Page 16 | To be shocked that Australia voted NO on this referendum?

koalaknickers · 2023-10-16T07:35:02+00:00

"^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^." [[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/australia-rejects-indigenous-referendum-in-setback-for-reconciliation/ar-AA1icZn2 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.

Catsmere · 17/10/2023 23:20

The very phrase "on the right side of history" sets off all my alarm bells these days.

Photographsandmemories · 17/10/2023 23:24

Hush, we don't want any indigenous rights activists, investigative journalists, constitutional lawyers or what have you quoted here. We want the uninformed kneejerk opinion of mumsnet, which believes that Monty Python's Bruce sketch is a fully accurate and up-to-date representation of the Australian voting populace.

Bubblesoffun · 17/10/2023 23:47

Well it’s quite clear by this thread that no one in the world is more informed about global events and politics than a bunch of MNters. Clearly you know more about the whole referendum than we did. It must be wonderful to live in a world that’s so black and white and clear cut.
(I say all this as someone who voted yes)
In case I’m not being clear enough I was being sarcastic.

ImustLearn2Cook · 17/10/2023 23:47

taybert · 17/10/2023 11:08

I have to say, in my reading on this (which has been fairly brief, but still) I have been unable to discern what they are actually voting on. “An indigenous voice” great- how does it actually work? I sincerely hoped that the Australian reporting of it would give some clarity on what it actually meant and that the reports I was reading in the British news were short on detail because it wasn’t a British issue. But actually it sounds like that was also the case in Australia too and that there wasn’t really any detail.

It’s easy to say aren’t they racist and isn’t it awful and it might be true, but you can’t expect people to vote to change their constitution without being sure what that means. What if it was all just tokenism anyway and it meant very little- if the indigenous people have a “voice” that no one listens to and which has no power then it can be used a smokescreen, people might feel enough has been done, it could actually prevent progress on the issue.

It sounds like it’s been handled terribly to be honest.

As an Australian who voted in the referendum I can say this was a big part of it. We were given vague information and told that more specific information would be given after the vote (if majority voted yes).

This is a vote to change the constitution in some way. We should know, in order to make an informed decision, what exactly is that change, the wording and the legal ramifications.

To vote yes it involved a leap of faith that the yes campaign was all good and the no campaign was merely manipulative and deceitful and scaremongering.

The no campaign’s slogan: “If you don’t know, vote no,” was highly successful in tapping into people’s doubts and lack of trust in the government.

Most people don’t want to take that leap of faith, blindly trusting any of our politicians.

IamRa · 18/10/2023 00:46

@ImustLearn2Cook

This is a vote to change the constitution in some way. We should know, in order to make an informed decision, what exactly is that change, the wording and the legal ramifications.

Every single person over the age of 18 must vote in a referendum.

They cannot be all be asked to wade through reams of information - including legal ramifications - that many simply won't understand. Referendum questions are kept concise and simple for this very reason. Any constitutional change arising from a referendum is also concise and clear. It is only after the referendum, when devising any governmental body arising from the constitutional change, does any complexity arise. (This may not be negative complexity; simply the sorting out of commonplace bureaucratic issues, ie, who does what.)

You might be able to make an informed decision given the tools and information, but a good amount of people would not.

BlinkyBulldozer · 18/10/2023 00:51

This is what we had during the campaign for the voice this year:

Federal Minister for Indigenous Australians: if Australia had the voice, we wouldn't have all the problems we've seen in Alice Springs and other places.

Australians: How would it fix them?

Government: We're not telling you. Just vote yes. We'll sort all that out later.

Australians: But what exactly is it going to be? Who'll be on it? What will they do?

Government: Christ. Go read the work we've put out on this already. Do some googling you lazy bigots.

Australians: Okay. So that's how it's going to work?

Government: We didn't say that. Maybe, maybe not. We'll sort it out later. Look! Qantas repainted a plane! It says yes! Everything's fine. Just vote yes.

Australians: I still don't understand so I'm going to vote no.

The media: The referendum didn't pass because everyone except us is stupid and racist. There can be no other reason.

ImustLearn2Cook · 18/10/2023 01:19

IamRa · 18/10/2023 00:46

@ImustLearn2Cook

This is a vote to change the constitution in some way. We should know, in order to make an informed decision, what exactly is that change, the wording and the legal ramifications.

