Pros and cons to Voice to Parliament explained in Yes, No pamphlets
The first shots have been fired in the Voice to Parliament campaign with a two-page leaflet sent to thousands of households ranting against the advisory body, claiming it will be expensive, permanent, inefficient and ‘legally risky’.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton, who will be one of the No side’s main campaigners, sent the pamphlet to his constituents in Brisbane last week, expressing his concerns about the Voice.
Mr Dutton claimed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander constitutional advisory body – which could submit comments to the government of the day on issues affecting First Nations people – is “legally risky” with a potentially “unrestricted” scope.
The Liberal party has expressed concern about future challenges by the Supreme Court of the interpretation of the advisory body’s remit, especially given that it will have the constitutional right to lodge protests with ‘all areas of executive government’.
‘Each word can be open to interpretation. By enshrining the vote in the constitution, it is open to legal challenge and interpretation by the Supreme Court. Legal experts disagree and are unsure how a Supreme Court will interpret such a constitutional amendment. This opens a legal can of worms,’ Mr Dutton said.
“The Voice model proposed by Labour, is not just for parliament, but for all areas of executive government. This gives it essentially unlimited scope – from The Reserve Bank to Centrelink.”
The government has not specified specific limits on what the body can and cannot do, although Home Affairs Minister Linda Burney has claimed it would not focus on things like changing the date of Australia Day.
Meanwhile, the official Yes campaign – Yes23 – fired back on Friday by distributing leaflets of its own in Redfern, in central Sydney.
Those flyers “sort fact from fiction,” doubling down on an argument that says it’s “nonsensical” to work out exact details from The Voice before a referendum.
The opposition leader sent the leaflet to households in his electorate of Dickson in Brisbane’s suburbs as the campaign heats up for both parties ahead of the referendum later this year
Mr Dutton’s brochure asks residents to consider why Labor is ‘asking Australians to vote without knowing exactly how the vote would work’
The No brochure
Mr Dutton’s brochure asks residents to think about why Labor is ‘asking Australians to vote without knowing exactly how the vote would work’.
“Some Voice activists say this will be a first step towards reparations and other radical changes.”
In bold, highlighted in yellow, the opposition’s main message that they hope voters will take with them is: ‘Don’t know? Vote no.’
Mr Dutton also noted that a vote written into the Constitution will not be ‘undone’ and will have lasting effects.
Peter Dutton has expressed concerns about the Voice to Parliament, describing it as ‘legally risky’
He is concerned that potential Supreme Court indictments could open a “legal can of worms” and that a group of advisers who were not democratically elected would advise the government on matters as far reaching as the Reserve Bank, Centrelink and submarines.
“Once a Supreme Court gives an interpretation, parliament cannot override it. We are left with negative consequences,’ says the brochure.
The Liberal Party is not opposed to a policy that would give regional and disadvantaged voices “clearly defined powers” by parliament to help close the gap.
‘All fair Australians want to help Indigenous Australians in disadvantaged communities improve their lives,’ says Mr Dutton’s pamphlet.
Their concerns stem from the decision to constitutionally establish such a body.
And some figures – both inside and outside the Liberal Party – argue that a centralized vote in parliament could actually harm regional and remote communities.
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price told Daily Mail Australia she is concerned that well-meaning politicians may not know the weight of their words when referring to an advisory body that is “culturally informed”.
“There’s no real detail about what being culturally informed actually looks like,” warns Ms. Nampijinpa Price.
‘There are elements in traditional culture that do not recognize equality between men and women. When it comes to decision-making, we often talk about a patriarchal society here.’
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has assured the public that this is a ‘modest’ request that will have no impact on the lives of most Australians, but will make a world of difference to the country’s most vulnerable.
When Linda Burney, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, insisted that matters as close to home for Aborigines as Australia Day should not fall within the remit of The Voice, Ms Nampijinpa Price had her doubts.
“She can’t say that,” said Ms. Nampijinpa Price.
“Everything is in play. Unless there is a specific list of no-go areas pre-established by parliament, nothing is off the table at the moment.”
The Yes brochure
The official campaign in support of a Voice to Parliament claims it is ‘nonsensical’ to release details about the advisory body until it has been voted on in a referendum.
Exact details of the scope of the Indigenous body and how it will be selected have yet to be worked out, in what has become a major critique of the proposal, which every Australian adult will vote on by the end of the year.
“There is no point in doing the detailed consultation until we have the support of the Australian people to change the constitution,” states the official FAQ page for Yes23.
“The first step in the process is to get support from the Australian public to recognize First Nations knowledge in the Constitution.
The official campaign in support of a vote to parliament claims it ‘doesn’t make sense’ to release details about the advisory body until it is voted on in a referendum
The Yes campaign urged supporters to have meaningful conversations with their friends, family and communities about why constitutional recognition matters
“The second step involves a detailed consultation process to determine how the Voice to Parliament will work.”
The Yes campaign pamphlet admits that it can be “difficult to know who or what to believe” given the flurry of stories in the media about the Voice.
The Yes campaign urged supporters to have meaningful conversations with their friends, family and communities about why constitutional recognition matters.
“By enshrining recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution through a Voice to Parliament, we ensure that no government can change, dismantle or remove recognition of the Voice.”
These brochures are not the official yes and no pamphlets that will be agreed upon by politicians on both sides of the debate and sent to all households across the country.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has assured the public that this is a ‘modest’ request that will have no impact on the lives of most Australians, but will make a world of difference to the country’s most vulnerable.
He said Australians will have a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to improve the lives of First Nations people in the referendum, which will be held between October and December.
“Where’s the downside here?” he asked. “What are people risking here? From my perspective, this is all positive.’
Country Liberal Party Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and 22 Indigenous community leaders at a press conference at Parliament House. Ms Nampijinpa Price said ‘we are heading for this referendum and real issues are being sidelined’