To be shocked that Australia voted NO on this referendum?

[koalaknickers]

"The Voice to Parliament was proposed in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a 2017 document crafted by Indigenous leaders that set out a roadmap for reconciliation with wider Australia.

Australia's Indigenous citizens, who make up 3.8% of the country's 26 million population, have inhabited the land for about 60,000 years but are not mentioned in the constitution and are, by most socio-economic measures, the most disadvantaged people in the country."

Australia rejects Indigenous referendum in setback for reconciliation (msn.com)

I have family out there. I just assumed that they would have voted YES. I hope they did. Perhaps I should ask them.

I like Lammy. 👍 keeping you off topic when I should be steering you back 😉 x

I know indigenous people in Australia who were voting no because they felt it was the wrong solution. That those on the government advisory boards/think tanks are completely out of touch with what indigenous communities need and are essentially fatcats spending grants/charging fees. They voted no because they want a community-led approach.

Not surprised in the fucking slightest. One more reason to not visit the damn place.

Australia has had 44 referenda and only passed eight. Proposing constitutional change is never popular and the Yes side made a right hash of presenting their argument.

@koalaknickers They didn't seem to be represented in Sydney's CBD area, for instance working or shopping. Perhaps because too many of them had to live in places like this when I was there

???? Well, how many Govnt departments/service centres did you visit in the CBD? The Govnt has a very strong positive recruitment strategy for Indigenous (which is a positive thing, and as it should be), and they are more likely to be working in a Govnt office than a shop. Also they are more likely to be shopping in suburbs where they are concentrated, most of which are quite near the city for work purposes but you would not have to go to the CBD to shop, we do all have shopping malls. Traditionally social housing for Indigenous were concentrated in these areas, and for many it has now become their ‘on country’ situation where they choose to remain due to close family/community ties. If you visited these places you would have seen many Indigenous folk. Your time in the CBD is not at all representative of anything other than that CBD specifically. But sure, sprout your knowledge on that. Seriously.

In my opinion there is a lot of racism in Australia: Only 235 years ago Australia was colonised by Britain as a Penal Colony. When the First Fleet arrived in Australia the British govt had decreed this Terra Nullius - which essentially means no person owns it/no person lives there. Complete bullshit of course but that tells us something.

No treaties were ever allowed by the British Government. If there had been a TREATY it would have been recognition that people did live there and were the traditional owners of the land. No treaties meant the British Govt did not have to admit the Truth, that this was land already owned by People, as it turns out a land owned by more than 500 different nations of people for over 60,000 years. Oldest living cultures in the world

The different 500 Nations interacted, they traded. If nomadic (and plenty weren’t - they were farmers and had villages) they would have to seek permission to cross another nation’s land. They warred on each other at times. Different Peoples traded with the countries to the north of Australia. Spain had interacted with the Peoples.

As a matter of fact one reason why Britain chose to colonise Australia was because it wanted a trade route here, and to prevent Spain doing the same.

At any rate British Colonidsation meant that First Nations people were pushed off their lands, dispossessed , massacred, were forced to be free labour, children were stolen, families separated, diseases for which the people had no immunity introduced. Rape also, mixed race children as a result) (hence the beginning of arguments of who is white who is a First Australian leading to removal of children. Devastation. There were wars between three British, the colonials and First Nations People. This has been largely hidden by history deliberately, but we know about the Australia Wars now (Henry Reynolds is the first non Aboriginal historian to write about them,! so you can stsrt there if interested) and Bruce Pascoe (Emu Rising) details farming, fish farming practices, the villages etc.Bruce Pascoe was met with lots of slander and questioning if he was ‘really Aboriginal’ .- this is common, there seems to be a need for People who have successfully beaten the odds to prove their Aboriginslity etc.( that’s racism in another form). More archeological evidence of settled life was uncovered during the huge fires of 2019-2020 when dense bush land burned away - I saw a couple of articles about it.in the news but then nothing more.

Anyway, things continued on in this way until Federation in 1901, where things then continued on this way - same day, different boss. White Australians have proved no better than the British from whom most they are descended. For a second example look how Australia is treating its refugees who come by boat. (And Britain is not clean in this)

It’s been a slow and tortuous route for First Nations People to get recognition in Australia. Yet again, they were denied it on Saturday . I believe they will not ask for a Voice again but, it’s my opinion they will demand Truth and Treaty now. I’ll be there as an ally, as will many millions of Australians who voted yes.

