RobJD
Club Legend
- Oct 1, 2021
- 1,686
- 3,182
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Understand, it's a Treaty with the Australian Government that is the most significant
Play Nice Derailed, (The Place to Continue Off-Topic Discussion)
- Thread starter Anzacday
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
jmac70
On the porch
From little things big things grow.
jathanas
Premium Platinum
I share your disappointment but not the dire view of Australia/Australians.
Please don't assume that I'm too far removed to appreciate the problem. In my youth I experienced racism on a daily basis but today I see Australia as a great example of how multiculturalism can work.
Re: politicians: I assert that helping Australians understand what they're voting for is a key objective of the political organisation introducing the referendum. Ultimately it's what they should be measured against.
Both sides are to blame. The "No" camp for spreading fear and misinformation, and the "Yes" camp for not being able to explain the importance of this referendum in a simple and compelling manner.
To finish on a more positive note, I don't see this setback as a dead-end for bridging the gap.
RobJD
Club Legend
- Oct 1, 2021
- 1,686
- 3,182
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I admire your optimism - I'm just so sad at the lack of progressive thinking that was demonstrated on Saturday. Even the US is more advanced than us with their dialogue with their first nations people - not to mention places like Canada, New Zealand - we're such laggards and I fear for our standing with the rest of the world - other nations can quite easily see the Referendum outcome as evidence that we're a nation of racists, and that's something that I can't stomach - luckily I'll shortly be able to travel on an other Countries Passport and will outwardly be able to avoid the shame that I feel.
Out of interest, which is the other nation passport you will be travelling on?
jathanas
Premium Platinum
I understand.
These are just "what ifs" but there was time to pivot/compromise which could have achieved a better result.
The ALP will review this and learn from it, especially wrt campaigning when the next election arrives.
jmac70
On the porch
I wouldn’t even call it progressive thinking. Just basic decency and kindness. Still finding it hard to understand why anyone would vote no.
I’m out for a while. Take care all.
sr36
TheBrownDog
The voice itself has the scope to be more than symbolic.
I'm not as harsh on Albo. As there's a distrust which stops the whole issue being discussed honestly and openly and thus campaigning against the more legitimate No arguments.
A) the country is already divided with enormous areas of Aboriginal land.
B) no this isn't about equality unity or the multicultural dream. It is about division
C)Yes it is about singling out a cultural group - it's about giving Aboriginal communities more of a say over their future. Their cultures only exist here and deserve a chance of survival
D) Yes many would like a treaty and self governance in the future. And what the **** is wrong with that. Why the **** do you care if the laws in Aboriginal communities in Arnhem Land, the APY lands, etc are different to your laws. You're not going to turn a corner and accidentally find yourself living under a foreign law. These places are miles away from where you live and you have absolutely ****ing no involvement in these communities whatsoever.
E) Some Aboriginals may want to take it a step further and lay claims to our lands. Yes. But there's no hope of that succeeding.
So shut the **** up and watch the 2023 Grad Final again. When you yell out yes when Jordy puts us back in front - we'll take that as your vote
Last edited:
jathanas
Premium Platinum
Brilliant.
We'd have to remove the last line to account for anti-Collingwood sentiment. That aside, they would have done no worse if they ran with the above.
- Aug 3, 2020
- 21,281
- 36,380
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics, Liverpool
You are literally just inventing things. The Uluṟu Statement, neither the 1 page reality or the 26 page fiction, was not the subject of the referendum.
Even if it were, it would not subject the parliament to some third chamber. Do you seriously think the Solicitor-General would okay that? Do you have any idea what his role is (rhetorical)?
- Aug 3, 2020
- 21,281
- 36,380
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics, Liverpool
Seemingly?
- Jun 10, 2014
- 16,503
- 42,923
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
“we’re a nation of racists” is such a reductive piece of stupidity.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
I think you’re far more concerned the misinformation and false narrative will be exposed.
So I await your decision, but I doubt you’ll have the unfaltering conviction to offer the answers.
JB1975
Brownlow Medallist
Pre and post-vote polling strongly suggests that many or most 'No' voters had no idea what the proposition was about.
Was there a stench of racism throughout the campaign? Yah. Pretty strong from time to time.
