SAY NO TO THE VOICE
Why we should say NO to the Voice in Parliament
The Albanese government has proposed to enshrine in the constitution an Indigenous voice to parliament, which would be voted on in a referendum. The voice would advise the Australian parliament and government on matters relating to the social, spiritual and economic wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The voice would be able to table formal advice in parliament, and a parliamentary committee would consider that advice.
Parliament and government would be obliged to consult it on matters that overwhelmingly relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, such as native title, employment, housing, the community development program, the NDIS or heritage protection.
Constitutional recognition of Indigenous people is desirable and can be achieved. However, this referendum on the Voice is the wrong way to achieve that goal as it creates a Constitutional entity with unlimited scope that erodes a fundamental principle of democracy, the equality of citizenship.
It is simply incorrect to equate opposition to the proposed Voice with opposition to constitutional recognition of Indigenous people. Most people of goodwill would readily accept a constitutional change that recognised Indigenous people were the first occupants of this continent.
The real purpose of this referendum is to change our system of government by injecting a permanent element of racial privilege into the heart of the Constitution. It would give Indigenous Australians – and their descendants for all time – a second method of influencing public policy that goes beyond the benefits of representative democracy that are already enjoyed by all citizens regardless of race.
Why we should say NO to the Voice in Parliament:
-
It is legally risky. This Voice covers all areas of "Executive Government". This means no issue is beyond its reach.
-
It is unknown. No details have been provided on how members of the Voice would be chosen or how it would operate. Australians should have details before the vote, not after.
-
It is divisive. Enshrining a Voice in the Constitution for only one group of Australians means permanently dividing our country. It creates different classes of citizenship through an unknown body that has the full force of the Constitution behind it.
-
It is permanent. Putting a Voice in the Constitution means it is permanent. We will be stuck with negative consequences.
-
It won't help indigenous Australians. We all want to help indigenous Australians in disadvantaged communities, to close the gap and achieve reconciliation. However, more bureaucracy is not the answer.
-
No issue is beyond its scope. This Voice model isn't just to the Parliament, it goes much further - to all areas of "Executive Government". That includes all government departments, agencies and other bodies (like the Reserve Bank).
-
It risks delays and dysfunction. The Australian Parliament deals with hundreds of pieces of legislations a year. How would the Voice handle this? If the Voice is not satisfied with the way it has been consulted, or a decision that is made, it could appeal to the courts. How long would this take? The risk of legal appeals and delays mean a risk of dysfunctional government.
-
It opens the door for activists. The legal uncertainty and the absence of details raises the question: What comes next? Already, many activists are campaigning to abolish Australia Day, change our flag and other institutions and symbols important to Australians.
-
It will be costly and bureaucratic. We don't know much additional funding would be allocated to this Voice. That's another detail that would only be determined after the referendum.
-
The Voice will be permanent. This Voice is not a trial or pilot program. It will not be a legislation that can be reversed. Once it is in the Constitution it will not be undone. We will be stuck with the negative consequences forever.
-
There are better ways forward. This referendum is not about simply recognising Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. Than can be achieved without tying it to a risky, unknown and permanent Voice.
The Uluru Statement from the Heart, issued to the Australian public in 2017, calls for a constitutionally enshrined First Nations Voice to Parliament, and for Makarrata – a coming together after a struggle – through a process of treaty-making and truth-telling.
Read the Uluru Statement from the Heart here.
Watch Albanese is encouraging you to read the Statement.
MORE VIDEOS:​
Sen. Rennick speaking in the Senate about the claim that Aboriginals have lived uninterrupted in Australia for the last 60,000 years
In the last sitting week I called out the claim that Aboriginals have lived uninterrupted in Australia for the last 60,000 years. There is no evidence for that claim whatsoever. The oldest known biped skeleton Mungo man is dated at between 24,000 to 42,000 years old but there are questions around the DNA sequence found in the Mitochondria as to whether or not the skeleton is of a homo sapien. The size of one skeleton found at Lake Mungo is over 190cm casting more doubt as to its origins. It should also be noted that remains dated as recently as 10,000 years ago have been found at Kow Swamp that are different from modern Aboriginal crania.
