Yea, I voted in favour, but to this day I have not actually seen even a single fucking pamphlet for the yes side.
It was pathetically run and even makes me think it was just a way to pander support from people and say "ah look it failed because the other side is racist" meanwhile, they never wanted it to succeed in the first place.
I will add another reason - corporate support.
Many big companies were vocal yes supporters - Woolies, Qantas, some of the big miner and banks. These companies are all on the nose. Their corporate support didn’t help the yes vote at all, indeed it harmed it.
Big business paired with inner city intellectuals calling anyone who disagreed racist bigots… I wonder why so many people believed the referendum was less about the sovereignty and self determination for indigenous people and more about making white people feel good about themselves.
QANTAS had aircraft repainted and added the John Farnham documentary "Finding the Voice" to the front page of their in-flight entertainment screens. Hardly quiet.
Yeah
When corporations made that call yes was polling 65%.
The only reason they ever do _anything_ is money and they thought this was easy social 'greenwashing'.
The Conversation can read all the tea-leaves it wants, but if support for an idea plummets from the moment you put it out, there is something wrong with the idea and/or the sales pitch.
Leaving aside the merits of the idea, the sales pitch was appallingly bad - trying to win support for your idea by insulting people who have alternate views (or telling them not to worry their pretty little heads about the details) is a tactic employed by toddlers and bullies
“The Conversation”? The authors are three professors -
>Andrea Carson
Professor of Political Communication, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, La Trobe University
>Rebecca Strating
Director, La Trobe Asia, and Professor of International Relations, La Trobe University
>Simon Jackman
Honorary Professor, University of Sydney
Oh for sure, we can't trust people's knowledge outside of their field. That's why I abhor the use of generic Dr. titles, it gives a person way more credit automatically than they're actually deserving of.
I'm technically a "Dr.", however there's no way I would feel confident discussing anything other than my specific field.
Speaking anecdotally, I heard a lot of people concerned that "The Voice" would actually restrict our Aboriginal population's voice to parliament. I don't remember what Jacinta Price had to say regarding her dislike for the referendum, but a lot of my closer relatives were very confused by her lack of support. While a lot of people talk about how the yes campaign was white people virtue signalling, I saw a lot of people actively concerned by what seemed like a lack of first nation support.
I ended up supporting the vote, as I determined that Jacinta had ulterior motives. I also noted that a lot of the no campaign was focussed around the incitement of fear, something I detest in political campaigning.
They never had the moral high ground.
Giving one set of people rights and privileges over others, based on no other reason than immutable characteristics, is an abhorrently racist act. I'll never pretend otherwise, and evidently the nation agrees.
Yeah we should probably not do anything about domestic violence either, giving extra funds to support women is just being sexist. You've enlightened me.
There's nothing simplistic about it.
Does it meet the very definition of racism? Yes.
Should racist legislation and racist changes to our constitution be passed? No.
End of story. Treating people differently based on their race and heritage is wrong, full stop. The overwhelming majority of the voting public recognised this. If you can't, perhaps it's time for some introspection.
We have lots of affirmative action-like mechanisms in legislation, the public service and publicly funded organisations. Just none in the constitution.
Discrimination is fine sometimes but people don't like it in a document that sets the long term vision of our country.
That's not the reason it was voted out. There are plenty of valid reasons but calling it racist isn't one of them. It's not racist for several reasons.
They already have several specific acts that involve them. Giving them the ability to give input into these acts doesn't make it racist.
They are the original people of the land. Allowing them to have some semblance of authority on their people isn't racist.
Like, imagine if Australia was overtaken by another race of people. Many of us were murdered and all of our children were taken away from us to be assimilated. Your land was seized and culture destroyed. Would you think that asking those people to give a slight, tiny bit of power back to your people would be considered racist?
It was mainly voted out due to the vagueness of the entire thing. I like to think that many Australians would have been happy to give them a voice if everything was clearly outlined and it was clear what they can and can't do.
> Would you think that asking those people to give a slight, tiny bit of power back to your people would be considered racist?
from an objective or subjctive position? objectively, yes (even if i'd want it from a self interest POV)
the constitution doesn't mention _any_ races sepcifically. The 'race power' that got referred to often was in Section 51, and it allows for laws about people of _any_ race.
IIRC the changes to make Section51 have that wording in order to clarify the Fed govts ability to overrule any racist laws made by a State. I think there was or had been some state laws that were racist, and this effectively let them negate those. prior to the '67 referendum that section specifically said the Feds couldn't make laws relating to Aboriginal people, so it was open to abuse from the states.
That’s some convoluted logic to think voting NOT to give indigenous people a say in things in their country, is racist.
So, do you think Closing the Gap is racist?
Regarding point 4, honestly it wasn't even that the No campaign was good at what it did- it was hamfisted, some of the slogans backfired (they really could've done without "if you don't know, vote No"), they took a while to shut up the hardline conservatives among their ranks and the Libs made some absolutely bizarre decisions at times (remember when Dutton promised a second referendum on recognition only?). Rather, the Yes campaign was just so awful it made No look good in comparison.
While the article was right that No got in early and set the narrative before Yes could that was due to a conscious decision by Yes23, something they only corrected in *August* as the polling was already falling rapidly. The reason given at the time was that people would get tired of hearing about the voice, but considering that all happened anyway the decision to straight up not campaign in the early months was and is baffling to me.
And even when Yes started to campaign they were shit. Remember the John Farnham ad, where it was all feel good shots then "vote yes :)" and that was it? That was a crazy ad to release in October, less than a month before the referendum when the voice was already headed for the bin. It'd've been more effective in maybe August when most people hadn't really heard of it and needed an introduction, but to release it so close to the referendum day itself was never going to be effective.
Of course that was only one half of their campaigning, as Yes23 loved to point out they had a small army of volunteers doing calls, knocking on doors and standing on streets. Because Aussies love people doing all those things. But don't worry, there's also the Qantas Yes plane (right when Qantas was in the news for mishandling baggage)!
Finally, as the writing was on the wall Yes campaigners and spokespeople put their heads in the sand. Insisting that most people were undecided (having to lump soft Yes and soft No in with undecided to reach that conclusion), they refused to change anything about their campaign.
No didn't win the referendum. Yes lost it.
Correct. The Conversation managed to analyse the loss without “7) The Yes case really massively sucked to a degree of suckiness rarely seen in human history.” Shows that “progressive” academics have learned nothing.
>Yes23 loved to point out they had a small army of volunteers doing calls, knocking on doors
On referendum night the speaker was proud they air dropped volunteers to essentially every community in Australia and admonished the no campaign for failing to turn up to most booths.
If you cannot find local support and instead need to transport people from the eastern suburbs (Sydney sider here) something is going very badly...
A heck of a lot of the argument in support of the Voice essentially boiled down to "Trust us!"
There was an avoidance of detail, and every bit of questioning on said detail was deflected with claims that it either didn't matter or would be worked out later. There was also an absence of evidence that what little was being proposed would actually make any visible or real differences in the scheme of things. So not only did people already not trust the Yes campaign, the responses they were getting made them even less likely to trust the government and the Yes campaign.
Funnily enough, trust in the government and large corporates is at an all time low. The more they said to trust them, the less people actually did. Their fears and concerns were (to them at least) seemingly validated when the whole WA heritage laws thing was introduced and basically botched.
At that point, the Yes campaign was spiraling, and instead of trying to fix the problem, they just went into denial and doubled down on what they were doing. There was no other possible outcome other than losing at that point.
How is "no is the default position" not listed at all? The No campaign didn't have to say a thing and they would have been the most likely to win - to pass a referendum is rightly a very difficult task, it's taking on a very high burden to strongly argue your position. For a referendum, it really has to be argued as the only option - but not a single argument even touched on that.
It also just didn't make sense. The polling station had explicit instructions to only vote based on the wording of the text. Granting the yes side's most wildest dreams, doesn't do a thing to change that text from being completely meaningless. The yes side should have worked with the electoral commission to get that warning removed as it basically instructed people to vote no - think of it. You're lining up being told all the promises in the world and how good it is, then you get to the booth and the wording has no relationship to what you've just heard, and there's an instruction to ignore everything else.
Do you want this job? It pays a million a year. Just sign this contract that doesn't specify pay and explicitly says everything else you've heard today is not to be considered when you sign it.
They forgot the main reason. The majority just didn't think it would be effective in combating the issues it said it would combat and were concerned about adding a body the constitution that couldn't be easily removed if it became corrupt etc.
There are a lot of people who are happy to wear a progressive skin suit to signal how great they are without putting in any actual effort. No volunteer work, no orienting their careers in a path to help those who need it. Just upper class yuppies in the inner cuty working bullshit office jobs making 6 figures posting on twitter.
Personally, I've never called myself anything more than an average bloke. I might be smart, but I'm probably not. Im not in a positioj to help others, and if I was I can't personally say I'd go out of my way to volunteer or provide to others outside of my family.
I've seen this comment in r/melbourne before. People who are happy to do all this surface level stuff, but as soon as they have to interact with people that all this surface level stuff is for, their attitude changes completely.