Was there misinformation? From start to finish.
But the piss-poor job of Albo and co created the void in which madness prospered. That's the bottom line.
Kos is a well-known pollster who was onto the problem pretty early.
Was there a stench of racism throughout the campaign? Yah. Pretty strong from time to time.
Was there misinformation? From start to finish.
But the piss-poor job of Albo and co created the void in which madness prospered. That's the bottom line.
Kos is a well-known pollster who was onto the problem pretty early.
I voted ALP at last election because Coalition were not doing a good job (have voted for both)
I feared Albanese would not be smart enough nor disciplined enough
He decided he would be the one to win at referendum
60 per cent of the country are not racist nor are idiots
They were unpersuaded
This is on Albo’s watch and he crowded out the opportunity for a more competent leader
And Dutton’s cynicism has done him no favours in the seats he’d like to win back
(I voted Yes)
I truly hoped there would be an intelligent discussion about the voice when the referendum was first proposed.
But equally I was not shocked that it degenerated into lies and misinformation.
That being said, it’s never an easy thing to get a referendum over the line. Not only due to the majority/majority requirement, but for some reason when the word “constitution” is mentioned people get all precious and believe it shouldn’t be “tampered” with.
This I just don’t understand. How do we believe that a group of men, no woman because that’s how it was, had the foresight to see where we would be over 100 years down the track.
They couldn’t envisage the world we now live in so anything they set in stone is really invalid.
The constitution should be an evolving document that is updated to take into account how far our country has progressed.
Oh, and first point of order when parliament resumes is to remove the clause(s) that enable lies to be exempt from prosecution in elections and referendums. Won’t happen because all sides rely on lies at some point, but geez it would make things a lot easier for we, the voters.
But equally I was not shocked that it degenerated into lies and misinformation.
That being said, it’s never an easy thing to get a referendum over the line. Not only due to the majority/majority requirement, but for some reason when the word “constitution” is mentioned people get all precious and believe it shouldn’t be “tampered” with.
This I just don’t understand. How do we believe that a group of men, no woman because that’s how it was, had the foresight to see where we would be over 100 years down the track.
They couldn’t envisage the world we now live in so anything they set in stone is really invalid.
The constitution should be an evolving document that is updated to take into account how far our country has progressed.
Oh, and first point of order when parliament resumes is to remove the clause(s) that enable lies to be exempt from prosecution in elections and referendums. Won’t happen because all sides rely on lies at some point, but geez it would make things a lot easier for we, the voters.
South of the Yarra
Brownlow Medallist
- Jul 23, 2006
- 12,457
- 22,072
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
A really sad weekend for many Aboriginal people.
sr36
TheBrownDog
Libs would be well advised to line up a successor for the next election. A couple of years of Dutton just offering nothing except opposition to undermine the govt at all turns and then roll out someone with a vision to sell for the next election.
gab213
Premium Platinum
- Aug 29, 2013
- 8,873
- 38,383
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Ophidian Old Boys SFA
I think that it's a really sad result for the country as a whole, I really thought that we were better than this. I thought that we were past the stage where we weakly submitted to the will of the fear mongers.
Nothing has changed over the almost quarter of a century since the last referendum. It appears that we need to find other ways to effect the change that needs to happen, a referendum isn't a plausible option, it's where issues go to die.
Yes
Expect it is very sad
Wish we had a treaty, or treaties, like NZ or better many years ago
RobJD
Club Legend
- Oct 1, 2021
- 1,686
- 3,182
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
My partner's place of birth - a European passport.
RobJD
Club Legend
- Oct 1, 2021
- 1,686
- 3,182
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
You too
NMBB
Norm Smith Medallist
- May 3, 2021
- 8,806
- 14,438
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
This is worth reading.
Note to some here: "worth reading" does not necessarily mean "agree with"
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Why the YES case lost
Author: - Greg Craven – (YES supporter)
Greg Craven is a constitutional lawyer and former vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.
This is not an account of why the No case won the referendum. That will be written, triumphantly, by others. This is the story of why the Yes case was lost. It needs to be told now, while the disaster is fresh, if supporters of Indigenous recognition are to profit from our mistakes. Otherwise, excuses and distortions will cover the truth.
