The Voice Referendum - an Exercise in Deception, page-2 - HotCopper | ASX Share Prices, Stock Market & Share Trading Forum

Originally posted by frasier: ↑

Anthony Albanese will put a “simple” yes-or-no question to a referendum to create an Indigenous voice in the Constitution to make recommendations on Aboriginal issues to parliament but with politicians retaining the power to define its functions.
At the Garma Festival on Saturday, the Prime Minister will for the first time outline how the Constitution should be changed to accommodate a voice – a key part of the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart – amid a debate over whether the final design of the body should be unveiled before a referendum.
Mr Albanese will also suggest the wording of a referendum question to be put to the public, calling the draft proposal the “next step in the discussion about constitutional change”.

“We should consider asking our fellow Australians something as simple as: Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice?” Mr Albanese will say.
“A straightforward proposition. A simple principle.
Anthony Albanese’s Indigenous voice: simple yes or no (theaustralian.com.au)

==========================================================================

Lawyer, Mark Leibler [Principal at Arnold, Bloch, Leibler] accidentally belled the cat in an opinion piece in The Australian a week ago.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/want-a-voice-itshould-be-a-simple-yes-or-no/news-story/a70fa5f3df50c056cfde1a738c947bfb

Liebler is an unabashed supporter of "The Voice". His argument, basically, was multi pronged. First, he said lessons should be learned from the 1999 Republic referendum which got bogged down in detail of a model. The debate became about the model, not the principle. So, Liebler says - don't give the punters any details!

Second, he says that so much work has been done on "The Voice" by various advisory bodies over the past 5 years, that the plebs shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about it - all the hard work has been done.

Third, he says that the more complexity and detail there is in the question and proposal, the higher the likelihood of a "No" vote; so he argues for the "Mushroom approach" to keep voters in the dark. A simple message for simple people is Leibler's theme.

=============================================================================
I am glad Each Way has framed the question this way. A properly funded "No" case will drive a truck through the flimsy arguments in favour.

- If you don't understand it, don't vote for it.

- In 1967 we voted to remove race from the Constitution; why, in 2023 would we want to restore it and create a form of apartheid?

- Indigenous people already have a voice; it's called "a vote".

Expand

Was a big fat no from me on principle of not enshrining racism but it should be an even bigger no if we don't know what we are actually getting if we vote yes.