DEAR News Of The Area,

THE penny has finally dropped!

I have wondered why the word ‘racist’ has been used in this referendum, particularly towards the No camp.

If we all believe in constitutional recognition for Indigenous people and we all want to see better outcomes for disadvantaged Indigenous communities, then what is racist about that?

It is simply the Voice that is dividing us.

It all comes back to that flawed referendum question asking us to lump what are really two questions, into one.
It’s a two for one package deal that can’t be separated.

By voting No, to reject the concept of the Voice, you are also perceived as saying you reject the opening part of the question, which is the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia.

It’s diabolical!

It is the one and only reason I can think of why No voters are being called racists!

The No camp isn’t trying to insert a race-based Voice into the Constitution.

There should have been two questions: one on recognition and one on the Voice.

The Yes camp would vote Yes, Yes and the No camp would vote Yes, No… a moot point now!

All Australians want to see constitutional recognition of Indigenous people but not all Australians think that a constitutional Voice is the only way forward!

Unfortunately, we are stuck with this one flawed question that is designed to divide rather than unite us.

Does Margaret have a crystal ball to see into the future when she writes ‘There is nothing to fear from this referendum.’? (‘Nothing to fear from the Voice’, Margaret England, NOTA 22/09/2023)

Some of us still have ongoing and well-founded concerns about the Voice.

It is an unknown and unproven entity, and we are being asked to permanently enshrine it in our Constitution.

If it is simply an advisory body, then why not put it into legislation and find out if it works.

The problems in disadvantaged Indigenous communities should have been addressed years ago by establishing more accountable, ‘boots on the ground’ organisations that spend money more wisely and focus on outcomes.

All this can happen right now without the need for a costly referendum.

I am concerned that Indigenous activists aren’t going to be satisfied with just an advisory role. Their political agenda goes far beyond this, but as a first step, they need the power that a Constitutional Voice gives them.

A simple advisory body doesn’t have this power.

Thomas Mayo, an Indigenous activist, has said that the Voice is ‘a black political force to be reckoned with’ (quote from Daily Telegraph 22/9/230).

Similar sentiments are expressed in the longer version of the Uluru Statement.

If ‘this was never meant to be political’, as Margaret has said, then why is our Prime Minister the ‘front man’ and one of the chief proponents of the Yes campaign?

It has been a political issue from the get-go.

If ‘The suggestion that white people will have to pay rent is a lie’, then why did Thomas Mayo talk about ‘paying the rent, reparations and compensation’? (Referendum Booklet p19).

This was referring to all non-Indigenous people, not just ‘white people’.

Talking about ‘vitriol and hideous racist behaviour’, it was all there on show at the No campaign launch in Adelaide with the words ’racist pig’, ‘racist dog’ and other expletives aimed towards people entering.

The leaders of the No campaign, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Warren Mundine have also been subjected to ongoing racial abuse and vilification, but they continue to speak from the heart and cite lived experiences.

Margaret, I am not criticising you personally.

I respect your right to say what you think.

I am simply presenting the other side to a few of your comments.

This is why freedom of speech is such a wonderful thing!

The Referendum booklet mentions many times how a Yes vote for the Voice would unite our country.

How can the Voice unite our country, when it is the very thing that is dividing it!

Kind regards,
Ann THOMPSON,
Coffs Harbour.