UN Australian vote to give Indigenous peoples a voice to parliament fails

Australian vote to give Indigenous peoples a voice to parliament fails​

imrs.php

By Michael E. Miller
October 14, 2023 at 5:04 a.m. EDT

SYDNEY — Australians voted against a constitutional amendment on Saturday that would have recognized the country’s Indigenous peoples and provided them with an advisory body, or “Voice,” to Parliament.

The result had been predicted by polls but nonetheless came as a crushing blow for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, who saw the referendum as an opportunity for Australia to turn the page on its colonial and racist past.

The Voice, deliberately drafted as a “modest proposal,” would have advised Parliament on issues relating to Indigenous peoples, such as housing, health care and employment, but would not have had veto power.

Instead, the opposition appeared to have successfully stirred fears over the proposal’s consequences with the slogan “If you don’t know, vote no” and claims that it was divisive, as well as targeted social media posts that were sometimes misleading or false.

The defeat was also a setback for the center-left Labor government and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who made the referendum a priority after winning office last year.

Referendums are difficult to pass Down Under, however. They require a so-called “double majority” — a majority of the nationwide vote and a majority within at least four of Australia’s six states.
Local media called the results at around 7:30 p.m. in Sydney — before the polls had even closed in some parts of the country — because three states had already solidly voted No: New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia.

The Yes campaign appeared unlikely to prevail in any state.

Initially, polls showed roughly two-thirds of Australians supported the idea of an Indigenous “Voice to Parliament.” But after a poor performance in the 2022 election, leaders of the conservative coalition saw an opportunity to dent Albanese’s popularity and regain momentum, according to analysts.

“It was really done and dusted from that point,” said Paul Williams, a political scientist at Griffith University in Brisbane.

Williams also pointed to a difficult economic climate.

“When people can’t pay their rent or find a place to live or schedule their operation or they have to choose between feeding their kids and getting their medication, they are not terribly interested in helping other people who might be lower on the ladder,” he said.

Indigenous people have lived in Australia for around 65,000 years but suffered greatly with the arrival of the British in 1788.

Australia’s Indigenous population plummeted under colonial rule due to imported diseases and massacres committed by White settlers that lasted well into the 20th century. From the mid-1800s to the 1970s, federal and state governments systematically removed Indigenous children from their families to assimilate them; they are now known as the Stolen Generations.

Unlike other nations the British colonized, such as the United States, Canada and New Zealand, Australia has never recognized the sovereignty of its First Nations people with a treaty.

Although the country has begun to reckon with this racist history, including providing some reparations, it has struggled to reduce the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, known as “closing the gap.”

Indigenous Australians have fought for greater rights for decades. It wasn’t until after a successful 1967 referendum that they were officially counted and legislated for by the federal government.

SOURCE
 
Some good news for a change!

In case you haven't been following this, this was a referendum on a proposed constitutional amendment that would add something called "The Voice" to the Australian government. What does that mean? It means a council of "indigenous elders" would have had the power to scrutinize bills after they had been passed by Parliament but before they become law. In other words, an unelected bureaucracy selected entirely by race. And that race being Australian aboriginals.

They were also purposefully ambiguous about how much power "The Voice" would actually hold, some yes campaigners said it would be a purely advisory body while others said it would have acted as a separate chamber of government above the elected parliament. It would have been like giving BLM a direct line to the Australian government. At best it would have been a nuisance body made up of professional victims and activists, at worst it would have become horrendously corrupt and an easy way for third world levels of sleaze to enter the Australian political process.

Honestly, I wanted it to fail for no other reason than the insufferable and borderline brainwashed way Yes supporters talked about it. They always called it "The Voice" (fully capitalized), as if it were the name of an evil totalitarian regime in a Young Adult dystopian novel. And they also refused to argue with the No side, simply yelling "RACIST!" and refusing to even answer simple questions like how much authority this hypothetical body would even have. They simply assumed they could bully and shame people into voting for it, and the fact that it ultimately didn't work for them might even give this whole affair the positive side effect of improving the state of discourse in Australian politics.
 
Why would anyone give Aboriginees any kind of political power for being themselves? Aren't their genetics absolute dogshit for civilized society? Worse than niggers, even?