It is quite straightforward to trace the causes for the implosion of the Yes case. Tragically, all were or should have been known to its leaders. But they were denied, derided or discounted.
There were eight fundamental reasons for failure. The first was endemic overconfidence. The leaders for Yes – including Anthony Albanese – were simply convinced victory was inevitable. They would hear no contradiction. They were told repeatedly that history showed referendums were hard, and those on controversial topics – such as Indigenous recognition – were especially difficult. They reacted with contempt. This referendum was special. It would win at a canter. Indeed, it was said, the answer was so obvious there wouldn’t even be a No case.
The second problem was an absolute dismissal of bipartisanship, especially by the Prime Minister, but also by other Yes protagonists. At one level, bipartisanship simply was unnecessary when there was only one answer.
But it went further. It was clear that, especially in the case of Albanese, a partisan referendum was the desired scenario. This would give him an unprecedented victory, placing him in the progressive pantheon. His conservative enemies, especially Peter Dutton, would be crushed.
It simply is not true to say Dutton was solely responsible for a partisan referendum.
He was never consulted, as opposed to being told what was happening. The PM’s offers to consider changes to words or content were not real. Dutton was meant to oppose. Eventually, as a matter of politics, he did. But before that, there was an opportunity to at least persuade him towards only modest contradiction, with conscience votes and moderate arguments. This possibility was spurned.
The third reality was that the advice being received by the PM was appalling. The vast majority of Indigenous leaders around him confirmed his view that this was a cakewalk. He could not lose.
Further, it was made clear to him that unless they got exactly what they wanted in a referendum package, they would walk. He would be left holding the squalling baby of the voice.
The government had structured its process for formulating the voice proposal in a way that reinforced exactly this tendency. By creating an Indigenous Working Group to vet the details of the amendment, a veto was created. As this group was dominated by Indigenous people at the activist end of the spectrum, this veto was enthusiastically applied.
Many of these activists were young, inexperienced, radical and employed in organisations that only reinforced their own views. If current Indigenous leaders do step aside for this doctrinaire younger generation – as suggested by Noel Pearson – both recognition and reconciliation will collapse as popular causes.
The non-Indigenous advisers were just as problematic. They were equally convinced the poll was a foregone conclusion and ridiculed anyone who dared disagree with the process or drafting as troglodyte conservative stooges. Any voice of dissent was constitutionally cancelled.
Both groups were deluded. They said, for example, the No machine was so old and hopeless it simply wouldn’t be able to mount a social media campaign. They dismissed media critics by saying no one read them, listened to or watched them.
There were honourable exceptions to all this self-congratulation. Pearson, Sean Gordon of Uphold and Recognise, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and Albanese’s chief of staff, Tim Gartrell, were hopeful but always realistic.
The fourth disaster was the failure to disclose the architecture for the voice. This was a direct result of the campaign’s massive overconfidence. Given the Yes case was so obvious, people would vote for it without detail. Even as it became abundantly clear this was not happening, the mantra droned on.
The fifth failure was the drafting. The amendment was formulated in secret. There was no input from constitutional conservatives, whose support for the draft during the referendum would be crucial. There was an absolute refusal to consider meaningful amendments. The inevitable result was an exhausting debate around drafting.
The sixth disaster was a truly appalling Yes campaign. This was mind-boggling, as the Yes case had at least $20m to spend. They promised a media blitz, a stunning social media campaign and thousands of appealing on-the-ground campaigners.
It was like one of those predicted Russian tank columns that never arrived at Kyiv. The media advertising was more talked about than actually aired. When it was aired, it was calculated to appeal to those already voting yes.
As the campaign wore on, it was obvious the No camp was dominating social media. As for the foot campaign, the polls still steadily worsened, polling booths were well manned by No supporters, and the Yes effort was most obvious in places such as Newtown that were already voting for the voice.
But the entire strategy was flawed. First, it was run like an election campaign, so there would be a Mediscare-type blitz in the last month. But by then, most people had already made up their mind. Bad as it was, the campaign was made even worse by unqualified Yes bosses meddling in the work of campaign professionals. Second, it never recognised the referendum would be won or lost in western Sydney and regional Queensland. The campaign reverberated in Mosman and Camberwell, but in places dominated by “ordinary” Australians with mortgages and without doctorates, it flopped. As predicted by outlawed Yes dissenters, negative voting patterns exactly followed the republic referendum.
