I don't think there is a path forward. Not for another generation or so anyways.
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
73 points (98.7% liked)
Australian Politics
1293 readers
83 users here now
A place to discuss Australia Politics.
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australia (general)
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
not sure about generation but 1 or 2 election cycles for sure. this is the main problem with the outcome, it will be presented as a rejection of action and not of the voice itself. I would like to see the case from both major parties for what next, they both have said they have a plan so let's hear it
Constitutional change isn't on the cards, not in the near future. We're not doing another referendum. Dutton fucked up when he said he would support one on just constitutional recognition alone because the conservatives do not support it. Sure, the government can legislate a voice but there's always a chance that it will be dismantled like every other advisory group - that's why it needed to be enshrined in the constitution. I think there's more that can be achieved for voice and treaty now at the state level. That might even be more effective because states are responsible for health, education, child protection and justice, which are all areas that can be aligned to the close the gap outcomes. I would support a federal treaty process, hands down, but I'm sceptical that the majority of Australia will.
i agree, you have a good idea about the states. might be a way to move things forward. ultimately we need a sizable cultural change nationwide to really get things moving at a national level. im embarressed we arent quite there yet
States are responsible for everything in our federal system, only the federal government is limited in scope. A state voice will be a truly great thing to pursue for each state.
The Uluru Statement literally asked for constitutional reforms.
I'm not sure the indigenous peoples of this country are willing to work with the state governments. Obviously they're many people, and some of them are/will be willing to go down that path. But it's not what they asked for in 2017.
The only thing that's changed since 2017 is 60% of the country clearly stated they not willing to acknowledge the indigenous peoples of this country. I think reconciliation is further away than it was a few months ago. As some have said the road forward isn't always a straight line... but this has been a pretty big step backwards.
I know, I'm Aboriginal. I completely supported the voice as it stood. I think that it's something worth persuing due to how much states control in our system, but it could very well lead to fragmentation etc. It's definitely been a massive step backwards and I think there's going to be a lot off the cards from now for a long time sadly.
The thing is the states were unanimously in line with the national consensus on this. The only outliers were a few tiny pockets (like remote communities of indigenous people and a handful of inner city suburbs).
The more I come to terms with the referendum the more I'm convinced that any attempt to move the needle on this issue is doomed to failure. It's a sure path to losing an election and giving whoever wins a mandate to entrench the status quo even stronger than it already is.
I said it was a step backwards yesterday but I think I was wrong. It's a reality check. I think the referendum has brought to light what the Australian people really think (and we are clearly divided on this issue, don't forget almost ten million people voted yes...). As shitty as it is to learn how many people are against us, it's better to know that than to be blissfully ignorant.
We have failed to constitutionally enshrined a Voice, but doing so still needs to be the next thing we do on this subject. It's more important than it ever was. The people who voted No need to admit they were wrong and I want to see evidence that millions of people have changed their mind before I can see any path forward towards real meaningful change.
Constitutional recognition seems pretty much dead. There have been predictions made already that such widespread rejection of what was a very safe, conservative-friendly, good faith proposal from Indigenous activists will cause many to give up on this approach and shift further towards the tactics used by Thorpe and the Blak Sovereign Movement. They obviously have even less chance of succeeding within the current political and social climate, so it may take some time for any progress to be made at a national level.
That's pretty much what Noel Pearson was saying a few days before the vote. I don't really blame them. Australia just overwhelmingly rejected a very modest invitation for reconciliation, I don't really see what else Indigenous leaders can do. It's still worthwhile to fight for treaty and truth. But voice was kind of the easier option of the 3, so the other 2 are going to be very difficult.
Yeah, I suspect some of that generation of Indigenous activists will step back now. They've been at this for decades, making more and more concessions to try to get bipartisan support and have ultimately been betrayed at the final hour by the Coalition. Must feel pretty soul destroying.
As a member of another marginalised group I have always looked up to these Indigenous leaders for their passion and strength in fighting for change. My community supported the voice because we fundamentally believe in the idea of marginalised groups being able to have a greater say over the policies and laws that affect us. This is a great loss, not just for Indigenous Australians, but for all people who want to see structural change in their lifetime.
Literally need to wait for the boomers to die out. Yes there's good ones but the majority are spoilt, entitled and easily influenced by the right and traditional media.
There definitely is, that path just isn’t another pointless advisory panel.
