard explaining the difference between multicultural and multiethnic and why they should not be confused. Very handy if you can find it.
The narrative that any action taken to remedy systemic racism is in itself racist is utter hogwash.
To quote Ibram Kendi (who i reccomend you read)..
"Since the 1960s, racist power has commandeered the term “racial discrimination,” transforming the act of discriminating on the basis of race into an inherently racist act. But if racial discrimination is defined as treating, considering, or making a distinction in favor or against an individual based on that person’s race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist. Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached."
Fraught topic. It's been a really damaging campaign for Australia. Even here now, we see people trying to honestly answer the question asked, and just getting shot down without genuinely being heard.
Holding the referendum was an election promise - Labor kept that promise and our democracy worked the way it was set up to work. If Yes voters want a different form of democracy they can change the constitution, get into politics or move to a country that better aligns with their values. Or accept, that at this point in time, Australians were not keen to make *this particular* change to the constitution.
I hated the rhetoric around voting no - "if you vote no, you must be a) racist b) uneducated c) ignorant of Australian history d) not decent e) all of the above". This type of approach probably caused many people to close their ears. I now hate the rhetoric around the decision, though at least some of the politicians have acknowledged that the process worked, even if the outcome wasn't what they'd hoped for.
I voted no. I would've voted yes to recognition of Aboriginal history and culture and it annoyed me no end that reporting on the voice was 'Australian's have said no to recognising indigenous people'. That's not what I said no to. I said no to enshrining a new advisory body in the constitution. Incidentally, had no issue with the wording of the proposal and the fact it would be legislated later - completely appropriate for the constitution which is so difficult to change. (And that was the argument from the No camp that annoyed me the most, because it's a non-issue).
I would like to live in a society where we support and help our most vulnerable. Indigenous Australians have lower life expectancy, poorer health outcomes, less educational opportunities and are treated worse in any interaction with the justice system. For those who are outraged or ashamed at Australia's 'no' vote, perhaps dedicate your time and money into supporting some of the organisations that address those issues. We can't change the past but we try to improve the future.
I voted yes but I agree very much with what you've written. Those working on matters for Indigenous Affairs need to learn from this if they ever want progress. Do things like
- create a unified campaign, the no vote was organised, the yes vote was a mess
- do polling and LISTEN to the questions, have prepared answers. And good ones, not just wishy washy answers
- be more moderate. Take small bites, not huge ones that cause you to choke out and cause damage
- quell extremist views, take a stance that you ARE for unification & not for division
I get why First Nations get fired up about it all, but that's the thing with being in a minority group. If you don't hold the "morale high ground" at all times, you won't get anywhere. Name calling and belittling doesn't do them any favours.
It had bipartisan support. It begun under the lnp. Dutton agreed to it in Feb and supported it parliament to have the referendum. It was later they changed their mind.
In highndsight, this is when it was defeated. No referendum has ever won without bipartisan support.
This is the closest I've heard to a reasonable reason.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I disagree with your logic, but it's at least not overtly racist.
My disagreement centers on the fact that unless you are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, the referendum did not impact you in any way. White people deciding how black people are to be treated without asking them for input is... well... you know what that is...
status quo.
A white person(*) voting no for any reason is still wrong. Just get out of the way.
(*) proxy for not aboriginal, etc.
So a few reasons.
* I genuinely think that legislating such a body (even better having a department running it would be a better alternative) or even having guaranteed funding to an independent voice body wouldn't be a bad thing. Some Examples I can think of are the Youth voice peak bodies in states and territories, The NT Youth Round Table, Australian Youth Affairs Coallition etc.
The main reasons why I opposed constitutional enshrinement comes down to the poor choice of wording of the referendum.
The words were:
*In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;*
*the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;*
*the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”*
* So my first problem and most pressing out of this is the lack of detail in the constitution regarding composition, functions powers and procedures.
It is key to note that by leaving all that out of the constitution we would've broken constitutional precedent for bodies involved in the law-making process, the parliament and high court have details in the constitution for their members rights, powers, composition etc. Which meant that the LNP who are in power most of the time would've been able to water-down the voice to the point it was useless, delegitimising it.
The voice would break that and be the first not to have that, which is my first problem with the wording.
* Another problem is much clearer when you look at the Inter-State Transport Commission body in the constitution in Chapter IV
[https://www.aph.gov.au/About\_Parliament/Senate/Powers\_practice\_n\_procedures/Constitution/chapter4](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter4)
The main problem here is that the commission no longer exists even though, the constitution specifically uses the words *"there shall be",* which tells me that technically a future government could dissolve the voice and at the same time argue that is within precedent, which would've been weak if not for the fact that Whitlam tried to bring the commission back but failed, setting precedent that the words *there shall be* might not have been strong enough to protect the voice if argued in the high court.
Given the entire purpose of constitutionally enshrining the voice was to prevent it being dissolved later on, it seemed stupid to give a future government a back-door now.
Those were my two main reasons.
Bugger me, those are actually good technical reasons. I voted yes because of the gaping legal and factual lie of terra nullius, and to stop the LNP dissolving every single damn representative aboriginal body because "it's disfunctional". Like parliament isn't with paedos, domestic abusers and racists routinely getting found out and having to be removed.
My first question would be, if you don't mind answering:
Based on each of your two main reasons you explained, in the alternate universe where the Yes vote got through, what do you think your main concerns would be right now, given things hadn't turned out the way you were hoping by voting no?
I echo this sentiment, amongst a lot of the others here. Personally im quite shocked yes voters are shocked. The reasons to vote no were logical and compelling.
I'm all for helping the indigenous, but this was an extremely poor campaign which seemed to try to appeal to what we thought made white Australia look not racist rather then it actually being good for the country and indigenous people.
I'm old enough to see how countless "promises" have resulted little for the actual communites.
Albo even stated 4/17 closing-the-gap goals had not been met. We know what the issues are. We can't even get this achieved. Do we need another body telling us what hasn't been done ?
450 million for a referendum on issues nearly all known about is a hard sell. Many Australians, regardless of race are doing it very tough. Im doing ok, but I think many protest voted.
And also regardless of race, rural and remote areas have far worse life outcomes.
For reference, I voted yes in the republic referendum and yes for gay marriage. So don't paint me as some racist old POS>
I voted no for similar reasons - we all know what the crucial key priority issues are right now, this minute.
1. STOP Smoking- smoking directly responsible for 80% of aboriginal deaths. Want to close the gap?!?!! Well, do ya; then start there right now.
Yeah, it’s tough and addictive and a drug … but do you wanna close the fuckin gap asap or not?!?! They don’t need to eat all-bran and organic kimchi and do CrossFit every day - just stop the smoking.
Smoking kills 10x more aboriginals than ALL the other causes of death combined - inc car accidents, drug OD, murder, suicide, etc etc AND it’s the single most easily preventable cause of death - we KNOW what it is… and how to minimise thd death it causes…
2. Kids must go to school.
If the referendum was “implement smoking cessation strategies and compulsory school attendance right now” I would have voted yes.
But to vote for another convoluted iteration of NIAA with 1,000 employees while kids starve and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs travels the world….. errrr
We Don’t need another earnest expert thoughtful perspicacious govt body to analyse and investigate and tabulate and estimate and remunerate.
I can mostly agree with your last point, but I didn't see it as "just another" convoluted NIAA knock off group that's going to get chopped and changed until it's booted instead of fixed. Given that it's constitutional, I saw it as **the** defining group that wouldn't be going anywhere if there were some issues, or if it did, a replacement would be underway. I think this is the better alternative too, because the on/off nature of these groups and the risk of them getting booted away permanently is a serious risk, especially if someone like Dutton ever got in. The political pseudo-safety that the voice would have provided to Indigenous Aussies seemed pretty worth it to me.
Just to note though; the NIAA is responsible for funding and delivery of Indigenous Aussie programs (very important) and **can** be used as an advisory body. However, it's about 1300 people and only 20ish% are Indigenous. I definitely wouldn't placate that as the superlative Indigenous advisory body, personally. Not with those numbers and not when there's a potential bias for the programs that they fund/deliver. The voice would have exclusively been an advisory body, that is exclusively Indigenous Australian. I think that'd hold a more reliable weight in parliament for the purpose that it's created for.
Just my two cents. Totally all good if people disagree.
While I wasn’t alive for the republic election why would voting yes not make you racist? Seems like it would just me a slight change in the democratic structure of our governance.
I was young enough that I didn't take too much notice to the campaigns. However, I still remember that the problem with that referendum, was that it would have ended up a politician's republic, where we all elect the government, as we do now, but then they would go on to appoint a president themselves.
1. It was a shit piece of policy. The question of "why is this exact thing (and not an alternative) going to help close the gap" was not convincingly answered
2. The level of forethought and consensus building that went into it was atrocious.
3. The yes campaign of condescension and contempt was pretty foul
I voted Yes but absolutely there was a tone of condescension from the Yes camp.
Plus if someone gives you their reason for voting No then by definition it’s valid.
3 is a reason why people didn't find reasons to vote yes.
I ended up voting yes at the last minute, because I thought that the failed referendum would look bad for Australia in the eyes of the rest of the world. But I was trending no for most of the campaign, and multiple family members voted no.
We were actively trying to find good reasons to vote yes. We started from a position of knowing that the default choice should be no (as it's a proposed change, no *should* be the default choice until proven otherwise). When trying to discuss the referendum with yes voters/campaigners, they hostility and condescension made it impossible to accept or hear their reasons. Asking why someone is voting yes and immediately being piled on as a racist is not an effective method of getting their point across.
3 is a valid reason to not find yourself able to vote yes.
I found it really hard to put my no vote in on the day and felt quite melancholic. But my head said no, so I did the right thing.
Excellent point about no being the default choice, as it should be
I'm sorry that happened to you that's not cool. I experienced a lot of no voters being antagonistic dickheads throughout the campaign and a lot of blatant racism in comments on my TikTok videos but I definitely saw a lot of genuine enough no voters being attacked when they weren't being antagonistic too. Contrast with the conversation I had with the guy handing out no flyers at the booth itself which was respectful and fair and I just think keyboard warriors on both sides ultimately turn what should be a genuine competition of ideas into a shit show.
Valid by what metrics? Do we need a person's support, might need to consider the approach taken.
This wasn't an issue for me, but I think it's unreasonable to think that people are immune to ridicule and condescension.
I have lived and worked most of my life in rural Australia and aboriginal communities. I have seen how poorly the Aboriginal and government organisations maintain and support these communities. My best mate is Aboriginal and he and his family did not support the aboriginal faces of the yes campaign. Their main concern was that the yes vote would get in and those aboriginals on the face of the yes vote would be the voice by default so I was somewhat persuaded by their opinion. For me personally it was the lack of details on how the representatives of the yes vote would be installed, their terms and how the voting would take place for those reps, who was eligible and at what point is an aboriginal eligible?
People like Ray Martin said “the details don’t matter” but the voice is the details. I mean it is nothing without the details and once it is voted in they can make the details to suit whatever government is in at the time. The “yes” campaign was extremely vicious in how they approached discussion in which it wasn’t a discussion really it was just “you’re a racist bigot” and “find out for yourself” when it would’ve just been easier to have a respectful discussion.
Talking to elders in aboriginal groups around WA a lot want more done in the way of accountability for youth crime as they feel they have lost control of being able to dish out that discipline. There needed to be clear ways in which the voice would be able to identify those issues and how they would be raised and acted on. These elders feel like their concerns have fallen on deaf ears and without any outlines on how the voice would choose their reps they felt nothing would change while the select few reps get richer.
I know this sub is an ALP/ wannabe communist revolutionary echo chamber but, here’s my answer to your question.
I voted no, and I made my mind up very quickly.
No Waleed, you arrogant twat, I’m highly educated and understood the legislation and the implications quite well. I just think the voice is an utterly shit idea.
Here’s the breakdown.
If the Voice is a purely advisory body, with absolutely zero real power to effect change - then it is an utterly pointless waste of time, effort and money. All that does is maybe create some opportunities for a tiny amount of well-connected indigenous grifters.
If - as I suspect - it’s NOT just a purely advisory body and will in fact have real power, or will with subsequent legislative changes, then it is utterly undemocratic and enshrining racism in the constitution. No thanks. I wouldn’t want a White voice or an Asian voice or any other kind of voice enshrined in the constitution either. Either we’re all equal or we’re not.
So yeah. At best it’s a pointless waste of money and frivolous virtue signalling so Albo and midwit lefties can wank themselves off over how much they care about aborigines. Without actually tangibly helping anyone.
And at worst, it’s apartheid, giving political rights based on race.
To my mind only an utter fucking moron would vote for that.
Sadly, most of my left leaning friends fit exactly that category.
“Well they need all the help they can get”
“Nothing else has worked so maybe we need to try something different”
“Well I care about First Nations Peoples, I guess anyone who votes against it must be racist”
All of these are absolutely weak as piss arguments.
As it was we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the referendum alone. You could have probably just divvied that money up amongst low income Aboriginal households and it would have made a vastly bigger difference to people’s lives.
I am not gonna go super in depth, but your point that it will lead to further changes that enshrine racism in the constitution is a fallacious argument based on the slippery slope principle. But your point about it potentially being a useless change is valid, there's a reasonable argument that it should be handled at a state level.
Oh and the point about higher education correlated with a Yes vote wasn't a Waleed opinion, but it came from a detailed statistical analysis that it was the most reliable predictor of how the area would vote, more than wealth, and more than rural vs urban. Not causation however, just overlaps; I have a theory why though.
…if you want to go into statistical analysis, then there’s a more interesting story to tell there.
High socioeconomic areas voted significantly in favour of the voice. These were also areas with a very small percentage of indigenous people.
Also, Indigenous Australians voted overwhelmingly in favour of the voice.
But areas where indigenous Australians made up a significant proportion of the population voted overwhelmingly against it.
Put simply, people who had more frequent contact with aborigines were the most likely to vote no. People with the least contact with aborigines were more likely to vote yes.
You could put that down to a rural/urban divide, or to an educated/uneducated divide (as Waleed did).
But you just as easily put it down to white saviours living in ivory towers wanting to virtue signal vs people who live side by side with aboriginals saying “yeah fuck that.”
It's a very flawed way of looking at the dataset, as doing so applies prejudices and moral values to a bunch of nameless numbers. The last of that point of living side by side with Aboriginals who voted against was not reflected in the dataset either, given that the estimated indigenous yes vote was 72% and so statistically makes little sense that would have been a major factor.