The seventh enemy of Yes was condescension. Whatever the Yes campaign said, it seemed to believe any ordinary Australian who was not convinced was a cretin. The electorate hated it.
The Yes side complained constantly of “misinformation”. There were untruths on each side, but the proponents of the referendum eventually were condemning every argument against the voice not merely as wrong but as deliberate duplicity. This again suggested to the electorate that they were too stupid to sift fact from fiction.
The eighth and final failure was the ineffectiveness of the political artillery on the Yes side. The Prime Minister was pinned down by his own platitudes, unable to advance beyond a “modest measure” and a “gracious request”. For whatever reason, Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney was never more than a faltering presence. Against the thundering of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, there was no contest.
All of this is a sad retrospective. The real question now for supporters of recognition is where to from here? Any possibility of actual formal constitutional amendment is now in the remotest, unpredictable future. Realistically, there needs to be deep thought as to what real, meaningful recognition would look like in the absence of changing the Constitution. This will require imaginative co-operation between supporters – not mutual heckling.
But the post-mortem needs to begin now. If delayed, reality will be obfuscated by excuses, slick explanations and deflections. This process has already begun. The call by the Yes campaign for a week’s silence is disingenuous. It is an attempt to isolate future discussion from the reality of self-inflicted defeat.
The implausible lines of defence are being drawn. It was all Dutton’s fault. Australians were tricked by misinformation and lies. Anyway, it was an uplifting experience that brought Indigenous Australian to the fore. In reality, we of the Yes lost a referendum that has broken Indigenous hearts. We can at least do them the courtesy of admitting it.
Note to some here: "worth reading" does not necessarily mean "agree with"
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Why the YES case lost
Author: - Greg Craven – (YES supporter)
Greg Craven is a constitutional lawyer and former vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.
This is not an account of why the No case won the referendum. That will be written, triumphantly, by others. This is the story of why the Yes case was lost. It needs to be told now, while the disaster is fresh, if supporters of Indigenous recognition are to profit from our mistakes. Otherwise, excuses and distortions will cover the truth.
It is quite straightforward to trace the causes for the implosion of the Yes case. Tragically, all were or should have been known to its leaders. But they were denied, derided or discounted.
There were eight fundamental reasons for failure. The first was endemic overconfidence. The leaders for Yes – including Anthony Albanese – were simply convinced victory was inevitable. They would hear no contradiction. They were told repeatedly that history showed referendums were hard, and those on controversial topics – such as Indigenous recognition – were especially difficult. They reacted with contempt. This referendum was special. It would win at a canter. Indeed, it was said, the answer was so obvious there wouldn’t even be a No case.
The second problem was an absolute dismissal of bipartisanship, especially by the Prime Minister, but also by other Yes protagonists. At one level, bipartisanship simply was unnecessary when there was only one answer.
But it went further. It was clear that, especially in the case of Albanese, a partisan referendum was the desired scenario. This would give him an unprecedented victory, placing him in the progressive pantheon. His conservative enemies, especially Peter Dutton, would be crushed.
It simply is not true to say Dutton was solely responsible for a partisan referendum.
He was never consulted, as opposed to being told what was happening. The PM’s offers to consider changes to words or content were not real. Dutton was meant to oppose. Eventually, as a matter of politics, he did. But before that, there was an opportunity to at least persuade him towards only modest contradiction, with conscience votes and moderate arguments. This possibility was spurned.
The third reality was that the advice being received by the PM was appalling. The vast majority of Indigenous leaders around him confirmed his view that this was a cakewalk. He could not lose.
Further, it was made clear to him that unless they got exactly what they wanted in a referendum package, they would walk. He would be left holding the squalling baby of the voice.
The government had structured its process for formulating the voice proposal in a way that reinforced exactly this tendency. By creating an Indigenous Working Group to vet the details of the amendment, a veto was created. As this group was dominated by Indigenous people at the activist end of the spectrum, this veto was enthusiastically applied.