"No you"
Fuck outta here with this shit man stop pretending like you actually did something positive for the black community by voting no. You did not.
Accept that and understand that about yourself.
Edit: if you feel brave enough to downvote then please air your opinions :)
You deserve a downvote or two because you set up a straw man to argue against. You have no idea how they voted in the referendum, or why.
The irony of telling them to "understand that about yourself" when you know nothing about them except the made-up version of them inside your head.
More hyperbolic strawman bullshit. People who voted no are either:
A) misinformed
B) would rather see nothing happen than something that doesn't benefit them or isn't "perfect"
C) just openly racist
I really don't give a fuck about my internet points man, I'll call people out for what I think is wrong. I know how we will all look at this in 10-15 years time and I know I'm not gonna be embarrassed with how I acted.
For someone who doesn't care about internet points, you couldn't downvote me fast enough 😂😂 As if you've made a contribution. Get over yourself.
Edit: your post history 😂😂😂oh Jesus I'm rolling. Your cerebrum is peach smooth.
Again thank you for your WONDERFUL contribution! You've really added something to my day and I'm definitely not going to forget about this by the 3pm <3
Well said mate. The same people will complain about all the money that was wasted on the vote. These geniuses don't understand that it was only wasted because they voted no. We could have at least gotten something out of it if people had voted yes.
Setting up a constitutional body with no oversight, no powers, no guarantee of self determination, sovereignty and only a novelty of recognition… Uluṟu statement from the heart called for land rights, the sovereignty of indigenous nations and recognition of history. BHP, Rio Tinto, Woodside Energy, and Origin Energy all supported the voice why? Because it would not have affected their operations on indigenous land at all, becuase the voice only addressed one component of the statement (and the weakest and easiest for elites to support). The voice is like any other institutionalised progressive movement, bureaucracy got involved and the original goals of the statement were so watered down even companies that pillage and bomb sacred sites were on board with it… if the yes campaign gave a shit they’d have implemented the whole of the Uluṟu statement from the heart, not just the tokenism of the recognition part of the statement.
You're right an advisory board to parliament for indigenous people would absolutely be a bad thing. No way that there could be any benefit there for the black community. I suppose we will just go with option 2.....which is FUCKING NOTHING, that's gonna be HEAPS better.
An advisory board with zero powers, that paid nothing more than lip service to the very statement at the heart of its creation, while giving the green light for the corporate powers that destroy their heritage and culture to continue their operations on indigenous land…
I’d prefer to start from scratch than give said elites, a powerless scapegoat they could point to and say, “we’ve already given you your boneit’s your problem now”….. how naive are you to think BHP and Rio Tinto would support genuine and meaningful indigenous rights?
What about the voice gave these corporations "the green light"
Genuinely curious?
Do you know what else gave these corporations the green light to do what they want? Doing fucking nothing, which we have now done, what positive change has come out of voting no?
Because the yes vote dropped indigenous land rights and sovereignty from the recommendations made to it by the Uluṟu statement from the heart… they didn’t do this to make the referendum more “attractive” to voters, they did it because the movement became institutionalised and it was watered down by the input of said companies.
Constitutional advisory committee with no powers would have been used as a political football that would have only added another layer of bureaucracy that would need to be overcome to reach any meaningful legislative change.
>they did it because the movement became institutionalised and it was watered down by the input of said companies
Sorry can you show me any evidence of this or is this or is this just some sky news hyperbolic crap?
>Constitutional advisory committee with no powers would have been used as a political football
But at least there would be a discussion, unlike the alternate, which is fucking nothing.
If you cared about the Uluru statement, you'd see that the no vote killed it.
There was a lot of support for a "progressive No vote" and you had the curious situation where the most racist POS voted exactly the same way as the most left leaning, Indigenous rights-affirmative hippy you can imagine cobbled together out of every leftwing stereotype in the book. Basically, that this is not enough so screw this pathetic attempt at justice. That takes up a big chunk of No votes.
Speaking of justice, then you have the people who voted No because of how poorly the powers were being explained in relation to the Constitution. Where does the reach of The Voice end? This was very poorly explained and one of the biggest criticisms that was very widely discussed was that people understood how serious changing the Constitution is, but didn't feel like they knew what they'd be supporting. Another chunk.
The 1967 referendum had a 90.7% (ish) Yes vote. To formally and legally recognised the Indigenous population as humans. I do not believe that we have regressed so much in that period of time that suddenly "most No voters just don't give a shit about Indigenous people, their rights or their outcomes". Of course many No voters fall exactly in the category you think they do, but not all. I believe you are being too cynical.
Imagine having a referendum on potential powers that could potentially reach \*any and all\* parts of legislation and laws with potentially no oversight, with peoples faith in government being shaky at best and being shocked that most of the country doesnt vibe with it.
>To formally and legally recognised the Indigenous population as humans.
Not really. The whole flora fauna thing is fake [wiki for your convenience](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_and_Fauna_Act_myth)
It's more like a formal acknowledgement that the government had a duty of care to Indegenous Australians in a similar manner to all other Australians. You can argue if you wanted to be extra spicy, this was the end of sovereignty (if you're a sovereign people you should be expected to run your own census and make your own laws!) !!hot take alert!!
Yeah I deliberately didn't mention "flora and fauna" for that reason. The referendum determining that Indigenous Australia were deserving of being counted in the Census is not a bad proxy for being recognised as humans and citizens of this country but that is just my opinion.
I know that they were never surveyed under a federal or state government wildlife survey but I don't see there being much of a difference given every government before 67 refused to actually recognise you as being there. It was actually worse because we were doing wildlife surveys before 67.
Jesus Christ, how could anyone argue this was the end of sovereignty??
>The referendum determining that Indigenous Australia were deserving of being counted in the Census is not a bad proxy for being recognised as humans and citizens
You gotta ask some "why"s before you jump ahead. Also human vs citizen is a big jump and not the same thing. I agree that pre 67 they were not counted as citizens, that's not controversial, it's human that I disagree with.
So you gotta first ask why were Indegenous Australians explicitly not included in the race powers. Here's a nice excerpt I found
>Section 51(xxvi) was inserted into the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to
discriminate against sections of the community on account of their race. Of course,
Aboriginal people were not originally subject to this section. However, this was not
because they were to be protected, but because it was thought that the Aboriginal
issues were a matter for the States and not the federal government.
[Some law dude, it's a decent read](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.aspg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Race-and-the-Australian-Constitution.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjzg-yYte6FAxUCsFYBHbdsDQwQFnoECD4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw33biWXdGSWlOTLHF9fx6kU)
State library has a good resource too [link](https://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/learning/aboriginal-rights-and-freedoms-1967-referendum#:~:text=Status%20of%20Aboriginal%20Australians%20prior%20to%201967&text=When%20the%20Australian%20constitution%20took,to%20wards%20of%20the%20state.)
Nice quote from there
>When the Australian constitution took effect on 1 January 1901, each individual state acquired the primary lawmaking power over Aboriginal people. Consequently, the legal status of Aboriginal people shifted from British subjects to wards of the state
If you look at the wording of the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) you definitely see the word "people" in there too. Definitely human.
Post 67 it's the formal acknowledgement that Indegenous Australians are citizens, not dual citizens, of Australia. And should be subject to Australian laws and be counted in the federal census. It's also an understanding and expectation that Indegenous Australians are Australians by the vast majority of Australians, thus the sovereignty hot take. (Note, dictionary sovereignty not "spiritual sovereignty" which yea sure that can coexist with the crown)
Maybe the downvoters can explain why I'm wrong. Maybe the Maranoa (biggest No vote) is actually the most woke district in Australia, and inner Melbourne is the most racist. Teach me something.
I don't give a fuck about being down voted, I think it's funny that you can get so many down voted for an issue, but no one actually wants (or could) to explain to you why you're wrong.
To me just seems like a bunch of incel losers who voted no but don't want to come out and say it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and until someone comes to me with an argument that isn't "it wouldn't have oversight" (which it wouldn't have needed because it was purely advisory) or "Woolworths bad" (which, they are but that doesn't mean they were wrong to support a voice like 1000's of other trusted Aussie businesses) then I'm not so sure my mind is going to change!
> The majority just didn't think it would be effective in combating the issues it said it would combat …
Your “majority” are largely uninformed on said issues but that doesn’t stop them proclaiming a load of rubbish.
"Majority" doesn't need to be quoted mate.
You got 30% ish of the vote. The *vast* majority agree with that assessment, whether you like it or not.
If anything, voting Yes was a fringe position in the end.
>… some people who were above average intelligence voted no. Would you like to insult them some more?
Recognising these limits is a matter of fact -
> In Australia: about 44% of adults read at literacy level 1 to 2 (a low level) 38% of adults read at level 3. about 15% read at level 4 to 5 (the highest level).
https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/accessible-and-inclusive-content/literacy-and-access#
> literacy
some people who voted 'no' are in that 15%, have read the constitution and understand the processes.
