The written Yes and No cases will form the official referendum pamphlet that will be sent to more than 12.5 million homes in the weeks before the national vote and will be published on the Australian Electoral Commission website on Tuesday. There is no requirement for the pamphlet to be truthful.
Indigenous sporting legends Johnathan Thurston and Evonne Goolagong Cawley have endorsed the Voice in the official Yes case, while the No case was led by Indigenous frontbencher Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.CREDIT:GETTY & ALEX ELLINGHAUSENThe Yes case, which was authorised by government MPs in consultation with pro-Voice MPs from across the parliament, outlines eight key reasons why Australians should vote Yes, including that it will save money by ensuring funding is spent more effectively and that “constitutional recognition is a powerful statement that will drive practical change”.
It will state that the idea for the Voice originated from Indigenous Australians, not politicians.
“Vote Yes for a better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and all Australians. Vote Yes for unity, hope and to make a positive difference,” the Yes case states.
The No case, which was steered by Coalition MPs and led by Indigenous frontbencher Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, twice tells Australians “if you don’t know, vote No” and details 10 reasons why the proposed change should be rejected. It claims the Voice is “legally risky” and will divide Australians in the Constitution, and tells voters: “You are being asked to vote to change our Constitution without details.”
Included in the Yes case is an endorsement from Goolagong Cawley, a Wiradjuri woman and former women’s tennis world number one, who says voting Yes is a chance to “celebrate the contribution Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have made to our country and to help the next generation chase their dreams”.
The endorsement from NRL legend Thurston, a Gunggari man, states that giving Indigenous people a say “will mean more of our kids reach their potential. That’s what the Voice is about.”
Betts, a Gubrun, Wirangu/Kokatha man and AFL star, says: “I know the Voice won’t fix everything overnight, but I feel like it’s the opening of a pathway to make sure we are included and respected in decision-making on issues that impact us.”
While the No pamphlet repeats claims by Price that “this Voice will not unite us, it will divide us by race”, it has not repeated widely criticised remarks by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton that the proposal will “re-racialise” the country.
Unfounded claims by One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, who sought to be involved in writing the No case, that the Voice could pave the way for a separate Indigenous state and “racially exclusive” seats in parliament have not been included.
However, the No case seeks to tap into fears that the Voice will be the gateway for further activism, and cites years-old comments from Voice advocate Thomas Mayo that reference the possibility of reparations and compensation – remarks from which he has since distanced himself.
“Already, many activists are campaigning to abolish Australia Day, change our flag and other institutions and symbols important to Australians. If there is a constitutionally enshrined Voice, these calls would grow louder,” the No case says.
The Yes case argues “the Voice will advise on practical steps to improve Indigenous health, education, employment and housing” – the four priorities Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney said she would ask the body to focus on during a speech earlier this month.
Pamphlets on Voice to parliament published ahead of referendum
Pamphlets with details on the Voice to parliament will be published ahead of the referendum.
“Legal experts have made it clear that the Voice will not have the power to prevent, delay or veto laws or decisions. The Voice is about advice.”
It will urge Australians to “Vote Yes to help close the gap” on Indigenous disadvantage.
The No case seems to counter this by arguing the Voice will be “costly and bureaucratic” and will have a wide-ranging scope to intervene in all areas of public policy but that there is insufficient detail to know how it will help disadvantaged communities.
RELATED ARTICLE
“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),” the No case says.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday insisted the Voice referendum would succeed and dismissed calls to pull the proposal and instead hold a national vote on constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians.
In an interview on Sky News Afternoon Briefing, Albanese revealed he would not formally announce the date of the referendum at the Garma Festival in early August, and instead outlined plans for a six-week campaign.
There is a growing expectation within the federal government that the referendum will be held on October 14, after the AFL and NRL grand finals, but the prime minister has thus far only committed to it being held between October and December.
“The Yes case is very strong, it’s clear, and when people focus on the words that are actually in the referendum change and what the question will be about, which is about recognition, and about listening in order to get better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, I’m confident that a majority of Australians in a majority of states will vote yes,” he said.
Describing the wording of the Yes campaign’s pamphlet as “a very strong case”, Albanese said he believed “it will make a substantial difference”.
Price said the No case “informs voters of serious reservations held by those on all sides of politics, the significant risks inherent in the proposal and the divisive nature of such a massive change”.
Liberal MP Julian Leeser, the Coalition’s most senior pro-Voice figure, used a speech in the regional NSW town of Wagga on Monday to denounce the No campaign’s attacks on Mayo and Burney.
RELATED ARTICLE
“The spliced videos of the No case using Thomas Mayo’s words are meant to get you angry and get you voting against a person, even though this person is not on the ballot paper,” Leeser said.
“Likewise, we see the argument against the ‘privileged’ Linda Burney … we are seeing deeply personal characterisations made about her that would not be made about federal ministers such as Jason Clare, Chris Bowen, or Richard Marles.
“No, Linda Burney is not privileged, on the contrary, she is a reminder of the challenges and difficulties many Indigenous Australians have to overcome every day. And she is a reminder of what can be achieved too.”
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.
Click here to Read More…
