Indigenous leaders have been asking for "proper" representation in the Australian parliament since 1933 and there have been multiple failed attempts to grant them that. Some have tried to do too much and outright failed like this one did, others took a softer approach and essentially were a waste of time - the chances didn't actually achieve the intended goal of providing better representation.

The voice would have made sure there is a body of people dedicated to advising parliament on matters that are important to indigenous Australians. It was only an advisory body, they wouldn't have had any votes or anything, but whatever they said in parliament would have been an official government record and the response by politicians would also be officially recorded (even no response, would still be recorded).

The problem, right now, is indigenous people are 3% of the population and therefore they are routinely ignored. Politicians wouldn't have been able to ignore them anymore... the could still have chosen to do nothing at all, but if a sensible proposal was presented in parliament (such as a solution to the alarming fact that indigenous Australians have in the highest incarceration rate of any people in the entire world) and the government chose not to implement those changes they'd be raked over the coals.

Solving those problems is good for everyone, it's not free to put people in prison for example. It costs tax payers tens of billions of dollars... assuming you're an Australian who pays tax, thousnads of dollars of the tax you pay each year goes towards imprisoning indigenous Australians and far too often for ridiculous charges like "failing to appear" in court for a court case they either couldn't physically get to (e.g. you live on Mornington Island and were given a court date in Cairns) or sometimes might not have even known they were summoned to court in the first place.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm not Australian, just interested in this from an outside perspective. You make good points, and, to be fair, as a non Australian I hadn't heard much about this vote at all. I may have been a bit hasty to form opinions based on what I thought the vote was about.

[–] abhibeckert@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Ah I see. A little more background then...

The indigenous people of Australia have never formally accepted the rule of the current government — legally, the Australian government was founded on a bullshit declaration that there was no human life living on the continent - only animals lived here according to the documents and formal letters and statements made when white people settled on this land. The continent is massive and had thousands of tribes who spoke 250 individual languages. It's estimated humans have been living here for somewhere between 60,000 and 120,000 years (there's strong archeological evidence for "at least 60k", and work is ongoing to verify evidence that suggests 120k years).

The current government was forced on those people, and there horrific crimes committed (mass murder, arbitrary killings, children were systematically stolen from parents and raised by the church, in some regions the local government paid a cash bounty for anyone who brought an indigenous head to them, etc. It was bad). Things are not that bad now, but they are still far from perfect, and they need to be solved. There also needs to be some form of treaty between Australia and the indigenous nations who's land was blatantly and obviously stolen (some of the land that white people aren't using has been given back, but that's not a treaty).

Our constitution does not acknowledge the existence of indigenous people. Our national anthem claims this is a "young" country when, at 60,000+ years the indigenous people of this country are in fact the oldest still living civilisation in the world. It's very very clear that the founders of this country did not consider indigenous people to be part of the country, and the constitution needs to be updated to reflect the modern legal state where they are an integral part of Australia.

[–] tyler@lemmy.whitedragonofcroatia.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just a quick response about the National Anthem. The official words were changed to "for we are one and free" to remove the reference to the age of the country.

[–] abhibeckert@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

... that's nice, although I'm struggling to understand how we changed that line but kept the "free" bit.

And are we "one"? Seems pretty clear we are a nation divided especially when athletes representing our country refuse to even sing the national anthem.