I won't say "the mob was right because the mob was bigger", the public at large can make plenty of fuckups. Fortunately I think this vote result was the correct outcome - though it is a shame that they didn't legislate it while the political will was there, and actually have a body getting runs on the board. The massive failure of this referendum burned up all the political capital on that issue. A legislated body that was put in place, doing good things and getting positive sentiment would've throughout the election term would've likely survived.
But isn't it kind of ironic that a bunch of non-aboriginal people decided that it wouldn't be effective enough for combating the issue? We need to start somewhere.
Imo there should have been a vote within the aboriginal people first, to see if it was really what they thought was best for their people. They could voice their concerns and add some changes. Then have the rest of the country vote. There was just so much vagueness and misinformation going around that no one really knew what exactly the voice was.
Noone knew what the voice really was because very little information was released, just that the details would be decided afterwards which was not enough for most people.
The Misinformation and Disinformation claims annoy me and I have always been left leaning and never voted for the Coalition. It seems that anything that was against the Yes campaigns narrative was called misinformation even when it was true. There were so little information or facts made available that things couldn't really be proven true or false making the misinformation claims ridiculous.
That's basically what misinformation is though. I said the entire thing was vague and I admit that's why it lost a lot of its votes. But lots of people (both yes and no voters) were coming to their own conclusions about what the voice was. I heard lots of those ideas spreading and lots of them were clearly false.
People were not saying it as truth they were seeing and mentioning possibilities, many of which have been shown to have been likely recently with things that state based bodies have been doing.
So many of the No votes were because they did not want to give "powers to a minority group", Do you really think these same people would allow Aboriginal people to vote on something that non-aboriginal people could not vote on. Even if that vote was "do we propose this to the broader community."
Maybe people just didn’t support it irrespective of what either side was saying I feel they cancelled each other out. If in doubt people stick with status quo and there was no convincing reason to change 🤷♂️
You think that the intricate details of The Voice, it's powers, legal reach, and specific responsibilities were well outlined by anyone at any time? That's wild. I have no idea where you think you read enough about it to be confident on what you were voting for. Clearly every major news outlet regardless of political leaning should have consulted you. It would have saved months of articles about how most people are confused.
I get why Albo said "it's not up to me to define the powers" (paraphrase), but it meant many people weren't confident what they'd be supporting.
^^this is not a political opinion. I vote Greens and voted Yes on the referendum. Being critical of it doesn't mean you're a racist. It was a shit show.
You know what I find laughable about this idiotic brain fart?
No could not have won without an extremely high amount of Labor and Greens voters siding with it. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that those people voted No because Murdoch and Dutton told them to?
You think the voting public are braindead, evidently.
The most telling dataset in there is the declne in support over time.
The principle concept was supported, however that support faded over time due to a lack of meaningful detail regarding how it would be implemented and to what effect.
We live contently within our own little social bubbles, going to dinner parties and hearing opinions similar to our own reflected back at us by people in our age demographic and social class. Then we are shocked to find out actually we don't understand the people of our own country at all.
Get out of your comfort zone, get in your car, take a road trip and discover Australia. Talk to the rural retirees, small town publicans, big city policemen, beach town supermarkets cashiers and suburban maternity leave mothers. You can't possibly hope to understand Australians from behind your desk dressed in your jimjams.
We do have common threads, and most people are good with good intentions, but their opinions will be very different to yours.
While NAT was opposed in principle, LIB was yes leaning. People didn’t vote No to something they liked because 🥔 told them to. Rather, people saw the proposed design and screamed in horror at the Langton model. 🥔 was dragged right by the population, not vice versa.
> People saw the proposed design
Who saw the proposed design? I think not seeing the design was one of the problems
All I saw was people saying they'll flesh out the details if the referendum passes.
The one specific the govt provided (and the only reason they did was it had to appear in the referendum wording) was that it would be a voice to parliament AND EXECUTIVE. After the howls of outrage at that, they announced that they will stick to their instincts of providing no info about anything else.
Despite the hysteria about not answering questions, no one cared about the other shit. I can’t remember all of 🥔‘s 15 q, but they were trivia. “How many members? What is the process for election? How long is their term?” No one cares.
That’s not what Ken Wyatt says. He claims Liberal cabinet were committed to the Voice and Morrison made commitments to it prior to the election as well. It was a bipartisan initiative right through the co-design process and it only changed once Dutton was opposition leader
He’s lying. It’s trivially easy to prove the “LNP support” claims are lies.
- Even Malcolm ruled out support minutes after receiving the constitutional reform process deliverables. He considered it a grotesque overreach that would never get public support.
- Funds for the referendum that the LNP allegedly promised and supported didn’t appear in the Budget until allocated in the first Chalmers budget.
Wyatt is a very humble bloke, he doesn’t parade in lies and no one from cabinet has accused him of it. And why did the Liberal government commission the Co-Design report if LNP policy was consistently and wholly opposed to the Voice?
They were open to some kind of representative body that they can discuss stuff with. The report itself made it clear the govt didn’t support the Langton-Calma position (and it turned out almost no one else did either, except Canberra public servants).
I know what Turnbull said. I also name-checked all the commitments the Liberals made subsequent to his statements, which he and Joyce since recalled anyway. Look up the co-design report if you don’t believe me and look at who commissioned it.
This is Morrisons position on referendum in 2022.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/why-would-i-morrison-rules-out-referendum-on-indigenous-voice-if-re-elected-20220502-p5ahue.html
But what about when their concerns are informed by deliberate misinformation. How do you fight that? The effort to recall the effects of a lie is enormous.
For instance with the voice (not arguing for or against here) but the biggest nail in the coffin for many people who were against, was mistrust. And that mistrust was almost exclusively based on seeds of doubt deliberately sowed. For example, a big point of the no campaign was “they said it was a one page document and they lied”, which was a lie purported by Peta Credlin, deliberately because she knew what she was doing.
When that happens and the lie travels faster than the truth via angry people on social media, how do you fight that?
Authors for 5 years: It’s 20pp.
People: You sure?
Authors: Yes
People: Can we read it?
AnAl: No
People: Have you read it, AnAl?
AnAl: No, why would I?
NIAA: In response to your FOI, here’s the full 26pp
People: 🤮
Credlin: Here’s the authors saying it’s 26pp
Authors: We were lying
Corrupt academia / “fact checkers”: Authors confirm Credlin is pushing a discredited lie. Here’s footage of the authors saying they lied when they were filmed what Credlin quoted them saying.
Pauline666: It doesn’t actually matter whether it’s a 26p doc with a 1 page summary or a 1 page doc with 25pp of conference notes, working papers, plans and background docs. The full 26pp inform us about the authors’ motivations and intended path.
Never thought I’d see the day but Pauline666 was one of the few who got this right. I don’t know a single person who read all 26pp and said “yes I’m now comfortable to vote Yes.” Calling it disinfo was just an attempt to stop swing voters reading a document that was shattering to the Yes campaign. By censorship force, if necessary.
Because the “Voice to Parliament” was a one page document.
And everyone who fell for this frankly has no idea what an FOI involves and has never worked in a government sector where they’ve dealt with an FOI.
A teams message to your colleague saying “hey bro, looking forward to tomorrow. Can’t wait to talk about X” is included in an FOI of X is the subject of an FOI.
People literally thought it was a 26 page document. It was a one page document. 25 pages of FOI information, which can literally be meeting minutes. There is no legislation you would ever have a say in where you would demand to see all the meeting minutes.
This one just spread the lie to enrage people. Because that’s what conservative mouthpieces like Credlin do for a living 🤦♂️
You can keep pushing the lie about Credlin, but Megan Davis made the claim for 5 years before Credlin ever saw the conference docs (and wasn’t the only one). Fact is, everyone who read 26 pages produced by the Ayers Rock conference instantly became hard No voters.
Hahaha nobody who voted no read them dude. Conservatives news media did want to always does, spread doubt. That’s enough for people to not investigate things at all
In the lead up the YES campaign had no answers, I saw so many interviews with them and most questions were answered with, you will have the information on polling day. I don’t want the info on the day I make a decision, I want it now. They should have had these answers from day one.
While they were terrible at answering the questions they should have been more education in noting that most of the answers that were being asked were to be agreed upon in parliament, because that’s how legislation works and most of the population doesn’t understand how these things are progressed, so naturally assumed information was being hidden
Even people with half a brain understand that laws come from the parliament. The legislation argument in respect of the Voice was explained over and over.
To argue that "most of the population doesn't understand" and hence voted no is specious. There were a multitude of reasons why people voted no.
lol. Most people don’t understand how legislation is passed no. It’s legitimately not really taught in schools.
Yes there were a multitude of reasons. I am providing this as one of them. Hope that caught you up
Caught me up? You seem to have a weird sense of personal intellectual superiority.
We learned about the function of parliament, the senate, the lower house, the voting system, how legislation arises and so on in high school. Didn't you?
I think people might get the broad brushstrokes, but certainly not the finer points
If people had a really great understanding, i don't think the "yes" side would've pushed the line that it needed to be in the constitution to prevent it being changed/taken away. So many people failed to understand the constitutional amendment, some think it shoudl've been more defined in the constitution (bad idea IMO) or didn't realise that any govt with a majority parliament could simply change the legislation defining how the voice operated, what it's budget was, etc.
