For months now the entire country has known the exact wording of the national referendum question and text of the constitutional amendment which will create a permanent advisory body composed of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander representatives of the First Nations peoples of Australia.
National Referendum Question
“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
**********
Text of additional clause to be inserted in the Constitution if referendum question is answered by a double majority in the affirmative
“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
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.”
**********
On the morning of Wednesday, 31 May 2023 the second and third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 Bill occurred in the House of Representatives and was passed by a majority of the House with just 25 members out of a total of 145 members dissenting.
The parliamentary dissenters in alphabetical order were:
Birrell, Sam. J. Boyce, C. E. Buchholz, Scott (Teller)
Chester, Darren J. Conaghan, Patrick J. Coulton, Mark M. (Teller)
Gillespie, David A. Goodenough, Ian R.
Hamilton, G. R. Hawke, Alexander G. Hogan, Kevin J.
Howarth, Luke R.
Joyce, Barnaby T. G.
Landry, Michelle L. Littleproud, David
McCormack, Michael F.
O'Brien, Llewellyn S.
Pasin, Anthony Pike, Henry J. Pitt, Keith J.
Wallace, Andrew B. Webster, A. E. Willcox, Andrew J.
Wilson, Richard. J. and
Young, Terry J.
A majority of these dissenters took it upon themselves to organise and conduct a “No” campaign against the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament once the referendum question had been approved by a majority in the House of Representatives.
Advance Aus Ltd formerly Freedom Aus Limited, Advance formerly known as Advance Australia & Fair Australia (both associated with Advance Aus Ltd), Recognise a Better Way, Whitestone Strategic Pty Ltd, Texas-based RJ Dunham & Co, Matthew Sheahan, Vicki Dunne, Laura Bradley, Simon Fenwick, Marcus Blackmore and former Liberal MP Tony Abbott are among the companies & persons which assist the dissenters in their apparent aim to sow doubt and division ahead of the referendum. [AFR, 10.04.23 & The Guardian, 13.07.23].
In this they appear to have had some measure of success.
According to custom, the parliamentary dissenters have also produced the official “No” campaign pamphlet titled “The case for voting No” which can be read in full and downloaded at:
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-no.pdf
The first page summary text is as follows:
“REASONS TO VOTE NO – A SUMMARY
This Referendum is not simply about “recognition”. This Voice proposal goes much further.
If passed, it would represent the biggest change to our Constitution in our history.
It is legally risky, with unknown consequences. It would be divisive and permanent.
If you don’t know, vote no.
RISKY
We all want to help Indigenous Australians in disadvantaged communities. However, this Voice is not the answer and presents a real risk to our system of government.
This Voice specifically covers all areas of “Executive Government”. This means no issue is beyond its reach.
The High Court would ultimately determine its powers, not the Parliament.
It risks legal challenges, delays and dysfunctional government.
UNKNOWN
No details have been provided on how members of the Voice would be chosen or how it would operate. Australians are being asked to vote first before these details are worked out.
Australians should have details before the vote, not after.
We don’t know how it will work, we don’t know who will be on it, but we do know it will permanently divide us as Australians.
Some Voice supporters say this would just be a first step to reparations and compensation and other radical changes. So, what would come next?
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. Many Indigenous Australians do not support this.
PERMANENT
Putting a Voice in the Constitution means it’s permanent. We will be stuck with negative consequences
The content of this argument (which can be viewed at aec.gov.au/referendums/pamphlet.htm) was authorised by a majority of those members of Parliament who voted against the proposed law and desired to forward such a case. This text has been published without amendment by the Electoral Commissioner“
******
The official “Yes” campaign pamphlet from the majority of the parliamentary assenters titled “The case for voting Yes” can be read in full and downloaded at:
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-yes.pdf?v=1.0
This affirmative campaign is assisted by YES23.
Examples of how the two very different pamphlets are being initially received in mainstream & social media:
Greg Craven furious no campaign used his previous voice concerns in pamphlet https://t.co/m1SHzOv11Q
— grace pettigrew (@broomstick33) July 18, 2023
Uluru Dialogue's Megan Davis and Pat Anderson, architects of the Voice, call the No referendum essay "cooked" and a "destructive agenda"
— Josh Butler (@JoshButler) July 18, 2023
"The NO pamphlet has used taxpayers’ money to distribute misleading information aimed at holding our people back, all Australians in fact." pic.twitter.com/ByEC2JjWci
"The No Campaign have clearly taken advantage of the pamphlet not being fact-checked and done more to embolden racists than they have to argue against the Voice."https://t.co/ZS7FATECqz
— National Indigenous Times (@nit_times) July 18, 2023
The Yes pamphlet says the "idea" for the voice, came from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.....no it didn't AT ALL.....it came from the U.N, and has been in the works for years...."Project UNDRIP"....they lie and lie through their teeth...it's NOT grassroots.
— R1nky d1nk (@RD1nk33775) July 18, 2023
CONCERNING POLLED RESPONSES IN JULY 2023 TO THE PROPOSED NATIONAL REFERENDUM QUESTION
Latest Newspoll conducted on 12-15 July 2023 shows 48 per cent of the 1,570 surveyed voters say they now intend to vote no to the proposal to insert an Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Voice into the Australian Constitution.
Among surveyed voters from regional areas 62 per cent opposed the Voice proposal.
The survey breaks down by gender to 47 per cent of all males surveyed and 49 per cent of all females surveyed now oppose the Voice.
By age it appears that 59 per cent of those younger voters surveyed were in favour of inserting an Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Voice into the Australian Constitution, while 46 per cent of all older voters surveyed were in favour of the Voice.
NOTE: The 15 July 2023 Newspoll as reported does not breakdown responses by state and, as a referendum affirmative requires a majority of the voting age population in a majority of states, it is possible that at this time there is still a majority in favour of the Voices in four of the seven states & territories.
No comments:
Post a Comment