Every single person over the age of 18 must vote in a referendum.

They cannot be all be asked to wade through reams of information - including legal ramifications - that many simply won't understand. Referendum questions are kept concise and simple for this very reason. Any constitutional change arising from a referendum is also concise and clear. It is only after the referendum, when devising any governmental body arising from the constitutional change, does any complexity arise. (This may not be negative complexity; simply the sorting out of commonplace bureaucratic issues, ie, who does what.)

You might be able to make an informed decision given the tools and information, but a good amount of people would not.

@IamRa Yes, I know. I have been voting since the age of 18 myself. And it really isn’t that hard to make informed decisions.

It doesn’t take reams of information - including legal ramifications - that many simply won't understand to outline the precise changes (including the wording) to the constitution that are being proposed.

It is not impossible to explain these legal ramifications concisely and in layman’s terms so that the vast majority can understand.

It is not impossible to have intelligent, factual debate that avoids insults, misinformation and propaganda.

And it is absolutely vital that we don’t treat the majority of the population as unintelligent and far too dense to understand.

We are autonomous (self governing) individuals part of a collective whole. We absolutely do have the ability to make informed decisions.

ImustLearn2Cook · 18/10/2023 02:16

To be fair. And to correct myself from pp. They did outline the wording for the proposed changes to the constitution:

2 After Chapter VIII
Insert:
Chapter IX—Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
(i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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.

—————————————————

However, they didn’t outline or explain who this body would be or how they would be truly representative of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. How would the Voice differ from the existing advisory bodies that represent the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? Would it replace the existing advisory bodies?

FWIW I voted yes because I really do think that we should recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia. And I hoped that it would achieve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people being listened to, taken seriously and consulted on matters that directly affect them.

I almost voted no because I think it is a bit ambiguous, open to interpretation and I am not entirely convinced that it would make the difference that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’s hope for. And I still feel that I don’t have enough detail on how it works or how it would be implemented.

Catsmere · 18/10/2023 02:22

ImustLearn2Cook · 18/10/2023 02:16

To be fair. And to correct myself from pp. They did outline the wording for the proposed changes to the constitution:

2 After Chapter VIII
Insert:
Chapter IX—Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
(i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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.

—————————————————

However, they didn’t outline or explain who this body would be or how they would be truly representative of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. How would the Voice differ from the existing advisory bodies that represent the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? Would it replace the existing advisory bodies?

FWIW I voted yes because I really do think that we should recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia. And I hoped that it would achieve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people being listened to, taken seriously and consulted on matters that directly affect them.

I almost voted no because I think it is a bit ambiguous, open to interpretation and I am not entirely convinced that it would make the difference that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’s hope for. And I still feel that I don’t have enough detail on how it works or how it would be implemented.

As Gary Foley said in the Overland interview posted upthread, it wouldn't have been any use anyway. Governments have ignored the numerous advisory committees ever since they started, and enshrining one in the Constitution would have meant we (the country) were saddled with it.

ETA I also appreciated his dubiousness (or outright scorn) for the whole Uluru Voice from the Heart business. They were far from representative, and how could they be, when Indigenous groups around the country have such different needs and wishes?

Gremlinsateit · 18/10/2023 02:43

There were a lot of untruths promoted about the Voice, many of which are repeated on this thread.

The Voice was constitutionally sound, supported by a wide range of Indigenous groups who had been extensively consulted, and was rejected by conservatives due to racism (including some internalised racism) and hopes for political gain.

It was never going to succeed without bipartisan support, so the process has inevitably caused a lot of grief and heartache for Indigenous people.

The only positive is that we now know millions of Australians genuinely want to make progress towards recognition and closing the gap. Otherwise, it’s a pretty sad outcome for the country.

ALittleTeawithmilk · 18/10/2023 02:52

Gremlinsateit · 18/10/2023 02:43

There were a lot of untruths promoted about the Voice, many of which are repeated on this thread.

The Voice was constitutionally sound, supported by a wide range of Indigenous groups who had been extensively consulted, and was rejected by conservatives due to racism (including some internalised racism) and hopes for political gain.

It was never going to succeed without bipartisan support, so the process has inevitably caused a lot of grief and heartache for Indigenous people.

The only positive is that we now know millions of Australians genuinely want to make progress towards recognition and closing the gap. Otherwise, it’s a pretty sad outcome for the country.