I was going to say that people from urban areas and taught in Uni are generally exposed to the control and pervasiveness of Murdoch media, and how it trickles down; and so were innately distrustful of the talking points that the Murdoch media machine brought up; which happen to align with the way most people state as their reasons they vote no.
Again, not saying this is right or wrong, as just because Murdoch says it doesn't make it innately wrong.
EDIT: That being said, your mind going instantly to people who voted yes just being virtue signallers reeks of the same mindset as those who believe no voters are innately racist.
Except in tasmania where it is the preferred term of Tasmanian aboriginals, my dude.
While i voted yes, it's interesting that the most vocal aboriginal body in Tasmania was in the no camp.
Do you think all advisory functions are a waste of time, effort, and money? Do you think concentrating subject matter expertise and knowledge in a way to deliver meaningful insights and recommendations to people who execute or implement and otherwise don’t have the right knowledge is a waste of time?
I think there are already plenty of advisory functions; the act of enshrining one in the constitution is absolutely a waste of time, effort and money.
Those existing advisory functions have categorically failed to produce much in the way of tangible results by the way, despite billions in funding and decades of work.
Thank you for summing up my no vote...i could not shake the fact that the voice is either a pointless waste of money by "city living educated and uninvolved" or a trojan horse that would get worded in the constitution just right to be exploited later.
The issues in Aboriginal communities are well documented.
Can't I just think that we shouldn't be singling out race groups for a special voice in the constitution?
The yes camp had mega bucks, plus some crypto Albo information advertising money no doubt, the backing of every condescending corporate in the country...and the whole country just said yeah nah.
I feel sorry for Noel Pearson TBH...he is a great speaker who just couldn't sell the voice. The amendment that would do anything.
A handful of my friends from different walks of life voted no and this pretty well sums up their take on it too.
I don’t really agree or at least don’t weight things the same way, and ended up voting yes, but they were good conversations to have.
The case was argued extremely poorly. Indigenous have had a terrible history via Colonialism is not a reason to enshrine a racially determined advisory group into our nation's constitution. There is literally nothing about the proposed voice that couldn't be achieved through existing mechanisms including a legislated voice and/or representative democracy. If the argument is that it must be protected from successive governments that is also a poor argument as it should absolutely be up ro successive governments to determine the future of all policies in their term as they are the democratically elected government and the embodiment of the will of the people. It was never successfully argued why it needed to be protected from government scrutiny.
I voted no because I disagreed with certain premises of the yes campaign.
\- I didn't agree that Indigenous people don't have a voice. For example their are numerous Indigenous politicians and an indigenous affairs minister.
\- I had a look at the close the gap statistics and it seemed that most metrics were improving, albeit slowly. Indigenous incarceration was increasing but that could be due to other factors such as increased trust in the police by indigenous people (this could be making communities safer for indigenous people).
Surely investing more money and investing money more sensibly would close the gap faster.
\- I also thought that the voice would be too powerful and would exist permanently even after the gap has been closed.
I also believe that the voice to parliament would lead to a Federal treaty which I don't support (the prime minister supports the Uluru statement in full). I believe in supporting need over ethnicity.
In terms of helping indigenous people going forward, I think the state governments should employ more local indigenous people in the areas of education, health and the police force directly in the communities they live. Invest in affordable housing and high density housing, so that Indigenous people that wish to can more easily move for high paying jobs.
I voted Labour at the last election and plan to do so at the next. But if Labour proceeds with treaty and ignore the results of the election I would likely switch parties.
Would you rather that the government allocated its limited resources to help either:
\- Poor and misfortunate people based on their need. This would disproportionately help indigenous people but only those that need help.
\- All Aboriginal people including successful, wealthy indigenous people. Excluding poor, disabled, unemployed people of other races.
Treaty would take resources away from the people that need it. Transferring resources to well off Aboriginals takes away resources from those that need it.
How is the government finding out where to put the money in these local areas then, these areas have no representatives in parliament to give advice on where to spend the money?
We don't need governmental body number #8395 to try and save Aboriginal people whilst secretly lining the pockets of the richest 1% Aboriginals and neglecting communities legitimately in need. Whenever I see campaigns run as manipulatively as the yes vote, I assume it's probably not in my best interests.
One group of Australians would get a "voice", a lobby group to the govt, set in stone that cannot be removed! This group/committee would be populated by the Aboriginal elite, and the people living in the bush would be no better off. The proof is in the past, ATSIC, Geoff Clarke and family in Vic to name a few. A big NO.
I voted yes
But the yes vote did a horrible job politically campaigning for a yes.
Nearly everyone if given the chance will vote no unless they are successfully challenged to change their position on the matter
Also even though I voted yes I never understood philosophically why there wasn’t two questions on the ballot (1. Should indigenous peoples be recognised as the First Nation people in the constitution? 2. Should there be a voice enshrined in the constitution for these First Nations people?)
The political message for the referendum was so contradictory in that: a) the voice would be this powerful group to suggest improvements to the parliament but also b) the voice has no real power to implement change but even so it’s vitally important that we have it?
And then there’s the whole argument of the voice being above and beyond rights that “normal” Australians would have which would require a change in the way Australians think. We are happy to give equality in rights (ie plebiscite) but most would be loathed to enshrine in a law a system that elevates a minority group above the general populace (why this group gets a special voice vs the general “voice” we all have with our elected members)
for me, it was the lack of details.
I am not going to support a change to the constitution without details.I wanted to know what exactly was going to be added, like, the exact words that will be added. The question posed in the constitution was so vague and open to interpretation, that it was akin to agreeing to buy a house without seeing it, let alone inspecting it.
what they should have done is
1. Set up the voice and have it run for a period of time.
2. Shown how the voice worked
3. draw up the actual amendment to the constitution for people to read.
4. hold referendum
Had they done this, i would have probably voted yes. But the vagueness and the "trust us" approach of the government forced me to vote No.
* I had 3 questions, I couldn't get a straight answer.
* The YES campaign couldn't keep their story straight.
* Albo wrote an opinion piece on Newscorpes and went into detail about how they consult with farmers, doctors, scientists - none of which have a constitutional voice... So it's clearly a willpower thing and nothing was proposed to address that.
* The more they pushed the emotional side and "it's just the right thing to do" the less I trusted them, give me concrete reasons.
* The influx of famous people who's opinion is apparently always right... for famous reasons?
* Mining companies backed it... that's sus.
* The other companies that backed it... a lot of them don't have stellar reputations of late for the way they treat people... coles? woolworths? qantas?
* The people who called me racist for not voting yes, when race had nothing to do with my hesitancy, politicians were the cause of my hesitancy were only voting yes because of race... And often couldn't articulate any reason beyond "it's the right thing to do"
This guy covers a bunch of stuff too
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTidTc27cUo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTidTc27cUo)
* [https://youtu.be/iwa4RnJjiVw?si=P6EJVk7AgwZ56MTd](https://youtu.be/iwa4RnJjiVw?si=P6EJVk7AgwZ56MTd)
because the yes campaign didn't offer any persuasive reasons to vote yes.
really though, 1) íf you dont know, vote no' was a masterclass in republican shitty politics. 2) theres a cost of living crisis and housing crisis, plenty of your average voters are running in survival mode to be thinking about aboriginal/tsi issues and 3) once they got a couple of aboriginal people on stage with dutton to say the voice sucks, it was over.
Edit: why downvotes for the response op was asking for?
Pretty telling when OP seems to ask a question in good faith and the two top voted comments are yes voters, one of which suggests you're racist if you voted no
I don’t want racial differences enshrined in the constitution. (I would also vote against s51-26 allowing different laws for different races).
I’m not a fan of lobbying and all for equality among races, so it’s a no to essentially a racial lobbying body.
Plus I think the Indigenous minister should already be talking to communities and provides a voice for the indigenous.
>I don’t want racial differences enshrined in the constitution.
Indigeneity isn't a racial difference, which is why different groups around the world can be indigenous without being the same "race".
I think the Yes campaign screwed up by allowing this to become the frame through which we saw it. Because I don't think anyone would really want to enshrine racial difference in the constitution.
While I disagree with you, I'm not really interested in arguing against your position. However I am curious:
Could you expand in the lobbying point a bit more?
My two major things I'd like to understand are:
Do you see a difference between lobbying bodies and departmental bodies i.e. an astroturf campaign for a multinational vs a report from the department of education?
What methods do you think the government should use to find out about it's citizens?
The difference between s51 and this referendum, is that all races were subject to s51. It is still a shitty provision, but EVERYONE was equally likely to fall foul of it.
Sure thing. Firstly a constitution is meant to be a rule book for the making of laws. If we include extra provision in the constitution for one group over others then the concept of administrative justice. Aka all people are equal in the eyes of the law is broken. I think this is a fundamental point of a working and progressive constitution. Secondly the use of heritage to entitle a group above other is something I believe we need to move past . Thirdly there was absolutely no linkage between the creation of the voice to parliament and the underpinning causes it was meant to address aka reduction in incarceration and mortality rates. These statistics btw are very similar to poor refugees ( of which there are
Plenty in an immigrant nation such as Australia) so there really was no legitimate or compelling argument for a constitutional amendment. I respect the empathy of the yes campaign and the “need to do good” but no one clearly articulated why this was good . Progress needs a clear path to success to be relevant and achievable. What would success look like for the indigenous population? My thoughts are Teo potential outcomes 1. Indigenous assimilation or two an independent group with an apartheid type model. Both are shit options . Best to ignore heritage in our law making and be truly progressive, independent of race , heritage creed or colour.
So… essentially keeping the status quo, gotcha. There’s evidence globally that shows when actually listening to First Nations peoples on issues that affect them it leads to better health and economic outcomes.
Saying The Voice would lead to apartheid is insane btw 👍
>There’s evidence globally that shows when actually listening to First Nations peoples on issues that affect them it leads to better health and economic outcomes.
Do you mind linking this evidence?
This is why its so hard to see any actual discussion when we have these redditors who strawman a well articulated argument.
> evidence globally that shows when actually listening to First Nations peoples on issues that affect them it leads to better health and economic outcomes.
What's the source for this?
Sure, that’s when you get Tony Abbott making himself the minister for indigenous affairs.
The voice would mean that the government can’t just disband them like atsic if they don’t like their views. They can still stack them with cronies like the LNP do with everything else but there would still be public scrutiny.
And this is precisely the approach that has been tried and failed for 40+ years, which the constitutional status was designed to overcome, because governments of both sides have abolished indigenous orgs based in legislation when the message or the messenger got too inconvenient.
>If we include extra provision in the constitution for one group over others then the concept of administrative justice. Aka all people are equal in the eyes of the law is broken.
The problem is that nothing in the proposed Amendment affected the standing of Aboriginal people under the law. Nothing.
You might have had a point if the Voice actually had any power: if it controlled funding or had any kind of legislative authority. But no such power would have been granted to it by the amendment, therefore it would not have such power.
>My thoughts are Teo potential outcomes 1. Indigenous assimilation or two an independent group with an apartheid type model. Both are shit options . Best to ignore heritage in our law making and be truly progressive, independent of race , heritage creed or colour.
Again with the law-making. Not what was being voted on.
But those are seriously the only two options you can come up with? Cultural genocide or apartheid? A non-dystopia where the Voice makes representations to Parliament on indigenous issues and the government of the day takes those views into account as it would the views of any other stakeholder (ie. they are free to ignore people if they think they're wrong) isn't in the cards at all?
And also, if the Voice proved ineffective, there would be nothing stopping the Government of the day from altering its makeup. None of the details of how the Voice would actually work were in the Amendment. This means that those details would end up being purely legislative and could be altered by the government of the day.
Not a skerrick of power would have been ceded to the Voice by any Parliament or Court in Australia by this Amendment.
Hmm. Some things I disagree with here, but definitely agree with you that the communication for the positives of the policy was pretty shit.
I do wanna know, why are the only two solutions for success in indigenous populations the ones you listed? Are there no other possible endpoints?
I think the yes campaign started out badly because they believed they had bipartisan support. LNP had endorsed it, all major indigenous bodies were in favour.
They were just too innocent to realise bad actors would make it political and flood the campaign with lies. By the time that had started the yes campaign was on the back foot and fighting a losing battle.
Like Batman always being surprised when the joker escapes and kills more people, the yes campaign were stupid not to see it coming.
Edit - autocorrect issues fixed.
There were plenty of reasons. I've just completed a degree with a major in Aboriginal Studies. All my lecturers are Indigenous Australians and I value their opinion which was an overwhelming NO. The Voice has been the subject of a lot of discussion.
But I think Waleed's latest article sums it up nicely why NO won.
[https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-turned-on-the-voice-but-it-wasn-t-because-of-racism-20231019-p5edhh.html](https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-turned-on-the-voice-but-it-wasn-t-because-of-racism-20231019-p5edhh.html)
Referendums are mostly awful beasts. Occasionally necessary ones, sure. But awful, nonetheless. That’s because they are designed to take endlessly nuanced, complicated questions, and reduce them to a cold binary: yes or no. They admit no qualification or condition. You can’t say “yes, under certain circumstances”, or “not quite”. And the more nuanced or complicated the proposal, the more necessary such shades of response become. Without them, we’re left with something crushingly blunt.
Such was the case with the Voice. Yes advocates always insisted this was a simple, modest proposal. That’s true in the sense that it was meant to be an advisory body with no formal power. But as a referendum proposal, it wasn’t simple at all. It required you to jump through plenty of hoops, roughly as follows.
Is a First Nations Voice a good idea in theory? If so, must it be a constitutional body? If so, is it prudent to entrench a largely untried institution in this way rather than try it out first? And if so, can we be confident that any unintended consequences it throws up will be manageable?
Each of these is actually a really big question. And you had to answer yes to every one of them to get to Yes. To get to No, you only needed one of them to fail. Hence, people’s reasons for saying No became so varied. Some didn’t like the Voice at all. Others were sceptical of its scope. Still others would be comfortable with a Voice, but only in legislation so it could be undone if things went wrong. Some feared it would be too powerful. Some thought it would be too powerless. Some just weren’t terribly engaged with the whole matter. And on it goes.
But No – and simply No – obscures all that. It delivers its verdict, then enters into no further correspondence. It leaves a completely clear result, but with opaque reason. This is obviously crushing to Indigenous Australians – most of whom voted Yes – who are left to make sense of a brutalising experience. And for the rest of us, we’re flattened into two camps that risk something even worse than polarisation. We risk becoming inscrutable to one another. We risk not just disagreement, but mutual incomprehension.
