The Voice: The Argument for No from Uncertainty By James Reed

I have been out in Melbourne campaigning for the No side of the referendum. In the past I campaigned for anti-immigration groups and the going was often hard. But, this time I am seeing that most people do not even understand the basics of  Yes. About an hour ago I spoke to a woman who is Black from America, who said that she was voting Yes, because she was Black and thus naturally had to vote for Aboriginal people. I told her that I respected her tribalism, but she should consider that the leaders of the No side are Aboriginal too. She was amazed and did not believe me, so she checked the Fair website and saw Senator Price. At that point she was open to debate, and finally admitted that there were so many uncertainties, and things she was not told, that she would have to vote No. This was someone who supported reparations in America for Black, and Black Lives matter! Below is a good summary of the same argument that people can print off this week, memorise and use to convince the unconverted.

Under conditions of uncertainty, and unreliable information, the correct decision is to minimise regret, and a No vote does that even if one supported some aspects of the Voice. I have seen this week people undecided be converted, and I am not a genius or expert debater. Talk to everyone you meet now and put the basic case: we don’t know, so vote No!

https://lettersfromaustralia.substack.com/p/australia-to-vote-on-a-constitutional

“Forget “In recognition of” - you don’t create new organs of government to recognise people. That’s just spin.

This creates a new government body at i), ii) and iii).

The Voice, according to the actual words, would be an organ of unknown powers, that may advise the government on indigenous affairs (but doesn’t have to).

We don’t know what its composition, functions, powers and procedures will be, because Parliament will make those laws later.

Perhaps Parliament will pass a law enabling The Voice to make regulations of its own. We don’t know.

It will advise the elected Parliament and, importantly, the unelected executive, which is the powerful departments and career bureaucrats that make up Permanent Canberra.

The Voice will be selected, not elected - so there is no guarantee it will give ordinary indigenous people any say in anything.

I am sure you can imagine exactly the type of person the government will select, and that is who will speak with The Voice.

Governments will select people whose views they like. That way they can do whatever they want while pretending to listen, even when ordinary indigenous people oppose them.

People who oppose the government won’t be The Voice.

In a nutshell, this referendum sets up a permanent organ of the state, cloaked by race, that Australians can’t vote for, but will pay for. It will have a lot of power in Canberra, and may not actually speak for indigenous people at all.

And all the rules come later.

The Rule of Law Education Centre notes that Australians should all be equal not just before the law but also before the makers of the law and those who apply the law.

Aboriginal people, like everyone else, are divided. Many don’t like the way this referendum has used them to stir up racial division, dragging old grievances out for political gain.

They have been used like wrapping paper on a box.

Ordinary people are, sadly, fooled by the wrapping and think this is about Aboriginal people. They are called racist if they want ‘no’, but it’s racist if they want ‘yes’. Most people just want it over.

For the people tricked into thinking it’s got anything to do with Aboriginal recognition, it all boils down to this: do you think there is such a thing as “good racism” - yes or no?

If you think “good racism” evens the score for past injustice and watch the ABC, then you’ll probably vote “Yes”.

If you think racism is always wrong, fuels resentment and creates more racism, then you will vote “No”.

Proud Aboriginal man and leading “No” campaigner Nyunggai Warren Mundine told the National Press Club on September 26 that he did not want racist “for your own good” constitutional segregation of Aboriginal people brought back.”