Voice won’t ensure a fair go

Anne Brent is entitled to her view (CCN 405).

But there are several points that indicate she is somewhat naive about the Voice and its intentions.

Let’s start with the Voice document that Ms Brent seems to think is a single page document; it isn’t.

The single page being peddled by many, including our Prime Minister, is akin to a corporate policy statement that summarises the organisation’s position on a particular issue.

Behind the statement hangs the detail that sets out why, when, where and to what extent the policy applies and of course the penalties for non-compliance.

This is exactly the case with the Voice.

The 26 or so pages behind the one-pager contain critical information including intent and how it will be realised.

It is not a comforting read; this is Indigenous against non-Indigenous; it’s about pay-back and retribution for alleged sins of the past back as far as Captain Cook’s landing in 1770.

As Brent points out this is ‘the land of the fair go’, but the Voice does anything but ensure this is the case.

Indeed it’s the exact opposite; it’s being grossly unfair to non-Indigenous peoples.

The Voice is divisive, biased and discriminatory.

If the tables were turned and this was non-Indigenous people seeking greater recognition, power and money (which is the Voice’s intent), there would be riots in the streets.

These days however discrimination is a one-way street.

Let me suggest that those who support the Voice will be the first to cry foul when the demands of the elitists and inner-city activists purporting to be Indigenous start to hit Government and the High Court, and we non-Indigenous people start to pay a price we don’t deserve.

Please take the time to read the pages, lift the blankets on the Prime Minister’s simplistic statements and the misleading and incomplete information to the electorate.

Email, Aug 31
John George, Terrigal

2 Comments on "Voice won’t ensure a fair go"

  1. I am outraged by this email from John George. Before we get to the context, his statement “it’s about pay-back and retribution for alleged sins of the past back as far as Captain Cook’s landing in 1770”. “alleged sins”, what a bloody insult to ignore what we know was gross criminality. The rest of the email was no better, I’ve read all I can find about the issue, the supposed 26-page document is just a collection of meeting notes and certainly isn’t a “document” in any sense. This email didn’t deserve to be published. FYI I’m a 73 year old Australian white guy and I’ll be voting YES!!!

  2. Why do people live in the past? You can’t change what someone has done but you can make sure those in the present and future don’t make the same mistakes. Believe it or not, we’re ALL human beings. No- one is more important then the next.

Comments are closed.