This has irrevocably changed Australia as we know it.

For those arguing which is the most racist country you need to cut it out, and look to evidence of disparities in income, health, education, the legal system etc.. and listen to the people who are experiencing it. Australia’s evidence of equality is not good although people will pick out examples of those who have succeeded despite the odds. Same in the UK.

We are both racists countries. But Australia just exposed itself to the World on Saturday. “Not everyone who voted no is a racist, but every racist voted no” - a singled out selective quote. I truly believe people voted no because they were misinformed, misled and lied to, but I think some also voted no because they are racist.

BUT, not everyone who voted yes is not a racist. Some are. They just don’t recognise how they are racist. It’s something all people of the dominant culture in our societies have to look at and sort out. As quick as we can. Denial gets us nowhere: and causes suffering:

Apologies for any typos in my post above, I have a disabling illness that causes amongst other things, vision problems at times.

It’s Dark Emu, just FYI in case anyone wants to Google for it. And many indigenous people have expressed concerns about Pasco’s identity and research. Michael Mansell, for instance, from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Council who is no right-winger has said emphatically that Pascoe is a white man co-opting aboriginal identity. There have also been serious scholarly objections to his research and conclusions - not slander - summarised here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/25/bruce-pascoe-has-welcomed-the-dark-emu-debate-and-so-should-australia

The issue of treaty is also more complicated than you represented. Britain commonly signed treaties with indigenous groups - New Zealand, Canada etc. In Australia, indigenous peoples appeared to the British to be a tiny number without a structured society. We know this to be untrue now but the two cultures - were so hugely different from each other that the British simply didn’t understand what they were encountering. It was also completely different from what the British had encountered with other indigenous peoples in the US or New Zealand that they saw no need to make a treaty. A few decades after colonisation began, they had recognised that they erred. Governor George Arthur called it a fatal mistake.

We need to be able to discuss these issues with nuance not culture war stuff. The voice campaign failed to do that and settled for calling people dickheads and racists instead.

The lack of understanding about the detail and nuances of foreign politics, international relations and economics never ceases to amaze.

All these people commenting about how shocking it is that Aus voted no have made no effort to understand the story and regurgitated and few soundbites to signal their quota of virtues for the day.

Indeed. It was the British who colonised Australia. It was the British that called the native population - the First People - fauna. It was the British that then enslaved them, put them in chains, and branded them. It was the British that introduced them to strange illnesses. It was the British that brought alcohol to these shores. It was the British that denied them any opportunity.

It was the British that slaughtered them in genocidal numbers.

And we are a member of the Commonwealth, are we not?

Aboriginal Australians were never classified as fauna. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_and_Fauna_Act_myth

it was a constructional amendment- in Australia, this needs to be done by referendum.

South Australia /Treaty /“Fatal Error”

“What is the history of Treaty in South Australia?
**
No formal treaty has ever been signed between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the British or Australian governments. It could have been different in South Australia.

In 1832, George Arthur, the Governor of Van Diemen’s’ Land (now Tasmania) noted that it was ‘a fatal error ... that a treaty was not entered into with the natives’ in the colony.

Arthur recommended a treaty be signed before a colony was set up in South Australia.”
**
“ Unlike other areas of Australia, British colonisation of the area that is now known as South Australia was meticulously planned. The South Australia Act 1834 legislated for the establishment of a settlement in South Australia. In 1836, Letters Patent establishing the Province of South Australia were issued. Significantly, the Letters Patent included recognition of the rights of the ‘Aboriginal Natives’ to live within the lands of the new Province.

‘Provided Always that nothing in those our Letters Patent contained shall affect or be construed to affect the rights of any Aboriginal Natives of the said Province to the actual occupation or enjoyment in their own Persons or in the Persons of their Descendants of any Lands therein now actually occupied or enjoyed by such Natives.’

Despite the existence of the Letters Patent, the rights of Aboriginal people were ignored. Like the rest of the continent, no treaties were signed.

We are talking now 1836 - ‘settlement’ SA, 48 years after colonisation of the east coast of Australia. A bit more than a few decades.

The argument that the existing culture was unrecognisable to the British in 1788 holds some weight, imo. But nearly 50 years later, I think it should well and truly have been ‘recognisable’ by then. No Treaty at any point.

