AUSTRALIA
The question Australians will be asked to vote on at a date to be set between October and December is: “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?”
There are 5 very, very significant issues with this question
1) What is recognition? Recognition is an acknowledgment of the existence, validity, or legality of something Asking to enshrine in our Constitution a Voice - an Aboriginal-only chamber of government - with unspecified and unknown powers is significantly different from any concept of recognition. Every State's Constitution has "recognises" Aboriginals in their Constitutions. It didn't change the life of one Aboriginal. 99%+ of people didn't even know it is was there. [For further details see "The Voice - Recognition"]
A Voice as proposed is about creating a body bricked into our Constitution forever to provide representations with respect to any and all our Laws of Australia. It will have the potential to have powers to be consulted and make representations that are far greater than the UK House of Lords [For further discussion see - The Voice - the UK House of Lords] This is NOT Recognition - this is political power.
2) What are First Peoples? Australia was created on 1 January 1901 - the 3.8 million people that were British colonial citizens became citizens of Australia at that time. These are the First Peoples and they are NOT recognized in our Constitution, nor any of the people or races that have subsequently joined our great nation. Recognition of one race and not other races in the formation of our Nation is absurd but more specifically racist. The Consitution is the founding document of the nation providing a practical framework for governing Australia. It is not, nor should it be changed to a document about the history of the Continent. [For further details see The Voice - Recognition]
3) What is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander? There have been over 67 definitions over time of an Aboriginal and the definition appears to expand and contract depending on a Court's interpretation and no longer refers to a race or culture. It is estimated that over a third of those who identify as Aboriginal may not meet the Aboriginality test. Absurdly a person can identify today and not tomorrow based on very distant descent - and yet we are being asked to enshrine in our Constitution a body made up of people based on an ill-defined racially based group of people that are realistically racially majority Caucasian dominant. [For further details see The Voice - Identifying as an Aboriginal]
4) What is the Voice? When the Colonies voted for the Australian Constitution they knew how many members of the House of Representatives and the Senate and the powers and responsibilities that the Commonwealth government would have.
The Voice will be legislated and its powers will be determined by legislation. So we are unsure of what we are voting for until such time as it is legislated. The Constitution, agreed by the Nation, did not confer any rights on any race. The Voice will - it will be racist by design.
The Voice will be its own Chapter in the Constitution clearly representing its own chamber within our government with the proposal to make representations to all parts of government including the cabinet, ministers, public servants as well any other government body. This body will have more reach, power, and influence than the UK House of Lords. A non-Aboriginal person cannot stand for election or appointment, they cannot vote [if the candidate is not appointed] and it cannot be removed. The scope of its powers will ultimately be referred to the High Court for their determination [not the People] based which will be directly based on the very wide representations made during this referendum.
5) Do you understand what the Constitution is and the effect that any change will have on it? Has the government proposing this question clearly and comprehensively educated you to make an informed vote? If you don't know what you are voting for, don't vote for it. If you know what you are voting for, you will not vote for it. [For further discussion The Voice - Hiding behind the Vibe
Just on the basis of the Government's referendum question being asked the only possible logical answer to the question as framed could be NO. In 1967 Australians voted to remove RACSIM from the Constitution. The Aboriginal activist has now become so empowered that they have convinced the labor government to brick RACSIM into the Constitution.
You have asked the Australians to alter the Constitution but then the government will determine the words to be placed in the Constitution. It is our Constitution. Show me the exact words - not the draft words and I will decide based on exact words that CANNOT be changed if they are to be placed in my Constitution. Further, tell me where in the Constitution it will be placed and does it create another Chamber
Once the exact words that will be put into the Constitution have been presented to owners of the Constitution, the Australian citizens - show us the Solicitor General's advice as to the implication of changing our Constitution based on the exact wording
Once those words are finalized, known, published, and legally reviewed - then allow a Referendum debate so all Australians can be fully informed on both the YES and NO case.
Fully and equally fund both sides of the debate to ensure equality of representation of the facts.
Albo Generous offer.
Albo.
Albo. About reconciliation and consultation
The Uluru statement examined
The Constitution examined
Racism examined