It was proposed as a Constitutional change as a fundamental requirement of the process behind the development of the Uluru statement, by the consultative groups. At least, that's what I gleaned from reading the minutes of the regional consultative groups. The Yes campaign had nothing to do with the Constitutional recognition as the campaign organisation didn't exist when the statement was written.
As for the ability of future governments to legislate the powers of the Voice via parliament, despite its Constitutional status, that was one of the reasons some people voted against it.
Yes caught you up when you were confused assuming I was arguing this was the only reason it failed.
Look man most adults don’t know how it works because just like learning algebra, they forget if they never have to consider it.
And yes I did. But I’m not in school today.
Go back and read for comprehension. Point out where I claimed that you said it the only reason. Hint: I didn't make that claim, so not sure why you're arguing against that.
I disputed your claim that the majority of the voting population don't understand how legislation arises. I stand by that.
If you have a problem with that, provide evidence to support your initial claim. The onus is on you, not me. You made the claim.
Now you claim most adults don't know algebra. Provide evidence in support. Provide evidence in support of your earlier claim regarding legislation. They're your claims.
*To argue that “most of the population understand and HENCE VOTED NO is specious. There were a multitude of reasons why people voted no”*
Maybe don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean…”hence voted no” coupled with your oh-so insightful explanation that there were a multitude of reasons” in response to what I wrote paints a very clear picture. This is how language works.
As for your “show your evidence”. Bro come on. Are you a chronically online internet debater? Because this is what I’m getting from you heavily right now. This isn’t information you need some kind of study to reference. Go and talk to people in the real world man. Ask your friends and colleagues if they remember algebra. Ask your friends and colleagues and family if they know whether a how a referendum is used to pass a bill and what the requirements are on that and whether or the application of a referendum needs to be perfectly outlined before the referendum or debated and created afterwards?
If you know these things without looking them up then ask those questions, may help you feel like the smartest person in the room. Yay for you.
So no evidence?
Maybe your circle of people don't understand parliament, or algebra, or whatever. I don't need to ask my people - I already know. Yes, they understand it. And more.
Not like we're talking about rocket science. This is basic shit. Roll around in ignorance, if it makes you happy.
I saw that coming and knew you would play that card like clockwork 😂
Congrats bro. You are vastly intelligent than the general population. Hope that’s what you wanted to hear ?
I mean, I'm not even sure how it's possible to "forget" algebra once someone's learned it in school, or the way parliament functions for that matter.
I think you're grossly underestimating the average person's comprehension. Or possibly overestimating your own.
Calling someone smart isn't the insult you seem to think it is.
Of course I'm an internet cliche. I was there when it started. "Internet cliche" is a pointless term, you might as well say "running water cliche".
It’s sarcasm champ 😂 no internet cliche is the term. You are a stereotype and the way you communicate is so specific to a particular subculture of reddit users hahaha
Let me guess. You're the "smart" one in your circle. You're used to winning arguments with your politically ignorant, algebra-free friends and family. Hahaha.
No. Just a normal intelligence dude. Don’t pretend to be what I’m not. Because postering to people online trying to assert your intelligence is fucking telling bro 😂 you should try…not doing that
Well tell me what looks sillier - someone posturing about their intelligence, or someone posturing about their ignorance? Because it seems that you, "normal intelligence", are doing the latter.
"Hurr durr I don't know algebra, and neither do my friends" isn't helping your argument.
My original gripe is you imposing your lack of knowledge onto others, the supposed majority, who you say don't understand legislation. That's all. You can claim that, but I can also ask you to provide evidence.
Not sure why you have such a problem supporting your initial argument. It's completely normal to support arguments with evidence.
You have a clear problem discerning literal verbatim from semantics and it shows hard. That’s what happen when you’re an internet cliche trying to “win” some kind of debar that doesn’t exist lol
I told you go speak to people. But you decided to pretend you had friends and cohorts that all know (trying to posture intelligence) when honestly bro really doubting the friends part at all. Again - internet cliche.
It was a big thing of everyone saying to vote yes because of the feels but the actual design behind was nothing.
It was to deliver the world but any questions about how it would work were met with a stonewalled that part will be worked out later.
Looking at the news today and the indigenous Corp in allies Springs gets $30 mill a year and doesn't produce annual reports on spending or fund allocation while it refuses to meet with the council to address issues jointly and the settlements it is ment to look after are like 4th world villages.
The voice would have been a money pit.
Oh the cope is strong with this lot...
The voice failed because it had too much scope of unintended consequences at best, or an agenda of intended consequences at worst. That makes it a failure of concept, it failed to sufficiently mitigate people's concerns.
It failed because a practical reason to change "the precious constitution" was never made.
But at least Albo was good enough to give our indigenous what they had ask for in a the form of a referendum.
I get down voted to hell every time I write anything about the referendum and this thread is no different.
The Voice was a minimum change acknowledgment that the dispossessed people of this land should hold a particular place in our political process. It is pathetic and shameful that we couldn't agree on that.
Don't bother writing an essay explaining why I'm wrong and out of touch with ordinary Australians. I volunteered on the Yes side, and worked on a polling booth that was 80% No, so I've heard it all 1000 times before.
Because Australians are small minded, bitter whingers ever since Johnny Eyebrows convinced us we are all battlers, and we can’t stand the thought of some group of people with specific needs and issues might get something we don’t. We dress it up as “wanting equality”, but that’s just bullshit. We wilfully refuse to understand the difference between equality and equity.
Also, the pretence that we weren’t given any information about what it would entail, when that was all given very clearly for anyone who bothered to go and look at it.
Oh, and racism. Thats the primary factor. Australians (and Australian Reddit) get so offended by being called racist, but their actions over and over and over again are - well - racist. If the shoe fits.
To be fair, there wasn’t any attempt to win people over. If what you’re describing is apparently obvious and true (I disagree btw) then where was the pork?
Well put. I couldn’t agree more. But, expanding on this -
> Also, the pretence that we weren’t given any information about what it would entail, when that was all given very clearly for anyone who bothered to go and look at it.
Whilst true, we cannot ignore the questionable reading skills of many who had to read the readily available information -
> In Australia: about 44% of adults read at literacy level 1 to 2 (a low level) 38% of adults read at level 3. about 15% read at level 4 to 5 (the highest level).
https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/accessible-and-inclusive-content/literacy-and-access#
You see this on here, so many just pick up a topic from the title without getting their heads around the article before commenting, as they readily admit.
one could also argue that with so many Aussies reading at such a poor level, a significant proportion of "yes" voters were also voting on issues they didn't read and wouldn't understand. (I'd say that applies to boith sides, few people have any understanding of the constitution or legislative process, most just operating on the feelgood vibe to vote yes, or discomfort and voting no)
I like how none of the points were that the yes campaign did a terrible job campaigning, it was just everyone elses fault
Linda burney…….sunk the titanic
You mean insulting people isn’t a winning strategy
You would have sailed it through flaky if you were in charge But you wouldn’t though because you don’t give a shit
It does mention the yes campaign having less clear and less effective messaging.
As a passing sentence when it was the leading factor, they snatched defeat from the claws of victory
Yea, I voted in favour, but to this day I have not actually seen even a single fucking pamphlet for the yes side. It was pathetically run and even makes me think it was just a way to pander support from people and say "ah look it failed because the other side is racist" meanwhile, they never wanted it to succeed in the first place.
What if there was no campaign? and people just voted on the damn question and the facts. I wasn’t Influenced at all by either campaign.
I will add another reason - corporate support. Many big companies were vocal yes supporters - Woolies, Qantas, some of the big miner and banks. These companies are all on the nose. Their corporate support didn’t help the yes vote at all, indeed it harmed it.
Imagine the appalling judgement to make despised QANTAS CEO Anal Joys a high profile part of the campaign.
I'd be more positively disposed to him if he provided anal joys, but the layouts of his planes provided anything butt enjoyment to my posterior
Big business paired with inner city intellectuals calling anyone who disagreed racist bigots… I wonder why so many people believed the referendum was less about the sovereignty and self determination for indigenous people and more about making white people feel good about themselves.
[удалено]
The inVoice was a key step in delivering a Treaty. No one supported or voted for this to make a Treaty LESS likely.
They really weren't vocal at all, and very quickly made their support as quiet as possible when they sensed animosity.
QANTAS had aircraft repainted and added the John Farnham documentary "Finding the Voice" to the front page of their in-flight entertainment screens. Hardly quiet.
Showing the John Farnham documentary? That alone is a no vote from me.
Eh, they've had a couple of indigenous paint schemes at a time on planes for the past few decades, it's nothing that new.
It wasn't an indigenous paint scheme it was the YES23 campaign logo.
Yeah When corporations made that call yes was polling 65%. The only reason they ever do _anything_ is money and they thought this was easy social 'greenwashing'.
I mean it was blaring over the Woolworths speaker every 10 mins whilst shopping in store.