The Voice Campaign included people like, Constitutional Lawyer Megan Davies, Noel Pearson, Aunty Pat Dodson and many more. MP Julian Leeser - who was Shadow Minister for the Indigenous Peoples, resigned his shadow minister to campaign for yes. These people, and so many others, was not part of a ‘yes campaign calling others ‘dickheads and racists’. ‘

it did happen of course as the yes campaign had official and unofficial campaigners. Just like some of the ‘no campaign’ threw around words like ‘woke - (appropriated and used disparagingly) bleeding hearts and ‘elites’, and ‘culture warriors’ etc..

Basically, what Australian govt been doing for decades to improve the lives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders has not worked. Only 4 of the 19 close the gap initiatives have shown success. This was an attempt to try something new.

The Close the Gap initiatives cost a lot of money. But most of benefits of that is supposed to accrue from money never reaches the people that it’s supposed to. They receive only minimum or no benefit from it, minimum or no improved services / health education - housing etc etc.. Most of the money goes to consultancy firms, business organisations that deliver programs etc etc., who are, generally, not First Nations People.

This was an attempt to change that. By giving a Voice to Parliament - an advisory board of First Nations People - non legislative - no power - simply advising the govt on how to more effectively spend the money, in regard to their own people only.

. South Australia /Treaty /“ Fatal Error”

They wanted people to vote for a constitutional change - this is a big deal OP, you can't just switch it off - without giving any significant details about how the proposal would actually work.

Just because a proposal seems like the sort of nice thing to do doesn't mean it would be good law or policy. It would be crazy to vote to make something a constitutional obligation without a clear idea of what it would entail. This approach has produced some incredibly shit laws, in a number of countries, in the last 10 or 15 years.

It wasn't just "presented" poorly. That would imply the policy was well crafted but poorly explained.

You cannot handwave constitutional structures. Maintaining an effective democratic structure is not a game. The idea that anyone would vote for a poorly crafted amendment because they are worried that it is racist not to is so fucking crazy I don't know what to say.

I wasn't surprised. Australia is racist and openly so.

I did vote yes, not that it matters now.

This was big for Albo as he campaigned on the promise for first nation, but of course racist Aussies let everyone down.

Some misinformation here corrected.

All Australians are entitled to free health care.

All school kids are entitled to free dental care. After that, dental care is means tested. (If you want free health care as an adult (its means tested), then lobby your govt. fight for it: just don’t say ‘it’s not fair, they get all the benefits I do not’ , someone fought for any benefits Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders get and believe me, they aren’t enough. We pay high taxes, insist your govt stop throwing money away on companies like ‘ Price Waterhouse consultancy’ and reinvest in your public service.

If you are a non Aboriginal Australian with school age kids you can access dental care for them. Some parents know that, many are unaware. Usually the parents who know this have had Dept of Health mobile dental services come to their kids’ schools. Many schools don’t have the mobile dental services come around, but you can access the free service.

Ring the Department of Health Dental services (it may have a different name now, as it’s been a while since I accessed it for my kids a few times when I was broke. And I only found out about them because a parent from another school told me about the free dental. WHAT? I said’ FREE DENTAL - WHAAAT? When I had had some money again, I found it easier, more convenient, to access my local dentist that I paid for). The mobile dental van with its free dental services is coming to my grandchild’s school next month so free dental is still available for children. Insist on it.

Demand better of your govt. & be better informed. Always ask about your rights. It’s something Australians generally tend not to do as we aren’t encouraged to. (Australia wash colonised as a penal colony and that thinking then, that a convict had few rights, has filtered down somewhat inter- generationally Be aware, every single govt representative of yours, both federal and state, knows their rights.

First Nations people do get preference for Educational Systems.. How does it work? One example: In my understanding: eg Two students get 50% in their final exams. Both barely scrapped by, and there’s University One place left. One is an Aboriginal teenager, another is not. The University will take the Aboriginal teenager and not the non Aboriginal teenager. Why so? Because there’s recognition that it’s more likely it’s taken a lot more effort for an Aboriginal Teenager to get that far. They face so many roadblocks. (eg a court is much more likely to sentence an Aboriginal child to a custodial sentence than a white child - for exactly the same crime). But, its not to say the non Aboriginal teenager in the example did not face roadblocks, but that generally, in our society, an Aboriginal teenager is likely to face more roadblocks than a Non Aboriginal teenager. It’s not a perfect solution. It’s up to you to demand better from your govts. Voting every 3 or 4 years helps, but becoming activists in your own lives helps that much more. If nothing else, if something unfair pisses you off,!write an email and send it to your MP and every relevant MP. One of the shiftiest shock jocks ever - Alan Jones - used to do that because, it works. Enough letters on the same topic and the MPs stop ignoring you and others. Don’t be put off by those pithy non answer emails they send back in reply. Write again and Organise people to write. Ring their offices, let them know. Find out when your representatives are in their offices and make an appointment to see them. They work for you.

