Ie at a lessor yes vote than inner urban electorates and Canberra.
Unfortunately for Albo he botched it by thinking he could simply coattail his wave of post election popularity and change the constitution. It was rushed. There had to be bipartisanship as past referendums will attest. Aboriginals heading the no campaign made it tougher to get across the line as well as lack of detail.
As the analysis unfolds, perhaps another question along the lines of stating in the constitution that we recognise traditional inhabitants and it would have got up easily. Then set up the right body to ensure the $40B annual spend is used to genuinely make a difference to disadvantaged First Nation people.
Ugly politics as usual was at play. Not sure Dutton will benefit (he will try no doubt) but I think Albo has lost a bit out of this. How long before Plibersek and Shorten start circling?
Racism? Thats a cop out.
Now for the stats. Incredible how it mimics 1999 on a completely different subject. Inner city strong yes was no surprise and the old Tony Abbott Northern beaches territory was a strong yes. The bush - no thanks.
Outcome - anger
Yep.
Not sure that Albo is easy to roll following the Rudd reforms but I do think heâs wasted whatever political capital he had.
Yep, its the truism about changing the constitution - there needs to be a strong and overwhelmingly clear rationale why it needs to happen before the country tries another referendum. In that sense it is in noway comparable to the situation with Brexit as some eejits tried to suggest above.
I will find it hard to believe that 60% of Australians do not want the Indigenous people to be treated fairly and given more importance. Sure there will be racist shites but not to the tune of 60%. There must be a huge percentage of Australians who voted No simply because Yes did not address the questions especially when it involves an irreversible change. That was a mistake I believe.
There are some announcing embarrassment. I was more embarrassed that 40% voted against gay marriage!!
Weâll if you are talking about me, I didnât actually make similarities to Brexit, as I said it was far worse than Brexit. Obviously not in an economic sense, but there wasnât even a rational argument for voting No. Not enough detail? How exactly? I would have thought every man and his dog would prefer the committeeâs powers and composition to be legislatively controlled rather than the detail also being enshrined into the constitution, particularly so that the procedures can be adapted to future changes?
And if that is the case, the only way to decide on the exact composition and powers is for them to be passed through parliament once the Yes vote succeeds. Remember the Yes campaign did provide guidance on what they believe should be the powers and procedures that the committee would have, but as mentioned above, guidance is the best that can be done given any ideas still need to pass through parliament.
Has any law experts during the whole campaign suggested that the powers, composition, and procedures of the committee should have been enshrined into the constitution and therefore actually have been a part of the referendum question?
Iâm interested to find out if any expert thinks thatâs a good idea. Because it seems the No campaign used the Chicken or Egg paradox to great effect , hiding behind the supposed âlack of detailâ of the Yes campaign.
No you donât want to enshrine the details into the constitution and then be restricted from modifications to ensure it works. There was no way a highly detailed enumeration of how representatives would be chosen etc would have been better supported nor was there call by constitutional scholars for this to be done. To be honest, the whole argument for enshrining this in the constitution is weak and to call the result worse than Brexit is just batshit crazy, frankly.
For anyone who hasnât seen this, from one of Australiaâs greatest authors.
thatâs a very well written piece.
We always thought that one day prime minister, Anthony Albanese, would sit us down and explain the essence of the voice and the limits of its power in transparent and unarguable English. For whatever reason, this never seemed to happen
Albanese taking a leaf out of the David Cameron playbook. Call a referendum, then donât actually use your platform to fight the media misinformation narrative.
Pathetic.
A well written piece, which will not get much cover in the media.
Keneally is spot on, though!
Itâs front and centre in the largest free online newspaper on the country. Which has been covering the referendum in great detail for months.
Newspapers arenât the major source of news and opinion anywhere these days.
âŚ
am 8 weeks away from my 20yr anniversary of seeing it for the first time
No way, just another Murdoch rag, commonly known as the HUN!
Disturbing newsâŚ