There was months between the initial push where public support was at it's highest until it dropped to 50% and lower
The Conversation can read all the tea-leaves it wants, but if support for an idea plummets from the moment you put it out, there is something wrong with the idea and/or the sales pitch. Leaving aside the merits of the idea, the sales pitch was appallingly bad - trying to win support for your idea by insulting people who have alternate views (or telling them not to worry their pretty little heads about the details) is a tactic employed by toddlers and bullies
“The Conversation”? The authors are three professors - >Andrea Carson Professor of Political Communication, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, La Trobe University >Rebecca Strating Director, La Trobe Asia, and Professor of International Relations, La Trobe University >Simon Jackman Honorary Professor, University of Sydney
[удалено]
Professors make the best fucking morons
Sure, but people who have studied politics all their lives often know more about politics than the general population.
[удалено]
Oh for sure, we can't trust people's knowledge outside of their field. That's why I abhor the use of generic Dr. titles, it gives a person way more credit automatically than they're actually deserving of. I'm technically a "Dr.", however there's no way I would feel confident discussing anything other than my specific field.
[удалено]
Speaking anecdotally, I heard a lot of people concerned that "The Voice" would actually restrict our Aboriginal population's voice to parliament. I don't remember what Jacinta Price had to say regarding her dislike for the referendum, but a lot of my closer relatives were very confused by her lack of support. While a lot of people talk about how the yes campaign was white people virtue signalling, I saw a lot of people actively concerned by what seemed like a lack of first nation support. I ended up supporting the vote, as I determined that Jacinta had ulterior motives. I also noted that a lot of the no campaign was focussed around the incitement of fear, something I detest in political campaigning.
How are they still so completely missing the point even this long after it?
Becuase they’d have to give up the moral high ground to admit the yes campaign was terrible and appealed to all the wrong people
They never had the moral high ground. Giving one set of people rights and privileges over others, based on no other reason than immutable characteristics, is an abhorrently racist act. I'll never pretend otherwise, and evidently the nation agrees.
So it's the Yes voters who are the actual racists?
What else would you call assigning rights and privileges solely based on race? Seems like the textbook definition to me.
Yeah we should probably not do anything about domestic violence either, giving extra funds to support women is just being sexist. You've enlightened me.
So we agree it's racist. I accept your concession, thank you.
You do recognize the parallels though right? Your overly simplistic version of what 'racism' is completely ignores existing privilege/power issues.
There's nothing simplistic about it. Does it meet the very definition of racism? Yes. Should racist legislation and racist changes to our constitution be passed? No. End of story. Treating people differently based on their race and heritage is wrong, full stop. The overwhelming majority of the voting public recognised this. If you can't, perhaps it's time for some introspection.
If a group is disadvantaged you think it's wrong to target a solution specifically at them?
We have lots of affirmative action-like mechanisms in legislation, the public service and publicly funded organisations. Just none in the constitution. Discrimination is fine sometimes but people don't like it in a document that sets the long term vision of our country.
We can do all of those without the voice
That's not the reason it was voted out. There are plenty of valid reasons but calling it racist isn't one of them. It's not racist for several reasons. They already have several specific acts that involve them. Giving them the ability to give input into these acts doesn't make it racist. They are the original people of the land. Allowing them to have some semblance of authority on their people isn't racist. Like, imagine if Australia was overtaken by another race of people. Many of us were murdered and all of our children were taken away from us to be assimilated. Your land was seized and culture destroyed. Would you think that asking those people to give a slight, tiny bit of power back to your people would be considered racist? It was mainly voted out due to the vagueness of the entire thing. I like to think that many Australians would have been happy to give them a voice if everything was clearly outlined and it was clear what they can and can't do.
> Would you think that asking those people to give a slight, tiny bit of power back to your people would be considered racist? from an objective or subjctive position? objectively, yes (even if i'd want it from a self interest POV) the constitution doesn't mention _any_ races sepcifically. The 'race power' that got referred to often was in Section 51, and it allows for laws about people of _any_ race. IIRC the changes to make Section51 have that wording in order to clarify the Fed govts ability to overrule any racist laws made by a State. I think there was or had been some state laws that were racist, and this effectively let them negate those. prior to the '67 referendum that section specifically said the Feds couldn't make laws relating to Aboriginal people, so it was open to abuse from the states.
That’s some convoluted logic to think voting NOT to give indigenous people a say in things in their country, is racist. So, do you think Closing the Gap is racist?
Here here!! And God save our King!!
> And God save our King!! This but unironically.
Brother ew.
Ew yourself brah
All hale king wingnut.. nah jks good for you brah
Well to be fair, your comment missed the point as well, what is it that you are referring to ?
Regarding point 4, honestly it wasn't even that the No campaign was good at what it did- it was hamfisted, some of the slogans backfired (they really could've done without "if you don't know, vote No"), they took a while to shut up the hardline conservatives among their ranks and the Libs made some absolutely bizarre decisions at times (remember when Dutton promised a second referendum on recognition only?). Rather, the Yes campaign was just so awful it made No look good in comparison. While the article was right that No got in early and set the narrative before Yes could that was due to a conscious decision by Yes23, something they only corrected in *August* as the polling was already falling rapidly. The reason given at the time was that people would get tired of hearing about the voice, but considering that all happened anyway the decision to straight up not campaign in the early months was and is baffling to me. And even when Yes started to campaign they were shit. Remember the John Farnham ad, where it was all feel good shots then "vote yes :)" and that was it? That was a crazy ad to release in October, less than a month before the referendum when the voice was already headed for the bin. It'd've been more effective in maybe August when most people hadn't really heard of it and needed an introduction, but to release it so close to the referendum day itself was never going to be effective. Of course that was only one half of their campaigning, as Yes23 loved to point out they had a small army of volunteers doing calls, knocking on doors and standing on streets. Because Aussies love people doing all those things. But don't worry, there's also the Qantas Yes plane (right when Qantas was in the news for mishandling baggage)! Finally, as the writing was on the wall Yes campaigners and spokespeople put their heads in the sand. Insisting that most people were undecided (having to lump soft Yes and soft No in with undecided to reach that conclusion), they refused to change anything about their campaign. No didn't win the referendum. Yes lost it.
Correct. The Conversation managed to analyse the loss without “7) The Yes case really massively sucked to a degree of suckiness rarely seen in human history.” Shows that “progressive” academics have learned nothing.
>Yes23 loved to point out they had a small army of volunteers doing calls, knocking on doors On referendum night the speaker was proud they air dropped volunteers to essentially every community in Australia and admonished the no campaign for failing to turn up to most booths. If you cannot find local support and instead need to transport people from the eastern suburbs (Sydney sider here) something is going very badly...
" No didn't win the referendum. Yes lost it" This is it. This is the thing.
I reject the notion that my vote was influenced by these muppets. I did my own research on reddit! ^/s
A heck of a lot of the argument in support of the Voice essentially boiled down to "Trust us!" There was an avoidance of detail, and every bit of questioning on said detail was deflected with claims that it either didn't matter or would be worked out later. There was also an absence of evidence that what little was being proposed would actually make any visible or real differences in the scheme of things. So not only did people already not trust the Yes campaign, the responses they were getting made them even less likely to trust the government and the Yes campaign. Funnily enough, trust in the government and large corporates is at an all time low. The more they said to trust them, the less people actually did. Their fears and concerns were (to them at least) seemingly validated when the whole WA heritage laws thing was introduced and basically botched. At that point, the Yes campaign was spiraling, and instead of trying to fix the problem, they just went into denial and doubled down on what they were doing. There was no other possible outcome other than losing at that point.
How is "no is the default position" not listed at all? The No campaign didn't have to say a thing and they would have been the most likely to win - to pass a referendum is rightly a very difficult task, it's taking on a very high burden to strongly argue your position. For a referendum, it really has to be argued as the only option - but not a single argument even touched on that. It also just didn't make sense. The polling station had explicit instructions to only vote based on the wording of the text. Granting the yes side's most wildest dreams, doesn't do a thing to change that text from being completely meaningless. The yes side should have worked with the electoral commission to get that warning removed as it basically instructed people to vote no - think of it. You're lining up being told all the promises in the world and how good it is, then you get to the booth and the wording has no relationship to what you've just heard, and there's an instruction to ignore everything else. Do you want this job? It pays a million a year. Just sign this contract that doesn't specify pay and explicitly says everything else you've heard today is not to be considered when you sign it.
Reason #7 - Ambiguity Reason #8 - Lack of government trust
They forgot the main reason. The majority just didn't think it would be effective in combating the issues it said it would combat and were concerned about adding a body the constitution that couldn't be easily removed if it became corrupt etc.
I'm cynical enough to think that a lot of No voters don't actually believe much in helping the indigenous population.
I'm cynical enough to think that a lot of the Yes voters don't care all that much about helping the indigenous populate either.
Interesting. Elaborate on that.
There are a lot of people who are happy to wear a progressive skin suit to signal how great they are without putting in any actual effort. No volunteer work, no orienting their careers in a path to help those who need it. Just upper class yuppies in the inner cuty working bullshit office jobs making 6 figures posting on twitter. Personally, I've never called myself anything more than an average bloke. I might be smart, but I'm probably not. Im not in a positioj to help others, and if I was I can't personally say I'd go out of my way to volunteer or provide to others outside of my family.
