Another Aussie here and what a wild ride it's been.
To give some context around what's been happening, the referendum was asking to change the constitution to include the following:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
You can probably already see the problems:
it's giving one race the special privilege of permanent direct access to parliament, i.e. members of lower house and the senate (upper house), and the executive government (responsible for the drafting of laws, policy, introducing bills, etc.).
'matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice' is very broad and could include things that affect every Australian, e.g. taxation, health care, education, etc.
In other words, it would constitutionalise a race-based lobby group, equipped with a separate bureaucracy that would give indigenous citizens the ability to have an additional say on every law and administrative decision, not just those relating specifically to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders.
The referendum was introduced by the Labour party (a left wing political party in Australia) but did not have bipartisan support from either the Liberals (right wing) or the greens (hard left wing). For context, no referendum in Australia has ever succeeded without bipartisan support.
It did however get support from many of the biggest corporations in Australia including banks, tech companies, airlines, grocery chains, and others. It had support from many church denominations and many high profile people as well. Have a look at this list of the 'Yes' endorsements compared to the 'No' endorsements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2023_Australian_Indigenous_Voice_referendum
It was virtue signaling on steroids.
The Yes' campaign came out with all the usual leftist talking points - every indigenous person was a victim, and it was needed to combat institutional racism in Australia. They accused the 'No' campaign of racism and misinformation - despite the 'No' campaign being headed up by two Indigenous people - Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price.
They had massive financial backing as well and ran a media blitz - 'Yes' advertisements were everywhere - TV, radio, online, billboards and signs all over the place. In the polling booth I went to on Saturday, there were 'Yes' campaign signs everywhere and not a single 'No' campaign sign anywhere - it was wild.
a couple of other highlights:
The 'Yes' campaign colours were very similar to that of the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) - the body that oversees elections and referendums. I don't believe this was a coincidence.
The AEC came out and said they would accept a tick as a 'yes' vote, but not a cross as a 'no' vote. Note - the correct way to fill out a voting form is to write either yes or no in the box on the form.
It came out during the campaign that some of the leaders of the 'Yes' campaign were actual communists. Others publicly advocated for reparations and the changing of Australia day (which many lefties call 'Invasion day').
And despite all of the institutional backing and all of the money the 'yes' campaign had they still failed to win a majority in any state, or with the population in general. The only territory that voted 'yes' was the ACT (Australian Capital Territory), our equivalent to Washington DC. Fortunately, territories don't count in the referendum.
So yes, this was in fact, a big white pill moment.
Another Aussie here and what a wild ride it's been.
To give some context around what's been happening, the referendum was asking to change the constitution to include the following:
You can probably already see the problems:
In other words, it would constitutionalise a race-based lobby group, equipped with a separate bureaucracy that would give indigenous citizens the ability to have an additional say on every law and administrative decision, not just those relating specifically to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders.
The referendum was introduced by the Labour party (a left wing political party in Australia) but did not have bipartisan support from either the Liberals (right wing) or the greens (hard left wing). For context, no referendum in Australia has ever succeeded without bipartisan support.
It did however get support from many of the biggest corporations in Australia including banks, tech companies, airlines, grocery chains, and others. It had support from many church denominations and many high profile people as well. Have a look at this list of the 'Yes' endorsements compared to the 'No' endorsements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2023_Australian_Indigenous_Voice_referendum
It was virtue signaling on steroids.
The Yes' campaign came out with all the usual leftist talking points - every indigenous person was a victim, and it was needed to combat institutional racism in Australia. They accused the 'No' campaign of racism and misinformation - despite the 'No' campaign being headed up by two Indigenous people - Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price.
They had massive financial backing as well and ran a media blitz - 'Yes' advertisements were everywhere - TV, radio, online, billboards and signs all over the place. In the polling booth I went to on Saturday, there were 'Yes' campaign signs everywhere and not a single 'No' campaign sign anywhere - it was wild.
a couple of other highlights:
The 'Yes' campaign colours were very similar to that of the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) - the body that oversees elections and referendums. I don't believe this was a coincidence.
The AEC came out and said they would accept a tick as a 'yes' vote, but not a cross as a 'no' vote. Note - the correct way to fill out a voting form is to write either yes or no in the box on the form.
It came out during the campaign that some of the leaders of the 'Yes' campaign were actual communists. Others publicly advocated for reparations and the changing of Australia day (which many lefties call 'Invasion day').
And despite all of the institutional backing and all of the money the 'yes' campaign had they still failed to win a majority in any state, or with the population in general. The only territory that voted 'yes' was the ACT (Australian Capital Territory), our equivalent to Washington DC. Fortunately, territories don't count in the referendum.
So yes, this was in fact, a big white pill moment.