Might be time to introduce that “no lying on election material” piece that we’ve been missing.
How do you enforce that? At best you have an inquiry that reports days/weeks/months later and the damage has been done and is considered old news. In any case, you'll have the pollies inserting a grain of truth into their lies and rules lawyering the rest. It may harm truth-telling because a government/political party has a lot more means to shut down a conversation that an individual or even a community group.
A better solution would be more transparent political finance reporting laws, but even that is likely to be a temporary measure. Political parties will always find the loopholes. To misquote Keating, never get between a politician and a bag of money. It's still worth pursuing.
Through the AEC and the courts. Zali Steggall had a bill ready to go: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/brains/pages/936/attachments/original/1669687880/Commonwealth_Electoral_Amendment_%28Stop_the_Lies%29_FAQs.pdf?1669687880
Personally I don’t think the consequences are hard enough (don’t publish further, might have to require a correction, might have to pay a fine).
Absolutely agree campaign financing also needs to be looked at though.
Political parties will wear a $10k fine. A good lie is worth millions to them especially if they win govt.
Political speech is way too nuanced to be restricted by legislation of this kind. Was The Voice proposal racist? It depends. Yes says no. No says yes. Both sides can be right and wrong. Is TUSotH one page or eighteen? Were we voting on just the Voice or Voice, Truth, and Treaty? Depending on who/where you ask you'll get different answers. There are very few absolute right and absolute wrongs in politics. Even the 'fact checkers' got it wrong on occasion during the campaign. The referendum would be an even bigger shitshow, with finger pointing and accusations flying, if political speech was deemed wrong and penalised.
I live in a country where similar laws already exist and the govt uses it to shut down speech it finds (rightly or wrongly) objectionable. It often does this by finding a minutia of perceived incorrectness and forcing the publishers to retract and apologise under the penalty of fines and publishing bans. It's chilling.
Multiple if those things you listed have clear factual answers, and to say otherwise is an easy demonstrable lie.
Statement was one page, anyone can read it. The 26 pages was relevant documents, such as meeting minuets released with an FOI, which again anyone could read.
It was clearly a vote on voice, the referendum question made it clear.
If you can claim what you want, and as it seems people are going to believe you, how absurd is this going to get before we have to do something? We going to see attempted removal of politicians without reason? We going to see claims of rigged elections?
Truth is important. Lots of things are political grey area, but if we let demonstrable facts become questionable democracy will fail.
Still baffled Labor didn't agree to that, might have actually helped.
I'm so disappointed in our country right now. Not just because we didn't pass a referendum that might've actually made a difference, but also because such a large majority of us swallowed the ultra-conservative bullshit we were being fed - hook, line and sinker.
I genuinely thought that, after we voted out that failed middle manager, ScoMo, and resisted the lure of Trumpist nonsense that was almost at our doorstep, we were better than this.
Just makes me sad.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Voice to Parliament would have been an advisory body with no power of veto but permanently enshrined in the constitution, meaning a future government of the day could not abolish it without holding another referendum.
It was first proposed after hundreds of Indigenous Australians, who took part in the Uluru Dialogues, issued the Statement from the Heart six years ago.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and Coalition Indigenous Australians spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who actively campaigned against the referendum, celebrated the result, insisting the vote should have never happened.
As of late Saturday night, the strongest Yes vote came from the Victorian seat of Melbourne, which Greens leader Adam Bandt represents.
Tasmanian Liberal MP Bridget Archer, a rare campaigner for Yes in the federal Coalition party room, said it would be "very difficult" for Australia to move forward.
Liberal MP Julian Leeser, who quit the Coalition frontbench to champion a Yes vote, said he remained optimistic the "cause for reconciliation will ultimately succeed".
The original article contains 726 words, the summary contains 159 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Frankly, I've had it with being soft on conservatives. they're overwhelmingly uninformed and aggressive. Thankfully they're also stupid; trawl their social media and it's easy to target and damage/destroy their employment/business and personal relationships just using opinions they post themselves. Start the social engineering. it's great fun when they break, leverage those male suicide rates in Australia. bullying neo-cons is easy af. it's not systemic change but you can clear them out of your local community, be relentless, it's not illegal.
EDIT: why am i a mod?
You volunteered lol
jfc i must have been drunk. i'm way too reactionary
Sad
yes, it is. did they think tolerance applied to them?