Our country has a fuck tonne of self-flagellating leftists, this is no different than American left-leaning white people worshiping at the altar of BLM
 
Our country has a fuck tonne of self-flagellating leftists, this is no different than American left-leaning white people worshiping at the altar of BLM
How the hell did white people evolve to be so welcoming to other races? I legitimately don't think it's a societal thing at all at this point. This shit has to be genetic. No other people on this earth is almost suicidal in its tolerance of others. Did all those European wars just make you hate people who looked like you? It's just ridiculous.
 
Some good news for a change!

In case you haven't been following this, this was a referendum on a proposed constitutional amendment that would add something called "The Voice" to the Australian government. What does that mean? It means a council of "indigenous elders" would have had the power to scrutinize bills after they had been passed by Parliament but before they become law. In other words, an unelected bureaucracy selected entirely by race. And that race being Australian aboriginals.

They were also purposefully ambiguous about how much power "The Voice" would actually hold, some yes campaigners said it would be a purely advisory body while others said it would have acted as a separate chamber of government above the elected parliament. It would have been like giving BLM a direct line to the Australian government. At best it would have been a nuisance body made up of professional victims and activists, at worst it would have become horrendously corrupt and an easy way for third world levels of sleaze to enter the Australian political process.

Honestly, I wanted it to fail for no other reason than the insufferable and borderline brainwashed way Yes supporters talked about it. They always called it "The Voice" (fully capitalized), as if it were the name of an evil totalitarian regime in a Young Adult dystopian novel. And they also refused to argue with the No side, simply yelling "RACIST!" and refusing to even answer simple questions like how much authority this hypothetical body would even have. They simply assumed they could bully and shame people into voting for it, and the fact that it ultimately didn't work for them might even give this whole affair the positive side effect of improving the state of discourse in Australian politics.
For The Greater Good (the Greater Good)
 
They were also purposefully ambiguous about how much power "The Voice" would actually hold, some yes campaigners said it would be a purely advisory body while others said it would have acted as a separate chamber of government above the elected parliament.
The fact that it scrutinises laws after they're passed through parliament implies it is meant to have some level of veto or amending authority, otherwise why would it involve itself at that point? A true advisory body would involve itself in the creation of a bill before parliament votes on it, or at a stage between creation and final vote. Of course, if that were to happen, they'd be at risk of losing and that would never do.
 
The fact that it scrutinises laws after they're passed through parliament implies it is meant to have some level of veto or amending authority, otherwise why would it involve itself at that point? A true advisory body would involve itself in the creation of a bill before parliament votes on it, or at a stage between creation and final vote. Of course, if that were to happen, they'd be at risk of losing and that would never do.
In fairness this ties into my "the Yes side was purposefully ambiguous" point. According to this pro-Voice site it would have involved itself in all stages of legislation:
Is it important for the Voice to advise the Executive Government as well as the Parliament? Yes. The Parliament is responsible for making and changing laws. The Executive Government - the Ministers, government departments, and the public service - play key roles in both designing upcoming laws, and in creating policies to implement laws that have been designed with flexibility for how they are carried out.

It's for these reasons that it's important that the Voice can give advice to the Executive Government: so that it can be involved in conversations when laws are still being designed, and also when policy details are being fleshed out after legislation has been passed.
 
And they also refused to argue with the No side, simply yelling "RACIST!" and refusing to even answer simple questions
Ah yes, this strategy was tried with BREXIT. Predictably, it didn't work.
How the hell did white people evolve to be so welcoming to other races? I legitimately don't think it's a societal thing at all at this point. This shit has to be genetic. No other people on this earth is almost suicidal in its tolerance of others. Did all those European wars just make you hate people who looked like you? It's just ridiculous.
It comes from conquering colder climes. When winter sets in, you have more chance of surviving if you get on with your neighbours. That's only part of it though, media brainwashing from cradle to grave about how great niggers are is a big part too.
 

Do we really need a group of people that require a PSA to not sniff petrol to make changes to the way parliament works?
I like the PSA about not sleeping in the middle of the road.


To my mind that puts these people on roughly the same level as my neighbor's idiot cat that does this. But she's kinda cute. Can't even say that about these latter day homo erectus'.
 
Thanks - r/australia is always good for some laughs.

I also just don't get it - I looked it up and aboriginals have voting rights, so what's the fucking problem? You want more of a "voice," you gather enough votes to get one of your people elected. What could be more fair? But no - I'm the racist for voting against their little scheme to go around this fundamental democratic process. GTFO...
 
Back