Australian national broadcaster ABC has projected three states voted No, effectively defeating the referendum.

    • pezhore@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not familiar with the Australian political terms, can you share what this means:

      inner dialogue between their mobs and local governments

      To me, that sounds like the Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islanders are free to think about what they want, and then form a potentially violent, roughly organized group of people to confront local officials… But I assume I’m missing something.

      • eatthecake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        From google: ‘Mob’ is a term identifying a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people associated with a particular place or Country. ‘Mob’ is an important term for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as it is used to describe who they are and where they are from.

      • BananaTrifleViolin@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        In Australian slang a mob can just mean any grouping of people, not necessarily a criminal group or a group of rioters. It’s not uncommon for people to refer to their own ethnic or political grouping as a mob; at least from what I’ve seen when reading Australian websites.

        And by local government I think they are referring to the states and territories governments.

        • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is correct, mob in this context is a number of indigenous people belong to one particular community. There are various different mobs out there which is one of the reasons why a singular controlled voice was never going to work.

    • geolaw@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes the proposed change to the constitution lacked detail, but that is entirely in keeping with the constitution as a whole, it is a “high-level” document after all. The detail would have come in the legislation that enacted it, with plenty of public consultation and discussion in parliament, no different to any other legislation. In its final form it would have probably looked a lot like previous advisory bodies that we used to have, with the critical difference being that it could not be disbanded just because the government of the day didn’t like it.

    • BananaTrifleViolin@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah as someone outside Australia I’ve been surprised at how biased and simplified the reporting has been. A complex constitutional issue is being painted as a simple “good people, bad people”.

      When I read about the changes myself (after having to go hunting for some actual detail - the reporting is pretty poor on this) it honestly seems more like virtue signalling rather than useful or meaningful reform.

        • Welt@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The result has produced a lot of sore losers. The campaign involved a lot of just straight up losers.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Its the eternal false dichotomy of “one side of a dispute must be the good guys, meaning the other side are therefore the bad guys.”

        • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Last time I looked at the count 40% of indigenous people voted against the voice, there’s definitely no good/bad side in this regardless how some might choose to vilify others. We have compulsory voting as well.

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Relevant: the Black Peoples Union position on the referendum (interview on ABC).

      An aggregation of written statements collected from socialist, anarchist and radical Indigenous groups, showing the diversity of thought on the matter: http://old.reddit.com/r/AustralianSocialism/comments/161r8r1/megathread_of_leftist_statements_on_the_voice/

      (PS: don’t just take all the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ summaries in that list at face value, a couple of them are misinterpretations or oversimplications)

        • Welt@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I voted Yes in the end, but I definitely understand the journey you’ve taken and respect your informed voting. I think a big part of the problem is people’s attention is so divided these days that complexities are oversimplified to one-word descriptors like “racist” that are facile and inaccurate.

        • SpicyLizards@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Lol, fair enough. Are you a researcher travelling and interviewing different groups - or just rural living?

          Dispelling Australia’s Referendum Misunderstandings

          Facts without evidence presented as if they are self-evident.

          The vote was to change the Australian Constitution to include a section giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a voice in parliament, which they already have through inner dialogue between their mobs and local governments.

          The current system is definitely not effective. There is a massive gap where due respect, health outcomes, opportunities, and sovereignty are lacking at the least.

          You can argue that this is piecemeal, and it is - but its a step from the current status quo.

          How this constitutional change would look or be enacted was not known and very vague, with the crux being that it would still be government controlled…

          Misleading. The constitution is high-level by design, that is not how that document works.

          there was widespread animosity from First Nations people about it being another ‘white-man’s decision’, it would create division by being unequal when indigenous Australians are striving for equality.

          Show me evidence again, temp account.