A Pp poster is right - The book is called ‘Dark Emu’ and not ‘emu rising’ but I always mistakenly call it that. Might be the ‘rising’ bit and a connection to the phrase ‘phoenix rising’ some Aboriginal people do question his Aboriginality, some do not. At any rate his research is good.

There is a documentary on Netflix - it was on our ABC but I think it may have moved to Netflix - called ‘in my blood it runs’ about a 10 year old Aboriginal child growing up in Alice Springs. He’s a great kid but goes perilously close to running off the tracks despite a loving, but impoverished, family. He triumphs but over the course of a couple of years the documentary is filmed over, you start to see all the roadblocks faced by Aboriginal children and their parents.

Not to say many white people people don’t face roadblocks. But for Black , and many Brown and Asian people too, the very colour of their skin is a roadblock in our society. Preconceptions abound. Preconceptions abound for poor people, single parent families, disabled people, abused women and their kids, and so on.

Recognise though, that that Original People, the First Australians, are the ones whose lands were colonised. We to come here or most of our ancestors wanted to come here. First Nations People - they are owed a chance to improve their lives. They are owed a debt. (Despite the popular bullshit, theybaren’t asking for handouts.). On average, First Nations people are still living at levels of Great Depression Era Poverty. And they are amongst the most roadblocked people in the world. We should not get to take nearly everything of theirs and then say ‘okay, now we are all equal.’

Well said!! Does that poster imagine that Indigenous Australians go around with a sign on their foreheads? Because if they don't I would like to know how they "did not see one", how would they actually know?

I see, so a thread about something which has taken place in Australia is allowed to be commented on by a bunch of people in the UK, who haven't the faintest idea of what was actually happening, and they are throwing "racist" insults about Australia all around the place, but no-one is allowed to point out that the utopia which supposedly the UK is can be just as racist. Thanks for enlightening me.

I haven’t RTFT so, apologies if this has already linked.

Please read the official information that Australians had access to before voting in the voice referendum, and you will have a better understanding of why people voted the way they did.

Yes, of course there would have been an element of racism. However, racism wasn’t the only reason why people chose to vote no.

https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/your-official-yes-no-referendum-pamphlet.pdf?=v1.0

To clarify, the above link is the official pamphlet representing both the yes and no vote. It was available at the polling venues for anyone who hadn’t already done their research previously or who were still undecided.

Thank you for correcting me there. I thought I'd read it in an old newspaper - perhaps thankfully not!

I did find this though. Try and guess when this was published. (Apologies for its formatting.)

THE FUTURE OF THE ABORIGINES.
Of late years little has been done to
ameliorate the condition of the abori-
gines, and although I believe that
between the years xxxx and xxxx
large sums of money were expended in
protectorates in New South Wales, very
little good was effected. That our
present position with reference to the
original owners of this colony is not
an equitable one is beyond dispute.
We have taken from them a country
where, after their own fashion, they
were contented and happy ; and, in
return, we have bestowed on them a
civilisation which destroys them. I
do not say that this could altogether
have been avoided, for experience
everywhere proves that races in a
state of savagery, and even those races
which have passed from savagery to
barbarism, are unable to withstand the
advance of European civilization.
It is a very difficult matter to sug-
gest measures that would effectually
improve their condition.
Five or six protectors might be ap-
pointed throughout the colony, care
being taken that the positions were
filled by men who understood the
characters of their charges and took an
interest in the welfares of those whom
they were appointed to protect.
Depots could be established in
different localities from which food
and clothing could be obtained in
reasonable quantities. For this pur-
pose the different police stations could
be used.

FWIW I do think that this referendum and the proposed changes to the constitution were not adequately discussed in a rational, factual, straightforward or informative way.

There seemed to be a lot of heated emotional arguments, misinformation and scaremongering.

It was an important referendum that needed the facts to be presented in an unbiased way in order to fully inform the people.

People cannot be expected to make good decisions when they are misinformed and manipulated.

People will lack trust if they feel that important details are withheld.

And lastly, most people are either reluctant to embrace change or struggle with it in one way or another. Introducing change needs to be done right or it will be rejected and fail.