The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2023 AFPAustralians poised to reject Indigenous rights in landmark vote
By Andrew BEATTY SYDNEY©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
Articles, Offers & Useful Resources
A mix of what's trending on our other sites
37 Comments
Login to comment
Peter14
Please understand that Australia did not colonize Australia. England colonized Australia! Much of the "brutal history" was conducted by foreigners, not Australian's. There was a fair amount of brutal behavior conducted by those born in Australia towards indigenous people, but the continued use of the idea that Australia was colonized by Australians is false and misleading.
Australia was founded in 1901 with the Federation of British colonies and territories in Australia. Prior to that time these British states and territories were responsible for the treatment of first nations people in what is now known as Australia.
The "no vote" seems to be relying on misinformation, fearmongering and a desire to do nothing to improve the current discrimination many first nations people face, and ensure they get a very limited ability to change anything. They are a minority in the overall population and many live in traditional ways making their ability to engage with governments and direct change to improve their conditions and life while being able to honor and maintain their culture and way of life in a modern society, limited in the extreme.
Ensuring that as a group, Indigenous people have an avenue to discuss and influence outcomes to benefit the improvement of first nations people, tribes and customs directly with governments would be advantageous and more effective that anything available to them at the moment.
No vote = do nothing.
Yes vote = listening to, and providing better targeted assistance to all first nations groups. Rather than wasting funds on things that do not work and were not wanted by first nations people in the first place as happens currently.
I will be voting "Yes". No matter that polls indicate the "no vote" will win.
The Original Wing
What's with all the one-sided articles on this issue? As a non-Aussie, it's such an interesting debate and topic, but every time an article pops up about it, all they do is describe in great detail the reasons to vote "Yes" and offer a one-sentence explanation about "No." All this article explains about "No" is:
And that's it. Shouldn't those concerns be spelled out as clearly as the description of the "Yes" side's opinions and worries? It's a more nuanced position that seems to always get described as just "racism."
A more balanced media is needed.
gcFd1
Indigenous Australians have the same rights as any other citizen,
So, No.
ian
Why not quote the whole sentence?
桜川雪
Didn't they royally shrew up last time they tried to tinker with literacy rates back in the 20th century (eg splitting up children from families, forcing them into standardized curriculum, "de-indigenizing" them)? And now they are treated differently and some segregated onto reservations? It is difficult issue.
桜川雪
Integration into the majority australian (former British colonial with mix of immigrant culture) in both residence and unified single culture would equalize outcomes, but it would also harm the traditional indigenous culture and depopulate native lands as the indigenous would be fully incorporated into the majority australian society to get the same outcomes as everyone else. Enclaves tend to have worse outcomes.
桜川雪
Enclave in this case can mean residential, social, and even cultural for some.
gcFd1
Why would you not know?
ian
Lol what?
Why would I know?
Ricky Kaminski13
More one-sided spin trying to paint a picture that simply is not true. No one is rejecting rights nor recognition, quite the opposite actually. We are rejecting a model that potentially hurts those that it claims to be helping. That simple. For those who believe they see the evils of colonization and systemic racism at every corner, and want to stick to their paternalistic 'savior' mentalities, their minds have been made up since the beginning. They didn't even need to entertain the counterarguments for a second. You don't need to think when you are that right.
For the rest of us, we have heard the impassioned debates and speeches from both sides and have made up our minds. Journalists can do with the result what they like. Australia will be just fine. Just don't forget to listen to the post-result speeches by the main players first before you think you know enough to pass judgment on us. Unless of course passing judgment is your thing.
Jay
Good, let's be done with this racist referendum.
The Yes campaign saying it isn't racially-based but about "indigenous people", while calling the majority of Australians racists for voting NO is the most ironically absurd thing to come out of this entire waste of time and money.
Jay
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/japan-today/
“This media source has a moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources... may require further investigation.”
gcFd1
Lol what?
Why are you asking?
ian
Hahahaha
I wanna know why you quoted half the thought only.
Why not quote the whole sentence ?
itsonlyrocknroll
IN FULL: Senator Jacinta Price addresses National Press Club
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrinfhtFDlc&t=1455s
A powerful voice, Jacinta Price accountability.
Voters need to have a clear understanding right down to nut and bolts to what the voice actually stand for.
Jay
Why haven't the 11 elected indigenous members of parliament been able to advise the government - surely they know what's needed?
What is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Linda Burney, actually doing? Does the "necessity" of a Voice proposal mean she is failing at her job?
Why has the $4.5 billion annually allocated to Aboriginal affairs not done anything to improve the situation of indigenous Australians?
Let's talk about what the Yes Vote really means: a vibe-based movement to divide Australians along racial lines, enshrining inequality and victimhood into the constitution. If you are portrayed as a victim and the government continue handing out $$$, then you believe you are a victim and continue to be dependent on government $$$.
That's a yeahNAH from Australia.
Jay
So when the NO vote wins, does this mean Australians are racist? Or is it merely pushback against having our cars broken into (and insurance companies refusing to cover your vehicle for theft in certain communities unless you park it at least 200m from your residence)? Is it pushback from having the "Welcome To Country" ceremony forced upon us in every single public social or sporting gathering? Is it pushback against seeing billions of dollars wasted on exclusive education and employment opportunities that are not taken advantage of?