Really good post. Clear and concise 👍

I agree with all of your points.

Gremlinsateit · 18/10/2023 04:25

BlinkyBulldozer · 17/10/2023 00:35

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.

Bruce Pascoe is very nuanced about his Aboriginality. He is clear that his ancestry is at least mostly from the UK, and, if you understand the history of genocide, rape, child removal, and “breeding out the colour”, it is very clear that someone in Pascoe’s position is perfectly likely to have Aboriginal ancestry. That’s why it is disgraceful that right wing commentators bore on with the “whiter than me” rubbish.

Most attacks on Pascoe are on the basis of his Aboriginality, not his scholarship. If you actually read Dark Emu you can see that his claims are modest, and mostly based on historical documents of Europeans.

It’s a fascinating book for those of us who grew up in the Australian school system. A friend of mine remembers being quite literally taught that Captain Cook was the first man in Australia, while sitting in a classroom with Aboriginal kids.

PS I think you’ll find that the Yes campaign didn’t call anyone stupid or racist. Some individuals outside the campaign did, and some more individuals were misquoted by good old Murdoch media.

IamRa · 18/10/2023 05:51

@ImustLearn2Cook

And it is absolutely vital that we don’t treat the majority of the population as unintelligent and far too dense to understand.

I must make the distinction between what I wrote - "They cannot be all be asked to wade through reams of information - including legal ramifications - that many simply won't understand. Referendum questions are kept concise and simple for this very reason," - and "unintelligent and far too dense".

Adding in too many layers of complexity to any question muddies the water. Further information fuels further questions. Being able to capably process, assimilate, and critically assess information is a skill not everyone has; it isn't a function or marker of intelligence.

IMO, this referendum failed primarily due to misinformation and bad actors.

Gremlinsateit · 18/10/2023 06:52

IamRa · 18/10/2023 05:51

@ImustLearn2Cook

And it is absolutely vital that we don’t treat the majority of the population as unintelligent and far too dense to understand.

I must make the distinction between what I wrote - "They cannot be all be asked to wade through reams of information - including legal ramifications - that many simply won't understand. Referendum questions are kept concise and simple for this very reason," - and "unintelligent and far too dense".

Adding in too many layers of complexity to any question muddies the water. Further information fuels further questions. Being able to capably process, assimilate, and critically assess information is a skill not everyone has; it isn't a function or marker of intelligence.

IMO, this referendum failed primarily due to misinformation and bad actors.

Agree. Also, it is completely correct for the referendum wording to be simple and general - like all the existing powers in the constitution. The detail goes into the enabling legislation. If the referendum had passed, all parties and independents would have had the opportunity to contribute to the enabling legislation.

Original poster

koalaknickers · 18/10/2023 07:49

HoppingPavlova · 17/10/2023 16:37

Just as a little side-note, the term Aboriginal, while historical is outdated. Whilst always lumped together in the ‘white’ intent of Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islanders generally don’t identify as Aboriginal. Therefore, to be correct you would need to say Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. This then became a mouthful and a half, so the term Indigenous was used as it covers both groups. Lately, First Nations has become popular but with stats we still report data in terms of ‘Indigenous’. On an individual basis, you identify an individual as their country/land/group name, example ‘Linda, a Gamilaroi woman, is 46yo’. So, for those using the term Aboriginal, either add in the Torres or swap to one of the other two terms if wanting to be correct.

Thank you for this information and I will use this going forward. Appreciated.

OP posts:

Original poster

koalaknickers · 18/10/2023 08:03

givemeasunnyday · 17/10/2023 19:45

There are a lot of news items about things which happen in Britain, all the time. I never comment on them because I don't live there so don't feel qualified to discuss them. However, it does surprise me how MNers who don't live in a country feel they need to give their (quite frankly unwanted) view. There is nothing wrong btw with passing a randon comment, but this arguing about rights and wrongs of a decision made in a country posters don't live in and which doesn't affect them at all is pointless. "Having family out there" isn't enough.

Show quote history

People discuss news items all the time about countries they don't live in. Why should this be any different? There is no qualification to discuss the news.

It's a global world and I am interested in the way the UK is seen by other people in other countries. Why not? We have our own problems - Windrush for one - and I don't see a problem with anyone weighing in on that wherever they may come from.