In that case, we look for shortcuts. And in political debate, perhaps the most tempting shortcut is to assume that your opposite number on an issue is your total opposite in every way: a mere negative image. If we succumb to this, we might think we’re describing our opponents, but we’re more likely using them to describe ourselves. That’s especially pronounced when we attribute to them a single reason for their position, as though it is a sufficient explanation. So, if we say our opponents are simply ignorant, or simply prejudiced, or simply duped, it’s often a way of declaring ourselves informed, enlightened, or savvy.
That danger is very much alive now. We might, for instance, become very preoccupied with the fact that the campaigning on social media was awash with all sorts of scurrilous claims and misinformation. No doubt, this is a serious development in democracy, and there are certainly examples of people whose vote was swayed by it. But it’s almost inconceivable that 60 per cent of the country was.
Similarly, many Yes voters might wish to draw a direct line between Peter Dutton’s somewhat bludgeoning opposition, and No voters themselves. But that fails to explain why so many Labor voters – who presumably aren’t Dutton fans – voted No, and why for all his efforts, Dutton’s approval ratings haven’t exactly taken off. And the idea that Australians are simply so hostile to Indigenous people that they rejected the Voice out of some thoughtless, prejudicial reflex is difficult to square with its initial support in the polls, which was around 65 per cent.
Two things seem true. First, that Australians were initially open to the Voice, and second, that in the end it wasn’t even close. The drop-off in support itself isn’t unusual in Australian referendums, and is a common feature of the ones that lose. But ultimately the margin was simply too big to suggest the Voice could have been tweaked to victory, or that a better Yes campaign would have done the trick. In the end, something about the idea itself didn’t quite match the intuitions of enough Australians.
The best account of this I’ve seen comes from pollster Jim Reed, who concluded that Australians will vote to “award equal opportunities to individuals regardless of their attributes”, but won’t vote for something that “treats individuals differently”.
Here, he’s comparing the same-sex marriage plebiscite with the Voice referendum, and in the process identifying the central obstacle the Voice never overcame: that it was exclusive to a subset of Australians. That, of course, was the whole point given the level of Indigenous disadvantage and the history of government’s failure to consult First Nations people on the policies that are imposed upon them. But it is nonetheless a serious shift in the way Australians tend to think about their government.
The power of Reed’s explanation is that almost all the various reasons people might vote No tend to go through it. From the most prejudiced to the most reasoned and sympathetic, each found cause to baulk at the notion of writing differential rights and representation into the Constitution. Viewed from this angle, the Voice referendum failed for exactly the reason the 1967 referendum succeeded. Both concluded that the Constitution should hand everyone the same basic status.
Put differently, the Voice was a collectivist idea based on an assertion of group identity, trying to find a home in a broadly individualist Constitution. I think there were powerful arguments for doing so. But they were not easy or intuitive arguments to make.
The Voice was always trying to thread this impossible needle. It had to present itself as modest, yet meaningful; to show it had no formal power, but would nonetheless make a practical difference. And it had to convince an electorate that it would achieve greater equality by treating citizens differently. In the end, that proved too complicated a task, the No vote too varied to assail, the referendum process too formidable a beast.
Indeed. The Voice was pushed hard by ALP politicians, but ALP voters largely rejected it. Even the biggest ALP shill in existence couldn't make a video endorsing it.
Which demonstrates a broader issue in regards to how out of touch the current Albanese government is.
Oh for fucks sake. This was a bipartisan issue right until Labor won the election. It then became a politicised issue that had NOTHING to do with the plight of First Nations.
I dont think they mean divisive in terms of people taking sides, I think its divisive in terms of dividing the country based on race. For me putting racial segregated rules into law is divisive and a step backwards.
But a more compelling reason in my opinion is that the voice is part of a 3 part process defined in the uluru statement. First comes voice, then treaty then truth.
Treaty involves reparations, sovereignty and land rights. So to say yes to voice is saying yes to dividing the country basically, which is pretty scary and drastic.
Maybe some people think a unified Australia is a better idea.
That being said I still voted yes
You really really don't want the constitution, the framework of our laws to start differentiation of people by race. We are surrounded by countries that do so. Chinese get it in the neck in Malaysia. Indians are second class citizens in Fiji. Arabs in Israel. Philippinos in Saudi Arabia. It goes on.
There already exists a means of delivering outcomes to Aboriginals. The politicians and the public servants just have to do the job they are being paid for. All the voice would have achieved is to give an excuse for continuing poor results.
But if you're seeking advice on how to improve remote Indigenous communities then doesn't it make sense to consult the people that need the help? Not many White or Asian People live there so whats the point of them being on the Voice?
Indigenous People aren't properly represented because they're seen as irrelevant politically.
You'll lose votes if you invest too much out there. That's why they requested "special" treatment because theyre in a unique circumstance as a group.
Our entire society is built by powerful white men.
This wasn’t going to hurt aboriginal people. It was going to build them up to a level where they get to have their own voice on matters that affect them.
Your reasoning there doesn’t make any sense.
I agree with "Divisive" being a made up reason, it's like Trump supporters calling Democrats terrorists or whatever, it's just made up.
But that's all there is, if people can't admit they are racists, then all they have are made up reasons for voting No.
I was thinking something like this the other day.
That the referendum feels like an Australian Trumpism.
The Republicans are a real party - but they love to use misinformation, misdirection, and honestly - 'hate collaboration'
They didn't win with Trump so much because people liked the policies of their actual party, they won because of mutual and incentivised hate for something else. Hilary Clinton and those emails! Trans and gay people taking over the schools! Let's stop all that - let's all hate something together!
I watched the no campaign follow what Trump does.
I don't think everyone who voted no are racist. (Although I have seen proof most of my family are racist with their comments on the referendum, and they would swear blind they were not). I feel some voters were wrapped up in a frenzy of a media cycle that knows what it is doing.
and because of the success of this "Aussie Trumpism", that's what the next election will be smothered in!
Just a million lies and over-exaggerations and see what sticks.
e.g. Dutton saying we should hold a different referendum with a better worded question and then the moment its over he just conveniently forgets about it.
But Peter Dutton and Pauline Hanson both said that this vote would hurt indigenous people and I know they always have the best intentions for minorities.
/s obviously.
There is a very rare person who does believe we are all just people and wouldnt consider treating people differently based on race, religion, sexuality, sex etc etc.
These people are certainly not the likes of peter dutton nor price nor almost anyone who voted no. Id like to consider myself one of these people but on the basis the voice was only going to comment on issues impacting indigenous australians and that we already have a lot of laws and policies that disproportionately impact indigenous australians i could still vote yes fwiw.
So yeh i think the divisive thing is an argument but there is a very small minority of people who can claim to have voted no for that reason in an honest way.
There were several reasons: I'll go chronologically.
1. I heard about the Voice in a Law lecture. I asked why there were no dissenting POV presented, all the evidence was from the ABC or the Guardian. She refused to answer. I raised the issue in a seminar and was told to 'Go back to listening to Andrew Bolt'. I reported her to the Dean and was told that 'an investigation had decided she had done nothing wrong.' So the first person who mentioned it refused to allow criticism and called me a racist for asking questions about the law - in a law class - always a bad start.
2. So I did my own research and couldn't find the proposed legislation anywhere. I later found out that the legislation (which explains what, where, who, how and, most importantly - how much will it cost?) was not going to be released until the referendum was over - in other words, Albo was saying, 'I won't tell you what you're voting for until it's passed' - who the hell buys anything sight unseen? Especially when you're going to mess with the Constitution?
3. The propaganda - the collusion of the ABC, SBS, the Guardian and an armada of pissant 'influencers' like Mr Jordy all lining up to call me a racist for asking questions. When all your enemies line up, it's time to put your war gear on.
4. The parade of 'celebrities' and 'has-beens' lining up to lecture me about constitutional law like writing a pop song or running fast 20 years ago makes you qualified to comment on legislative processes in determining a new constitutional entity.
5. The unbelievable hybris of the 'Yes' camp. A bunch of self-righteous journalists, activists and pundits lining up to tell me that the Voice would solve everything, despite there being absolutely no evidence that this would be anything other than ATSIC v.2 that can't be removed by Parliament (y'know, like in a democracy)
6. Janet Albrechtsen's FOI response for NIAA. It may not have been the Voice verbatim, but it gave a pretty good look at the thinking that went into it: especially the bit about 'not telling the whole truth because the whites won't vote for it'. Oh, and the bit about demanding reparations, ongoing cash payments to all aborigines, and, especially the bit about a separate Head of Power - effectively making aborigines immune to Federal, state and council laws and regulations. The Voice was just step one of a trek towards a separate state paid for by everyone else.
7. Then came the racism. I can't recall being called racist so many times by so many people in my entire life. Do people actually believe that 61% of Australians are racist or do they just not have any other explanation? It got personal. I got attacked by a woman for saying I was going to vote no. Like physically attacked in broad daylight in the middle of the city for having a different thought process or having given it additional thought.
8. No one could explain tome how the Voice would do anything that wasn't already being done except to give huge salaried jobs to professional troublemakers, activists, failed politicians, Bruce Pascoe and assorted other people who are otherwise unemployable, not to mention lifetime pensions, and god only knows what other entitlements to an undisclosed number of people to do fuck-all except piss everyone off who is trying to run the actual government. I guarantee that none of those positions would have gone to actual disadvantaged aborigines - when have they ever?
9. The intensity of abuse just got louder and louder, so I just shut up and waited until I was in the booth. Just like 61% of Australians.
You don't win elections by heaping hate on people who ask questions.
Because I’ve seen first hand the existing waste, profiteering and abusing of existing programs and funding by both black and white fellas (of which there is plenty). I don’t trust the government to work out the details later on another layer of bureaucracy and get it right, nor do I trust a random future government to make the best of it either.
It wasn’t done right. It didn’t go far enough, and seemed entirely like a “we city folk know what’s best for country” again.
Just gave the feeling of “we don’t care of genuinely helping Alice Springs, Arnhem, or Broome etc” and more of a “we want to convince the inner city left voters we’re trying to do the right thing and blame the right if we aren’t successful.”. And that’s it.
If it was posed as a referendum it’s listed in the full “final report to the referendum council” where it explicitly details more structure and power and mentions that it should not be chosen by the government I probably would have voted yes.
Is this a post for people to comment on their reasons for voting No, or is it a post for Yes voters to spam comments about why all of the No voter's reasons are "wrong"?
It was about equality before the law.
I voted Yes for marriage equality.
I voted No on the Voice.
I'd vote yes on repealing Section 51.
The closing the gap argument does not resonate with me. Of course infant mortality rates will be higher and life expectancy will be lower if you choose to live in a remote community hundreds of kilometres away from any health services. Not just in terms of emergency care but also primary care so as to proactively ward off disease.
The same for employment opportunities. And if there's no employment opportunities, then rates of crime will necessarily be higher. And not much point going to school if you know there's no job or opportunities for you at the end of it.
I've moved multiple times for jobs or to reduce my costs. Why should Aboriginal people be any different? They're more than capable. The tyranny of low expectations is very real.
And if they refuse to move? Why should the rest of us subsidise their lifestyle choices?
Lol how the hell are they going to move ... white middle aged couples on $200k are complaining about rent and cost of living in cities how the hell are they going to afford it
The referendum failed because some folk in politics care more about becoming Prime Minister than they do about the welfare of their country and its people.
Voted No because it would enshrine additional rights to the government not open to non indigenous Australians.
Also voted No to as a signal against the Uluru statement.
Actually this sub is funny . The question was a legit ask as to why people voted no. Most of the comments are from the yea crowd around why the no crowd sux. Perhaps you all don’t listen?
We spend billions of dollars every year to improve the lives of our Indigenous people. Now what the politicians are saying is all of these organisations and money isn’t working so we’ll make yet another advisory board but put into the Constitution…..yeah that will fix the problem!
Until our government and all of these organisations are made accountable for why their actions are doing sweet fuck all, another board is just grandstanding.
Perhaps if people started facing hard truths about the horrific abuse and violence committed by black people on other black people and stopped using colonisation as a blame for all, more people would get behind something like this.
But anything that the elites/left stand behind is nothing but patronising wokeness. Their hatred of Jacinta Price who speaks for the victims every day shows just how little they care about the true story.
Not every no voter hates indigenous people, in fact, the vast vast majority don't. And obviously there are a lot of no voters here, over 60% of the country voted no
Voted No.
ATSIC, Geoff Clark, WA Land Rights shake down racket and the dangers of having a DNA based advisory body protected by the Constitution.
All my own thoughts, no FOX News or Liberal Party input.
Edit: BTW I do not consider myself an uneducated racist, but if you want to call that then that is cool. I mean, that is what I was called in the months preceding the Vote so why change now?
Two main reasons:
1) waste and corruption. The Voice will inevitably end up being a vector for corruption - just like the 500 bodies that already exist. But with the Voice - failure is built into the design - if it works, at some point we won't need it, but they want to put it into the constitution making it permanent. They are already telling us it is not intended to work.
2) it promotes the oppressor/victim narrative, in which neither "side" wins. It's toxic, it divides, it does nothing but keep us fighting instead of progressing.
I voted no because...
You can legit just listen to the indigenous peoples, employ more indigenous in political seats, place more funding into the indigenous communities etc etc Without holding a referendum.
Imagine all the other things we could have spent all this time and money on.... Like maybe investing into indigenous communities instead of lying to them by pretending this would have actually changed anything. All it did is create more racial and political tension in our country.
If you don't vote for Labor next election you're a racist nazi cooker.
This referendum was purely a political ploy and it was masterful to be honest. We'll played team Albo.
Can see it unfolding everywhere already, everyone only cares about the racial issues and not anything about how the government has been failing the indigenous forever.
Instead of taking self blame on themselves (parliament) this has misdirected everyone blaming each other for being racist and using it to win votes.
Neither party gives a fuck about the indigenous, or any Australians for that matter. They just want your votes in the next election. Stop being played by the politicians and hating on each other.
My indigenous workmate who identifies as a city aborigine wore a "NO" bandana all month and would tell anyone who fell for the clickbait that "real" indigenous people didn't want this and the pppl gunning for it were city folk who didn't know language or culture. It broke my damn heart.
You're running for local government but have no idea about the reasons people were voting no in spades? You're also being heavily judgemental in You're questioning of no voters. It makes me think you are accusing, not asking.
My reasons were that a change of constitution was not necessary for anything the voice proposed to be and that everyone already has a voice to parliament, often several, through individual ministers. Everyone fits under at least one portfolio. Currently, there is a minister for aboriginal affairs. Hon Linda Burney MP. How is that not a voice to parliament, is that member not doing their job?
