Bass Coast Post
  • Home
    • Recent articles
  • Federal Election 2025
  • News
    • Point of view
    • View from the chamber
  • Writers
    • Anne Davie
    • Anne Heath Mennell
    • Bob Middleton
    • Carolyn Landon
    • Catherine Watson
    • Christine Grayden
    • Dick Wettenhall
    • Ed Thexton
    • Etsuko Yasunaga
    • Frank Coldebella
    • Gayle Marien
    • Geoff Ellis
    • Gill Heal
    • Harry Freeman
    • Ian Burns
    • Joan Woods
    • John Coldebella
    • Julie Paterson
    • Julie Statkus
    • Kit Sleeman
    • Laura Brearley >
      • Coastal Connections
    • Lauren Burns
    • Liane Arno
    • Linda Cuttriss
    • Linda Gordon
    • Lisa Schonberg
    • Liz Low
    • Marian Quigley
    • Mark Robertson
    • Mary Whelan
    • Meryl Brown Tobin
    • Michael Whelan
    • Mikhaela Barlow
    • Miriam Strickland
    • Natasha Williams-Novak
    • Neil Daly
    • Patsy Hunt
    • Pauline Wilkinson
    • Richard Kemp
    • Sally McNiece
    • Terri Allen
    • Tim Shannon
  • Features
    • Features 2024
    • Features 2023
    • Features 2022
    • Features 2021
    • Features 2020
    • Features 2019
    • Features 2018
    • Features 2017
    • Features 2016
    • Features 2015
    • Features 2014
    • Features 2013
    • Features 2012
  • Arts
  • Local history
  • Environment
  • Nature notes
    • Nature notes
  • A cook's journal
  • Community
    • Diary
    • Courses
    • Groups
    • Stories
  • Contact us

Prabha Kutty

11/9/2023

0 Comments

 
Based on my experience at a ‘community conversation’ with Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, my advice to Australians who were going to vote YES and are now undecided is to fact check the inconsistencies in the NO campaign before making a final decision.
It’s risky and there is no issue beyond its reach. 
The referendum information makes it clear that it is an advisory body and only on matters affecting the indigenous community. There is no obligation on the government to accept or act on that advice. So how is this risky?
 
There are no details.  Our constitution does not provide any detail on how parliament should operate.  It makes no mention of a Prime Minster or Cabinet.  The details are legislated by parliament.  Shouldn’t we trust our parliamentary representatives to do the same for the Voice?
 
It risks legal challenges and delays. 
There is no ‘litigation proof’ legislation.  All legislation on the statute books is subject to litigation.  What makes the Voice legislation riskier?
 
It will be permanent. 
This is patently untrue. Section 127 of the Constitution was cancelled after the 1967 referendum.  So too can the Voice if it meets the criteria for change. 
 
It will divide us.  
People vote differently on some issues without animosity and forget those differences on other matters.  Why would the Voice divide us?
 
All the Voice does is restore some dignity and respect to a dispossessed people by guaranteeing in the constitution that the indigenous voice will be heard. 
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Your voice

    We want to hear your views.
    * Have you discussed the Voice with friends/family/workmates? * Have you changed your mind?
    * Have you tried to persuade anyone?
    * Has anyone tried to persuade you?
    * Has anyone inspired you?
    * What do you think of the process?
    * What should happen if the Voice doesn't get up in the referendum?

    Maximum 200 words. Artworks, cartoons, songs and videos are also welcome.
    ​
    Please include a headshot. 
     
    Email submissions to [email protected].