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.

  • Aussie_Damo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why I voted no.

    Indigenous Australians are striving for equality but are given special treatments with healthcare, loans, employment and education compared to every other Australian that is struggling with all those areas of their day to day and this yes vote will give them more special perks to try “fit in” with everyday Australians. If you give the indigenous special perks it will further divide resentment.

    The whole referendum needed more explaining as all the media did was say vote yes but not explain why to vote yes or vote no, people are lazy and don’t wanna google either and will just go off the rumour mill like when the COVID rumours were rampant.

    There was also alot of miss information about what was in the referendum and if it was iron clad or would it be a brexir moment and people vote not knowing and then get screwed by their own government.

    TL:DR; I’m sure about 60% of other Australians felt the same way, we’re not rasicts we just want indigenous to be with us, not have perks given out at tax payer cost creating animosity within a race.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      So you were capable of, and advocate for doing your research, did the research you’re advocating for then tossed it and voted no purely because there wasn’t enough information actively pushed out? Never mind the multiple info packs mailed to you, etc.

      Brexit had very predictable results that were called out loud and early. Sun and Daily Mail reading dipshits ignored all that and cut off their noses to spite their racist faces. An entirely toothless indigenous voice to parliament has similarly predictable results - they’ll either be ignored, or will have a greater say in how money allocated to closing the gap in indigenous outcomes is spent.

      What would a similar situation to Brexit actually look like to you?

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

        Yeah. Seeing tons of people claiming the vote was too vague and that people wouldn’t understand while also clearly understanding what this amendment was and what it’s implications are has been pretty odd to say the least