Anyway, British ex-pats get to vote in our elections:

British expats will be able to vote in General Elections after new ruling (euroweeklynews.com)

And some expat Australians can vote in Australia including The Voice ref:

The voting rights of Expatriate Australians (exfin.com)

You can vote without even living there, so I don't see why chatting on a forum is such a problem.

Something not directly affecting me doesn't mean I don't take an interest. Having family out there is not needed. The fact that I do, just means I think about Australia more than some maybe. Why is that a problem for you?

British expats will be able to vote in General Elections after new ruling

British expats will be able to vote in General Elections after a new ruling received Royal Assent on Thursday, April 28.

https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/04/29/british-expats-get-votes-for-life-after-change-in-uk-election-law/

OP posts:

Z1hun · 18/10/2023 08:11

It's my understanding that the reason people voted no' including a significant number of the indigenous population is not because of Racism but because the proposed legislation was incredibly vague and unclear. Have a look at it yourself and let me know if you understand what is actually being offered. 🙂

IamRa · 18/10/2023 08:24

Z1hun · 18/10/2023 08:11

It's my understanding that the reason people voted no' including a significant number of the indigenous population is not because of Racism but because the proposed legislation was incredibly vague and unclear. Have a look at it yourself and let me know if you understand what is actually being offered. 🙂

It wasn't proposed legislation. It was a proposal to add a clause to the Constitution. It would afterwards lead to legislation (the tools for the Voice).

sashh · 18/10/2023 08:38

koalaknickers · 16/10/2023 08:44

A member of my family has some very close indigenous friends.

He was working somewhere and tried to get one of the young adults a job there and was told in no uncertain terms "no way, I'm not employing a *". I won't type in full the term used.

It is absolutely shocking the way they have been treated in their own country. I can't believe in 2023 the Australians voted NO to them having a say.

Your last sentence, the Australians who voted no include 'them' and 'they' were having their say.

Some interesting info here.

https://www.news.com.au/national/voice-referendum-jacinta-nampijinpa-price-is-real-winner-of-the-vote-as-she-becomes-major-political-star/news-story/df9fc4ba616449eed553dbc14c4fd4ba

It is not a straightforward choice, the Aborigine populations in different areas have different needs and Australia works a lot at state level.

'The Voice' would have been about 24 people from all over Australia that could make representations on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders, but parliament would not have to take any notice.

There would be no voice at state or local level where a lot of people think it would be more useful.
I've tried to read up on this but it is quite confusing and the only thing that is clear is that Australians are divided on this issue.

Jacina Nampijinpa Price has spoken out after the Voice referendum was defeated

Liberal frontbencher Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has declared “we are not a racist country” in the wake of the referendum result as she called for a “new era” in Indigenous politics.

https://www.news.com.au/national/voice-referendum-jacinta-nampijinpa-price-is-real-winner-of-the-vote-as-she-becomes-major-political-star/news-story/df9fc4ba616449eed553dbc14c4fd4ba

Original poster

koalaknickers · 18/10/2023 08:41

Rudderneck · 17/10/2023 17:40

The OP asked why people would vote this way, and many people have pointed out that there are serious issues, from a law and constitutional POV, that might make people disinclined to have voted yes.

If the OP simply intended to dismiss those answers there was zero point in posting.

Your comment really is an excellent example of what those concerns entail, it was not just a vote about "recognizing" indigenous people, it was potentially about changing the constitutional basis of lawmaking in the country. That's a serious thing, and whether it will even achieve the desired effect will depend on how it is implemented. Mistakes on this kind of thing can destabilize whole governments. Ethnic divisions, once constitutionalized, become concretized in a way that may have unexpected effects, even potentially really negative effects for the people it is meant to help.

That people think it is a good idea to virtue signal with the constitution without working out the details of proposed changes is basically the answer to the OPs question.

Show quote history

I have read every single post and I am happy that so many people have weighed in and explained so much of the nuance to this. I am not ignoring it.

What can/should happen next to help the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, do you think?

OP posts:

Original poster

koalaknickers · 18/10/2023 08:49

Bubblesoffun · 17/10/2023 23:47

Well it’s quite clear by this thread that no one in the world is more informed about global events and politics than a bunch of MNters. Clearly you know more about the whole referendum than we did. It must be wonderful to live in a world that’s so black and white and clear cut.
(I say all this as someone who voted yes)
In case I’m not being clear enough I was being sarcastic.

