Anthony Albanese vows to forge a new way forward to close the gap in life outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, after voters resoundingly reject a Voice to Parliament.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!