Algernon LaCroix
True to form on JT, this is not a news report on the referendum but an opinion piece without even the scantiest thread of legitimacy -- loaded with emotionally charged expressions, quotes from "experts" who clearly favour the "yes" position, attempts to paint "no" voters as racist troglodytes, and an attempt to ascribe authority to celebrity. Well done, Mr Beatty. This is basically how the "yes" campaign has been running, and falling behind to a greater degree every week. Yet they can't figure out why they're losing, owing to the utter lack of introspection they have. Surely they couldn't have grossly miscalculated, could they? It's the no and undecided voters who are wrong!
Change the "200 years" to about 120, and Albo has described the ALP to a tee. Not that the Lib/Nat Coalition are much better these days...
itsonlyrocknroll
Referendum 2023
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/
Ok there should be two clear choices, manifestos if you will.
Yes must provide a clear understanding of what constitutes a yes vote
Recognition, listening and better results. Vote Yes.
https://www.yes23.com.au/
There is a fundamental flaw, truly astonishing, the very principal of acceptance of a one-person-one-vote conviction .
The Voice to Parliament matters because it gives Aboriginal people a say on the laws and policies that affect them. Having the Voice to Parliament become part of the Constitution is a big step towards uniting Australia.
The question is the legislation that could have far reaching consequences to every Australian, all is missing!
Australian voters are being offered a bus journey without a route map to know where the bus terminates.
Mr Kipling
Randy...
Fixed it....
The natives and indigenous citizens of Australia should have fought a little harder then they wouldn't have had colonists.
Different times, sorry your ancestors were down the food chain. But enjoy all the innovations that came with
colonizers.
u_s__reamer
The mantra "What's in it for me" pulls the lever of the majority in the voting boot. The outcome will prove this once again.
The Original Wing
@Jay - Great facts and points in this most. Was unaware of most of these. Cheers for the added perspective
Peter14
How many of them live in indigenous communities? How many know what the tribes want? How many even discuss things with local elders? There elected members must work for their communities and their communities are mostly not first nations people. Some are half, quarter, eighth or have even less indigenous blood, but legally identify as indigenous.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/Quick_Guides/IndigenousParliamentarians2021
None of the current batch are full blood first nations people. Pat Dodson is a half blood, with a white father and aboriginal mother. He is a Yawuru elder.
It means that the effectiveness is lacking and having elders from around the nation providing input for their local tribes will be more informative and more effective in gaining positive outcomes.
Maybe because there is a lack of consultation with the group the money is being spent to benefit, and decisions are made by people not effected by the outcomes, and who really are just guessing what first nations people need or want.
I dont get how this is meant to divide anyone. These people are more likely to be incarcerated and to be hurt while incarcerated. People tell them what they need but dont ask enough questions to see what they think they need.
Enshrining their right to be heard as the first custodians of this land who managed it for 60,000 years. And did a fine job with what they had. Their culture like similar aboriginal cultures is not based around capitalism and constant growth, but around sustainable use in harmony with the life that shares the land with them. Some expect them to become what we are and simply read about their culture in the few books written about them in modern times. They come from oral traditions of passing history in story, song and dance. The two are not compatible. But that is the challenge. To make them compatible. It cant be a one sided affair and can only be solved through genuine respect of each others nature and culture and through dialog and an ability to advise governments, and have a legal right to not be ignored as they can be now.
This voice gives an avenue to be taken seriously rather than ignored. To be heard rather than brushed off, to make it official and constitutionally indisputable. They get no advantage under the law over any other citizen. No greater pay per hour for the same work. No get out of jail free card. It ensures their culture survives and if possible thrives into the future.
If they were an endangered species, money and resources would be directed at saving them. This is cultural extinction, and rather than throw money at the problem, giving them the voice to speak up and ensure they are recorded and heard by government by having that in the constitution is fair enough in my view. Not so for others. Hence this referendum.
Peter14
It depends on whom you speak to doesnt it. I would say if the no vote wins that too many succumbed to fear and misinformation, as happens all too often these days.
The last I heard there has been no issue with cars stolen by first nations people, but plenty get stolen by thieves and joy riders all around the country. Trying to blame a majority of such crime on a minority of the population is simply not backed up by numbers. Perhaps in areas of high occupation of disadvantages people there could well be a number stolen by aboriginal youth. Hardly a huge or concerning issue in a referendum though.
I didnt realize this was a burden to some, but if you object the best place to do so is with your local member of parliament.
Wasted by politicians who didnt bother asking what was needed for them, but instead did what they figured was needed, and would have worked if given to under privileged in the general population rather than at a culture that is quite different to our modern version. Perhaps if they had a voice when those choices were made, the money could have been targeted at what they need and want rather than what ignorant people think they should need. Sounds like letting them tell us what they need would be a cash saver. But sure, vote no and let the waste continue.
konjo4u
"If you don't know" stokes fear.
kaimycahl
Racism is the greatest divider when it come to man kind it is also the most ignorant! What makes one man think he is better than the next!! If he closes his eyes what do he see, nothing, as his eyes are closed what on his mind, perhaps what he hopes to see. It all in the state of mind!!! It controls what you think and what you see or hope to see!!!
Fighto!
Indigenous Australians are already overrepresented in the national parliament representative to their population. Are their voices not heard? Why add yet another layer of bureaucracy (and cost)?
gcFd1
Indigenous Australians have the same rights as any other citizen,
"No" is a vote for a country united in the face of an effort to divide it along the lines of race,
BurakuminDes
You are thinking of NZ.
Aus has never had a referendum on a flag.