PM Albo, under the direction of the elites, has, at long last, released the wording of the Voice referendum it reads:
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia
There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
In this context it is worth looking at early coverage from the intellectual supporter of the Voice, such as these editorial comments from the Conversation.com
“We now have the wording for the referendum question that will be put to all Australians this year:
“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
It is then up to each of us to answer “yes” or “no”. But as Michelle Grattan writes, much is riding on the simple answers to this question, not least of which is our international standing if the referendum were to fail. Imagine how it would look to the rest of the world if Australians voted down a vote on giving Indigenous people a Voice on issues that affect them.
It would be a particularly bad, Grattan says, for a government that has recently announced the appointment of the inaugural ambassador for First Nations Peoples, Justin Mohamed. It would be a terrible start to his job if he had to explain the collapse of a high-profile referendum.
So what exactly does the referendum question, and proposed changes, say? Constitutional expert Anne Twomey unpacks both, pointing out that the change will be placed in a new section at the end of the Constitution – and the terminology used is careful.
Meanwhile, the Senate has passed the referendum machinery laws, which lay out the rules for the running of the vote later this year. Paul Kildea argues the new rules make some welcome changes to our outdated referendum laws, but there is still much room for improvement and some problems that are yet to be addressed.”
One can see the basic guilt argument that will be rolled out here, that it will lower our international standing to reject the Voice. Among whom? Communist China, who the US in a recent report, to be discussed in another article, is thought to be committing genocide against the Uyghurs?
The main point to be made though, is that the question is so open ended that it gives the elites a blank cheque to do what they want. All that is being said is the Voice will be set up, with no other details. How can any rational person, of whatever politics accept that? There are no fixed details of how the Voice will operate, but we can be sure that parliament will become nothing but a rubber stamp for its proposals.
We must defeat this!