Firstly, thank you CCN for having a platform where both sides of debates are published.
And thank you to Mark Duffy (CCN 396) for his response to my previous letter.
In response to Klaas and Aafke Woldring (CCN 401), the reason the No Pamphlet is filled with negativity is because everything about the Voice has a negative consequence for our nation.
And I think if one doesn’t know the composition, powers and function of this Voice (which Albanese/Burney won’t clarify) then it is wise to be cautious and vote No.
And if one does know what this Voice will bring to Australia (as has been stated by various Voice advocates/activists) then you would also vote No.
Below is a small sample of what has been put forward.
Ms Burney says the government is committed to all three parts of the Uluru Statement from the Heart including a truth and treaty process.
Mr Albanese has stated numerous times that his Government is committed to the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full.
The Uluru Statement talks about three things: it talks about an enshrined Voice in the Constitution but it also talks about the establishment of a Makarrata commission (that the Albanese Govt committed $5.8M to in the October Budget) that would have two jobs — treaty and agreement-making, and also truth-telling.
Mr Albanese denies the Voice is about a treaty yet stated in his victory speech that the Uluru Statement from the Heart will be implemented in full by his government – and wore a T-shirt to a concert reading Voice, Treaty, Truth.
The Uluru Statement is not a short paragraph full of niceties.
It’s a 26 page document about bringing a highly contentious grievance against the nation of Australia.
You can read it at https://bit.ly/3DOdYhT
Then you have Thomas Mayo (Voice architect and militant unionist) and Teela Reid (Uluru Dialogue leader and member of the Voice Referendum Engagement Group) who have said it’s about rent, reparations, abolishing Australia Day and punishing politicians.
They have said “it is powerful”.
Teela Reid says the Voice is about “the fight for compensation and reparations”, “the first step in redistributing power” and she wants to get back to the “radical roots of the Communist Party”.
Also, the Albanese Government’s latest emotive word is “recognition”.
The Voice is not about ‘recognition’ as is sprouted by the Labor Government, as the Aboriginal people are already recognised 24 times in the Constitution as an integral part of the “people” of the states.
Yes, we are all “people” together – not two separate groups with one having its own “power”.
Every state and territory, as well as the federal parliament, has a minister for Aboriginal affairs who liaises directly with many Indigenous organisations which themselves liaise with Indigenous Australians on the ground.
So if the Voice is rejected at the polls, Indigenous Australians will still have many voices to parliament and voices in parliament including their own as individuals.
Given that many Indigenous Australians live in cities, some in suburbs, some in regional areas, some in the outback; given that they range over the socio-economic landscape; given that their genetic make-up is diverse; given that their upbringings, beliefs, tribal allegiances and religions are diverse; and given that they disagree widely over the Voice to Parliament, exactly whose “voice” will be enshrined in our Constitution?
The Voice isn’t about helping the real Aborigines who need help, it’s about Indigenous activists finally having a body in place to negotiate a treaty and gain reparations at a very costly price to our nation and us, the people.
This is far from a “purely advisory body” as stated by Woldring.
This is about voting for our country not to be divided and suffer at the hands of a group of Indigenous activists.
Vote No.
It’s not racist or unkind.
It’s loving our nation and keeping it safe.
It would be completely nonsensical to support this.
Email, Aug 8
Linda Telisman, Umina Beach