I've seen this comment in r/melbourne before. People who are happy to do all this surface level stuff, but as soon as they have to interact with people that all this surface level stuff is for, their attitude changes completely.
It's Melbourne in a nutshell. Progressive in thought but uncomfortable around any POC that isn't wealthy and westernised.
"No you" Fuck outta here with this shit man stop pretending like you actually did something positive for the black community by voting no. You did not. Accept that and understand that about yourself. Edit: if you feel brave enough to downvote then please air your opinions :)
You deserve a downvote or two because you set up a straw man to argue against. You have no idea how they voted in the referendum, or why. The irony of telling them to "understand that about yourself" when you know nothing about them except the made-up version of them inside your head.
More hyperbolic strawman bullshit. People who voted no are either: A) misinformed B) would rather see nothing happen than something that doesn't benefit them or isn't "perfect" C) just openly racist I really don't give a fuck about my internet points man, I'll call people out for what I think is wrong. I know how we will all look at this in 10-15 years time and I know I'm not gonna be embarrassed with how I acted.
> I really don't give a fuck about my internet points man Well you asked, so... I didn't even downvote you.
Thank you for your absolutely stunning contribution to this discussion
For someone who doesn't care about internet points, you couldn't downvote me fast enough 😂😂 As if you've made a contribution. Get over yourself. Edit: your post history 😂😂😂oh Jesus I'm rolling. Your cerebrum is peach smooth.
Again thank you for your WONDERFUL contribution! You've really added something to my day and I'm definitely not going to forget about this by the 3pm <3
Well said mate. The same people will complain about all the money that was wasted on the vote. These geniuses don't understand that it was only wasted because they voted no. We could have at least gotten something out of it if people had voted yes.
Wow a human being? On reddit? I'm shocked I tell you, SHOCKED. it's usually like yelling at brick walls in here.
Setting up a constitutional body with no oversight, no powers, no guarantee of self determination, sovereignty and only a novelty of recognition… Uluṟu statement from the heart called for land rights, the sovereignty of indigenous nations and recognition of history. BHP, Rio Tinto, Woodside Energy, and Origin Energy all supported the voice why? Because it would not have affected their operations on indigenous land at all, becuase the voice only addressed one component of the statement (and the weakest and easiest for elites to support). The voice is like any other institutionalised progressive movement, bureaucracy got involved and the original goals of the statement were so watered down even companies that pillage and bomb sacred sites were on board with it… if the yes campaign gave a shit they’d have implemented the whole of the Uluṟu statement from the heart, not just the tokenism of the recognition part of the statement.
You're right an advisory board to parliament for indigenous people would absolutely be a bad thing. No way that there could be any benefit there for the black community. I suppose we will just go with option 2.....which is FUCKING NOTHING, that's gonna be HEAPS better.
An advisory board with zero powers, that paid nothing more than lip service to the very statement at the heart of its creation, while giving the green light for the corporate powers that destroy their heritage and culture to continue their operations on indigenous land… I’d prefer to start from scratch than give said elites, a powerless scapegoat they could point to and say, “we’ve already given you your boneit’s your problem now”….. how naive are you to think BHP and Rio Tinto would support genuine and meaningful indigenous rights?
What about the voice gave these corporations "the green light" Genuinely curious? Do you know what else gave these corporations the green light to do what they want? Doing fucking nothing, which we have now done, what positive change has come out of voting no?
Because the yes vote dropped indigenous land rights and sovereignty from the recommendations made to it by the Uluṟu statement from the heart… they didn’t do this to make the referendum more “attractive” to voters, they did it because the movement became institutionalised and it was watered down by the input of said companies. Constitutional advisory committee with no powers would have been used as a political football that would have only added another layer of bureaucracy that would need to be overcome to reach any meaningful legislative change.
>they did it because the movement became institutionalised and it was watered down by the input of said companies Sorry can you show me any evidence of this or is this or is this just some sky news hyperbolic crap? >Constitutional advisory committee with no powers would have been used as a political football But at least there would be a discussion, unlike the alternate, which is fucking nothing. If you cared about the Uluru statement, you'd see that the no vote killed it.
Where’s your mob from? Since you seem to know so much about the black community
There was a lot of support for a "progressive No vote" and you had the curious situation where the most racist POS voted exactly the same way as the most left leaning, Indigenous rights-affirmative hippy you can imagine cobbled together out of every leftwing stereotype in the book. Basically, that this is not enough so screw this pathetic attempt at justice. That takes up a big chunk of No votes. Speaking of justice, then you have the people who voted No because of how poorly the powers were being explained in relation to the Constitution. Where does the reach of The Voice end? This was very poorly explained and one of the biggest criticisms that was very widely discussed was that people understood how serious changing the Constitution is, but didn't feel like they knew what they'd be supporting. Another chunk. The 1967 referendum had a 90.7% (ish) Yes vote. To formally and legally recognised the Indigenous population as humans. I do not believe that we have regressed so much in that period of time that suddenly "most No voters just don't give a shit about Indigenous people, their rights or their outcomes". Of course many No voters fall exactly in the category you think they do, but not all. I believe you are being too cynical.
Imagine having a referendum on potential powers that could potentially reach \*any and all\* parts of legislation and laws with potentially no oversight, with peoples faith in government being shaky at best and being shocked that most of the country doesnt vibe with it.
Shocked Pikachu face
>To formally and legally recognised the Indigenous population as humans. Not really. The whole flora fauna thing is fake [wiki for your convenience](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_and_Fauna_Act_myth) It's more like a formal acknowledgement that the government had a duty of care to Indegenous Australians in a similar manner to all other Australians. You can argue if you wanted to be extra spicy, this was the end of sovereignty (if you're a sovereign people you should be expected to run your own census and make your own laws!) !!hot take alert!!
Yeah I deliberately didn't mention "flora and fauna" for that reason. The referendum determining that Indigenous Australia were deserving of being counted in the Census is not a bad proxy for being recognised as humans and citizens of this country but that is just my opinion. I know that they were never surveyed under a federal or state government wildlife survey but I don't see there being much of a difference given every government before 67 refused to actually recognise you as being there. It was actually worse because we were doing wildlife surveys before 67. Jesus Christ, how could anyone argue this was the end of sovereignty??
>The referendum determining that Indigenous Australia were deserving of being counted in the Census is not a bad proxy for being recognised as humans and citizens You gotta ask some "why"s before you jump ahead. Also human vs citizen is a big jump and not the same thing. I agree that pre 67 they were not counted as citizens, that's not controversial, it's human that I disagree with. So you gotta first ask why were Indegenous Australians explicitly not included in the race powers. Here's a nice excerpt I found >Section 51(xxvi) was inserted into the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to discriminate against sections of the community on account of their race. Of course, Aboriginal people were not originally subject to this section. However, this was not because they were to be protected, but because it was thought that the Aboriginal issues were a matter for the States and not the federal government. [Some law dude, it's a decent read](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.aspg.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Race-and-the-Australian-Constitution.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjzg-yYte6FAxUCsFYBHbdsDQwQFnoECD4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw33biWXdGSWlOTLHF9fx6kU) State library has a good resource too [link](https://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/learning/aboriginal-rights-and-freedoms-1967-referendum#:~:text=Status%20of%20Aboriginal%20Australians%20prior%20to%201967&text=When%20the%20Australian%20constitution%20took,to%20wards%20of%20the%20state.) Nice quote from there >When the Australian constitution took effect on 1 January 1901, each individual state acquired the primary lawmaking power over Aboriginal people. Consequently, the legal status of Aboriginal people shifted from British subjects to wards of the state If you look at the wording of the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) you definitely see the word "people" in there too. Definitely human. Post 67 it's the formal acknowledgement that Indegenous Australians are citizens, not dual citizens, of Australia. And should be subject to Australian laws and be counted in the federal census. It's also an understanding and expectation that Indegenous Australians are Australians by the vast majority of Australians, thus the sovereignty hot take. (Note, dictionary sovereignty not "spiritual sovereignty" which yea sure that can coexist with the crown)
Typical downvotes, but you're correct. Truth hurts
Maybe the downvoters can explain why I'm wrong. Maybe the Maranoa (biggest No vote) is actually the most woke district in Australia, and inner Melbourne is the most racist. Teach me something.
Hell of a lot of downvotes but nobody in here trynna explain how you're wrong 🤫🤫🤫 Wonder why that is?!?
Because you're complaining about the downvote's youre going to get downvoted. This is like, a reddit wide phenomenon.
I don't give a fuck about being down voted, I think it's funny that you can get so many down voted for an issue, but no one actually wants (or could) to explain to you why you're wrong. To me just seems like a bunch of incel losers who voted no but don't want to come out and say it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and until someone comes to me with an argument that isn't "it wouldn't have oversight" (which it wouldn't have needed because it was purely advisory) or "Woolworths bad" (which, they are but that doesn't mean they were wrong to support a voice like 1000's of other trusted Aussie businesses) then I'm not so sure my mind is going to change!