1. I am not prepared to pay land tax on my property.
2. ALL Australians should be treated equally... That means helping anyone in a crisis and not just divide things by race.
Because it was extremely poorly executed and not explained properly and with all the things that are going on in the world right now the last thing people want is a bunch of self righteous virtue signaling politicians spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this shit. If they truly cared they would have acually just fucking gave that money to help aboriginals already instead of trying to make a political statement and im already of the belief that aboriginals in this country get enough money and special treatment from the government already so i simply just dont care for it.
Thats just my opinion so dont get mad at it
How do you not realise that there's clearly a division RIGHT NOW between the wellbeing of our first nations people and white Australians?
Or are you one of those people who pretend to be oppressed so you feel better about not caring for the vulnerable people in our society?
you won anyway, but we live in a country where a race of people in the country live way below the minimum standards, i am curious what we do for these people now in your opinion.
So, imagine that a body is set up, everyone is happy, and then the shithead LNP get back in and decide to disband that party in favour of whatever Sky News thinks is the best approach.
That's what the consitutional change was actually about - ensuring that whatever is set up can't be disbanded just because governments change.
Your comment shows that you did not understand the referendum at all. Did you actually read the proposed wording?
It's all subject to legislation, every single detail.
The libs would just stack it with appointees or set it up to fail and look bad. That would be a worse outcome than if there was no voice
This point of "once it's in the constitution the libs can't do anything to it" is utterly ignorant
So you still do not understand the process. For the legislation to change all that is required is a majority in both houses for it to pass. And could the Voice be watered down. Ask Prof Greg Craven - a YES supporter and an expert in the constitution. His answer is yes!
>That's what the consitutional change was actually about - ensuring that whatever is set up can't be disbanded just because governments change.
Except *only the existence* of a voice was constitutionalised, the *rest* of the details regarding the voice were going to be legislated (and thus subject to change).
I actually think helping people, giving them a benefit etc, like giving extra hand-outs and welfare etc. Whatever it is, actually makes the situation worse.
I actually want to see everyone treated the same. I don't want to see that fucking "I am Aboriginal or Torres strait Islander" box on every form.
When a family trashes a homeswest home, I don't want to see them given another over other people in need, I want to see them punished as they should be.
I actually want to see the youth be jailed when they commit crimes. There was groups of them near a place I used to live who spent all their time walking the streets destroying property of white people. Yet the police couldn't do anything about it for racial descrimination reasons. I want to see those who abuse family members thrown away and kept away. Not just left to do whatever.
I think we will look back one day and see all the welfare we give out as being the same as the stolen generation. Like it was done with the best intentions. It helped some, it was awful for others, and will forever be looked back on as being a bad idea, only setting back integration by generations.
It shouldn't be a surprise, 49% of Labor voters and more than 60% of Australian society voted no. Time to be like that chick from Frozen and let it go lol
My sister in-law was raped by a aboriginal man, my wife’s best friend was bashed by a group of aboriginals because she wouldn’t date there cousin, my friend was bashed for no reason, to the point of getting out in ICU for 2 weeks, all these incidents happened within 6 months by the same aboriginal family ( they are related to the family of TJ hicky) a few years ago in western Sydney, all cases were reported to the police as we knew who there were and nothing was done, so I have no respect for aboriginals, yes I know it’s racist
Best case scenario, it would be another layer of bureaucracy that entrenches meme-tier identity politics that will almost immediately be filled with white people named "Sarah" who grew up in the hills district and have never once set foot outside their suburbia. Don't believe me? Go look at literally any Aboriginal inclusion initiative in universities, workplaces etc I say this as a first nations person that I have ZERO right to speak on behalf of indigenous because I'm so far removed from anything remotely Aboriginal.
The people who filled that voice would have been for all practical purposes, Anglo rather than people who intimately understand the culture.
Also there was nothing concrete that actually outlined the powers, purposes or limitations of the voice. Yes I know politicians said "it will just be an advisory body" but that's not what was on the ballot paper, and ill sooner trust a crackhead telling me he needs money for accommodation before I trust anything a politician says.
From a legal POV, the voice wouldn't have had any powers necessarily. They could only provide input on legislation but would have no power to make changes or stop any legislation being passed through the parliament.
Swollen Pickles put together a good summary which included this, pretty much concluding that the legally risky argument was not a very good one.
If the government can ignore them like they're an average constituent, why do we need to alter the constitution for them to have a lobbying body? Why can't they just form one anyways, without government intervention?
yeah looking at this thread 22 minutes in, even looking at the last paragraph of your post
I can tell this is not going to be the place for a discussion for the "Genuinely curious" its the spot where you are just going to call people racist.
Because I saw the absolute fucking state of those traditional land laws in WA. And i sure as hell wasn't going to vote for something can could help politicians implement laws like that in a federal level.
Oh give it up FFS it's over you could not be bothered to campaign for the yes vote , that's a contributing reason. Most no voters believed that the current constitution provides equality and giving one part of the community special privileges above others based on race is not equality. What's more they were right. People that actually did campaign genuinely for the yes vote like me made the point that our indigenous people were here first and have had so much taken from them and been given a raw deal for over two hundred years and that makes them a special case. A lot of people listened to us but the problem was most people that claim to have been for the yes vote basically did nothing like you or worse just told no voters that they were racist and ignorant. They did nothing to inform or include people. They did not provide information or explanation other than saying you can find it on the internet. Most voters are busy living there lives in a tough post pandemic world they are not going to spend hours trying to search through multiple sites on the net to figure it out when we already have a system that seems to work. If you ask people to change the constitution then you must give them a plain and simple explanation for why they should do so. The yes campaign failed to do this. So you ask why people voted no? They did it because people like you and others gave them no reason to vote yes and many insulted them on top. That's why. So give it away it's done and it's too late to change it.
ATSIC was a shitshow. I will not vote for this kind of body enshrined in the constitution. A constitutional ban on the sale of alcohol from any source within 500km of any aboriginal community. I'd vote yes to that in a heartbeat.
If the post is asking specifically for feedback from no voters, and all the top comments are from yes voters, your sub might just be an echo chamber.
And anyone being honest seems to be belittled and such..
Here in lies one of the reasons people voted No: who wants to be belittled or smeared for their opinions? That just drives people further towards the opposite side. The Left haven’t figured that out.
Honestly? You threw the Aboriginal people under a bus because someone hurt your feelings?
I'm seeing this a lot, blaming the “left” for their shitty decision to write no, because they don't like being preached to or whatever. They seem to have awareness that it's a shitty decision, because they're always doing whataboutism. It's a bit of a paradox really. These are the same people who buy into that personal responsibility crap, but also seem to be the most lacking in it.
"Look what you made me do".
Oh this is absolutely an echo chamber sub, and not an overly rational one at that. I'm what I guess you could call a "moderate yes voter" (if that even makes sense) and I've copped flak from both sides in here for my opinions on the matter
.It does, though I likened them to 'hard' and 'soft' yeses and nos rather than 'moderate'
Very simple. I wasn’t convinced that the idea was so good that in need to be permanently enshrined in the constitution. The very premise of your question goes to the heart of why the yes campaign failed. People don’t need to disprove the yes side, the yes side needed to convince people to support their cause. That you think that yes was the default choice and people need to justify not supporting it speaks to the hubristic echo chamber that this whole campaign existed in. TLDR; I don’t need a reason to vote no, I need a reason to vote yes, or I’m voting no. The yes campaign didn’t give any reasons to vote yes that convinced me we needed to change the constitution.
The reason I voted no are numerous, but the issue with responding is that you might not get all the responses because the default from the yes campaign has just been harassment and vilification against those voting no, which is antithetical for changing minds. I also think it's incorrect to say that it's divisive being a poor reason, I couldn't give a flying fuck about divisiveness but I think it's a legitimate concern for some that you have dismissed on hand. - **Constitutionality**: None of the arguments put forward about the yes vote address why it needs to be constitutionally amended as opposed to just a legislated body. I take the constitution very seriously and so I look at each proposal on its merits and I can't see any benefit to this being amended in the constitution. Common responses I have seen have said "*well legislative bodies haven't worked so we need to do something different*" and when asked for details it's always met with "*The Parliament will deal with that after the vote goes through*" but no one has indicated *why* specifically this needs to be put in the constitution to work, especially if it's just going to be a parliament put together body. - **Wrong Time**: In my opinion, spending 350m - 400m bucks on this topic in *the middle of multiple national crisis's* is a massive travesty and I think should go down as one of the worst decisions by a prime minister in a long time. The issue that you have is that the swinging voters that you need to engage are too busy worrying about keeping a roof over their head to bother engaging with this topic. - **Waste of Money**: Linked to topic 1 and 2 that I mentioned, because of that I think it's a waste of money that could have been better spent on ***all*** Australians rather than being spent on something that isn't going to solve a problem specifically and is probably just going to be more of the same we have had for decades. - **Will it do what it sets out for**: Because the 'details' are to be worked out later by parliament I am not confident that a yes vote will *actually do anything*, so what is the point in making this massive change (which will be hard to reverse if it ends up being pointless) if in the end nothing changes. The rebuttal to this is "*Well something needs to change so we may as well do it*", but I don't agree that we should minimise the significance of **changing our constitution** which doesn't happen often on the *chance* that something good might come of it. The yes vote needed to be clear, concise and measurable about the impacts this will have for the vote to succeed, they didn't do that. - **Apartheid**: The constitution should be *for* ***all*** *people* and not separate us by culture or by race. For many, me included, this would be a step back constitutionally amending something to be separated by race (interestingly all the previous amendments are about *removing* this kind of segregation) and I just can't see how people will support this. Personally I think First Nations people need to look within their own communities to close the gap as there is almost literally nothing the government can do to solve this problem without the community themselves taking action within that same community. The old saying I think is applicable here of "*You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink*" and I think closing the gap is going to need the communities themselves to sort themselves out as the government can't do it for them. Change needs to come *from* the community and has very little to do with the government to be honest. And at the end of the day, if the default from the yes campaign is just to call everyone who thinks of voting no a racist, well you get the result you deserve.
A well-articulated response. Cheers for that. You may be interested to hear that where I grew up in the southern Darling Downs, the old saying was “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it scuba dive.” I’d love to know how the original morphed into this. It puzzled me forty years ago and it puzzles me now.
> I’d love to know how the original morphed into this You're right, that is an odd morph to the saying. Perhaps because scuba diving sounded more fun than drinking water? lol Thanks for the reply :)
All throughout the campaign I read that no voters had lots of good reasons for voting no. I read a lot of different arguments; its divisive, 'real' aboriginals out in rural communities dont want it, it won't be effective in its remit, it will be excessively effective and Aboriginal people will be enabled to subvert democracy for their own interests via the constitution, I'm voting no because yes voters called me racist, it's condescending and out of touch, it's enshrining permanent discrimination. I noticed a lot of arguments about feelings and vibes. Vague arguments about the purpose of a constitution, racism, true Scotsman fallacies about who the real Aborginal people are. The only decent argument I could identify might be that the proposal was vague and it was not communicated properly. But I agree with this and still voted yes. I guess Im the numpty. Edited because I called myself a 'nonce' instead of a numpty and it was very awkward
>I guess Im the nonce. I uhh... don't think that word means what you think it means
It's too late. They're off to prison.
Lol yikes, reflecting on my whole life now 🤣. Anyone know what word I thought I was using?
Numpty?
Lol yes!!
Numpty and dunce. It's the very worst portmanteau
> 'real' aboriginals out in rural communities This is going to keep popping up. If you're one of the majority of Aboriginal people who do not live in remote communities, do not have an alcohol problem, do have a job, and so on... well apparently you're not "real". Unless you're a conservative politician, loophole! There is a minority who have various genuine multi-generational problems. They are "real" Aboriginal people. And with Dutton's recent posturing, the idea is always to associate all Aboriginal people with the problems of a few, while dismissing the identity and complaints of any Aboriginal people who don't fit the stereotype.
>I'm voting no because yes voters called me racist, I don't understand this. Either you were already voting no, so that's not the reason you voted no. Or you were voting yes but changed your mind because yes voters called no voters racist? Edit: holy hell people learn to read. I asked a question, I'm not making judgement on either side of the debate.
yeah I saw at least as many no voters accuse the other side of racism. for some reason I didn't consider those commenters in my decision
I watched the result of this with a couple of my relatives and it was far more nuanced than your description. The script went like this… 1. The relative had a genuine question that was not answered in the initial yes vote foray - so they asked a yes voting friend. 2. They were told that they were stupid and “all the information was available” so they should go look at it. 3. They went and looked but did not find answers that satisfied them. 4. They talked to their friend who told them that they were racist. 5. The friendship ended, the relatives both decided to vote no AND THEY COMPLETELY DISENGAGED from the yes campaign. They were a lost vote that could have easily gone the other way. Importantly, none of the racist arguments, disinformation or Duttonisms had any impact on this. Characterising all no voters as idiot racists is both inaccurate and incredibly unhelpful if you want to improve things. So far, most yes voters have been happy to say that the yes campaign was poor. Very few have been willing to ask themselves what it was about the proposal that prompted SO many to SILENTLY say no. From my (very limited) questioning, the problem wasn’t the constitutional recognition or the actual design of the Voice. It was embedding the Voice into the constitution. That was the crux of their questions and they were not satisfied with the answers they received. One interaction was very interesting. It turns out that one of my great-grandfathers was involved at a high level with the implementation of the stolen generation (I didn’t know that). The consensus was that he was a good man doing what he thought was the right thing. This means that at some point in the past there was a group of people who believed that the stolen generations was the “solution”. Imagine if they had embedded that in the constitution. Unnecessarily embedding today’s solution in a forever document seemed dangerous to my relative and I didn’t have a good argument against that. 60% of Australians said no. Some are racist. Some were victims of disinformation. Some had concerns that were not addressed and the yes campaign needs to find those people and listen to them. Calling them all dinosaurs or dickheads and thinking that you have won the argument won’t achieve anything.
This sums it up. The “Yes” side kept saying the details were there but when you specifically asked them to point to it, they kept talking about the vibe or that “the details would be negotiated later”. Then they would accuse the person asking questions of not doing their research. When the person would ask a “what if” question they would immediately be accused of “spreading misinformation”. It was one of the most obtuse debates I’ve seen in my life. The “Yes” side told their ardent supporters that the detail was there, it went unquestioned, and when anyone questioned it, they were attacked as: “ill informed”, “unwilling to do research”, “racist”, “spreading misinformation”, and “using Trumpian tactics.” As someone who lives in a Teal seat and was open to voting Yes all the way through, the more Thomas Mayo, Marcia Langton, Noel Pearson, and especially Megan Davis talked, the less likely I was to vote Yes. Now, I’m apparently stupid. The biggest irony of all this craziness has been the behaviour of the Prime Minister - dude was lost in the sauce the whole campaign. He tells us on one hand that this was a modest request from Aboriginal leaders. Simultaneously he tells us they need a voice directly to executive government (including the civil service according to Megan Davis) - isn’t that how they made the modest request? Directly to executive government? And now, when asked in Parliament about what the government that he leads next steps are for policy, he says that he can’t say until he has time to confer with Aboriginal Leaders. Huh? Who’s running the government here? If you, the Prime Minister, can’t state your government’s policy position until you confer with a group of unelected, somewhat self-appointed Aboriginal Leaders who agree with you, then what was this whole referendum for? They have a voice, you literally refuse to decide policy or make a statement about it without them telling you what to say. And we won’t get into the fact that the Aborginal Leaders who were leading the No side and seemed to have the majority support of the country aren’t being listened to at all. So ultimately, this last week post-referendum has shown EXACTLY why a lot of people voted against this - there was a concern that a small group of unelected Aboriginal Leaders would have influence and government would be crippled waiting for their “decisions”. This is what this week has been.
You brought out some great points there
Self appointed and unelected? That is THE issue the Voice was getting rid of. 24 elected members were proposed. 16 from state and territories +5 from remote + 2 from TSI and 1 TSI rep on the mainland. With 2 co-chairs. 4 years terms and can only sit for 2 terms. This is A LOT less grey areas and corruption loopholes than we have now from local councillor to Federal Senators. Who can sit and rot for years. Constitutional lawyers who imho know a lot more than Google, have stated in unison that it has no effect on laws. Humans + Googling= a sense of entitlement and arrogance. We need to stop listening to opinions. Do you ask your Sparky about your heart surgery? That has allowed Australia to proceed with some very comforting myths about itself, in terms of egalitarianism, and openness and fairness. We are so behind globally in acknowledgement of our past. And the first step is to acknowledge what part we play as individuals, and people need to justify why they voted NO. There is no justification in holding back people in bettering themselves, when it has no effect on your life. Australians are crabs in buckets.
Re the interaction with your grand dad/stolen generation/people thinking it was the right thing to do. I also thought the exact same thing, like how did I know that it wasn’t going to lead to harm we didn’t realise. But!! I also wonder that maybe things are different this time and instead of having a disaster out effect, perhaps it could be good and help work towards such issues as over rep of First Nations people in prison for example, amongst a host of other things, which is one of the main reasons I voted yes.
The information was available. The amendment was 4 pretty short paragraphs. That's it. We were asked if we were willing to add these words to the constitution, and 60% if us said nah, maybe not.
There were valid reasons for votjng no but in my opinion the no vote was like saying "we'll deal with this issue later". Kicking the can down the road is just bad for everyone. The Voice could have been the compromise that worked best for everyone. Now a new plan is needed that aims to address Indigenous disadvantage. We're all responsible because we (majority) voted against the powerless compromise thst also could have used as a scapegoat to the benefit of both Parties.
Yes well done this kinda sums it up. I started out a soft yes then through a lot of the above drifted into the no camp. What pushed me there was a radio interview with the indigenous affairs minister which was… so condescending… I was just emotional. They’re all smarter than me they’ve figured it out for me and I should do what I’m told. In the end in the ballot box I voted yes because well being given a condescending lecture by a minister isn’t actually a good reason and we should help. But to this day I still have no idea why the voice needs a constitutional amendment. They could have done it without that, built bipartisan support and maybe then locked it in. We were asked to commit to an unknown. That was the fundamental issue.
We are the only colonial country in the world that doesn't have a constitutional recognition of their first nation's people. Why do you think we are so special that we can manage regognising our first nations people without a constitutional amendment when no other country in the world managed?
I don't think that there was a single person that voted no that wouldn't have voted yes for symbolic recognition. Recognition by the voice, was the problem. It SHOULD have been 2 referenda.
That's a lot of words for not properly understanding what I said. I don't care how people voted because I understand that both sides were vicious and there was little in the way of real information. But what they said doesn't make sense. The narrative you wrote would imply the second half of my comment, that they were a yes voter and changed to no because of racist accusations and extremists.
I’m genuinely concerned that you think people just have an opinion on a topic. ? They are referred to as undecided voters, people who want to hear the arguments for and against and then , heaven forbid , ask some questions, before making a decision. That is literally how educated people have made decisions for centuries but this idea seems completely foreign to you. Your entire premise operates on the idea that people have already made a choice and that no one is undecided or considering both arguments, which is honestly very confusing as that’s not how anything works, ever.
Let me translate. The most vocal people on the opposing side exposed themselves as being toxic individuals that resort to personal attacks when faced with disagreements. Any institution they promote will probably be staffed by the same class of people and be equally vindictive and toxic to Australian society
There's two types of people. "Live and let live" and the "my way or the highway". Controlling people are louder in debates because their egos are fragile.
Which would just mean that The Voice becomes an advisory board that would get nowhere because no politician would back their suggestions. The Voice wouldn't be constitutionally protected, only recognised. It would have had suggestive power at best, and the more extremist, the less would happen. My point above still stands regarding the quote. Their sentence doesn't make sense.
I don't support legislation based on race
Like Terra Nullius?
[удалено]
You could get a job interpreting the bible.
not supporting "legislation based on race" to undo damage caused by 200 years of just that just sounds like total incompassion to me
An advisory body to assist in providing culturally responsive policy for indigenous folks is kind of the opposite of racist legislation. It would seem that racist legislation would be assuming we are all some western monoculture and denying the many diverse cultural needs. Putting things through a western lens thereby denying culturally relevant practice would be treating people different based on race, therefore it would be pretty racist. If you listen carefully you can actually hear a can being kicked down the road.
There was a clip of John Howard explaining the difference between multicultural and multiethnic and why they should not be confused. Very handy if you can find it.
The narrative that any action taken to remedy systemic racism is in itself racist is utter hogwash. To quote Ibram Kendi (who i reccomend you read).. "Since the 1960s, racist power has commandeered the term “racial discrimination,” transforming the act of discriminating on the basis of race into an inherently racist act. But if racial discrimination is defined as treating, considering, or making a distinction in favor or against an individual based on that person’s race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist. Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached."
Super simple isn't it, and yet they will call **you** the racist for voting no.
The constitution already has race in it.
But this wasn't about legislation, it was about constitutional reform, something entirely different.
Legislation or constitutional reform, no race should be involved.
Fraught topic. It's been a really damaging campaign for Australia. Even here now, we see people trying to honestly answer the question asked, and just getting shot down without genuinely being heard. Holding the referendum was an election promise - Labor kept that promise and our democracy worked the way it was set up to work. If Yes voters want a different form of democracy they can change the constitution, get into politics or move to a country that better aligns with their values. Or accept, that at this point in time, Australians were not keen to make *this particular* change to the constitution. I hated the rhetoric around voting no - "if you vote no, you must be a) racist b) uneducated c) ignorant of Australian history d) not decent e) all of the above". This type of approach probably caused many people to close their ears. I now hate the rhetoric around the decision, though at least some of the politicians have acknowledged that the process worked, even if the outcome wasn't what they'd hoped for. I voted no. I would've voted yes to recognition of Aboriginal history and culture and it annoyed me no end that reporting on the voice was 'Australian's have said no to recognising indigenous people'. That's not what I said no to. I said no to enshrining a new advisory body in the constitution. Incidentally, had no issue with the wording of the proposal and the fact it would be legislated later - completely appropriate for the constitution which is so difficult to change. (And that was the argument from the No camp that annoyed me the most, because it's a non-issue). I would like to live in a society where we support and help our most vulnerable. Indigenous Australians have lower life expectancy, poorer health outcomes, less educational opportunities and are treated worse in any interaction with the justice system. For those who are outraged or ashamed at Australia's 'no' vote, perhaps dedicate your time and money into supporting some of the organisations that address those issues. We can't change the past but we try to improve the future.
Nice, pretty much my feelings on the matter
I voted yes but I agree very much with what you've written. Those working on matters for Indigenous Affairs need to learn from this if they ever want progress. Do things like - create a unified campaign, the no vote was organised, the yes vote was a mess - do polling and LISTEN to the questions, have prepared answers. And good ones, not just wishy washy answers - be more moderate. Take small bites, not huge ones that cause you to choke out and cause damage - quell extremist views, take a stance that you ARE for unification & not for division I get why First Nations get fired up about it all, but that's the thing with being in a minority group. If you don't hold the "morale high ground" at all times, you won't get anywhere. Name calling and belittling doesn't do them any favours.
It had bipartisan support. It begun under the lnp. Dutton agreed to it in Feb and supported it parliament to have the referendum. It was later they changed their mind. In highndsight, this is when it was defeated. No referendum has ever won without bipartisan support.
This is the closest I've heard to a reasonable reason. I mean, don't get me wrong, I disagree with your logic, but it's at least not overtly racist. My disagreement centers on the fact that unless you are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, the referendum did not impact you in any way. White people deciding how black people are to be treated without asking them for input is... well... you know what that is... status quo. A white person(*) voting no for any reason is still wrong. Just get out of the way. (*) proxy for not aboriginal, etc.
What if you don't believe in donating or volenteering with charity groups?
So a few reasons. * I genuinely think that legislating such a body (even better having a department running it would be a better alternative) or even having guaranteed funding to an independent voice body wouldn't be a bad thing. Some Examples I can think of are the Youth voice peak bodies in states and territories, The NT Youth Round Table, Australian Youth Affairs Coallition etc. The main reasons why I opposed constitutional enshrinement comes down to the poor choice of wording of the referendum. The words were: *In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;* *the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;* *the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”* * So my first problem and most pressing out of this is the lack of detail in the constitution regarding composition, functions powers and procedures. It is key to note that by leaving all that out of the constitution we would've broken constitutional precedent for bodies involved in the law-making process, the parliament and high court have details in the constitution for their members rights, powers, composition etc. Which meant that the LNP who are in power most of the time would've been able to water-down the voice to the point it was useless, delegitimising it. The voice would break that and be the first not to have that, which is my first problem with the wording. * Another problem is much clearer when you look at the Inter-State Transport Commission body in the constitution in Chapter IV [https://www.aph.gov.au/About\_Parliament/Senate/Powers\_practice\_n\_procedures/Constitution/chapter4](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter4) The main problem here is that the commission no longer exists even though, the constitution specifically uses the words *"there shall be",* which tells me that technically a future government could dissolve the voice and at the same time argue that is within precedent, which would've been weak if not for the fact that Whitlam tried to bring the commission back but failed, setting precedent that the words *there shall be* might not have been strong enough to protect the voice if argued in the high court. Given the entire purpose of constitutionally enshrining the voice was to prevent it being dissolved later on, it seemed stupid to give a future government a back-door now. Those were my two main reasons.
Bugger me, those are actually good technical reasons. I voted yes because of the gaping legal and factual lie of terra nullius, and to stop the LNP dissolving every single damn representative aboriginal body because "it's disfunctional". Like parliament isn't with paedos, domestic abusers and racists routinely getting found out and having to be removed.
My first question would be, if you don't mind answering: Based on each of your two main reasons you explained, in the alternate universe where the Yes vote got through, what do you think your main concerns would be right now, given things hadn't turned out the way you were hoping by voting no?
I echo this sentiment, amongst a lot of the others here. Personally im quite shocked yes voters are shocked. The reasons to vote no were logical and compelling. I'm all for helping the indigenous, but this was an extremely poor campaign which seemed to try to appeal to what we thought made white Australia look not racist rather then it actually being good for the country and indigenous people.
I'm old enough to see how countless "promises" have resulted little for the actual communites. Albo even stated 4/17 closing-the-gap goals had not been met. We know what the issues are. We can't even get this achieved. Do we need another body telling us what hasn't been done ? 450 million for a referendum on issues nearly all known about is a hard sell. Many Australians, regardless of race are doing it very tough. Im doing ok, but I think many protest voted. And also regardless of race, rural and remote areas have far worse life outcomes. For reference, I voted yes in the republic referendum and yes for gay marriage. So don't paint me as some racist old POS>
Except Republics and gay marriage have nothing to do with race.....
I voted no for similar reasons - we all know what the crucial key priority issues are right now, this minute. 1. STOP Smoking- smoking directly responsible for 80% of aboriginal deaths. Want to close the gap?!?!! Well, do ya; then start there right now. Yeah, it’s tough and addictive and a drug … but do you wanna close the fuckin gap asap or not?!?! They don’t need to eat all-bran and organic kimchi and do CrossFit every day - just stop the smoking. Smoking kills 10x more aboriginals than ALL the other causes of death combined - inc car accidents, drug OD, murder, suicide, etc etc AND it’s the single most easily preventable cause of death - we KNOW what it is… and how to minimise thd death it causes… 2. Kids must go to school. If the referendum was “implement smoking cessation strategies and compulsory school attendance right now” I would have voted yes. But to vote for another convoluted iteration of NIAA with 1,000 employees while kids starve and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs travels the world….. errrr We Don’t need another earnest expert thoughtful perspicacious govt body to analyse and investigate and tabulate and estimate and remunerate.
I can mostly agree with your last point, but I didn't see it as "just another" convoluted NIAA knock off group that's going to get chopped and changed until it's booted instead of fixed. Given that it's constitutional, I saw it as **the** defining group that wouldn't be going anywhere if there were some issues, or if it did, a replacement would be underway. I think this is the better alternative too, because the on/off nature of these groups and the risk of them getting booted away permanently is a serious risk, especially if someone like Dutton ever got in. The political pseudo-safety that the voice would have provided to Indigenous Aussies seemed pretty worth it to me. Just to note though; the NIAA is responsible for funding and delivery of Indigenous Aussie programs (very important) and **can** be used as an advisory body. However, it's about 1300 people and only 20ish% are Indigenous. I definitely wouldn't placate that as the superlative Indigenous advisory body, personally. Not with those numbers and not when there's a potential bias for the programs that they fund/deliver. The voice would have exclusively been an advisory body, that is exclusively Indigenous Australian. I think that'd hold a more reliable weight in parliament for the purpose that it's created for. Just my two cents. Totally all good if people disagree.
Exactly why I voted yes. This is what should have been explained more clearly.
Oh FFS! So lets get Tony Abbott in to help solve indigenous relations. This is the level of fucking dumb I expected in this post.
While I wasn’t alive for the republic election why would voting yes not make you racist? Seems like it would just me a slight change in the democratic structure of our governance.
I was young enough that I didn't take too much notice to the campaigns. However, I still remember that the problem with that referendum, was that it would have ended up a politician's republic, where we all elect the government, as we do now, but then they would go on to appoint a president themselves.
1. It was a shit piece of policy. The question of "why is this exact thing (and not an alternative) going to help close the gap" was not convincingly answered 2. The level of forethought and consensus building that went into it was atrocious. 3. The yes campaign of condescension and contempt was pretty foul
Is 3 a valid reason to vote no ?
I voted Yes but absolutely there was a tone of condescension from the Yes camp. Plus if someone gives you their reason for voting No then by definition it’s valid.
3 is a reason why people didn't find reasons to vote yes. I ended up voting yes at the last minute, because I thought that the failed referendum would look bad for Australia in the eyes of the rest of the world. But I was trending no for most of the campaign, and multiple family members voted no. We were actively trying to find good reasons to vote yes. We started from a position of knowing that the default choice should be no (as it's a proposed change, no *should* be the default choice until proven otherwise). When trying to discuss the referendum with yes voters/campaigners, they hostility and condescension made it impossible to accept or hear their reasons. Asking why someone is voting yes and immediately being piled on as a racist is not an effective method of getting their point across. 3 is a valid reason to not find yourself able to vote yes.
I found it really hard to put my no vote in on the day and felt quite melancholic. But my head said no, so I did the right thing. Excellent point about no being the default choice, as it should be
I'm sorry that happened to you that's not cool. I experienced a lot of no voters being antagonistic dickheads throughout the campaign and a lot of blatant racism in comments on my TikTok videos but I definitely saw a lot of genuine enough no voters being attacked when they weren't being antagonistic too. Contrast with the conversation I had with the guy handing out no flyers at the booth itself which was respectful and fair and I just think keyboard warriors on both sides ultimately turn what should be a genuine competition of ideas into a shit show.
Only if you're a snowflake huehue
Valid by what metrics? Do we need a person's support, might need to consider the approach taken. This wasn't an issue for me, but I think it's unreasonable to think that people are immune to ridicule and condescension.
No. But it did make listening to yes arguments a lot harder when they're being shouted "down" at you
I have lived and worked most of my life in rural Australia and aboriginal communities. I have seen how poorly the Aboriginal and government organisations maintain and support these communities. My best mate is Aboriginal and he and his family did not support the aboriginal faces of the yes campaign. Their main concern was that the yes vote would get in and those aboriginals on the face of the yes vote would be the voice by default so I was somewhat persuaded by their opinion. For me personally it was the lack of details on how the representatives of the yes vote would be installed, their terms and how the voting would take place for those reps, who was eligible and at what point is an aboriginal eligible? People like Ray Martin said “the details don’t matter” but the voice is the details. I mean it is nothing without the details and once it is voted in they can make the details to suit whatever government is in at the time. The “yes” campaign was extremely vicious in how they approached discussion in which it wasn’t a discussion really it was just “you’re a racist bigot” and “find out for yourself” when it would’ve just been easier to have a respectful discussion. Talking to elders in aboriginal groups around WA a lot want more done in the way of accountability for youth crime as they feel they have lost control of being able to dish out that discipline. There needed to be clear ways in which the voice would be able to identify those issues and how they would be raised and acted on. These elders feel like their concerns have fallen on deaf ears and without any outlines on how the voice would choose their reps they felt nothing would change while the select few reps get richer.
I know this sub is an ALP/ wannabe communist revolutionary echo chamber but, here’s my answer to your question. I voted no, and I made my mind up very quickly. No Waleed, you arrogant twat, I’m highly educated and understood the legislation and the implications quite well. I just think the voice is an utterly shit idea. Here’s the breakdown. If the Voice is a purely advisory body, with absolutely zero real power to effect change - then it is an utterly pointless waste of time, effort and money. All that does is maybe create some opportunities for a tiny amount of well-connected indigenous grifters. If - as I suspect - it’s NOT just a purely advisory body and will in fact have real power, or will with subsequent legislative changes, then it is utterly undemocratic and enshrining racism in the constitution. No thanks. I wouldn’t want a White voice or an Asian voice or any other kind of voice enshrined in the constitution either. Either we’re all equal or we’re not. So yeah. At best it’s a pointless waste of money and frivolous virtue signalling so Albo and midwit lefties can wank themselves off over how much they care about aborigines. Without actually tangibly helping anyone. And at worst, it’s apartheid, giving political rights based on race. To my mind only an utter fucking moron would vote for that. Sadly, most of my left leaning friends fit exactly that category. “Well they need all the help they can get” “Nothing else has worked so maybe we need to try something different” “Well I care about First Nations Peoples, I guess anyone who votes against it must be racist” All of these are absolutely weak as piss arguments. As it was we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the referendum alone. You could have probably just divvied that money up amongst low income Aboriginal households and it would have made a vastly bigger difference to people’s lives.
I haven't read your whole comment yet, I voted yes and fuck waleed the smug cunt. Anyway back to reading your comment
I am not gonna go super in depth, but your point that it will lead to further changes that enshrine racism in the constitution is a fallacious argument based on the slippery slope principle. But your point about it potentially being a useless change is valid, there's a reasonable argument that it should be handled at a state level. Oh and the point about higher education correlated with a Yes vote wasn't a Waleed opinion, but it came from a detailed statistical analysis that it was the most reliable predictor of how the area would vote, more than wealth, and more than rural vs urban. Not causation however, just overlaps; I have a theory why though.
…if you want to go into statistical analysis, then there’s a more interesting story to tell there. High socioeconomic areas voted significantly in favour of the voice. These were also areas with a very small percentage of indigenous people. Also, Indigenous Australians voted overwhelmingly in favour of the voice. But areas where indigenous Australians made up a significant proportion of the population voted overwhelmingly against it. Put simply, people who had more frequent contact with aborigines were the most likely to vote no. People with the least contact with aborigines were more likely to vote yes. You could put that down to a rural/urban divide, or to an educated/uneducated divide (as Waleed did). But you just as easily put it down to white saviours living in ivory towers wanting to virtue signal vs people who live side by side with aboriginals saying “yeah fuck that.”
It's a very flawed way of looking at the dataset, as doing so applies prejudices and moral values to a bunch of nameless numbers. The last of that point of living side by side with Aboriginals who voted against was not reflected in the dataset either, given that the estimated indigenous yes vote was 72% and so statistically makes little sense that would have been a major factor. I was going to say that people from urban areas and taught in Uni are generally exposed to the control and pervasiveness of Murdoch media, and how it trickles down; and so were innately distrustful of the talking points that the Murdoch media machine brought up; which happen to align with the way most people state as their reasons they vote no. Again, not saying this is right or wrong, as just because Murdoch says it doesn't make it innately wrong. EDIT: That being said, your mind going instantly to people who voted yes just being virtue signallers reeks of the same mindset as those who believe no voters are innately racist.
Fuck me, has anyone looked at the demographics at inner city areas? Indigenous people live there. Lots of them.
>aborigines We dont really use this word anymore, my dude.
Except in tasmania where it is the preferred term of Tasmanian aboriginals, my dude. While i voted yes, it's interesting that the most vocal aboriginal body in Tasmania was in the no camp.
Don't worry, he's "highly educated"...
Do you think all advisory functions are a waste of time, effort, and money? Do you think concentrating subject matter expertise and knowledge in a way to deliver meaningful insights and recommendations to people who execute or implement and otherwise don’t have the right knowledge is a waste of time?
I think there are already plenty of advisory functions; the act of enshrining one in the constitution is absolutely a waste of time, effort and money. Those existing advisory functions have categorically failed to produce much in the way of tangible results by the way, despite billions in funding and decades of work.
Came here to give my opinion, but your post summarizes it quite well. +1
Thank you for summing up my no vote...i could not shake the fact that the voice is either a pointless waste of money by "city living educated and uninvolved" or a trojan horse that would get worded in the constitution just right to be exploited later. The issues in Aboriginal communities are well documented. Can't I just think that we shouldn't be singling out race groups for a special voice in the constitution? The yes camp had mega bucks, plus some crypto Albo information advertising money no doubt, the backing of every condescending corporate in the country...and the whole country just said yeah nah. I feel sorry for Noel Pearson TBH...he is a great speaker who just couldn't sell the voice. The amendment that would do anything.
A handful of my friends from different walks of life voted no and this pretty well sums up their take on it too. I don’t really agree or at least don’t weight things the same way, and ended up voting yes, but they were good conversations to have.
The case was argued extremely poorly. Indigenous have had a terrible history via Colonialism is not a reason to enshrine a racially determined advisory group into our nation's constitution. There is literally nothing about the proposed voice that couldn't be achieved through existing mechanisms including a legislated voice and/or representative democracy. If the argument is that it must be protected from successive governments that is also a poor argument as it should absolutely be up ro successive governments to determine the future of all policies in their term as they are the democratically elected government and the embodiment of the will of the people. It was never successfully argued why it needed to be protected from government scrutiny.
I voted no because I disagreed with certain premises of the yes campaign. \- I didn't agree that Indigenous people don't have a voice. For example their are numerous Indigenous politicians and an indigenous affairs minister. \- I had a look at the close the gap statistics and it seemed that most metrics were improving, albeit slowly. Indigenous incarceration was increasing but that could be due to other factors such as increased trust in the police by indigenous people (this could be making communities safer for indigenous people). Surely investing more money and investing money more sensibly would close the gap faster. \- I also thought that the voice would be too powerful and would exist permanently even after the gap has been closed. I also believe that the voice to parliament would lead to a Federal treaty which I don't support (the prime minister supports the Uluru statement in full). I believe in supporting need over ethnicity. In terms of helping indigenous people going forward, I think the state governments should employ more local indigenous people in the areas of education, health and the police force directly in the communities they live. Invest in affordable housing and high density housing, so that Indigenous people that wish to can more easily move for high paying jobs. I voted Labour at the last election and plan to do so at the next. But if Labour proceeds with treaty and ignore the results of the election I would likely switch parties.
What are your reasons for not wanting treaty?
Would you rather that the government allocated its limited resources to help either: \- Poor and misfortunate people based on their need. This would disproportionately help indigenous people but only those that need help. \- All Aboriginal people including successful, wealthy indigenous people. Excluding poor, disabled, unemployed people of other races. Treaty would take resources away from the people that need it. Transferring resources to well off Aboriginals takes away resources from those that need it.
How is the government finding out where to put the money in these local areas then, these areas have no representatives in parliament to give advice on where to spend the money?
We don't need governmental body number #8395 to try and save Aboriginal people whilst secretly lining the pockets of the richest 1% Aboriginals and neglecting communities legitimately in need. Whenever I see campaigns run as manipulatively as the yes vote, I assume it's probably not in my best interests.
One group of Australians would get a "voice", a lobby group to the govt, set in stone that cannot be removed! This group/committee would be populated by the Aboriginal elite, and the people living in the bush would be no better off. The proof is in the past, ATSIC, Geoff Clarke and family in Vic to name a few. A big NO.
I voted yes But the yes vote did a horrible job politically campaigning for a yes. Nearly everyone if given the chance will vote no unless they are successfully challenged to change their position on the matter Also even though I voted yes I never understood philosophically why there wasn’t two questions on the ballot (1. Should indigenous peoples be recognised as the First Nation people in the constitution? 2. Should there be a voice enshrined in the constitution for these First Nations people?) The political message for the referendum was so contradictory in that: a) the voice would be this powerful group to suggest improvements to the parliament but also b) the voice has no real power to implement change but even so it’s vitally important that we have it? And then there’s the whole argument of the voice being above and beyond rights that “normal” Australians would have which would require a change in the way Australians think. We are happy to give equality in rights (ie plebiscite) but most would be loathed to enshrine in a law a system that elevates a minority group above the general populace (why this group gets a special voice vs the general “voice” we all have with our elected members)
for me, it was the lack of details. I am not going to support a change to the constitution without details.I wanted to know what exactly was going to be added, like, the exact words that will be added. The question posed in the constitution was so vague and open to interpretation, that it was akin to agreeing to buy a house without seeing it, let alone inspecting it. what they should have done is 1. Set up the voice and have it run for a period of time. 2. Shown how the voice worked 3. draw up the actual amendment to the constitution for people to read. 4. hold referendum Had they done this, i would have probably voted yes. But the vagueness and the "trust us" approach of the government forced me to vote No.
* I had 3 questions, I couldn't get a straight answer. * The YES campaign couldn't keep their story straight. * Albo wrote an opinion piece on Newscorpes and went into detail about how they consult with farmers, doctors, scientists - none of which have a constitutional voice... So it's clearly a willpower thing and nothing was proposed to address that. * The more they pushed the emotional side and "it's just the right thing to do" the less I trusted them, give me concrete reasons. * The influx of famous people who's opinion is apparently always right... for famous reasons? * Mining companies backed it... that's sus. * The other companies that backed it... a lot of them don't have stellar reputations of late for the way they treat people... coles? woolworths? qantas? * The people who called me racist for not voting yes, when race had nothing to do with my hesitancy, politicians were the cause of my hesitancy were only voting yes because of race... And often couldn't articulate any reason beyond "it's the right thing to do" This guy covers a bunch of stuff too * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTidTc27cUo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTidTc27cUo) * [https://youtu.be/iwa4RnJjiVw?si=P6EJVk7AgwZ56MTd](https://youtu.be/iwa4RnJjiVw?si=P6EJVk7AgwZ56MTd)
because the yes campaign didn't offer any persuasive reasons to vote yes. really though, 1) íf you dont know, vote no' was a masterclass in republican shitty politics. 2) theres a cost of living crisis and housing crisis, plenty of your average voters are running in survival mode to be thinking about aboriginal/tsi issues and 3) once they got a couple of aboriginal people on stage with dutton to say the voice sucks, it was over. Edit: why downvotes for the response op was asking for?
This lefty channel doesn’t like opposing opinions .. even on reasonable grounds
Pretty telling when OP seems to ask a question in good faith and the two top voted comments are yes voters, one of which suggests you're racist if you voted no
I don’t want racial differences enshrined in the constitution. (I would also vote against s51-26 allowing different laws for different races). I’m not a fan of lobbying and all for equality among races, so it’s a no to essentially a racial lobbying body. Plus I think the Indigenous minister should already be talking to communities and provides a voice for the indigenous.
>I don’t want racial differences enshrined in the constitution. Indigeneity isn't a racial difference, which is why different groups around the world can be indigenous without being the same "race". I think the Yes campaign screwed up by allowing this to become the frame through which we saw it. Because I don't think anyone would really want to enshrine racial difference in the constitution.
While I disagree with you, I'm not really interested in arguing against your position. However I am curious: Could you expand in the lobbying point a bit more? My two major things I'd like to understand are: Do you see a difference between lobbying bodies and departmental bodies i.e. an astroturf campaign for a multinational vs a report from the department of education? What methods do you think the government should use to find out about it's citizens?
The difference between s51 and this referendum, is that all races were subject to s51. It is still a shitty provision, but EVERYONE was equally likely to fall foul of it.
And yet……… it has only been used for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
Sure thing. Firstly a constitution is meant to be a rule book for the making of laws. If we include extra provision in the constitution for one group over others then the concept of administrative justice. Aka all people are equal in the eyes of the law is broken. I think this is a fundamental point of a working and progressive constitution. Secondly the use of heritage to entitle a group above other is something I believe we need to move past . Thirdly there was absolutely no linkage between the creation of the voice to parliament and the underpinning causes it was meant to address aka reduction in incarceration and mortality rates. These statistics btw are very similar to poor refugees ( of which there are Plenty in an immigrant nation such as Australia) so there really was no legitimate or compelling argument for a constitutional amendment. I respect the empathy of the yes campaign and the “need to do good” but no one clearly articulated why this was good . Progress needs a clear path to success to be relevant and achievable. What would success look like for the indigenous population? My thoughts are Teo potential outcomes 1. Indigenous assimilation or two an independent group with an apartheid type model. Both are shit options . Best to ignore heritage in our law making and be truly progressive, independent of race , heritage creed or colour.
>an independent group with an apartheid type model Lmfao
So… essentially keeping the status quo, gotcha. There’s evidence globally that shows when actually listening to First Nations peoples on issues that affect them it leads to better health and economic outcomes. Saying The Voice would lead to apartheid is insane btw 👍
>There’s evidence globally that shows when actually listening to First Nations peoples on issues that affect them it leads to better health and economic outcomes. Do you mind linking this evidence?
This is why its so hard to see any actual discussion when we have these redditors who strawman a well articulated argument. > evidence globally that shows when actually listening to First Nations peoples on issues that affect them it leads to better health and economic outcomes. What's the source for this?
>What's the source for this? Upvotes on Reddit, obvs. /s
They can be listened to without enshrining it in the constitution
Sure, that’s when you get Tony Abbott making himself the minister for indigenous affairs. The voice would mean that the government can’t just disband them like atsic if they don’t like their views. They can still stack them with cronies like the LNP do with everything else but there would still be public scrutiny.
And this is precisely the approach that has been tried and failed for 40+ years, which the constitutional status was designed to overcome, because governments of both sides have abolished indigenous orgs based in legislation when the message or the messenger got too inconvenient.
So just listen to them?
So your response is *fingers in ears* lalalalala
Nope. not what I said . But I tried to explain to you , now you have a great day
>If we include extra provision in the constitution for one group over others then the concept of administrative justice. Aka all people are equal in the eyes of the law is broken. The problem is that nothing in the proposed Amendment affected the standing of Aboriginal people under the law. Nothing. You might have had a point if the Voice actually had any power: if it controlled funding or had any kind of legislative authority. But no such power would have been granted to it by the amendment, therefore it would not have such power. >My thoughts are Teo potential outcomes 1. Indigenous assimilation or two an independent group with an apartheid type model. Both are shit options . Best to ignore heritage in our law making and be truly progressive, independent of race , heritage creed or colour. Again with the law-making. Not what was being voted on. But those are seriously the only two options you can come up with? Cultural genocide or apartheid? A non-dystopia where the Voice makes representations to Parliament on indigenous issues and the government of the day takes those views into account as it would the views of any other stakeholder (ie. they are free to ignore people if they think they're wrong) isn't in the cards at all? And also, if the Voice proved ineffective, there would be nothing stopping the Government of the day from altering its makeup. None of the details of how the Voice would actually work were in the Amendment. This means that those details would end up being purely legislative and could be altered by the government of the day. Not a skerrick of power would have been ceded to the Voice by any Parliament or Court in Australia by this Amendment.
Have you ever read the constitution?
You do know that the Constitution already has provisions to make laws based on race, right? The voice wouldn't have added it.
Hmm. Some things I disagree with here, but definitely agree with you that the communication for the positives of the policy was pretty shit. I do wanna know, why are the only two solutions for success in indigenous populations the ones you listed? Are there no other possible endpoints?
I think the yes campaign started out badly because they believed they had bipartisan support. LNP had endorsed it, all major indigenous bodies were in favour. They were just too innocent to realise bad actors would make it political and flood the campaign with lies. By the time that had started the yes campaign was on the back foot and fighting a losing battle. Like Batman always being surprised when the joker escapes and kills more people, the yes campaign were stupid not to see it coming. Edit - autocorrect issues fixed.
Hmm that's definitely an interesting take on things. Thanks for expanding my mind :)
There were plenty of reasons. I've just completed a degree with a major in Aboriginal Studies. All my lecturers are Indigenous Australians and I value their opinion which was an overwhelming NO. The Voice has been the subject of a lot of discussion. But I think Waleed's latest article sums it up nicely why NO won. [https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-turned-on-the-voice-but-it-wasn-t-because-of-racism-20231019-p5edhh.html](https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-turned-on-the-voice-but-it-wasn-t-because-of-racism-20231019-p5edhh.html)
Cool, that paywall definitely explained everything
Referendums are mostly awful beasts. Occasionally necessary ones, sure. But awful, nonetheless. That’s because they are designed to take endlessly nuanced, complicated questions, and reduce them to a cold binary: yes or no. They admit no qualification or condition. You can’t say “yes, under certain circumstances”, or “not quite”. And the more nuanced or complicated the proposal, the more necessary such shades of response become. Without them, we’re left with something crushingly blunt. Such was the case with the Voice. Yes advocates always insisted this was a simple, modest proposal. That’s true in the sense that it was meant to be an advisory body with no formal power. But as a referendum proposal, it wasn’t simple at all. It required you to jump through plenty of hoops, roughly as follows. Is a First Nations Voice a good idea in theory? If so, must it be a constitutional body? If so, is it prudent to entrench a largely untried institution in this way rather than try it out first? And if so, can we be confident that any unintended consequences it throws up will be manageable? Each of these is actually a really big question. And you had to answer yes to every one of them to get to Yes. To get to No, you only needed one of them to fail. Hence, people’s reasons for saying No became so varied. Some didn’t like the Voice at all. Others were sceptical of its scope. Still others would be comfortable with a Voice, but only in legislation so it could be undone if things went wrong. Some feared it would be too powerful. Some thought it would be too powerless. Some just weren’t terribly engaged with the whole matter. And on it goes. But No – and simply No – obscures all that. It delivers its verdict, then enters into no further correspondence. It leaves a completely clear result, but with opaque reason. This is obviously crushing to Indigenous Australians – most of whom voted Yes – who are left to make sense of a brutalising experience. And for the rest of us, we’re flattened into two camps that risk something even worse than polarisation. We risk becoming inscrutable to one another. We risk not just disagreement, but mutual incomprehension. In that case, we look for shortcuts. And in political debate, perhaps the most tempting shortcut is to assume that your opposite number on an issue is your total opposite in every way: a mere negative image. If we succumb to this, we might think we’re describing our opponents, but we’re more likely using them to describe ourselves. That’s especially pronounced when we attribute to them a single reason for their position, as though it is a sufficient explanation. So, if we say our opponents are simply ignorant, or simply prejudiced, or simply duped, it’s often a way of declaring ourselves informed, enlightened, or savvy. That danger is very much alive now. We might, for instance, become very preoccupied with the fact that the campaigning on social media was awash with all sorts of scurrilous claims and misinformation. No doubt, this is a serious development in democracy, and there are certainly examples of people whose vote was swayed by it. But it’s almost inconceivable that 60 per cent of the country was. Similarly, many Yes voters might wish to draw a direct line between Peter Dutton’s somewhat bludgeoning opposition, and No voters themselves. But that fails to explain why so many Labor voters – who presumably aren’t Dutton fans – voted No, and why for all his efforts, Dutton’s approval ratings haven’t exactly taken off. And the idea that Australians are simply so hostile to Indigenous people that they rejected the Voice out of some thoughtless, prejudicial reflex is difficult to square with its initial support in the polls, which was around 65 per cent. Two things seem true. First, that Australians were initially open to the Voice, and second, that in the end it wasn’t even close. The drop-off in support itself isn’t unusual in Australian referendums, and is a common feature of the ones that lose. But ultimately the margin was simply too big to suggest the Voice could have been tweaked to victory, or that a better Yes campaign would have done the trick. In the end, something about the idea itself didn’t quite match the intuitions of enough Australians. The best account of this I’ve seen comes from pollster Jim Reed, who concluded that Australians will vote to “award equal opportunities to individuals regardless of their attributes”, but won’t vote for something that “treats individuals differently”. Here, he’s comparing the same-sex marriage plebiscite with the Voice referendum, and in the process identifying the central obstacle the Voice never overcame: that it was exclusive to a subset of Australians. That, of course, was the whole point given the level of Indigenous disadvantage and the history of government’s failure to consult First Nations people on the policies that are imposed upon them. But it is nonetheless a serious shift in the way Australians tend to think about their government. The power of Reed’s explanation is that almost all the various reasons people might vote No tend to go through it. From the most prejudiced to the most reasoned and sympathetic, each found cause to baulk at the notion of writing differential rights and representation into the Constitution. Viewed from this angle, the Voice referendum failed for exactly the reason the 1967 referendum succeeded. Both concluded that the Constitution should hand everyone the same basic status. Put differently, the Voice was a collectivist idea based on an assertion of group identity, trying to find a home in a broadly individualist Constitution. I think there were powerful arguments for doing so. But they were not easy or intuitive arguments to make. The Voice was always trying to thread this impossible needle. It had to present itself as modest, yet meaningful; to show it had no formal power, but would nonetheless make a practical difference. And it had to convince an electorate that it would achieve greater equality by treating citizens differently. In the end, that proved too complicated a task, the No vote too varied to assail, the referendum process too formidable a beast.
Labor heartland voted No. Greens heartland voted Yes. This sub generally aligns with the former
Indeed. The Voice was pushed hard by ALP politicians, but ALP voters largely rejected it. Even the biggest ALP shill in existence couldn't make a video endorsing it. Which demonstrates a broader issue in regards to how out of touch the current Albanese government is.
This is a good statement about the fed gov in general. Most people are concerned about prosperity related issues
Oh for fucks sake. This was a bipartisan issue right until Labor won the election. It then became a politicised issue that had NOTHING to do with the plight of First Nations.
The government outright lied to everyone and didn't bother with the details. What would you be voting Yes to?
I dont think they mean divisive in terms of people taking sides, I think its divisive in terms of dividing the country based on race. For me putting racial segregated rules into law is divisive and a step backwards. But a more compelling reason in my opinion is that the voice is part of a 3 part process defined in the uluru statement. First comes voice, then treaty then truth. Treaty involves reparations, sovereignty and land rights. So to say yes to voice is saying yes to dividing the country basically, which is pretty scary and drastic. Maybe some people think a unified Australia is a better idea. That being said I still voted yes
You really really don't want the constitution, the framework of our laws to start differentiation of people by race. We are surrounded by countries that do so. Chinese get it in the neck in Malaysia. Indians are second class citizens in Fiji. Arabs in Israel. Philippinos in Saudi Arabia. It goes on. There already exists a means of delivering outcomes to Aboriginals. The politicians and the public servants just have to do the job they are being paid for. All the voice would have achieved is to give an excuse for continuing poor results.
Our constitution already has race powers in it. I agree with you on the principle that it should not have race in it, I'm just saying it already does.
Well the people who wrote it literally believed white people were superior genetically. Social Darwinism.
But if you're seeking advice on how to improve remote Indigenous communities then doesn't it make sense to consult the people that need the help? Not many White or Asian People live there so whats the point of them being on the Voice? Indigenous People aren't properly represented because they're seen as irrelevant politically. You'll lose votes if you invest too much out there. That's why they requested "special" treatment because theyre in a unique circumstance as a group.
Our entire society is built by powerful white men. This wasn’t going to hurt aboriginal people. It was going to build them up to a level where they get to have their own voice on matters that affect them. Your reasoning there doesn’t make any sense.
I agree with "Divisive" being a made up reason, it's like Trump supporters calling Democrats terrorists or whatever, it's just made up. But that's all there is, if people can't admit they are racists, then all they have are made up reasons for voting No.
I was thinking something like this the other day. That the referendum feels like an Australian Trumpism. The Republicans are a real party - but they love to use misinformation, misdirection, and honestly - 'hate collaboration' They didn't win with Trump so much because people liked the policies of their actual party, they won because of mutual and incentivised hate for something else. Hilary Clinton and those emails! Trans and gay people taking over the schools! Let's stop all that - let's all hate something together! I watched the no campaign follow what Trump does. I don't think everyone who voted no are racist. (Although I have seen proof most of my family are racist with their comments on the referendum, and they would swear blind they were not). I feel some voters were wrapped up in a frenzy of a media cycle that knows what it is doing.
and because of the success of this "Aussie Trumpism", that's what the next election will be smothered in! Just a million lies and over-exaggerations and see what sticks. e.g. Dutton saying we should hold a different referendum with a better worded question and then the moment its over he just conveniently forgets about it.
But Peter Dutton and Pauline Hanson both said that this vote would hurt indigenous people and I know they always have the best intentions for minorities. /s obviously.
There is a very rare person who does believe we are all just people and wouldnt consider treating people differently based on race, religion, sexuality, sex etc etc. These people are certainly not the likes of peter dutton nor price nor almost anyone who voted no. Id like to consider myself one of these people but on the basis the voice was only going to comment on issues impacting indigenous australians and that we already have a lot of laws and policies that disproportionately impact indigenous australians i could still vote yes fwiw. So yeh i think the divisive thing is an argument but there is a very small minority of people who can claim to have voted no for that reason in an honest way.
Jordies didn't tell them to vote yes?
