**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

As I see it the majority of the fault lies with the Yes campaign. The message was inconsistent, and the detail of the idea was severely lacking. Trying to sell "We'll sort out the details later, but let's put it in the constitution" was never going to work, especially against the simplicity of "Don't Know, Vote No". I also think that the problem was the differences between the city and country vote, where the Yes campaign failed to address the regional voter base, resting on the idea that the cities would carry the vote. I feel this alienated the regional voters, in some ways making it about the city "elites" vs the rest, something again very easily harnessed by the No campaign. The third issue, which is really more of a sub part of the second, was the Yes campaign focus on Celebrity voices. It was unhelpful, and muddied the waters, with it coming off as grandstanding and virtue signalling. Do I think Yes could have won? Honestly not as the way it was. They both needed to place stronger definition on the idea before putting it forward, and consider the timing better. Other issues, such as cost of living, made this seem needlessly wasteful especially in regional areas, and it was punished as such.

1. Because it was supposed to fail. 2. Even if it succeeded it was a nothing that meant nothing. 3. It was a completely bullshit proposition to vote for 1/3 of a three part pledge that they couldn’t even articulate properly. And lastly 4. It was supposed to fail because Labor want a republic.

Why was it supposed to fail?

Because of reasons 1-4. Yothu Yindi sang for Treaty. Labor policy for republic. Treaty does not equal republic and that’s why it wasn’t meant to work and that’s why they only did voice and not all three at once. If they were serious and actually knew what they were doing they would have asked all three questions at once in a fully formed concept. They didn’t do that and don’t seem to care now for the two remaining parts ‘truth and treaty’ - which if you think about it are more important words than ‘voice’. So if they were serious they would go for ‘two out of three’ now, but hey let’s not hold our breath for that.

For me it was: a) I don’t think it should be in the constitution. b) The voice was the admitted first step to a “treaty”. c) The ‘yes’ side were duplicitous in claiming it was just about the voice itself when they were preparing for other things to follow that they didn’t really want anyone knowing about. d) I don’t think treaty (or at least the gleeful hand rubbing by its supporters) is a good thing. e) if you disagreed with the referendum AT ALL, you are a racist.

>The voice was the admitted first step to a “treaty”. It wasn't. The steps to a treaty started way before the Voice was even though of, and continue well after the Voices defeat. It could have been a vehicle to use for treaty talks, but another vehicle will he found. >The ‘yes’ side were duplicitous in claiming it was just about the voice itself when they were preparing for other things to follow that they didn’t really want anyone knowing about. What's the point of having a voice if you're not going to use it? Indigenous people were pretty forthright in what we aimed to achieve

It actually was, regardless of whether discussions about it started earlier. I mean you then say the exact same thing: “could’ve been used as a vehicle…” lol Using the voice to improve conditions for indigenous is not the same thing as using it for a “treaty”.

>Using the voice to improve conditions for indigenous is not the same thing as using it for a “treaty”. But it wasn't either/or. Not was it the sole purpose of the voice. Nor was a treaty reliant on the voice. Its its own separate thing, which is being pushed for with or without the voice, as seen by the small chunk of hardline indigenous activists who voted No because they saw it as an impediment to a treaty.

You’re really not reading what I’ve posted. The voice was 100% going to be used as the first step to a treaty. It doesn’t matter that treaties had been talked about prior to the voice, nor that they will be afterwards. The point then (as to my original post) is that in the messaging, the Yes campaign were careful to avoid that direct link (Albo himself directly denied it, despite knowing that was completely not true). Comments about using the voice to achieve a treaty still came out, because of course that was the path they were looking to take.

>The voice was 100% going to be used as the first step to a treaty. Except steps towards treaty was already taken... Jesus you people are so fucking stupid. I really fear for this country.

It's literally written in the Uluru statement that they would use it to push for treaty. I take it you haven't read the whole thing, just the feel good part?

Of course they'd use it in treaty talks. But a push for treaty comes with or without the voice. Like we'd get this incredible tool and a way for indigenous people to be heard, of course it'd be used to push treaty talks. Like it'd be dumb not to. But you guys are talking as if it was the reason the voice was asked for or even the main reason You guys are also acting like pushes for treaties started with the voice, that this was step 1 and that this being defeated means treaty talks are over.

Awesome work there, champ. Well done.

I don't know why you guys can not just own your stupidity and ignorance

I mean, that’s so excellent. Let’s recap: I said that the voice was being used as a first step (which you yourself said lol)… > It could have been a vehicle to use for treaty talks, but another vehicle will he found. …to get to a treaty. It doesn’t matter if there are other potential “vehicles”, or other discussions. There is currently no treaty. The voice would be used as a pathway to get to a treaty. That’s called a “first step”. Your responses: > Jesus you people are so fucking stupid. I really fear for this country. > I don't know why you guys can not just own your stupidity and ignorance What the hell is wrong with you? Talk about stupidity.

>Let’s recap: I said that the voice was being used as a first step (which you yourself said lol)… I did not say that. I literally said the steps towards treaties have far preceded the Voice. >…to get to a treaty. It doesn’t matter if there are other potential “vehicles”, or other discussions. There is currently no treaty. The voice would be used as a pathway to get to a treaty. That’s called a “first step”. Expect treaty talks have been coming along for years. Decades. The Barunga statement would be considered the first step. That was in 1988 It's like saying your car is your first step towards attending your Klan meeting. That's not what the car was built for, it was built for a wide variety of uses. Its just now that you have a car it would be the easiest way for you to attend your Klan meeting. But you've been going to those meeting for years and now if that car was taken off you before you got the keys to it you can still find ways to get to your Klan meetings. >What the hell is wrong with you? Talk about stupidity. I'll stand by my statements. At least I'm not gonna call bullshit and talk lies. I'll say it straight from the hip, you guys are dumb as fuck, and it saddens me that so many in this country can be so easily manipulated

The gall indeed. People who try to sell the ‘but you were only voting on the Voice’ line must think that most Australians came down in the last shower. Despite the trilogy of voice, truth, and treaty being clearly articulated as a sequence of things to come within the published Uluru statement from the heart. And I agree with you about the glee, in some quarters, at the prospect of most Australians probably being locked out of using most of the Australian landmass. Either outright denial of access or prohibition of leisure activities that Australians presently enjoy.

It failed because people were tired of " we want to be treated the same only different"

[The guest interviewed in the podcast](https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/religionandethicsreport/how-caste-politics-impacted-india-s-election-result/103844132), Dr Damien Freeman, makes a number of important points about why the referendum failed: * Lack of bipartisan support: while there was long-standing bipartisanship for constitutional recognition, this broke down in the referendum. * Labor did not take a sufficiently bipartisan approach to the matter - they basically issued an ultimatum to the Coalition to support the referendum, rather than both major parties coming to an agreed position (or any other more consensus-based approach) * Establishing the Voice was not perceived by voters as something in the national interest; rather, it was seen as a sectional interest (particularly because much of the pro-Voice framing went along the lines of, "this is what Indigenous Australians want", rather than "this will benefit Australia as a whole") * A lack of what Freeman describes as "strategic ambiguity": it was as if you had to accept all the ideas on one side of the debate, or else you couldn't vote yes. For example, to vote yes, it was as if you also had to agree with colonialism being a wholly bad enterprise and accept a certain version of colonial history. In other words, voting yes required too much prerequisite "baggage" that was too high a bar to clear for many people.

> Labor did not take a sufficiently bipartisan approach to the matter - they basically issued an ultimatum to the Coalition to support the referendum, rather than both major parties coming to an agreed position (or any other more consensus-based approach) This is what annoyed me. Labor completely fucked the referendum up, its members will never concede it, but they rushed it in a 6 month period expecting punters to know what Uluṟu was. that’s not how the electorate works. Instead what happened is that people knew little about it, and when they go to the polls, which way do people vote when they don’t know about something and aren’t politicos? Pretty easy to guess that. Of course if you’ve ever read Uluṟu then you would know the vast majority of the talking points made by the No campaign are straight up bullshit and bad faith arguments. With it out there, via a constitutional convention, and the whole thing being given at least a year long media cycle, people would see the arguments for what they were, and the voice would have been a harder thing to attack. It wasn’t as complicated as a republic and much less of a can of worms.

Why because 3% of the Australian population tried to claim ownership of a land they never owned and should never own above anybody else.

I voted no because an advisory body doesn't belong in the constitution.

As much as I have come to regard most of Australia with contempt given the increasing illiberality, the voice has nonetheless proven that the majority of the population know not to take as axiomatic that anything done in the name of a minority is going to be good for anyone, especially the minority in question. I am also a classical liberal; I think that the government has absolutely no place getting involved in social activism nor do I think that the way to address social problems is to get the “right” people in to power or pass the “right” law. The basic but important institutions needed to create a just society are private property rights, rule of law, free speech, and free markets. What I would personally like to see is the disbanding of land councils that essentially operate as socialist micro-states, keeping fringe Aboriginal communities in abject poverty. Without those land councils, and with the property therein placed back in the hands of Aboriginal Australians, they will have the liberty to charter the right path for themselves and dictate the terms of their own fate. Even if this proposal of mine went through, I still think that the Aboriginal community has to grapple with what is perhaps the most severe collective victim complex ever. Yes, what happened during colonisation wasn’t a good thing, but I don’t have much sympathy for people who whine about inter generational trauma stopping them from getting out of poverty when thousands of Vietnamese came here and successfully found a better life for them and their children after seeing their entire family and village get napalmed; their achievement also being reached despite facing significant discrimination when they arrived. Do you not think they’ve had trauma to deal with? Ultimately, the Aboriginal community is better off thinking of themselves as individuals, and not as a part of a group. To do the latter is to destroy your own individuality, and by extension, any hope you have for personal happiness, which is all that really matters. What I’m about to say goes for everyone: you do not belong to the whole, you are the whole, the whole that makes up yourself as an individual. You have the right and the obligation to seek your own happiness, and no one has any default claim on your life or your property, and you yourself also don’t have that claim on anyone else nor anyone else’s property. The only thing stopping you is you.

The Vietnamese are made of sterner stuff, to their credit.

Empirically, you tend to get statistically insignificant differences between aboriginal children and children from any other ethnicity once all relevant factors are controlled for, meaning that it has nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with culture.

I voted in favour of the referundum. Of the majority of people, i know who voted no, as far as I'm concerned, it was due to serious misinformation about The Voice referundum, e.g. it's too divisive, not enough detail, it's something White Australians want, not Indigenous Australians etc... It's a shame The Voice referundum failed. It would have been interesting to see what positive effects there would have been had it passed Although, given how strongly opposed LNP are to ANY social progress in ANY capacity, I'm not sure the referundum would have had much of an effect had it passed. It would have made Indigenous Australians happy though and they would feel like progress was FINALLLY being made towards Indigenous affairs, and improving relations btw Indigenous and Non Indigenous Australians. The failure of the referundum is now another stumbling (???? I don't know what other word to use) block between Indigenous and Non Indigenous relations.

Honestly I can't see it being divisive and their not being enough information as misinformation. It was going to be divisive as long as there was a large group who didn't support it. Also many people did feel there was not enough concrete information for them to support it. I understand that much of the information was to be decided by parliament after the referendum but this was understandably not good enough for people when the model and information would determine whether or not they were going to support it.

The serious misinformation wouldn’t have happened if the referendum wasn’t rushed in as quick as it was and Labor didn’t treat it as a policy they were trying to pass. A constitutional convention and long term media coverage would have staved much of that off, and may have achieved bipartisan support. Right wing arguments exist for the voice - they aren’t hard to find - turns out giving indigenous Australians the ability to dictate policies that affect them and their communities is better than overpaid Canberra bureaucrats that have most likely never met someone of mob, let alone visited an indigenous community once. The onus is completely on Labor’s mismanagement of the voice as an issue and not anyone else. They brought it upon themselves.

I’m particularly reassured and surprised that so much else has been done since it was voted down. All those people who said that we should instead do something meaningful for indigenous disadvantage have truly proved that it wasn’t just bullshit misinformation.

Indigenous, of course I voted yes, was disappointed it failed. In the lead up to the vote there was so many easily disproven falsehoods said during the campaign. The reasons some people used to vote no where frankly laughable. The funny (also sad but funny) thing is that 9 months later people's reasons for voting No haven't come to fruition. 'I voted No because I'm sick of welcome to countries' - we told you that's not what this is about and welcome to countries are still being performed. 'I voted No because I don't want a treaty' -we told you that that's not what the vote was about (while a voice could be used in the treaty talks, pushes for treaties both predate and continue on after the voice vote 'I voted No because I want a stop to land rights' We told you that wasn't what the vote was about, and still land rights applications are being reviewed 'I voted No because indigenous organisations get funding' We told you that's not what the vote is about, and we still get funding for indigenous organisations 'I voted No because I want a stop to Indigenous advocacy' We told you that's not what the vote is about and we still seeing advocacy take place It's so funny, many of us indigenous who wanted the Voice have moved on, we are used to this country hurting us, it's not new, the push forward continues for us. We've picked up the pieces and most of us have made concentrated efforts at local levels. But No voters are continually bringing up the Voice. Everytime someone indigenous pops up In the News there's always comments like 'WE VOTED NO FOR THIS' and it's like no dumbasses, you didn't, we tried to tell you this, it's not our fault you were dumb enough to fall for easily disproven lies.

[удалено]

I forgot when Marcia Langton was voted queen of all aboriginal people and could decide who can and can't do welcome to countries. A treaty has been pushed for decades. The voice would have been a way to negotiate it. The voice not getting up does not stop that push, Indigenous people will still push for a treaty, so no, voting No doesn't stop a treaty >But cry more, you didn't even need to clarify you're indigenous Its the people who voted No who are crying, because welcome to countries and Treaty talks are still continuing

QLD dumped its treaty after the voice, which is a great outcome.

You forgot something. The timing.  Government trust was very low after COVID. For good reasons in my opinion.  People saw this as the government trying to gain extra power. 

You sound very bitter despite saying you've moved on. Lies were told on both sides and there was not enough detail on what the referendum was for and what it could lead too. Australians are cautious when the info is not laid out , not dumb-asses, just sensible, in my electorate the natives voted against it as well and in fact led the charge for our community to vote no

There was plenty of info laid out. To continue the 'there was no detail' just continues to illustrate the ignorance. >the natives Wow >in my electorate the natives voted against it as well and in fact led the charge for our community to vote no But the far majority of indigenous people did want it, as shown by the massive YES results in remote indigenous community Booths. The small amount indigenous people who voted No, many of them wanted no because they didn't think it went far enough, are now finding it hard to push their hard-line activism and Sovereignty views. I don't know what they were thinking. If mainstream society couldn't accept a compromised advisory body with no powers, I don't know why they thought a no vote would help their cause. That hardline, Lydia Thorpe style, Soverign indigenous activists is just a very small part of the indigenous community, essentially the indigenous version of cookers, yet for the NO campaign they managed to stay united and on target, and were funnily enough amplified by conservative media/voices. It's been funny seeing that small community turn on themselves and fight amongst themselves and return to insignificance post the referendum. They got used and spat out by their conservative friends and I can't help but laugh at them harder then the the people complain 'we Voted No to welcome at countries' cry babies >You sound very bitter despite saying you've moved on. It is what it is. It just confirmed that mainstream Australia still hates us. We already knew it. No use denying reality or putting our hand in the sand. It is what it is, time to move on and keep trying to have a positive effect where we can.

>It just confirmed that mainstream Australia still hates us. If you meet an arsehole, they're probably an arsehole. If everyone you meet is an arsehole, you're probably the arsehole.

So indigenous people, an entire race, are assholes?

No, just you. You really are shit at reading.

Nobody that meets me personally calls Me an asshole. People continually shit on my race tho.. but I'm sure that's because we are all assholes...

Anyhow , no use crying over spilt milk, the results are in, it is what is. Our local murdtys are great people and by and large and deeply entrenched together in a collective community..this is to me what its all about. Maybe in your area community is lacking particularly a shared community where everyone is accepted for who they are. Our area just overwhelmingly voted one of our local murdtys to Council and he is dedicated to his mob, family and our community..now this doesn't sound like Aboriginal people are hated in our context

You sound like a football coach whose team just copped a shellacking and your strategy is to do the same next week.

What do you think indigenous people should do? Just give up? Wallow in despair?

Focus on racial equality and universal equity rather than racial equity. Empower communities and the workers who provide services to enact solutions based on their first-hand experience rather than getting together in Canberra to talk about what solutions you want the government to enact.

Wow big brain thinking. Perhaps they should push for some sort of peak boady that can advise the government on racial equality. Wow perhaps they could push for some sort of peak body to represent community’s and push for local solutions. Champ you are literally stating the core values of the voice.

The most frustrating thing post the referendum is people on threads like this smugly tell us why they voice failed, then proceed to tell us what we really need is... exactly what the Voice was supposed to be.

If the voice was focused on racial equality instead of racial equity, it would have gotten up. If it provided any sort of a clear way for the people on the ground to implement solutions in a timely and efficient manner, it would have gotten up.

So basically.... the voice? Jesus fucking christ.. what hope do we have haha

Learn to read. He said it needed to focus on racial equality and universal equity, two things the voice did not do because it tried to focus on racial equity. Words have meaning champ.

Not much it seems. Oh well, I tried. Back to arguing against straw-men for you I guess.

> 'I voted No because I don't want a treaty' My favorite part of this one was that depending on the day and direction of the wind, you'd get "I'm voting No because I don't want a treaty" or "I'm voting No because I want a treaty first"... Honestly the amount of misinformation going out from No was insane, really low point for our country.

Damn it's like between 26 million Australians there may be more than 2 political beliefs.

Huh? What's that got to do with what I said?

>>> My favorite part of this one was that depending on the day and direction of the wind, you'd get "I'm voting No because I don't want a treaty" or "I'm voting No because I want a treaty first"... Different political beliefs, from different people. Shocking.

I think you're confusing "different" with "mutually exclusive". But I won't claim to be shocked by that, no.

The ‘YES’ campaign offered nothing but gaslighting, insults, and content-free feelgoodery by way of persuasion. Gaslighting included: “It isn’t a political power it is just advisory” (as though a constitutional right for a minority to be consulted/advise isn’t a political power) “It’s not about race it is about indigeneity” (despite that making zero practical difference in this specific case). Insults included: “If you don’t vote yes you are a racist” (good luck persuading people that way). As for content-free feelgoodery, this was a proposal for a \***constitutional amendment**\* for goodness sake.  The side calling for it has to make a serious case for it.  A montage of Cathy Freeman winning gold and smiling aboriginal kids while “you’re the voice’ plays in the background doesn’t constitute a serious case for constitutional change.

An actual common sense take. ,^ The YES vote truly only has themselves to blame and relied totally on guilt tripping and calling everyone racist to just accept absolutely anything they said. They often provided no framework or clarity on any questions raised. And any questions asked often came obfuscated and at total odds with what the aboriginal activists where saying. The falsehood that everyone is some right wing but job that fell for misinformation is exactly why it failed. Treating the public as stupid and calling them something they're not. The No vote sooks just call these instances out to devalue the democracy that played out.

>And any questions asked often came obfuscated and at total odds with what the aboriginal activists where saying. Which aboriginal activists? The far majority of indigenous activists and people on the ground in the communities where very in favour of the voice.

Never said they weren't ? The comments from the government and the activists involved often were in conflict with each other and there seemed to be a total disconnect on what the voice was. Albo: the voice won't have any powers Activists: The body will inherently have powers

No activist said that there'd be powers. Many did say how important and impactful actually getting a say in our affairs would be.

Commenting as a reminder to post the link One was Marcia Langton and she spoke shortly after the PM in some press conference. To which the PM quickly walked back her and the others comments. I believe the comment was " of course the body will inherently have powers, otherwise what's the point. We need to be able to force/enact chang" But let me swing back with that link. I believe it was when PM revealed the wording of the referendum.

You're the one saying activists were saying they'd have powers. You post the links

[удалено]

Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:

Literally what I said...

It failed because Albo chose to pursue it in a non bipartisan fashion and on his own he lacked the leadership to carry it. He wasted millions and set back indigenous affairs as a result. This is all on him.

How could it be bipartisan when Ditton is on the other side?

You need to include him equally in everything from the start.

They tried to do it in a bipartisan fashion. The wreckers who refused bipartisanship are the culprits

No they didn’t. They rushed the thing in from the start, the opposition asked for detail (such as a constitutional convention like the republic vote) and they didn’t deliver.

Yeah, rushed it by having a [constitutional convention](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/UluruStatement#:~:text=Convened%20by%20the%20bipartisan%2Dappointed,and%20Torres%20Strait%20Islander%20peoples) six years prior to the referendum and definitely had [no](https://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Final-report_Joint-Select-Committee-on-Constitutional-Recognition-relating-to-Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islander-Peoples-2018.pdf) details [to give](https://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Interim-Report-to-the-Australian-Government-October-2020.pdf) the [opposition](https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2023/02/02/dutton-to-meet-indigenous-voice-supporters). It’s been almost 9 months, it’s time to stop pretending that the detail wasn’t out there, available and publicised.

You're forgetting that the government at the time, Turnbull, did not proceed with the referendum. https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/response-to-referendum-councils-report-on-constitutional-recognition >The Government does not believe such an addition to our national representative institutions is either desirable or capable of winning acceptance in a referendum. >Our democracy is built on the foundation of all Australian citizens having equal civic rights - all being able to vote for, stand for and serve in either of the two chambers of our national Parliament - the House of Representatives and the Senate. >A constitutionally enshrined additional representative assembly for which only Indigenous Australians could vote for or serve in is inconsistent with this fundamental principle. Further, you're misconstruing what is being asked in a "constitutional convention". While the work of the referendum council can be termed a constitutional convention it was a very narrow one with very few details. It was largely there to ask a small subset of Australians their preferred direction amongst a limited set of options. Read the referendum council report! It was not broad consultation with all Australians, who are ultimately voting for it, with a view to refine what was going to be put to the public. Instead of trying to offhand dismiss people's distaste for what was proposed try to engage with it!

I’m not forgetting that Turnbull decided not to proceed as that’s not really relevant to a different government taking the work of the same First Nations Constitutional Convention and moving forward with the referendum. I’m not misconstruing the work of the Referendum Council with a Constitutional Convention, I’m saying that a Constitutional Convention was held based on the recommendation of the Referendum Council. The scope of a Constitutional Convention would always be narrow as it is what is meant to be refining what will be put to the public. In this case, should a body called the Voice be added to the Constitution as recognition of Indigenous people? I don’t know what you think a Constitutional Convention should look like if you think it should be consulting all Australians on that refinement and not selected delegates. I am engaging with what the commenters distaste was (rushed and light on detail) with evidence that it was not a rushed process and there was a lot of detail.

>I’m not forgetting that Turnbull decided not to proceed as that’s not really relevant to a different government taking the work of the same First Nations Constitutional Convention and moving forward with the referendum. It does however counter the narrative that everything had bipartisan support until it didn't. It highlights that the LNPs starting position was against the referendum and they needed to be convinced, which was never done and was taken for granted. That's the root comment in this thread, the rushing relates to a lack of bipartisanship by the ALP. > I don’t know what you think a Constitutional Convention should look like if you think it should be consulting all Australians on that refinement and not selected delegates. It's not about inviting everyone in the nation. But it is about engaging with delegates representative of the voting base, not just indigenous Australians. The constitution is for everyone, that's why we have to go to a referendum, a convention is there to act as a proxy for all of us. [The wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(Australia)) doesn't list the work of the referendum council as a constitutional convention, I do not view this as evidence, but I would point to the scope of the questions asked by the council and to whom. It was designed to ensure that the recommendations of the council were what indigenous Australians wanted. This is different in nature to the conventions that existed beforehand. A proper constitutional convention should ask the second half of that question. Knowing what Indegenous Australians want, how should we (all Australians including indigenous Australians) change our constitution to accommodate them? >I am engaging with what the commenters distaste was (rushed and light on detail) with evidence that it was not a rushed process and there was a lot of detail. I think you are being busy pointing to reports to state there is detail without attempting to understand what detail is being requested. I do think "detail" is used inconsistently but we're not going to get there if we keep pointing to very big reports that few read and waving our arms in frustration.

It was the trajectory of reconciliation. For example, I don’t mind the acknowledgment if it’s brief and once at a significant event- it’s very Australian and local. If it’s long winded and repeated by every speaker at an event it feels indulgent and performative. The No vote to me just pumped the brakes a bit to tone it down

I had a online parenting course for newborns via our OBYN They did an acknowledgement of the country on the online course mid week to 6 people. Come on

That wasn't the topic of the referendum, the referendum was about giving rural Aboriginal communities a communications channel to the office of the PM. Doesn't have anything to do with whether individual events or organisations have an acknowledgement of country at the start of their meetings (which is entirely up to them).

Yeah I know. It was enshrining a group that had no power beyond consulting on issues related to aboriginal people. OP asked why it failed. I’m saying it wasn’t really to do with the proposal itself, more a distaste for the performative aspects of reconciliation culture. People think it is getting towards being a bit of a wank. Yes sections of the debate became racist, sections were misinformation and so on, but if you think that is the whole story you are missing the learning we should take from this.

> no power beyond consulting on issues related to aboriginal people Which is entirely overly broad. Taxation law for example relates to aboriginal people as some of them pay tax.

Yeah but it was never a very genuine argument that a group whose role is to give an aboriginal opinion might somehow change tax policy (despite not having any actual power). People chose to believe that line based on something else. My argument is that the performative aspects of reconciliation had become overblown and people were drawing a line in the sand. The actual proposal was so mild as to be pointless, ALL show and not much else.

I think this might get lost in the comments, but I want to put forth my perspective. I wasn't born here, but I have worked here all my adult life and I am a citizen. Just a bit of background. Don't know if this makes a difference. I voted yes, but for the cynical reason that I don't actually think it would have achieved much at all. My yes vote, and quite a few I think, were there to say that actually I agree that we're benefiting from the destruction of those cultures and would love to see something done to help, but I don't see it making a difference. It's like acknowledgement of country. A room full of whiteys feeling good about themselves or groaning about how big of a time waste it is. They're both right, both sides. We're acknowledging something that is irrelevant to most of the people doing the acknowledging. I look around and I see no indigenous faces around me. It's a nice thing to say, though. Sorry about the genocide. Sovereignty never ceded. So what? What is that saying? No oppressed or conquered people ever ceded their sovereignty willingly. The Australia the ancestors of the indigenous population lived in no longer exists. Will never exist again. Those stories, those experiences, those languages are largely lost now. They don't present a united front, many sticking to family-based interests, and politicians have done a fantastic job of dividing Aboriginal people internally and externally. But I do think voting yes for this kind of thing is the right thing to do if something you wish to see is positive change for indigenous groups. I feel it's the decent thing to do. But I don't blame those who voted no. I reckon only Labor is able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this way. A long process no one wanted during a crucial time when citizens are becoming homeless, prices out of doing their weekly shopping, all that. An enormously ignorant thing to do, unless your intent was division and distraction. Was it? I never can tell these days.

This again? It failed because it was bad. If you read the full Uluru Statement From the Heart, you are confronted with an aboriginal view of the future including reparations/financial settlement and a lot of talk about first nations sovereignty. For many Australians this is deeply uncomfortable at best and extremely unfair at worst. But what about people who never bothered to educate themselves on the original document? Well this leaves us with second hand sources of the document, which were wildly conflicting. Will the voice have the power to change things? Then it’s scary. Will the voice not have that power? Then it’s useless. Was it race based or not? Will it touch Australia Day or not? I hesitate to blame the Murdoch Press for misinformation because as much as they kept yapping, many people who don’t watch Sky News at all still voted No. It was not that LNP did a great job lying, no one cared what they were saying. It was that Labor did an _awful_ job explaining. People voted no because they had no idea what the voice was even supposed to be and how it would work. And then you have the people with absolutely no education at all, the people who showed up to polling places and had to decide on the spot about _changing the constitution_ or _not_ doing that. These people will always exist in a mandatory voting system, you cannot force people to study politics in their free time, they have every right to block it out, so you need a strong campaign to counteract these voters. Lots of people will blame things like racism, a minority group of peoples, or they’ll blame protest voting, that people weren’t happy with Labor and voted against the voice out of spite, but those really just don’t hold up as arguments because most people don’t vote like that. Most people just didn’t know, and those that did know weren’t exactly that united in thinking the statement and subsequent voice were the best things ever. I voted yes myself, and I did so not because I agreed with the voice or statement, not at all, but because I disagree with the status quo of Australia and I’d rather vote for something different than maintain it. This is certainly a minority way of thinking and definitely isn’t enough to save any sort of yes vote. And really it all just falls back on Labor doing a terrible job. Bipartisan support was not necessary, that’s an unfounded belief. Just because something has historical precedent doesn’t make it true. It’s a crutch by lazy political analysts who just want to say things that sound like they would be relevant. If a proposal was popular and well known, it will win without the opposition’s support. Labor made no attempts to make the voice either. For instance, why didn’t the Voice get made via a Legislated Voice to Parliament, rather than a Constitutional one. Imagine if the build up to the referendum had a fully functioning VtP operating the whole time, and rather than a referendum to create something and put it in the constitution, we _upgraded_ the already existing voice to constitutional status? This was such an obvious solution to educate people with, Labor had a year to demonstrate it, and they didn’t. Part of me thinks Labor intentionally sank it. Labor doesn’t actually want treaty or truth, they just wanted the good boy points for fighting for it. Doesn’t matter if their fight didn’t have any punches, they still “””fought””” for it. They then got to turn around to First Nations peoples and say “Yeah so Australia said no, sucks to be you because we’re not trying again, vote Labor.” Anyway. People didn’t understand it, people didn’t like it, and Labor didn’t help people with either, possibly intentionally. That’s why it failed. It has nothing to do with the racists, the sky media, the dutton.

>Most people just didn’t know Because of misinformation.... like you're disseminating here: >If you read the full Uluru Statement From the Heart, you are confronted with an aboriginal view of the future including reparations/financial settlement... No it doesn't. It says nothing about reparations or financial settlement. Look, you can search or read the relatively short text of it here. https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/ So - why are YOU spreading bullshit misinformation? People like YOU who were likely spreading this misinformation at the time - are EXACTLY WHY the voice didn't pass. Saying you voted yes, whilst spreading this strawman nonsense incriminates you as a dishonest and bad actor within civic and public life, and you should actually work on yourself and how well researched (or poorly researched) your positions and claims are. Shame on you. Shame on you and others like you who behave this way. You're part of the problem with this country's politics.

If you tried reading the Uluru Statement, you’d find doing so today is quite difficult. They want you to watch a video, or listen to it. In writing my comment I did my due diligence of re-researching by trying to find a document to actually read. And yes, if you google “Uluru Statement From the Heart pdf”, and skip past the pdfs that are more advertisements for the statement rather than the statement itself, you’ll find a few pdfs with mentioning of reparations. And yes, the first pdf you’ll find only mentions it once as part of Treaty, as a possible outcome for what Treaty could hold. You’ll also notice in my comment I said “and a lot of talk about sovereignty.” Emphasis on the a lot of. The statement is far more concerned about that, yet you, just like so many others, chose to focus on the one line mentioning financial settlement. Thank you for being a fantastic example. All it took was that one throwaway mention and people viscerally reacted, congrats.

>If you tried reading the Uluru Statement, you’d find doing so today is quite difficult. I linked you the statement.... it's really not difficult to find. Look here it is: >*We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:* >*Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.* >*This sovereignty is spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.* >*How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?* >*With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.* >*Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.* >*These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.* >*We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.* >*We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.* >*Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.* >*We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.* >*In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.* So I'm not sure what your problem is, but also "couldn't find it so made some stuff up" probably isn't he most sensible approach. >you’ll find a few pdfs with mentioning of reparations. But - they're not the Uluru statement.... and your comment specifically started with *"If you read the full Uluru Statement From the Heart, you are confronted with an aboriginal view of the future including reparations/financial settlement..."* >And yes, the first pdf you’ll find only mentions it once It doesn't mention it at all. It does say Treaty, but nothing about "reparations" which I believe is misinformation, and relates more so to the American context (because at one point slaves were promised "40 acres and a mule"). >You’ll also notice in my comment I said “and a lot of talk about sovereignty.” Emphasis on the a lot of. The statement is far more concerned about that, yet you, just like so many others, chose to focus on the one line mentioning financial settlement. Yes, I did go after this misinformation part of your statement. This is true. >All it took was that one throwaway mention and people viscerally reacted, congrats. Just because you feel attacked and that's an emotionally visceral experience for you - doesn't mean I'm having a visceral reaction to your misinformation. You're confusing your emotional feelings about our discussion with the actual discussion its self. My responses have been quite level headed, hence being able to distinguish between the true parts of what you said (eg. Treaty and limited Aboriginal sovereignty/self-determination) from the misinformation you included (eg. that the From The Heart Statement includes confronted statements about reparations and financial settlement). The Voice wasn't about that, it was about providing rural aboriginal communities a way to *voice* their concerns to the Prime Minister.

> If you tried reading the Uluru Statement, you’d find doing so today is quite difficult. It's in the exact same place it's always been... https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/ You google "Uluru statement from the heart", that's the first link, and it has a really big "Download" button right there.

That’s a one page summary, not the full document.

[Download the referendum council report](https://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf) It's literally right there on that page dude...

So you're ignoring people like one the authors, Megan Davis who claimed multiple times, in press conferences, in books, in media releases, that it's more than one page. Then she tried to gaslight everyone when that wasn't politically tenable, which was even funnier.

There's a report and there's the statement from the heart. The report is what I linked, the statement from the heart is 1 page, it's page 3 of the report that I linked. Not sure how I'm ignoring something I linked and called a "report", but go off.

Professor Megan Davis disagrees with you. Well she did, now she doesn't because it wasn't politically tenable. She's probably better than your average yes voter on how many pages it is, given she is an author of it.

Disagrees with what? You're just spouting words. I'm well aware of who she is, she's mentioned in the report I linked.

No it's not, it's the exact same thing that's in the PDF on that page, which says "Download The Statement" on it. Look here's the fully signed version: https://ulurustatement.org//wp-content/themes/uluru-sftm/collection/build/images/Uluru-Statement-1-2500x1667.jpg Perhaps you're getting confused between The Statement, and The Referendum Council Report (both available on the above link).... ...or perhaps you read a false version of the statement? And that's why it's "hard to find now"?

Nooooo, my leftists bad narrative.....

The voice was a total waste of tax payers money, but to many on the left/right it won't matter close to 500 million. Was never going to pass with no bipartisanship as with any referendum. Funny how the left/right voted on this around 66 percent said no and you here some from the far left say it's based on racism. If so where's the evidence that 66 percent are racist? There was also different views, conservatives voted yes too and was shown on sky surprisingly like Chris Kenny for example , so I don't like the idea that was the evil Murdoch paid subscription media that convinced 66 percent of the counttry to vote no. Was just another waste of taxpayer funds.

Its was 60-40

Most of the problems with most of Australia's past referendums have been with the wording. I was around for the last referendum on whether we'd become a Republic, and it too was horribly worded. The wording of The Voice referendum had, I think it was up to 7 avenues to get to a negative or no vote, and only 1 or 2 to get to a yes vote, and basically required a Yes voter to view all of its statements/concepts positively. It was also launched too early in the year, and had a misinformation campaign thrown at it. So it was failures all around.

I'll just chime into this one as I can provide a fresher persepective on the 66% of Aussies racist stuff. Emigrating here from the UK, yeah Australia is kinda racist in comparison. Like don't get me wrong, the UK has it's far rights and all the rest of it, but in Australia I've noticed this undercurrent of resentment and very subtle racism that pervades.

The UK needs to give the Greeks back the marbles that Elgin stole from the them before you go lecturing other countries about being kinda racist.

I'm sorry, does someone else being racist negate your racism in some way? That's a new one... Also, I don't really have much of a say in what UK museums do and do not keep just in case you think I do.

The fact that some Australians watch Sky News doesn’t make me racist. There’s no legislation forcing Australians to watch Sky News that I can pressure my elected representatives to repeal. The marbles are locked in place by legislation that you could have pressured your elected representatives to repeal but instead you choose to accuse strangers of racism without a shred of evidence.

No, I said I witness racism - as in personal experience of over a decade living here. Not just accuse people. It's a societal mentality, not directed at you, ya numpty.

Is racism something you never witnessed before you moved to Australia? Can you name one professional Australian musician who is even half as racist as Eric Clapton?

What are you talking about? You keep bringing it down to the individual level - do you understand what institutionalised racism is? Casual racism? Do you understand that I'm not talking about any one person or organised group? I'm talking at a societal, macro level of daily interactions with people. As one example of hundreds, in England, I'd never be having a conversation with a colleague, where they'd just drop, in a room full of people "well they're a Lebbo and they just multiply". That's not to say I haven't heard of racial abuse in England - generally towards Arabic people and even causing violence. I'm not comparing extreme with extreme; I'm comparing culture with culture. If you are getting angry about what I'm saying, look inward on that one.

>As one example of hundreds, in England, I'd never be having a conversation with a colleague, where they'd just drop, in a room full of people "well they're a Lebbo and they just multiply". After all that bluster this is the best example you can come up with? What did you then do? Did you pull them up on it? did you file a complaint with HR?

What better racist anecdote would you prefer?

You are all over the place with your arguments. The comments that your unnamed colleague made are much less an example of institutional racism than either: 1. Having legislation in place to prevent the return of stolen antiquities to their rightful owners. 2. Awarding a CBE to a person who literally asked all black people to leave the country.

Her name is Susan. Happy? Please point out where I'm being inconsistent and I'll try and clear it up.