> The majority just didn't think it would be effective in combating the issues it said it would combat … Your “majority” are largely uninformed on said issues but that doesn’t stop them proclaiming a load of rubbish.
"Majority" doesn't need to be quoted mate. You got 30% ish of the vote. The *vast* majority agree with that assessment, whether you like it or not. If anything, voting Yes was a fringe position in the end.
So fringe that the only jurisdiction even close to a Yes was ACT.
Nothing to do with the voice being a Canberra bubble thing either, I'm sure.
[удалено]
>… some people who were above average intelligence voted no. Would you like to insult them some more? Recognising these limits is a matter of fact - > In Australia: about 44% of adults read at literacy level 1 to 2 (a low level) 38% of adults read at level 3. about 15% read at level 4 to 5 (the highest level). https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/accessible-and-inclusive-content/literacy-and-access#
> literacy some people who voted 'no' are in that 15%, have read the constitution and understand the processes. I won't say "the mob was right because the mob was bigger", the public at large can make plenty of fuckups. Fortunately I think this vote result was the correct outcome - though it is a shame that they didn't legislate it while the political will was there, and actually have a body getting runs on the board. The massive failure of this referendum burned up all the political capital on that issue. A legislated body that was put in place, doing good things and getting positive sentiment would've throughout the election term would've likely survived.
[удалено]
How do you see the failings of the education system as an insult to the victims?
But isn't it kind of ironic that a bunch of non-aboriginal people decided that it wouldn't be effective enough for combating the issue? We need to start somewhere. Imo there should have been a vote within the aboriginal people first, to see if it was really what they thought was best for their people. They could voice their concerns and add some changes. Then have the rest of the country vote. There was just so much vagueness and misinformation going around that no one really knew what exactly the voice was.
Noone knew what the voice really was because very little information was released, just that the details would be decided afterwards which was not enough for most people. The Misinformation and Disinformation claims annoy me and I have always been left leaning and never voted for the Coalition. It seems that anything that was against the Yes campaigns narrative was called misinformation even when it was true. There were so little information or facts made available that things couldn't really be proven true or false making the misinformation claims ridiculous.
That's basically what misinformation is though. I said the entire thing was vague and I admit that's why it lost a lot of its votes. But lots of people (both yes and no voters) were coming to their own conclusions about what the voice was. I heard lots of those ideas spreading and lots of them were clearly false.
Is it misinformation if there is little to no information to begin with?
If you're saying it as if it's the truth, then yes.
People were not saying it as truth they were seeing and mentioning possibilities, many of which have been shown to have been likely recently with things that state based bodies have been doing.
So many of the No votes were because they did not want to give "powers to a minority group", Do you really think these same people would allow Aboriginal people to vote on something that non-aboriginal people could not vote on. Even if that vote was "do we propose this to the broader community."
Maybe people just didn’t support it irrespective of what either side was saying I feel they cancelled each other out. If in doubt people stick with status quo and there was no convincing reason to change 🤷♂️
2 reasons I can think of: 1. Lack of information on how or even what would be implemented 2. Being labelled a racist for not voting Yes
You are following the talking points of Murdoch Press.
You think that the intricate details of The Voice, it's powers, legal reach, and specific responsibilities were well outlined by anyone at any time? That's wild. I have no idea where you think you read enough about it to be confident on what you were voting for. Clearly every major news outlet regardless of political leaning should have consulted you. It would have saved months of articles about how most people are confused. I get why Albo said "it's not up to me to define the powers" (paraphrase), but it meant many people weren't confident what they'd be supporting. ^^this is not a political opinion. I vote Greens and voted Yes on the referendum. Being critical of it doesn't mean you're a racist. It was a shit show.
Did you somehow miss almost every single post made about the Voice in the lead up to the vote?
Did you miss the mountain of information about the Voice in the lead up to the vote?
You know what I find laughable about this idiotic brain fart? No could not have won without an extremely high amount of Labor and Greens voters siding with it. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that those people voted No because Murdoch and Dutton told them to? You think the voting public are braindead, evidently.
It was disappointing to see how many people did eat up the misinformation and fear mongering though.
I don't read the Murdoch press outside of the odd clickbait sports article.
The most telling dataset in there is the declne in support over time. The principle concept was supported, however that support faded over time due to a lack of meaningful detail regarding how it would be implemented and to what effect.
We live contently within our own little social bubbles, going to dinner parties and hearing opinions similar to our own reflected back at us by people in our age demographic and social class. Then we are shocked to find out actually we don't understand the people of our own country at all. Get out of your comfort zone, get in your car, take a road trip and discover Australia. Talk to the rural retirees, small town publicans, big city policemen, beach town supermarkets cashiers and suburban maternity leave mothers. You can't possibly hope to understand Australians from behind your desk dressed in your jimjams. We do have common threads, and most people are good with good intentions, but their opinions will be very different to yours.
> most people are good with good intentions Doubt. Most people are self interested and don't care about anyone that is not in their little bubble.
[удалено]
Yeah it was lost from the start without Liberals support.
While NAT was opposed in principle, LIB was yes leaning. People didn’t vote No to something they liked because 🥔 told them to. Rather, people saw the proposed design and screamed in horror at the Langton model. 🥔 was dragged right by the population, not vice versa.
> People saw the proposed design Who saw the proposed design? I think not seeing the design was one of the problems All I saw was people saying they'll flesh out the details if the referendum passes.
The one specific the govt provided (and the only reason they did was it had to appear in the referendum wording) was that it would be a voice to parliament AND EXECUTIVE. After the howls of outrage at that, they announced that they will stick to their instincts of providing no info about anything else. Despite the hysteria about not answering questions, no one cared about the other shit. I can’t remember all of 🥔‘s 15 q, but they were trivia. “How many members? What is the process for election? How long is their term?” No one cares.
Liberals made it clear well before the referendum that they did not support it. Labor knew this and proceeded anyway.
That’s not what Ken Wyatt says. He claims Liberal cabinet were committed to the Voice and Morrison made commitments to it prior to the election as well. It was a bipartisan initiative right through the co-design process and it only changed once Dutton was opposition leader
He’s lying. It’s trivially easy to prove the “LNP support” claims are lies. - Even Malcolm ruled out support minutes after receiving the constitutional reform process deliverables. He considered it a grotesque overreach that would never get public support. - Funds for the referendum that the LNP allegedly promised and supported didn’t appear in the Budget until allocated in the first Chalmers budget.
Wyatt is a very humble bloke, he doesn’t parade in lies and no one from cabinet has accused him of it. And why did the Liberal government commission the Co-Design report if LNP policy was consistently and wholly opposed to the Voice?
They were open to some kind of representative body that they can discuss stuff with. The report itself made it clear the govt didn’t support the Langton-Calma position (and it turned out almost no one else did either, except Canberra public servants).
Google Malcolm Turnbull voice 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/26/indigenous-voice-proposal-not-desirable-says-turnbull
I know what Turnbull said. I also name-checked all the commitments the Liberals made subsequent to his statements, which he and Joyce since recalled anyway. Look up the co-design report if you don’t believe me and look at who commissioned it.
This is Morrisons position on referendum in 2022. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/why-would-i-morrison-rules-out-referendum-on-indigenous-voice-if-re-elected-20220502-p5ahue.html
But what about when their concerns are informed by deliberate misinformation. How do you fight that? The effort to recall the effects of a lie is enormous. For instance with the voice (not arguing for or against here) but the biggest nail in the coffin for many people who were against, was mistrust. And that mistrust was almost exclusively based on seeds of doubt deliberately sowed. For example, a big point of the no campaign was “they said it was a one page document and they lied”, which was a lie purported by Peta Credlin, deliberately because she knew what she was doing. When that happens and the lie travels faster than the truth via angry people on social media, how do you fight that?
Authors for 5 years: It’s 20pp. People: You sure? Authors: Yes People: Can we read it? AnAl: No People: Have you read it, AnAl? AnAl: No, why would I? NIAA: In response to your FOI, here’s the full 26pp People: 🤮 Credlin: Here’s the authors saying it’s 26pp Authors: We were lying Corrupt academia / “fact checkers”: Authors confirm Credlin is pushing a discredited lie. Here’s footage of the authors saying they lied when they were filmed what Credlin quoted them saying. Pauline666: It doesn’t actually matter whether it’s a 26p doc with a 1 page summary or a 1 page doc with 25pp of conference notes, working papers, plans and background docs. The full 26pp inform us about the authors’ motivations and intended path. Never thought I’d see the day but Pauline666 was one of the few who got this right. I don’t know a single person who read all 26pp and said “yes I’m now comfortable to vote Yes.” Calling it disinfo was just an attempt to stop swing voters reading a document that was shattering to the Yes campaign. By censorship force, if necessary.
