Voice ‘No’ campaign pamphlet comes under fire over happy, smiling photos

A pamphlet calling on Australians to vote no to the Indigenous vote in parliament uses stock photos of Aboriginal families rather than real people.

The Fair Australia brochure is 15 pages long and offers a detailed 10-step analysis that summarizes the campaign’s reasons for opposing the Voice.

One of the group’s main concerns is that the vote “will be divisive, costly and not close the gap.”

A source associated with the Yes campaign noted that the two photos of people used in the pamphlet are both stock photos taken from the internet.

They expressed concern that the arguments in the pamphlet do not necessarily reflect the views of the people in the photos.

“It’s a fake no,” the source said. “They’re not honest, dinkum. Supporters google while you pretend to represent real Australians.’

Pamphlet calling on Australians to vote no to Indigenous vote in parliament uses stock photos of Aboriginal families rather than real people

A spokesperson for Fair Australia hit back, arguing that the images were ‘either licensed from commercial image agencies or taken by the campaign and published with the appropriate permissions’.

The No campaign group said a separate initiative, Not My Voice, speaks to indigenous No voters.

Nyunggai Warren Mundine, a former Labor and Liberal politician and fierce critic of the Voice who has become one of the prominent faces of the No campaign, said in the initiative that he “never needed a separate Voice based on my skin color ‘.

He argues that the ‘divisive Voice to Parliament is a project of elite inner-city indigenous activists’.

“They are the same people who have been on government councils and committees for decades and now want to be in the constitution,” said Mundine. “They don’t speak for me and they don’t speak for many other Aboriginal people.”

The pamphlet in question argues that ‘there is nothing modest about amending the constitution’.

“We are not going to help our indigenous family by breaking them up. We have to do it together. As Australians. One and free,” the pamphlet reads.

It comes just a day after a conservative constitutional lawyer who supports The Voice expressed concern that he had been quoted in the official No essay – which is separate from the Fair Australia campaign.

Professor Greg Craven, a legal academic, described the government’s original draft as “fatally flawed” before changing his mind and opting to support the proposal.

“I think it’s fatally flawed because what it does is preserve the full range of assessment of executive action,” Professor Craven said in March.

This means the Voice can comment on anything from submarines to parking fines. We will have regular court interventions.’

An insider noted that the two photos of people used in the pamphlet are both stock photos taken from the internet

While Professor Craven initially objected to the plan to give The Voice the space to advise the government and parliament, he has supported the proposal since its final formulation.

“I am beside myself with anger. I have never been in worse company,” he said of the No campaign The Australian.

It’s just misleading to put those words effectively without any acknowledgment that I’ve consistently said I will support them and campaign for the vote.

“It is perfectly clear to everyone in this debate, including the No case and for that matter the opposition, that I am unrelentingly committed to the Voice and will campaign for it.”

“It’s a fake no,” the source said. “They’re not honest, dinkum. Supporters google while pretending to represent real Australians

The pamphlet acknowledges Professor Craven’s support of the vote.

Meanwhile, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price took out the official Yes essay, arguing that it lacked substance and was more of the same.

She has no doubt that ‘the Australian people see this for what it is: a dog’s breakfast’.

On Tuesday, the official essays calling for a yes and no vote were released by the Australian Electoral Commission. These essays will be turned into pamphlets and delivered to every Australian household ahead of the referendum later this year.

The yes essay

Mr Albanese says through the Yes essay that a vote will ‘provide better value for money’.

The Yes essay says, “Governments on both sides have invested billions in programs that have failed to solve problems or reach communities.

‘A Voice helps us listen to the local population and save money. We’re all better off if governments don’t waste taxpayers’ money on things that don’t work.’

The Yes pamphlet doubles down on the key areas of reform that Secretary Linda Burney listed on Indigenous affairs last month, arguing that a vote would come in health, education, employment and housing.

“We can vote Yes to be part of a great unifying moment that will bring about a brighter future. We can vote Yes to: Do ​​the right thing by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

‘Give people a say in matters that concern them. Make a practical difference that improves lives,” reads the Yes pamphlet.

It offers eight reasons to vote yes, arguing that the idea “came directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people” will make people have better lives and bring our country together

It offers eight reasons to vote Yes, arguing that the idea “coming directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people” will help people have better lives and bring our country together.

The Yes essay says the Voice committee will be made up of Indigenous Australians “from every state and territory,” who will serve as representatives of their regions and remote communities.

These representatives will be elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their area and serve “for a fixed term” – yet to be announced.

Campaigners and government officials say a voice is needed to help combat “major challenges Aboriginal people face, such as a life expectancy eight years shorter than that of non-Indigenous peoples, worsening rates of morbidity and infant mortality, a suicide rate that is two times as high and fewer opportunities for education. and training’.

The top eight reasons for voting yes, as outlined in the essay Yes, are:

• This idea came directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
• Constitutional recognition for concrete results
• Help people have a better life
• Bring our country together
• Save money
• Now is the time
• Practical advice that works
• Making government work better

You can read the essay Yes, here

Campaigners and government officials say a voice is needed to help fight ‘major challenges Aboriginal people face’

The no essay

The No campaign delivered one key message throughout much of the public debate about a Voice to Parliament: that it would be risky, divisive and permanent.

This same theme can be followed through the official essay for the No case, released Tuesday.

“This is a very important decision,” the essay reads.

Unfortunately, many Australians’ legitimate questions and concerns have been dismissed. Fortunately, this referendum is not decided by politicians, companies or celebrities. It will be decided by every Australian. It affects every Australian.

“If you don’t know, vote no.”

The No campaign delivered one key message throughout much of the public debate about a Voice to Parliament: that it would be risky, divisive and permanent

The No essay argues that there are better ways to help underprivileged communities.

There are also concerns that a Voice to Parliament could become ‘just another bureaucracy’, replicating the work of other government-funded programmes.

This year the government has allocated $4.3 billion to the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has 1,400 employees. The agency’s website and business plan state: “We… ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.” There is no suggestion that this vote will replace any of these. It will operate as one bureaucracy among many,” the essay says.

Ms. Nampijinpa Price and the politicians who wrote the No essay set out 10 important reasons for voting No:

• This vote is legally risky
• There are no specifics
• It divides us
• It will not help Indigenous Australians
• No problem is beyond his reach
• It risks delays and failures
• It opens the door for activists
• It will be costly and bureaucratic
• This vote will be permanent
• There are better ways to move forward

You can read the essay No, here