Why did you vote yes? I am interested.

Why do you think people voted no? I am interested.

Unless you think it's none of my business of course 😀

EDITED: Changed "what do you think of" to "why do you think" as it was worded badly.

OP posts:

Original poster

koalaknickers · 18/10/2023 08:58

BlinkyBulldozer · 18/10/2023 00:51

This is what we had during the campaign for the voice this year:

Federal Minister for Indigenous Australians: if Australia had the voice, we wouldn't have all the problems we've seen in Alice Springs and other places.

Australians: How would it fix them?

Government: We're not telling you. Just vote yes. We'll sort all that out later.

Australians: But what exactly is it going to be? Who'll be on it? What will they do?

Government: Christ. Go read the work we've put out on this already. Do some googling you lazy bigots.

Australians: Okay. So that's how it's going to work?

Government: We didn't say that. Maybe, maybe not. We'll sort it out later. Look! Qantas repainted a plane! It says yes! Everything's fine. Just vote yes.

Australians: I still don't understand so I'm going to vote no.

The media: The referendum didn't pass because everyone except us is stupid and racist. There can be no other reason.

Good post!

Sounds suspiciously like Brexit and IndyRef.

EDITED TO ADD: Yes, I am in UK, and yes I'm Scottish, so I am "qualified" to mention both these things before anyone starts 😀

OP posts:

royalwatchewr · 18/10/2023 09:05

I've lived in both Australia and the UK.

In my experience, people living in remote areas and country towns are likely to be bigoted but Australians living in the major cities are very multicultural in their outlook and actually much less racist than British people.

Most people I know voted Yes, but many of those who voted No were concerned about the lack of detail.

Bubblesoffun · 18/10/2023 09:37

koalaknickers · 18/10/2023 08:49

Why did you vote yes? I am interested.

Why do you think people voted no? I am interested.

Unless you think it's none of my business of course 😀

EDITED: Changed "what do you think of" to "why do you think" as it was worded badly.

Edited

Show quote history

I voted yes as I support stronger representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with in parliament. I also support constitutional recognition of First Nations People.
however there were major issues with the yes campaign as pp have stated. I believe that the question should have been in two parts. Instead of one mixed up question which was actually two separate things.
1 -constitutional recognition
2 -voice to parliament
also, as stated above lack of transparency. How would this voice, which would have no power to legislate or do anything but “advise the government” actually help struggling communities at a grass roots level. Who would sit on the advisory board? How would they be chosen? Considering the size of Australia and the number of Indigenous communities and their vastly differing needs it would be a massive challenge with no clear idea how to actually do it. I honestly don’t blame many no voters because many would have voted yes if the government had just let us in and explained everything in plain English instead of talking in riddles and brushing the population off by saying “go look it up “

Original poster

koalaknickers · 18/10/2023 09:56

Bubblesoffun · 18/10/2023 09:37

I voted yes as I support stronger representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with in parliament. I also support constitutional recognition of First Nations People.
however there were major issues with the yes campaign as pp have stated. I believe that the question should have been in two parts. Instead of one mixed up question which was actually two separate things.
1 -constitutional recognition
2 -voice to parliament
also, as stated above lack of transparency. How would this voice, which would have no power to legislate or do anything but “advise the government” actually help struggling communities at a grass roots level. Who would sit on the advisory board? How would they be chosen? Considering the size of Australia and the number of Indigenous communities and their vastly differing needs it would be a massive challenge with no clear idea how to actually do it. I honestly don’t blame many no voters because many would have voted yes if the government had just let us in and explained everything in plain English instead of talking in riddles and brushing the population off by saying “go look it up “

Show quote history

Thank you so much for your answer.

There are definitely good questions raised. I see it's not as simple as painted.

As a Scottish person with the IndyRef (I voted no) I feel that campaign was a mess with no clear picture of the way forward.

It is a shame that the campaign was so unclear, but I can see now (and after reading all the other posts) that there was a lot of confusion and "look it up" isn't really an effective campaign.

Why do you think the government didn't let you in to explain everything? Incompetence or something more sinister? What are your feelings about this?

If yes had gone through how do you think things would have played out?

Sorry for all the questions. I feel like I am interrogating you!

OP posts: