With a two-letter word, Australians have struck down the first attempt at constitutional change in 24 years, major media outlets reported, a move experts say will inflict lasting damage on First Nations people and suspend any hopes of modernizing the nation’s founding document.

Early results from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) suggested that most of the country’s 17.6 million registered voters had written No on their ballots, and CNN affiliates 9 News, Sky News and SBS all projected no path forward for the Yes campaign.

The proposal, to recognize Indigenous people in the constitution and create an Indigenous body to advise government on policies that affect them, needed a majority nationally and in four of six states to pass.

  • @alvvayson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    14
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Here in the European press, I read that many Aboriginals also opposed it. They want recognition, land transfers or compensation.

    To really reconcile over past wrongs, I get that. There needs to be something substantive and I think something like that will only be possible when most boomers are gone.

    We have similar debates over our colonial and enslaving past.

    • MüThyme
      link
      fedilink
      English
      381 year ago

      The point is that this would have given them a path toward voicing those sorts of things, directly to the people who can actually do something about it.

      It could have been the start to a lot of great change, it was a simple easy thing to do

      • @alvvayson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        Sure, I understand the idea and it would have been good if it passed.

        But they can still voice their opinions, we have free speech, and change in the future is still possible.

        • @batmangrundies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          As others have stated, we explicitly don’t have free speech in Australia.

          We also don’t have any laws requiring political campaigns to be truthful. And as we saw, the day after the vote was done. All the leaders of the “No” campaign flat out abandoned indigenous people and explicitly said they wouldn’t be fronting a new referendum for recognition in the constitution without the voice. A promise they made repeatedly.

          The leader of the opposition who spearheaded the no campaign has been called a fascist by his peers. And once commented that if elected he would do away with parliament and elections if he could.

      • @alvvayson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        No, the European press stated that it was around that number, so no propaganda.

        If this was really such a great thing for them, they would vote 90+% in favor and the battle would have been to get the rest of the country over 50%.

        For example, New Caledonia voted 96% to remain part of France. That’s much better as referenda between an ex-colonial power and indigenous populations go.

        Seems to me like some better solution must be found that can find a majority support among all Australians and a level of unanimity among indigenous Australians.

        • @batmangrundies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          80% indigenous support polled prior to the campaigns starting. After a relentless campaign of misinformation courtesy of Murdoch. The actual number that voted yes was 63%.

          In regional Aus, there is a popular, free-to-air, 24/7 Murdoch-run news outlet, Sky News Australia, not to be confused with Sky News. It is right of Fox News, closer to OAN.

        • @vantlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          63% voted for it after one of the strongest, most targeted disinformation campaigns that Australia had ever seen. The right-wing parties have made this issue so incredibly divisive and inflammatory. Anecdotally, some Indigenous people, who did not want to be the target of further abuse from racist Australians, were convinced that the Voice would make the abuse even worse because of the ongoing hate and outrage they have experienced during this entire debate. I can understand why they wouldn’t want that experience to solidify constitutionally.

          • @TheOriginalGregToo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Sounds to me like you’re being rather racist with your assumptions. You’re characterizing a group of people as having monolithic values based on a shared heritage. They’re individual people with individual beliefs and motivations. You’re also suggesting that they’re easily coerced, or perhaps simple minded. This too is racist and demeaning.

            Edit: Fixing an autocorrected word.