The Voice is About Money, Power and Control
“The scope of the voice is its strength,” said one of its Indigenous architects, Megan Davis. The Voice is racist. It is flawed, divisive — inserting race into the constitution. It would destroy the People's constitution which is for ALL Australians and replace it with a Politicians' constitution. The problem with the Voice is what is being hidden from the public: the power being created and how that power changes our system of government. The 'Yes' campaign has no basis for its argument that the powers being created won't be used and in trying, it is deceiving Australians. The public has turned against the Voice in spite of concerted efforts by government and their corporate sponsors to force compliance. The PM initially said if people reject the Voice, he would not rule out legislating it into parliament instead. What is the point of a referendum, if politicians will not listen?
Why Albanese Needs to Establish an “Indigenous Voice” to Sign a Treaty
Here’s what’s emerging on Labor’s Voice: Labor sees it as essential for making a “treaty” to create a separate sovereign aboriginal state. The video shows that in pushing the failing Voice campaign, Anthony Albanese contradicts the claims he made in parliament before the election. Law Professor Gabrielle Appleby explains why an aboriginal body, the Voice, must come before making a Treaty “with aboriginals”. Anthony Albanese is setting up to make the Voice as a body to “represent” the aboriginal industry and then make a separate sovereign entity. This is why he and the Labor machine including Minister Burney have been hiding the Voice details. Passing the Voice would end Australia as we know it and create another separate nation.
A glimpse of things to come if Labor's "Voice" referendum is successful.
Albanese’s plan to enshrine a Canberra-based Voice bureaucracy in our Australian Constitution is divisive, unknown, and permanent. It would divide Australians on their race and importantly will not deliver practical outcomes for Indigenous Australians.
Voting ‘no’ for Voice to Parliament doesn’t make people racist: Alex Antic
Liberal Senator Alex Antic says it is “absolutely insidious” to break Australians up by race as he encouraged people to vote ‘no’ for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. “Rejecting the Voice and saying ‘no’ to the voice does not make you a racist,” he told Sky News Australia.
The Voice: Four Myths by John Anderson
John and many others are unconvinced that the Voice will achieve lasting, serious change. In fact, John suggests the Voice will actively harm Indigenous outcomes, fostering division and cynicism rather than unity. Its politics will distract from the very practical challenges of closing the gaps in health, education, domestic violence, substance abuse, employment, and income.
The Voice: Five More Problems by John Anderson
John and many others are unconvinced that the Voice will achieve lasting, serious change. In fact, John suggests the Voice will actively harm Indigenous outcomes, fostering division and cynicism rather than unity. Its politics will distract from the very practical challenges of closing the gaps in health, education, domestic violence, substance abuse, employment, and income.
Peter Dutton MP on the Voice
Australians are being asked to make the biggest change to Australia’s Constitution in decades – creating a permanent new body, without any of the details as to how it would operate.
The Uluru Statement Explained
What is the Uluru Statement From The Heart? This video is a summary of the Uluru Statement From the Heart. Much of what was said in the dialogues filtered into the 26-page Uluru Statement but certainly not the one-page Uluru Statement.
IMPORTANT LINKS:​
Australians are being asked to open their hearts – to be generous – to vote ‘Yes’ to something greater than they can imagine. For imagine they shall, as the detail in the Voice is not there. Instead, we can look elsewhere for guidance on where matters ‘Indigenous’ are heading. The nation’s eyes should settle on Western Victoria.
The Australian Electoral Commission has confirmed ticking the box on the referendum ballot paper, rather than writing "yes", could count as a Yes vote – but crosses won't be counted. The Commission says it will ultimately be up to the Divisional Returning Officer at each ballot place to decide if a tick has made a voter's intentions clear.