Many of these activists were young, inexperienced, radical and employed in organisations that only reinforced their own views. If current Indigenous leaders do step aside for this doctrinaire younger generation – as suggested by Noel Pearson – both recognition and reconciliation will collapse as popular causes.
The non-Indigenous advisers were just as problematic. They were equally convinced the poll was a foregone conclusion and ridiculed anyone who dared disagree with the process or drafting as troglodyte conservative stooges. Any voice of dissent was constitutionally cancelled.
Both groups were deluded. They said, for example, the No machine was so old and hopeless it simply wouldn’t be able to mount a social media campaign. They dismissed media critics by saying no one read them, listened to or watched them.
There were honourable exceptions to all this self-congratulation. Pearson, Sean Gordon of Uphold and Recognise, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and Albanese’s chief of staff, Tim Gartrell, were hopeful but always realistic.
The fourth disaster was the failure to disclose the architecture for the voice. This was a direct result of the campaign’s massive overconfidence. Given the Yes case was so obvious, people would vote for it without detail. Even as it became abundantly clear this was not happening, the mantra droned on.
The fifth failure was the drafting. The amendment was formulated in secret. There was no input from constitutional conservatives, whose support for the draft during the referendum would be crucial. There was an absolute refusal to consider meaningful amendments. The inevitable result was an exhausting debate around drafting.
The sixth disaster was a truly appalling Yes campaign. This was mind-boggling, as the Yes case had at least $20m to spend. They promised a media blitz, a stunning social media campaign and thousands of appealing on-the-ground campaigners.
It was like one of those predicted Russian tank columns that never arrived at Kyiv. The media advertising was more talked about than actually aired. When it was aired, it was calculated to appeal to those already voting yes.
As the campaign wore on, it was obvious the No camp was dominating social media. As for the foot campaign, the polls still steadily worsened, polling booths were well manned by No supporters, and the Yes effort was most obvious in places such as Newtown that were already voting for the voice.
But the entire strategy was flawed. First, it was run like an election campaign, so there would be a Mediscare-type blitz in the last month. But by then, most people had already made up their mind. Bad as it was, the campaign was made even worse by unqualified Yes bosses meddling in the work of campaign professionals. Second, it never recognised the referendum would be won or lost in western Sydney and regional Queensland. The campaign reverberated in Mosman and Camberwell, but in places dominated by “ordinary” Australians with mortgages and without doctorates, it flopped. As predicted by outlawed Yes dissenters, negative voting patterns exactly followed the republic referendum.
The seventh enemy of Yes was condescension. Whatever the Yes campaign said, it seemed to believe any ordinary Australian who was not convinced was a cretin. The electorate hated it.
The Yes side complained constantly of “misinformation”. There were untruths on each side, but the proponents of the referendum eventually were condemning every argument against the voice not merely as wrong but as deliberate duplicity. This again suggested to the electorate that they were too stupid to sift fact from fiction.
The eighth and final failure was the ineffectiveness of the political artillery on the Yes side. The Prime Minister was pinned down by his own platitudes, unable to advance beyond a “modest measure” and a “gracious request”. For whatever reason, Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney was never more than a faltering presence. Against the thundering of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, there was no contest.
All of this is a sad retrospective. The real question now for supporters of recognition is where to from here? Any possibility of actual formal constitutional amendment is now in the remotest, unpredictable future. Realistically, there needs to be deep thought as to what real, meaningful recognition would look like in the absence of changing the Constitution. This will require imaginative co-operation between supporters – not mutual heckling.
But the post-mortem needs to begin now. If delayed, reality will be obfuscated by excuses, slick explanations and deflections. This process has already begun. The call by the Yes campaign for a week’s silence is disingenuous. It is an attempt to isolate future discussion from the reality of self-inflicted defeat.
The implausible lines of defence are being drawn. It was all Dutton’s fault. Australians were tricked by misinformation and lies. Anyway, it was an uplifting experience that brought Indigenous Australian to the fore. In reality, we of the Yes lost a referendum that has broken Indigenous hearts. We can at least do them the courtesy of admitting it.
Craven, who helped draft the Uluru Statement of the Heart, has nailed it. Especially this bit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
