OPINION
With less than a week to go till Australians vote on the critical “Indigenous Voice” referendum, the poll momentum continues to favour “No”.
I say “critical”, because the referendum will decide one indeed critical issue: will Australia become a genuinely institutionally racist state for the foreseeable future, or not?
According to leftist rag, The Age, though, that’s “disputed”.
A disputed claim over the Indigenous Voice is now the biggest factor in turning people against the proposal, with 22 per cent of voters saying they find it persuasive when critics argue it would divide Australians by race.
That it will is simply beyond reasonable dispute. Read the question:
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii. 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;
iii. 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.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander: a race. The only race that would be specifically recognised in the Constitution, with specific rights that no other race will have. That’s the very definition of “institutional racism”.
Anyone who denies it’s treating differently on the basis of race is a disingenuous sophist at best, outright liar at worst.
Former High Court chief justice Robert French countered the argument in recent days by noting the Voice was about recognising the first occupants of the land, not a separate race. Yes campaigner Noel Pearson has urged Australians to vote for unity by approving the Voice and has rejected the claim it is about race.
French is arguing that it’s not a spade, it’s a rectangular, hand-held earth-moving device.
And voters are seeing right through the lies and dodges.
The survey asked 3116 eligible voters their views on the main reasons given by the Yes and No camps to endorse or reject the Voice, as part of a broader survey from September 22 to October 4 that asked 4728 voters whether they would vote for or against the change. Respondents could choose one reason they found most persuasive on each side.
When voters were presented with key arguments from the No camp, 22 per cent chose the claim that the Voice would divide Australians by race, making this the single most powerful argument on either side.
Northern Territory senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the Coalition spokeswoman on Indigenous policy, has repeatedly warned that the Voice would divide the country by race – a claim the No side also spreads on social media.
Because it’s plainly, indisputably, dreadfully, true.
Another 15 per cent of voters thought the repeated claim that there was not enough detail about the Voice was the most persuasive No argument, while 8 per cent named the concern that not all Indigenous people wanted the Voice.
Again, both true.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday urged voters to reject “absurd debates” from the No campaign.
Except that they’re not “absurd”. Even Albanese has been unable to explain how the Voice will work, and he’s steadfastly refused to provide details on even such basic details as how representatives will be chosen, what happens if Parliament ignores the Voice’s demands, and so on.
Australians are also well aware of the last time an “Indigenous Voice” was instituted: the bloated, corrupt, ineffective ATSIC. They are justifiably suspicious that a “Voice” will be just more of the same troughing.
Forty-nine per cent of voters surveyed said it would create waste and inefficiencies and only 20 per cent said it would be reduced, with the rest undecided.
The Age
The key difference with ATSIC, though, is that at least we were able to shuck that particular, bloated, albatross from our necks by a simple act of Parliament.
If a referendum cements it into the Constitution, on the other hand, then we’re stuck with it for good.
No wonder the troughers of the Aboriginal industry are so keen for it.