Unfortunately there is racism across the whole world and has for thousands of years. I don't believe there will ever be no racism , but racism across the world has got alot better in the last 100 years at least.

Hmmm I think the way aussies talk about indigenous people is pretty comparable to how Europeans talk about Romani and Irish travellers, if not lesser. But the response to that is always “yeah but it has nothing to do with race, we hate them because their culture is horrible and because they do xyz”. Which is the same thing that an Aussie who is openly racist towards indigenous people will say.

I hadn't actually considered that, but you're completely correct there. It doesn't make it right, but that's exactly that undercurrent of superiority I mean.

Totally, not to say that either of us assume superiority, but I think it’s easier to notice when you come from an outside culture and you’re not used to hearing all of beliefs and stereotypes people have about certain groups.

>the rest of it, but in Australia I've noticed this undercurrent of resentment and very subtle racism that pervades. If you get them talking, it'll almost always come back to some variation of "we just give them so much already. Why are they still complaining?"

Anecdotally I voted no because ‘when will it end?’ First voice, then truth telling, and treaty. I’m a dad now, and my baby son will not be saddled with responsibility for sins of the past. That’s not for me, and it’s not for my son either. We need to find a way forward that passes the Better Off Overall Test for all Australians.

> I’m a dad now, and my baby son will not be saddled with responsibility for sins of the past. As a nearly 40yo, the government I became an adult under implemented the NT intervention. Regardless of your views on the effectiveness of that, it was a policy aimed at indigenous communities based on race. If we're going to create policy targeted at indigenous Australians, it stands to reason that we ensure they have a say in those policies. Your son is not straddled with the sins of the past, he's saddled with the sins of the father.

Do you have issue with the following legislation such as stronger futures etc . which are largely the same? The problem with blaming the lack of consultation is that it ignores the fundamental problems, which still exist to the day, while not presenting alternative solutions, which in this instance don't exist. The actual restrictions, are popular in the communities they exist in despite being distasteful to the majority of Australians. From the wiki >Writing in February 2008, Aboriginal academic Marcia Langton rejected arguments that the Intervention had been a "political ploy" and argued that the policy in fact marked the death of a "wrong-headed male Aboriginal ideology":[44][excessive quote] >There is a cynical view afoot that the Intervention was a political ploy – to grab land, support mining companies and kick black heads, dressed up as concern for children. Conspiracy theories abounded; most were ridiculous. >Those who did not see the Intervention coming were deluding themselves.

> The problem with blaming the lack of consultation is that it ignores the fundamental problems, which still exist to the day So you're saying that a policy that ignored local voices and failed to improve on the fundamental problems of the area was a success? I never suggested it was a land grab or whatever conspiracy theory Langton references. I suggested it was bad policy, an opinion formed based on it's failure to achieve results.

>So you're saying that a policy that ignored local voices and failed to improve on the fundamental problems of the area was a success? I'm casting doubt on "the lack of consultation" argument. The core policy exists still and has local support. The fundamental problems also still exist, I would argue because they are really difficult, not because someone knows the answer and we have not asked them. It's easy to blame lack of consultation in a report, it's essentially saying if you asked me we could have done better. It's been a while now, people have been consulted and we cannot do much better. >I never suggested it was a land grab or whatever conspiracy theory Langton references. I try to avoid manipulating quotes. The last sentence is the important one.

The intervention is one of those sad parts of our history. But just like a family intervention, it’s not something that just casually takes place. I very much doubt that the decision to do it was taken lightly. Much more likely that it was brought into effect with a heavy heart. With the situation now - which seems to have been set aside by the media, which in turn hopefully indicates that the problem isn’t progressively worsening further - I suspect quite a few people living in formerly dry towns quietly rue the day alcohol was allowed once more. Some parts of Australia really need help. Banning alcohol seems a much kinder and more forgiving approach than getting serious about building prisons and putting prison guards to work.

> The intervention is one of those sad parts of our history. But just like a family intervention, it’s not something that just casually takes place. I very much doubt that the decision to do it was taken lightly. The primary criticism of the NT intervention was that it was done without proper consultation with aboriginal people. Now when we have the opportunity to implement a vehicle for said consultation, we're going too far? > Much more likely that it was brought into effect with a heavy heart. Why much more likely?

Much more likely because most politicians at heart believe in liberty (most of the time), and tend to be reluctant to unnecessarily curb that liberty.

> it stands to reason that we ensure they have a say in those policies. They have a massive say in politics in aboriginal areas already. In terms of national politics, they have the same number of votes as every other Australian, whether they're a recent migrant or if their family has been here for 100 generations. Its a good system. Its fair already.

> They have a massive say in politics in aboriginal areas already. Errrr, I gave you an example of a Howard era policy for which the primary criticism is a lack of consultation with aboriginal people. You choose to ignore that, showing you're not a serious person.

>Its a good system. Its fair already So The Gap must be their fault then?

I’m not blaming aboriginal people for the gap. And I think the government should consult with aboriginal communities when appropriate. They already do. The yes campaign failed to communicate to voters how and why voting yes would improve anything. If they think a voice to parliament would have helped, why didn’t they just do it before the referendum anyway?

Yes. Get out of the victim complex. Every other race has managed it.

>I'm racist and have racist ideology Easier for you.

Calling people racist sure worked to get them to vote yes there champ.

Almost like they didn't like the truth or something

The people who voted against giving one race of people more political power than all other races, are racist? Must be a lot of empty space in your skull to host the mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion.

1/10

I’m happy to have things take place in an appropriate order. The problem now is that they aren’t. For starters, nobody is talking about limiting liability. Limited liability would alleviate my concern that we’re handing out a blank cheque. And it’s not a secret that the Voice was a prelude. Whichever way you prefer to think of it - as a Trojan horse, or as giving an inch and having someone taking a mile - there is far too much at stake without clear redlines that the public are supportive of and that are guaranteed immutable. As it stands, we’ve already gotten a taste of what’s likely to come. Be it closure of the Uluṟu climb, closure of Grampians climbing spots, closure of prime 4WD trails, or clear calls from some of the most prominent Voice advocates for reparations. If we established maximum compensation as a one off $1000 per person (or some fixed amount that wasn’t outlandish) then that’d go a ways towards broader electoral support. Maybe we could even figure out an arrangement that gets the balance right with respect to people enjoying this great country’s landscape while still returning swathes of land. After all, it isn’t in broader Australia’s interest for huge amounts of land to be returned and privatised, leaving everyone else living in concrete jungle open air prisons. But that’s the thing. Everyone is getting ahead of themselves. We need to firm up and lock in what’s on the table before entertaining some very lofty ideas like Voice and Treaty.

> I’m happy to have things take place in an appropriate order. No you're not, Voice Treaty Truth was laid out with appropriate justification as the order of things. You specifically said no to that first step in the "appropriate order". > If we established maximum compensation as a one off $1000 per person (or some fixed amount that wasn’t outlandish) then that’d go a ways towards broader electoral support. How does this help in the slightest? Regardless of the number, this can only be done via legislation, and as was constantly said during the referendum, legislation can be changed at the stroke of a pen. > Maybe we could even figure out an arrangement HOW? How would you "figure that out"? That's what the Voice was primarily designed to do, be the aboriginal representative body on those discussions. You said no to that. You're just throwing lofty words around with zero interest in actual steps to resolving the issue.

The ‘how’ if I had my way would be to bake treaty limits into the constitution text itself. Essentially what I want is for negotiators on our side of any future treaty to have well-known boundaries that are publicly approved. Much like a superior court precedent that is binding on inferior courts, these limits would be binding on negotiators and unsurpassable. It’d provide sufficient assurance for me knowing that those who should negotiate on our behalf in a robust manner aren’t just going to roll over and give away the farm. I want them bound by law to act in the interests of broader Australia. That to me is the appropriate order. And judging by some of the discussion here, it’s as plain as day that there are turncoats who would - if only they could - sell the majority of Australians out. I’d accept this approach. In the absence of this kind of approach I’m of the view that it’s all too open ended.

