• Marin_Rider@aussie.zone
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • Nonameuser678@aussie.zone
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • samson@aussie.zone
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Marin_Rider@aussie.zone
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

    • Ilandar@aussie.zone
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Nonameuser678@aussie.zone
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Ilandar@aussie.zone
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Nonameuser678@aussie.zone
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

  • sil@aussie.zone
    ·
    1 year ago

    Might be time to introduce that “no lying on election material” piece that we’ve been missing.

    • skribe@aussie.zone
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • sil@aussie.zone
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • skribe@aussie.zone
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • mranachi@aussie.zone
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

  • billytheid@aussie.zoneM
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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?