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

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

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

  • calhoon2005@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    After a definite disinformation campaign with a side of racist fear mongering…ffs. I’m embarrassed to be an Australian.

      • MüThyme@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • fiat_lux@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Many is a bigger word than I would use. Some definitely did, but no group of people has a homogeneous opinion of what the right next actions on any big issue are, and it’s kind of weird anyone would expect otherwise. Overall I got the impression that ATSI Australians supported the change, but others may not have felt it looked that way based on what they saw.

        only be possible when most boomers are gone.

        20 years ago I believed that might be true. Since then i have learnt to never rely on it being about age. Imcreased age can correlate with increased power and the reluctance to change the system to increase competition, but age isn’t the cause of stagnant beliefs. In 50 years time there will still be a generation of old people afraid of social change and a bunch of younger people who are the same or just think change is not in their personal best interest, even though it’s an entirely different set of people.

        We’re all going to have to do a lot more than just keep waiting for the elderly to shuffle off the mortal coil if we want something different for the future.

          • Jaysyn@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            those issues are no longer issues.

            Maybe not in AU, but they very much are in other places.

          • fiat_lux@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Cool, there will just be a huge group of people marginalising different groups of people unnecessarily. I look forward to it between the news stories of other people in the world killing each other over the same millenia-old territorial disputes.

            Please forgive my complete lack of excitement for that prospect; I don’t have it in me tonight.

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The numbers were about 80+% of First Nations people are for it.

        They may/do want recognition, land transfers or compensation, but voting No helped ensure they wouldn’t get anything in the future.

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

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

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

          • vantlem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            • TheOriginalGregToo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

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

              Edit: Fixing an autocorrected word.

              • batmangrundies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It doesn’t matter. 63% support among indigenous folks is still a landslide.

                You’re not arguing in good faith though. Accusing someone of racism like that. So you can go fuck yourself for all I care.

    • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would disagree i think you would be hard pressed to find a large amount of peole against an advisary body. You might see a very large pushback however if u wanted to make a devision based on race within the constitution.