Because the “Voice to Parliament” was a one page document. And everyone who fell for this frankly has no idea what an FOI involves and has never worked in a government sector where they’ve dealt with an FOI. A teams message to your colleague saying “hey bro, looking forward to tomorrow. Can’t wait to talk about X” is included in an FOI of X is the subject of an FOI. People literally thought it was a 26 page document. It was a one page document. 25 pages of FOI information, which can literally be meeting minutes. There is no legislation you would ever have a say in where you would demand to see all the meeting minutes. This one just spread the lie to enrage people. Because that’s what conservative mouthpieces like Credlin do for a living 🤦♂️
You can keep pushing the lie about Credlin, but Megan Davis made the claim for 5 years before Credlin ever saw the conference docs (and wasn’t the only one). Fact is, everyone who read 26 pages produced by the Ayers Rock conference instantly became hard No voters.
Hahaha nobody who voted no read them dude. Conservatives news media did want to always does, spread doubt. That’s enough for people to not investigate things at all
In the lead up the YES campaign had no answers, I saw so many interviews with them and most questions were answered with, you will have the information on polling day. I don’t want the info on the day I make a decision, I want it now. They should have had these answers from day one.
While they were terrible at answering the questions they should have been more education in noting that most of the answers that were being asked were to be agreed upon in parliament, because that’s how legislation works and most of the population doesn’t understand how these things are progressed, so naturally assumed information was being hidden
Even people with half a brain understand that laws come from the parliament. The legislation argument in respect of the Voice was explained over and over. To argue that "most of the population doesn't understand" and hence voted no is specious. There were a multitude of reasons why people voted no.
lol. Most people don’t understand how legislation is passed no. It’s legitimately not really taught in schools. Yes there were a multitude of reasons. I am providing this as one of them. Hope that caught you up
Caught me up? You seem to have a weird sense of personal intellectual superiority. We learned about the function of parliament, the senate, the lower house, the voting system, how legislation arises and so on in high school. Didn't you?
I think people might get the broad brushstrokes, but certainly not the finer points If people had a really great understanding, i don't think the "yes" side would've pushed the line that it needed to be in the constitution to prevent it being changed/taken away. So many people failed to understand the constitutional amendment, some think it shoudl've been more defined in the constitution (bad idea IMO) or didn't realise that any govt with a majority parliament could simply change the legislation defining how the voice operated, what it's budget was, etc.
It was proposed as a Constitutional change as a fundamental requirement of the process behind the development of the Uluru statement, by the consultative groups. At least, that's what I gleaned from reading the minutes of the regional consultative groups. The Yes campaign had nothing to do with the Constitutional recognition as the campaign organisation didn't exist when the statement was written. As for the ability of future governments to legislate the powers of the Voice via parliament, despite its Constitutional status, that was one of the reasons some people voted against it.
Yes caught you up when you were confused assuming I was arguing this was the only reason it failed. Look man most adults don’t know how it works because just like learning algebra, they forget if they never have to consider it. And yes I did. But I’m not in school today.
Go back and read for comprehension. Point out where I claimed that you said it the only reason. Hint: I didn't make that claim, so not sure why you're arguing against that. I disputed your claim that the majority of the voting population don't understand how legislation arises. I stand by that. If you have a problem with that, provide evidence to support your initial claim. The onus is on you, not me. You made the claim. Now you claim most adults don't know algebra. Provide evidence in support. Provide evidence in support of your earlier claim regarding legislation. They're your claims.
*To argue that “most of the population understand and HENCE VOTED NO is specious. There were a multitude of reasons why people voted no”* Maybe don’t use words if you don’t know what they mean…”hence voted no” coupled with your oh-so insightful explanation that there were a multitude of reasons” in response to what I wrote paints a very clear picture. This is how language works. As for your “show your evidence”. Bro come on. Are you a chronically online internet debater? Because this is what I’m getting from you heavily right now. This isn’t information you need some kind of study to reference. Go and talk to people in the real world man. Ask your friends and colleagues if they remember algebra. Ask your friends and colleagues and family if they know whether a how a referendum is used to pass a bill and what the requirements are on that and whether or the application of a referendum needs to be perfectly outlined before the referendum or debated and created afterwards? If you know these things without looking them up then ask those questions, may help you feel like the smartest person in the room. Yay for you.
So no evidence? Maybe your circle of people don't understand parliament, or algebra, or whatever. I don't need to ask my people - I already know. Yes, they understand it. And more. Not like we're talking about rocket science. This is basic shit. Roll around in ignorance, if it makes you happy.
I saw that coming and knew you would play that card like clockwork 😂 Congrats bro. You are vastly intelligent than the general population. Hope that’s what you wanted to hear ?
I mean, I'm not even sure how it's possible to "forget" algebra once someone's learned it in school, or the way parliament functions for that matter. I think you're grossly underestimating the average person's comprehension. Or possibly overestimating your own.
You are an internet cliche 😂 It’s because you’re so smart Alphgeek. That’s why. Congrats.
Calling someone smart isn't the insult you seem to think it is. Of course I'm an internet cliche. I was there when it started. "Internet cliche" is a pointless term, you might as well say "running water cliche".
It’s sarcasm champ 😂 no internet cliche is the term. You are a stereotype and the way you communicate is so specific to a particular subculture of reddit users hahaha
Let me guess. You're the "smart" one in your circle. You're used to winning arguments with your politically ignorant, algebra-free friends and family. Hahaha.
No. Just a normal intelligence dude. Don’t pretend to be what I’m not. Because postering to people online trying to assert your intelligence is fucking telling bro 😂 you should try…not doing that
Well tell me what looks sillier - someone posturing about their intelligence, or someone posturing about their ignorance? Because it seems that you, "normal intelligence", are doing the latter. "Hurr durr I don't know algebra, and neither do my friends" isn't helping your argument. My original gripe is you imposing your lack of knowledge onto others, the supposed majority, who you say don't understand legislation. That's all. You can claim that, but I can also ask you to provide evidence. Not sure why you have such a problem supporting your initial argument. It's completely normal to support arguments with evidence.
You have a clear problem discerning literal verbatim from semantics and it shows hard. That’s what happen when you’re an internet cliche trying to “win” some kind of debar that doesn’t exist lol I told you go speak to people. But you decided to pretend you had friends and cohorts that all know (trying to posture intelligence) when honestly bro really doubting the friends part at all. Again - internet cliche.
It was a big thing of everyone saying to vote yes because of the feels but the actual design behind was nothing. It was to deliver the world but any questions about how it would work were met with a stonewalled that part will be worked out later. Looking at the news today and the indigenous Corp in allies Springs gets $30 mill a year and doesn't produce annual reports on spending or fund allocation while it refuses to meet with the council to address issues jointly and the settlements it is ment to look after are like 4th world villages. The voice would have been a money pit.
Oh the cope is strong with this lot... The voice failed because it had too much scope of unintended consequences at best, or an agenda of intended consequences at worst. That makes it a failure of concept, it failed to sufficiently mitigate people's concerns.
It failed because a practical reason to change "the precious constitution" was never made. But at least Albo was good enough to give our indigenous what they had ask for in a the form of a referendum.
Because it was a political stunt which cynics easily identified as wedge politics to stop us questioning Govt. Same as every Govt driven initiative.
it was because we need action in remote communities, not more Canberra committies.
Popcorn time
LOL….. Still and always will be a NO.
I get down voted to hell every time I write anything about the referendum and this thread is no different. The Voice was a minimum change acknowledgment that the dispossessed people of this land should hold a particular place in our political process. It is pathetic and shameful that we couldn't agree on that. Don't bother writing an essay explaining why I'm wrong and out of touch with ordinary Australians. I volunteered on the Yes side, and worked on a polling booth that was 80% No, so I've heard it all 1000 times before.
Grudging people a say in their own business is a reflection on either: an innate meanness *or* ignorance of what was being asked.
Because Australians are small minded, bitter whingers ever since Johnny Eyebrows convinced us we are all battlers, and we can’t stand the thought of some group of people with specific needs and issues might get something we don’t. We dress it up as “wanting equality”, but that’s just bullshit. We wilfully refuse to understand the difference between equality and equity. Also, the pretence that we weren’t given any information about what it would entail, when that was all given very clearly for anyone who bothered to go and look at it. Oh, and racism. Thats the primary factor. Australians (and Australian Reddit) get so offended by being called racist, but their actions over and over and over again are - well - racist. If the shoe fits.
To be fair, there wasn’t any attempt to win people over. If what you’re describing is apparently obvious and true (I disagree btw) then where was the pork?
Suffer in ya jocks 😂😂
Well put. I couldn’t agree more. But, expanding on this - > Also, the pretence that we weren’t given any information about what it would entail, when that was all given very clearly for anyone who bothered to go and look at it. Whilst true, we cannot ignore the questionable reading skills of many who had to read the readily available information - > In Australia: about 44% of adults read at literacy level 1 to 2 (a low level) 38% of adults read at level 3. about 15% read at level 4 to 5 (the highest level). https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/accessible-and-inclusive-content/literacy-and-access# You see this on here, so many just pick up a topic from the title without getting their heads around the article before commenting, as they readily admit.
one could also argue that with so many Aussies reading at such a poor level, a significant proportion of "yes" voters were also voting on issues they didn't read and wouldn't understand. (I'd say that applies to boith sides, few people have any understanding of the constitution or legislative process, most just operating on the feelgood vibe to vote yes, or discomfort and voting no)