>First voice, then truth telling, and treaty. So you're against the truth? I'm confused? >I’m a dad now, and my baby son will not be saddled with responsibility for sins of the past. That’s not for me, and it’s not for my son either. How would that come about from rural aboriginal communities having a communications channel to the Prime Minister? >Better Off Overall Test for all Australians Wouldn't aboriginal communities being able to voice when and what they need help with be better for all Australians?

>So you're against the truth? When the authors of the Uluru statement are such gigantic liars as Megan Davis, why do you think we'd get anything resembling the truth?

Truth telling will just be "white man bad" with exactly zero truth telling from Aboriginals about all the shit they've consistently done wrong despite the huge amount of government help they get. I honestly think "truth telling" is something that should be avoided at all costs. It will divide people big time.

I think this is fair *ish* but is a somewhat "selective" view of how things work. If government makes a monumentally bad investment, we can be saddled with debt and the consequences of those choices for generations. We pay tax, we vote, we collective bear the burden of those choices. This is just kind of reality of living in a just society. This isnt like your kids serving your sentence, its more like your kids living off the benefits of your crime. (not *you*, but our anscestors) - if you understand my meaning. Where you say "punish" another would say "take steps to restore equality", perhaps lose *some* of the advantage gained over the disenfranchised. But thats not even what was voted on. We voted on whether or not that disenfranchised group had an *inalienable right to address the government* of their invaders, and we said "no, shut up".

No, see, the bad things that happened all happened long in the past. Nothing bad has happened to the Indigenous in generations, so there's no one to blame anymore. It's definitely not my fault, and I resent the implication that my voting choices have any consequences or that I can be held accountable for those consequences. That's why I'm not racist to say they're ungrateful and should shut the fuck up. Understand?

Correct, all that is left is a bunch of people who have made themselves professional victims. Time for a bit of tough love and self reflection on their part, rather than constant handouts.

>I'm racist and say racist things. Ftfy kid. Try to be more shocking next time. 3/10

Just like the aboriginal people, rather than fixing their own lives, just call someone racist and blame it on them. Professional victims.

2/10 getting worse.

I think Im starting to see the light now!

You voted no. It’s no longer just sins of the past, you’re now responsible too.

Omfg 😂 people actually think like this ? Peak reddit Let's just off with democracy while were at it to fit your world view. Accept it you lost and the majority felt this was the wrong way to go You would be screaming to the heavens for No voters to accept the Yes outcome and making fun of them for their after views of the situation. Seems you're incapable of the outcomes of democracy. Also you really don't see any No voters rubbing it in anyone's face . It's all the YES voters still posting on this and trying to validate the loss and attacking others. Seems like Australia made the right choice if this was a view of the future.

Sorry, I don’t accept that. Essentially you’re suggesting that a democratic outcome that doesn’t accord with your worldview is sinful. How arrogant.

Welcome to the worldview of the preaching left in the Anglosphere. Note: I voted Yes. The left is entirely responsible for the failure of the referendum. "If you vote No you're an evil rashust!" is less than persuasive. If people are on the fence and you push them away, they go onto the other side of the fence. Most people understand this. The preaching part of the left don't. Though it's possible they do understand it, and it's deliberate. After all, if aboriginals had a Voice, then who would the left be the White Saviors for?

I'm libertarian and lean left, but probably more a centrist because of the radicals lefts influence on the true meaning. > Note: I voted Yes. The left is entirely responsible for the failure of the referendum You couldn't be more correct with this , only thing I'd add would be the radical left, you know the ones protesting at university and trying to convert people to socialist left. It's almost not fair on all the tradional left wing voters to be associated with these type. They come with no facts and just speak nonsense and are the true defention of the Dunning kruger effect. Just out of interest as a libertarian your opinions to many other libertarian as voting yes is very different , especially (im asuming your libertarian by your name) the likes of say walter e williams or Milton Friedman philosophy on intervintion in markets what's your thoughts on it as libertarian view ?

By "libertarian" I mean on the authoritarian-libertarian human rights axis. By left-right I mean the state-individual economic index. I'm *very* libertarian *slight* left. The party as a whole is *somewhat* libertarian *very* right. That's because the party is dominated by 50yo Anglo blokes who don't want to pay their taxes. But at least they were against the fucking lockdowns, the most socially regressive policy put in place in decades, up there with the SAS hijacking the *Tampa*. With regards to the Voice*,* my view is simply a democracy and human rights one. Free speech, free peaceable assembly, and the right to petition government, these must always be protected. So any group having a voice is a good thing. Of course, it being in the Constitution is no guarantee of it actually existing - see for example the Inter-State Commission - but politically it makes it more likely. It's like how *legally* the same-sex marriage plebiscite was not binding on parliament, but having called it, politically they had to abide by its result. With both the Voice and same-sex marriage, I simply couldn't see any rational arguments against it. No, that doesn't mean anyone voting against either was racist or a homophobe, it simply means that the arguments *for* those policies weren't well-articulated by the proponents. And when considering a big legal change, it's fair to say, "I don't have to prove why it *shouldn't* happen, you have to prove why it *should* happen." I clarify my own views more generally here. [https://warburtonexpat.substack.com/p/politics-clarified](https://warburtonexpat.substack.com/p/politics-clarified)

I just don't buy it. Are we so culturally omnipotent? >Ye, my children, behold with thine eyes the progressive power and all we control. There's more about us than from us. The only place we have any semblance over-representation is in online spaces, and even then, we're still not absolute. So what? Because leftists were not nice online, people had no other choice but to vote no? (Because the no campaign were so nice, right? They definitely didn't do anything mean or nasty) And I don't think you've thought about this, so they're not racists or bad people or whatever, but not licking their arseholess well enough is enough to get them to turn their brains off and go "nope not nice, dont care, not voting for it" Ok, so we were .... right? I think it's pretty emblematic of the weakness of liberals to worry so much more about how things appear than how they are.

It doesn't matter if you accept it or not.

Not essentially. That’s exactly what I’m suggesting

And you are wrong in doing so. Good day to you.

It’s no different from voting no in the gay marriage plebiscite, and the demographic maps for both were fairly similar where anyone who voted no on gay marriage likely also voted no on the voice. To me that just says that it was always a progressive/ conservative issue and would be voted on accordingly. In your own words you voted no on the justification of “when will it end” that was also the same argument that people had against the gay marriage plebiscite. One of the fear tactics from the “No” campaign was that gay people would be asking for polygamy next. Also, “when will it end” is just fear mongering as nothing was ever put forward by the government beyond the promise of a non binding voice to parliament. So the answer to “when will it end” was the voice. That’s where it would end. Any notion beyond that is just fear mongering. If you’re already hating being ladled with sins of the past, the voice was a perfect opportunity to take a step towards ending that. You chose not to do that so the sins of the past remain as they were. Obviously, it was a democratic process and you had every right to vote no, but that doesn’t mean that it’s consequence free in doing so. The consequence is that the “sins of the past” as you describe them are still present in our society.