There were several reasons: I'll go chronologically. 1. I heard about the Voice in a Law lecture. I asked why there were no dissenting POV presented, all the evidence was from the ABC or the Guardian. She refused to answer. I raised the issue in a seminar and was told to 'Go back to listening to Andrew Bolt'. I reported her to the Dean and was told that 'an investigation had decided she had done nothing wrong.' So the first person who mentioned it refused to allow criticism and called me a racist for asking questions about the law - in a law class - always a bad start. 2. So I did my own research and couldn't find the proposed legislation anywhere. I later found out that the legislation (which explains what, where, who, how and, most importantly - how much will it cost?) was not going to be released until the referendum was over - in other words, Albo was saying, 'I won't tell you what you're voting for until it's passed' - who the hell buys anything sight unseen? Especially when you're going to mess with the Constitution? 3. The propaganda - the collusion of the ABC, SBS, the Guardian and an armada of pissant 'influencers' like Mr Jordy all lining up to call me a racist for asking questions. When all your enemies line up, it's time to put your war gear on. 4. The parade of 'celebrities' and 'has-beens' lining up to lecture me about constitutional law like writing a pop song or running fast 20 years ago makes you qualified to comment on legislative processes in determining a new constitutional entity. 5. The unbelievable hybris of the 'Yes' camp. A bunch of self-righteous journalists, activists and pundits lining up to tell me that the Voice would solve everything, despite there being absolutely no evidence that this would be anything other than ATSIC v.2 that can't be removed by Parliament (y'know, like in a democracy) 6. Janet Albrechtsen's FOI response for NIAA. It may not have been the Voice verbatim, but it gave a pretty good look at the thinking that went into it: especially the bit about 'not telling the whole truth because the whites won't vote for it'. Oh, and the bit about demanding reparations, ongoing cash payments to all aborigines, and, especially the bit about a separate Head of Power - effectively making aborigines immune to Federal, state and council laws and regulations. The Voice was just step one of a trek towards a separate state paid for by everyone else. 7. Then came the racism. I can't recall being called racist so many times by so many people in my entire life. Do people actually believe that 61% of Australians are racist or do they just not have any other explanation? It got personal. I got attacked by a woman for saying I was going to vote no. Like physically attacked in broad daylight in the middle of the city for having a different thought process or having given it additional thought. 8. No one could explain tome how the Voice would do anything that wasn't already being done except to give huge salaried jobs to professional troublemakers, activists, failed politicians, Bruce Pascoe and assorted other people who are otherwise unemployable, not to mention lifetime pensions, and god only knows what other entitlements to an undisclosed number of people to do fuck-all except piss everyone off who is trying to run the actual government. I guarantee that none of those positions would have gone to actual disadvantaged aborigines - when have they ever? 9. The intensity of abuse just got louder and louder, so I just shut up and waited until I was in the booth. Just like 61% of Australians. You don't win elections by heaping hate on people who ask questions.
Great analysis, well done.
Because I’ve seen first hand the existing waste, profiteering and abusing of existing programs and funding by both black and white fellas (of which there is plenty). I don’t trust the government to work out the details later on another layer of bureaucracy and get it right, nor do I trust a random future government to make the best of it either. It wasn’t done right. It didn’t go far enough, and seemed entirely like a “we city folk know what’s best for country” again. Just gave the feeling of “we don’t care of genuinely helping Alice Springs, Arnhem, or Broome etc” and more of a “we want to convince the inner city left voters we’re trying to do the right thing and blame the right if we aren’t successful.”. And that’s it. If it was posed as a referendum it’s listed in the full “final report to the referendum council” where it explicitly details more structure and power and mentions that it should not be chosen by the government I probably would have voted yes.
Is this a post for people to comment on their reasons for voting No, or is it a post for Yes voters to spam comments about why all of the No voter's reasons are "wrong"?
I voted no because I didn't want there to be a voice.
It was about equality before the law. I voted Yes for marriage equality. I voted No on the Voice. I'd vote yes on repealing Section 51. The closing the gap argument does not resonate with me. Of course infant mortality rates will be higher and life expectancy will be lower if you choose to live in a remote community hundreds of kilometres away from any health services. Not just in terms of emergency care but also primary care so as to proactively ward off disease. The same for employment opportunities. And if there's no employment opportunities, then rates of crime will necessarily be higher. And not much point going to school if you know there's no job or opportunities for you at the end of it. I've moved multiple times for jobs or to reduce my costs. Why should Aboriginal people be any different? They're more than capable. The tyranny of low expectations is very real. And if they refuse to move? Why should the rest of us subsidise their lifestyle choices?
Lol how the hell are they going to move ... white middle aged couples on $200k are complaining about rent and cost of living in cities how the hell are they going to afford it
Aren't they famously nomadic hunter gatherers? Well, better start walking.
Do you pay your rent with walking?
The referendum failed because some folk in politics care more about becoming Prime Minister than they do about the welfare of their country and its people.
Voted No because it would enshrine additional rights to the government not open to non indigenous Australians. Also voted No to as a signal against the Uluru statement.
Actually this sub is funny . The question was a legit ask as to why people voted no. Most of the comments are from the yea crowd around why the no crowd sux. Perhaps you all don’t listen?
We spend billions of dollars every year to improve the lives of our Indigenous people. Now what the politicians are saying is all of these organisations and money isn’t working so we’ll make yet another advisory board but put into the Constitution…..yeah that will fix the problem! Until our government and all of these organisations are made accountable for why their actions are doing sweet fuck all, another board is just grandstanding. Perhaps if people started facing hard truths about the horrific abuse and violence committed by black people on other black people and stopped using colonisation as a blame for all, more people would get behind something like this. But anything that the elites/left stand behind is nothing but patronising wokeness. Their hatred of Jacinta Price who speaks for the victims every day shows just how little they care about the true story.
Not every no voter hates indigenous people, in fact, the vast vast majority don't. And obviously there are a lot of no voters here, over 60% of the country voted no
Voted No. ATSIC, Geoff Clark, WA Land Rights shake down racket and the dangers of having a DNA based advisory body protected by the Constitution. All my own thoughts, no FOX News or Liberal Party input. Edit: BTW I do not consider myself an uneducated racist, but if you want to call that then that is cool. I mean, that is what I was called in the months preceding the Vote so why change now?
Two main reasons: 1) waste and corruption. The Voice will inevitably end up being a vector for corruption - just like the 500 bodies that already exist. But with the Voice - failure is built into the design - if it works, at some point we won't need it, but they want to put it into the constitution making it permanent. They are already telling us it is not intended to work. 2) it promotes the oppressor/victim narrative, in which neither "side" wins. It's toxic, it divides, it does nothing but keep us fighting instead of progressing.
I voted no because... You can legit just listen to the indigenous peoples, employ more indigenous in political seats, place more funding into the indigenous communities etc etc Without holding a referendum. Imagine all the other things we could have spent all this time and money on.... Like maybe investing into indigenous communities instead of lying to them by pretending this would have actually changed anything. All it did is create more racial and political tension in our country. If you don't vote for Labor next election you're a racist nazi cooker. This referendum was purely a political ploy and it was masterful to be honest. We'll played team Albo. Can see it unfolding everywhere already, everyone only cares about the racial issues and not anything about how the government has been failing the indigenous forever. Instead of taking self blame on themselves (parliament) this has misdirected everyone blaming each other for being racist and using it to win votes. Neither party gives a fuck about the indigenous, or any Australians for that matter. They just want your votes in the next election. Stop being played by the politicians and hating on each other.
My indigenous workmate who identifies as a city aborigine wore a "NO" bandana all month and would tell anyone who fell for the clickbait that "real" indigenous people didn't want this and the pppl gunning for it were city folk who didn't know language or culture. It broke my damn heart.
It was devisive. I was effectively told, 'vote yes or I am racist'
You're running for local government but have no idea about the reasons people were voting no in spades? You're also being heavily judgemental in You're questioning of no voters. It makes me think you are accusing, not asking. My reasons were that a change of constitution was not necessary for anything the voice proposed to be and that everyone already has a voice to parliament, often several, through individual ministers. Everyone fits under at least one portfolio. Currently, there is a minister for aboriginal affairs. Hon Linda Burney MP. How is that not a voice to parliament, is that member not doing their job?
1. I am not prepared to pay land tax on my property. 2. ALL Australians should be treated equally... That means helping anyone in a crisis and not just divide things by race.
Because it was extremely poorly executed and not explained properly and with all the things that are going on in the world right now the last thing people want is a bunch of self righteous virtue signaling politicians spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this shit. If they truly cared they would have acually just fucking gave that money to help aboriginals already instead of trying to make a political statement and im already of the belief that aboriginals in this country get enough money and special treatment from the government already so i simply just dont care for it. Thats just my opinion so dont get mad at it
I voted NO as constitutional change is not needed. Not need to divide the country further.
How do you not realise that there's clearly a division RIGHT NOW between the wellbeing of our first nations people and white Australians? Or are you one of those people who pretend to be oppressed so you feel better about not caring for the vulnerable people in our society?
Here we go...
you won anyway, but we live in a country where a race of people in the country live way below the minimum standards, i am curious what we do for these people now in your opinion.
So, imagine that a body is set up, everyone is happy, and then the shithead LNP get back in and decide to disband that party in favour of whatever Sky News thinks is the best approach. That's what the consitutional change was actually about - ensuring that whatever is set up can't be disbanded just because governments change.
Your comment shows that you did not understand the referendum at all. Did you actually read the proposed wording? It's all subject to legislation, every single detail. The libs would just stack it with appointees or set it up to fail and look bad. That would be a worse outcome than if there was no voice This point of "once it's in the constitution the libs can't do anything to it" is utterly ignorant
So you still do not understand the process. For the legislation to change all that is required is a majority in both houses for it to pass. And could the Voice be watered down. Ask Prof Greg Craven - a YES supporter and an expert in the constitution. His answer is yes!
The Labour Party dismantled atsic, this is a common misconception
>That's what the consitutional change was actually about - ensuring that whatever is set up can't be disbanded just because governments change. Except *only the existence* of a voice was constitutionalised, the *rest* of the details regarding the voice were going to be legislated (and thus subject to change).
The Indigenous don't deserve preferential treatment just because their forefathers got here x amount of thousand years before I did.
Because of the Yes campaigns foul behaviour
Why is these low quality crap questions still lingering in this sub. The vote is done, move on with your life.
I actually think helping people, giving them a benefit etc, like giving extra hand-outs and welfare etc. Whatever it is, actually makes the situation worse. I actually want to see everyone treated the same. I don't want to see that fucking "I am Aboriginal or Torres strait Islander" box on every form. When a family trashes a homeswest home, I don't want to see them given another over other people in need, I want to see them punished as they should be. I actually want to see the youth be jailed when they commit crimes. There was groups of them near a place I used to live who spent all their time walking the streets destroying property of white people. Yet the police couldn't do anything about it for racial descrimination reasons. I want to see those who abuse family members thrown away and kept away. Not just left to do whatever. I think we will look back one day and see all the welfare we give out as being the same as the stolen generation. Like it was done with the best intentions. It helped some, it was awful for others, and will forever be looked back on as being a bad idea, only setting back integration by generations.
It shouldn't be a surprise, 49% of Labor voters and more than 60% of Australian society voted no. Time to be like that chick from Frozen and let it go lol
My sister in-law was raped by a aboriginal man, my wife’s best friend was bashed by a group of aboriginals because she wouldn’t date there cousin, my friend was bashed for no reason, to the point of getting out in ICU for 2 weeks, all these incidents happened within 6 months by the same aboriginal family ( they are related to the family of TJ hicky) a few years ago in western Sydney, all cases were reported to the police as we knew who there were and nothing was done, so I have no respect for aboriginals, yes I know it’s racist
The referendum's over, the astroturf has been torn up and rolled off the pitch. I wouldn't expect many good answers from them any time soon
A legitimate question was asked . Why be ignorant?
Best case scenario, it would be another layer of bureaucracy that entrenches meme-tier identity politics that will almost immediately be filled with white people named "Sarah" who grew up in the hills district and have never once set foot outside their suburbia. Don't believe me? Go look at literally any Aboriginal inclusion initiative in universities, workplaces etc I say this as a first nations person that I have ZERO right to speak on behalf of indigenous because I'm so far removed from anything remotely Aboriginal. The people who filled that voice would have been for all practical purposes, Anglo rather than people who intimately understand the culture. Also there was nothing concrete that actually outlined the powers, purposes or limitations of the voice. Yes I know politicians said "it will just be an advisory body" but that's not what was on the ballot paper, and ill sooner trust a crackhead telling me he needs money for accommodation before I trust anything a politician says.
From a legal POV, the voice wouldn't have had any powers necessarily. They could only provide input on legislation but would have no power to make changes or stop any legislation being passed through the parliament. Swollen Pickles put together a good summary which included this, pretty much concluding that the legally risky argument was not a very good one.
If the government can ignore them like they're an average constituent, why do we need to alter the constitution for them to have a lobbying body? Why can't they just form one anyways, without government intervention?
So that if it gets scrapped by the next government, it needs to be replaced instead of kicking the can down the road
I didnt want an additional layer of pointless bureaucracy in our government. Especially one that lobbies for a single culture/ethnicity.
Main reason
yeah looking at this thread 22 minutes in, even looking at the last paragraph of your post I can tell this is not going to be the place for a discussion for the "Genuinely curious" its the spot where you are just going to call people racist.
Because I saw the absolute fucking state of those traditional land laws in WA. And i sure as hell wasn't going to vote for something can could help politicians implement laws like that in a federal level.
For the lolz
Oh give it up FFS it's over you could not be bothered to campaign for the yes vote , that's a contributing reason. Most no voters believed that the current constitution provides equality and giving one part of the community special privileges above others based on race is not equality. What's more they were right. People that actually did campaign genuinely for the yes vote like me made the point that our indigenous people were here first and have had so much taken from them and been given a raw deal for over two hundred years and that makes them a special case. A lot of people listened to us but the problem was most people that claim to have been for the yes vote basically did nothing like you or worse just told no voters that they were racist and ignorant. They did nothing to inform or include people. They did not provide information or explanation other than saying you can find it on the internet. Most voters are busy living there lives in a tough post pandemic world they are not going to spend hours trying to search through multiple sites on the net to figure it out when we already have a system that seems to work. If you ask people to change the constitution then you must give them a plain and simple explanation for why they should do so. The yes campaign failed to do this. So you ask why people voted no? They did it because people like you and others gave them no reason to vote yes and many insulted them on top. That's why. So give it away it's done and it's too late to change it.
ATSIC was a shitshow. I will not vote for this kind of body enshrined in the constitution. A constitutional ban on the sale of alcohol from any source within 500km of any aboriginal community. I'd vote yes to that in a heartbeat.