Agree or disagree with the Voice, it is a real stretch for Linda Telisman (CCN404) to state that the reason the No Pamphlet is filled with negativity is because “everything” about the Voice has a negative consequence for our nation.
Proponents of the Voice to Parliament argue that the Voice will be a practical way to improve the lives of Indigenous people based upon the input from Indigenous people across Australia as to what will work for their local communities, particularly in the areas of health, education and housing.
This translates to a positive consequence for the Indigenous people and the nation.
It is also argued that the Voice has the potential to reduce the cost of duplicated and uncoordinated programs funded by various government and non-government agencies.
Linda Telisman’s statement that Indigenous Australians disagree widely over the Voice to Parliament is also a stretch.
According to the proponents of the Voice, surveys indicate that around 80 per cent of them are in favour of a Voice.
We should not feel that the “Don’t Know, vote No” is our fall-back position.
Give us the credit of being able to read the AEC material and other news and social media to come to our own decision on balance as to whether the Voice is or is not in the nation’s overall interest.
It is not throwing caution to the wind to at least consider the merits of a Voice that “may make representations” to the government and Parliament.
The Constitution is only 34 pages in length (plus the reference index pages).
It provides the basic rules for the government of Australia.
The wording of the composition, powers and function of the Voice would be put forward in due course as proposed legislation by the Government of the day.
The proposed legislation would face the usual democratic bargaining and amendment process involving all Parliamentarians from both Houses of The Parliament (representing us voters), before being finally enacted.
Email, Aug 25
Peter Tognetti, Budgewoi