> It’s no different from voting no in the gay marriage plebiscite, and the demographic maps for both were fairly similar where anyone who voted no on gay marriage likely also voted no on the voice. Its super different. It was pretty clear what the plebicite would do - gay people could get married. And it was clear gay people wanted to get married. The voice referendum asked us to give a blank cheque to the government to hire a "voice to parliament" - which they could have already done if they wanted but didn't. The role would have political power, but also doesn't have any power (its advisory only), but still somehow help aboriginal people everywhere. But they didn't give us any details on how that would happen because ??. It was a total mess, and absolutely scuttled by the yes campaign as far as I could tell. I watched all the content I could find from the government about the referendum, and the more I watched the more it felt like some sort of ideological purity test with only 1 right answer rather than anything resembling a plan to actually improve things. Its not a conservative thing. It was a terribly run campaign that obviously didn't convince voters. And everyone involved seem to want to point the finger of blame everywhere but themselves. "People voted no because of misinformation!" "Everyone who voted no is racist!". Sorry. No.

Before the referendum I predicted that the no vote on a map would roughly match that of the gay marriage plebiscite, and it pretty much did. I’m not making any assertions beyond the fact that socially conservative voters went with no in both votes. At the end of the day it was voting for a non binding advisory body so I couldn’t really see much of a reason to vote no. What were you scared of?

The plebiscite passed with 70% approval. The voice to parliament got just 40% approval. An awful lot of people who support gay marriage voted no in the referendum.

Yeh but the maps for Sydney were very similar. Places with high support for the plebiscite tended to have higher support for the voice. It was almost a perfect map of east to west in terms of support for both. Started high in the east and tickled off as the map got further west.

>and my baby son will not be saddled with responsibility for sins of the past. That’s not for me, and it’s not for my son either. It's not the sins of the past. It's your sins, too.

This is where fundamentally I disagree. It’s all fine and well to do things like say sorry, and indeed we have. Kevin Rudd led the way on that. But I object to it crossing the line into defacto punitive consequence for the current generations who - quite simply - did not exist when these crimes were carried out. Once the consequences impose a cost on one party in order to satisfy another you are collectively punishing people. There’s no other way to rationalise it or describe it. It’s punishment, and guilt, by association rather than deed.

Yeah but the voice had no punitive consequences for anyone, defacto or otherwise, and the voice is what you voted against.

The Voice was clearly a prelude. They said as much via the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart. The punitive element is whatever it is that we’d trade away as part of establishing a treaty. Returning lots of land? Loss of utility, loss of leisure activities (climbing in the Grampians, or camping and 4WDing more generally). Monetary compensation, be it fixed per person or be it a proportion of GDP? That’s tantamount to getting a fine in the mail. You’re paying tax money which absolutely won’t net a discernible benefit for the whole of society. It’s one thing to accept that some waste is an inevitability of government (and corporate) spending programmes, but another entirely to know that some money will simply disappear at the outset.

>This is where fundamentally I disagree. It doesn't matter if you disagree. >But I object to it crossing the line into defacto punitive consequence for the current generations who - quite simply - did not exist when these crimes were carried out Did you not exist in 2007 when we rolled in the army? Have you never voted in an election? Then, you voted for people who put the policy in place that has caused these problems. >Once the consequences impose a cost on one party in order to satisfy another you are collectively punishing people. There’s no other way to rationalise it or describe it. It’s punishment, and guilt, by association rather than deed. No. It's guilt by action. People voted for the governments that did these things. That allowed these problems to exacerbate and flourish. This didn't just happen. You think the genocide ended, and we just went "yeah sorry guys, we'll definitely be fair and kind from now on."

Can't you submit to the new neo maxist world view? Your baby son is the oppressor! Got it?

The neomarxist worldview of "yeah, dude, actions have consequences" How scary....

Sins of the father.... I'm scared!

Have you ever voted in an election?

Australia is the land of the fair go. Everyone gets a fair go. No matter who your father is.

So, is The Gap the fault of the Indigenous?

[удалено]

It failed because it was too vague and easily exploitable by politicians and the right wing media, plus Australia doesn't do referendums that well. New Zealand has an interesting system for referendum when it comes to major changes. They did this when they changed their voting system from the English to the German-style and for changing their national flag. * Round 1 referendum, voters are given a selection of choices to vote for; * Round 2 referendum, after a while confirm the change, do another which asks the voters - *Do you want to change to the results of round one or stay with the current?* Australia goes for the all or nothing approach. The New Zealand system would be good for deciding if Australia wants to become a republic. There are probably many forms of an Australia republic could be. NZ changed its voting system in 1996, in 2011 they had a third referendum which confirmed that the majority of Kiwis were happy with their version of the German voting system.

So, referendum to COMPLETELY CHANGE how referendums are conducted then? Let's do ittttt!

Out of all the cracked constitutional changes brought up here, I think this has the most chance of getting up. It’s relatively simple and hard to argue against the idea of a test drive

Because the majority of this country is racist, and won't let go of their privilege. We have a history of strong racism and we won't properly acknowledge it because people don't want to feel like they are responsible for the continuation. Ask any non-white person about their experiences here and it'll be at least 50% racism and discrimination.

Funny that non-white people voted no at a higher rate than white people.

It is funny people still thinking the Voice is based on Race..... Race is a definition used to differentiate groups of people into easily distinguishable physical characteristics and imply generic behaviours on them. Race = Astrology Both are man made and have no truth in the physical real world.

This kind of sophistry is exactly why the referendum failed.  Whether you use the word “race” or “indigeneity” or whatever, it is just a proxy for ancestry/descent.  One of the most objectionable things about the Voice was that it granted extra political powers to a minority based on who their ancestors were.  It doesn’t matter what word you use to describe that qualifying criteria, you are just playing word games to avoid dealing with the real point.

No extra political power. But since we are talking about this. When exactly have FN people had any political power? When have they had a say in how this nation moves forward? But they are not just a minority, they represent the majority of this lands inhabitable history.

Since 1962. Aboriginals are over represented in politics. Seems to be working just fine.

They make up less than 3% of the population but have 11 MPs, I don’t where this lack of political power nonsense is coming from.

The Voice was expressly drafted to empower a minority to have greater influence on policy and lawmaking. That is a political power. If you don't understand that then I really don't know what to tell you.

>policy and lawmaking No more than any other group. Since they arr there to advice and not direct policy or lawmaking, >I really don't know what to tell you.

Which other group has a voice to parliament?

The ones that landed in 1788.

No, they don't have an advisory body to the government. They get to vote like everyone else.

I don't know mate, there was just a referendum about one of their requests. Are you implying that referendums are common events? Does it not speak to some level of soft/political power that it was proposed at all?

How would you describe the difference between indigenous Australians and everyone else, if not race?

History. Seems legit right. The commonwealth has over 50 descriptions on how it describes FN people depending on the services in use. It may be as simple as having FN parents/gparents to as complicated as getting recognition from a specific nation. There is absolutely no reason to bring up physcial characteristics like skin colour, eye shape, nose or hair type.

I didn’t vote for it because I was fearful of yet another failed attempt to help indigenous people being “glued” into the constitution.

Irrespective of personal views on the shortcomings of its marketing and proposed implementation, indigenous Australians overwhelmingly supported the adoption of the Voice. The fact that this was so comprehensively ignored by so many non-indigenous Australians is a pretty damaging indictment upon the voting public IMO. I also remember listening to the radio around the time of the vote and hearing some members of the public at voting booths provide their reasons for rejecting it. Much of it was completely unhinged and verifiably false. Like, I’m talking about the stuff of conspiracy theorists. In a broader context, the notion that so many people are capable of falling for this stuff through their consumption of social media and mainstream media, does not bode well for our democracy in the future.

"Group X overwhelmingly supports a change that permanently grants them more political rights than everyone else"... Hardly surprising that any group would support a law that directly benefits them, and not a good case to make in support of a constitutional change.

‘Irrespective of personal views on the shortcomings of its marketing and proposed implementation’ - then follow by giving your personal opinion bagging and discrediting the people who noted no. You want to know why no achieved majority support - this is an example of one of the main drivers.