OK to Vote ‘No’? Don’t Bet On It

With the proclamation by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that he will endeavour to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart, via a referendum in his first term of office, the question arises if it will be deemed morally, ethically or politically acceptable for a voter to cast a ballot in the negative? The evidence of 2017’s same-sex marriage debate suggests it will not, with ‘No’ advocates apt to be marginalised by the media and shunned by Google’s search-engine algorithm.

The Uluru Statement calls for the establishment of an agency or entity within the Parliament, whereby people identifying as Aboriginal will have a “voice”.  At present it is completely vague as to what this voice will look like and how it will operate, but presumably it represents something above and beyond the basic Australian right of free-speech and representative democracy which all Australians, regardless of race and/or colour, hold equally.

The Uluru Statement implies that the Voice is much more than an opportunity for Aboriginal people to stand on a soap-box and say what’s on their collective minds. Rather, the Voice would be part of the mechanism of Parliamentary decision-making, but why? NITV, SBS and ABC networks already provide a platform for Aboriginal people to speak. If it is to be more than a gesture or publicity stunt, the Voice, if it becomes law, must exert a significant and tangible effect on the legislative function of the federal Parliament– exactly what is intended.

The Uluru Statement has had a profound effect on the Left, where it has been embraced with a near-religious reverence.  Albanese has already got the Yes campaign off to a very good start with empathetic words on the subject often spoken.  Of course, the more intellectual Left has long educated us regarding the evils of the European and Anglo-Saxon — how they used their Cartesian, materialist split-mind to force domination over Mother Nature and her life-affirming holistic indigenous peoples.  And now the Aboriginal people are speaking directly from their heart to the hearts of those caring and progressive peoples, such as Albo, who seem as affected by the Uluru Statement as if they had been listening to Jesus give his Sermon on the Mount!  As surely as the sun rising tomorrow, anyone venturing a rational argument against the Voice will be received with the profound distaste and insults the Left directs at those who beg to differ from its agenda.

It is instructive to look at the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, held between September 12 and November 7, 2017, which led to the Parliament passing the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act on December 7 of that same year.  Prior to the postal survey, there was great alarm raised in the mainstream media that there would be a debate of any kind as to whether the definition of marriage in the Constitution should be changed, with anguished cries that any such exchange of conflicting views would only serve as a legal forum for homophobic hate-speech to be freely broadcast.  Media outlets such as the ABC gave voice to the concerns that such speech against same-sex marriage would likely drive vulnerable people to suicide!  There were fervid declarations there should be no referendum, and that the Parliament should simply go ahead and pass the legislation off its own bat. Other voices declared the issue to be a “no-brainer”, stating in emphatic terms the dictum: “When two people love each other, it is only natural that they should be allowed to get married”. 

Alas, with few exceptions, only the “Yes” case and its advocates were being broadcast!  Google was no better. When I searched for information, no matter how I worded the query, almost all that turned up was results for the “Yes” argument. From memory, the first two or three pages of results were exclusively pro same-sex marriage. Curiosity incited by the selective results, I then searched for an answer as to why I was seeing only “Yes” results. The answer, as The Australian reported (paywalled), was  that Google tweaked its algorithm to give “Yes” arguments overwhelming precedence. So, not only was there a mainstream media bias towards same-sex marriages, but social media and the internet platforms were also filtering access to information through a mesh of bias.  I think the only thing I saw that wasn’t “Yes” during the so-called debate, was a photo of Tony Abbott holding up a sign saying something to the effect of “It’s OK to say ‘NO’.”


GIVEN the sense of fait accompli that prevailed prior to the same-sex plebiscite, should we not expect a similar campaign of bias across the mainstream media and internet platforms as the Voice is considered?  Surely any “No” opinion will be perceived and reported as being, at best, misinformed or misguided, but it may well be likely that a “No” opinion will be reported as motivated by racism, hate speech and a white supremacist, colonialist mindset, etc.  The emotional climate certain to prevail will see little room for civil and rational arguments to counter the chorus of supporters demanding that the long-suffering Aboriginal heart must be heard without the distraction of alleged racist tropes.

Why bother with the expense of a referendum when Albo’s mandate for action can simply and quickly be accomplished now, within the Parliament, by legislative fiat? That was, remember, the means by which ATSIC was established and that proved quite handy when it turned out to be a corruption-ridden debacle. Unlike the proposed Voice, which would enjoy the protection and permanence of constitutional enshrinement, bringing down the curtain on ATSIC was a piece of cake.

We are facing the possibility of constitutional change that would have been unthinkable to the founders of the Commonwealth of Australia. They sought a voluntary federation of the separate Australian colonies that would create an entity of national character for the inclusive benefit of all. To now contemplate a Constitution that would enshrine racial distinctions, is anathema to the founders’ principle that has created, arguably, one of best nations in the world.  That some sectors of the Australian population have not achieved as much or benefited as much as others is not a failure of the Constitution or the Parliament, and so no change is necessary or likely to be beneficial.

25 thoughts on “OK to Vote ‘No’? Don’t Bet On It

  • rosross says:

    All depressingly true which is why we must rely on the innate common sense of enough Australians to reject it and a sense of exhaustion with Government bullying and propaganda.

  • Michael says:

    The case for a Constitutionally enshrined voice is vague, emotional, and shame-based. The case against is clear, reasoned, and principled.

  • Botswana O'Hooligan says:

    As Hanrahan opined, we will al be “rooned” for if the way the public in general bowed and kowtowed to the mad dictates of our supposed leaders about covid is any guide, the “yes” vote will be a lay down misère. We all have a voice in the Parliament through our elected members, all of us be we of any colour or persuasion under the sun. Vote no for the sake of our country.

  • Tony Tea says:

    At least the SSM pleb. enshrined equality (of sorts). The Voice ref. is looking to enshrine inequality.

  • Biggles says:

    As the Romans put it, Sermo liber vita ipsa. Free speech is life itself.

  • Ceres says:

    Wish I had confidence in the “innate common sense of enough Australians” Rosross but after covid hysteria, I don’t.
    The “caring” voters would hate to be called “racist”. However if never ending financial reparation from taxpayers going to 3% of those identifying as aborigines is the likely end result, that might resonate with the masses and their hip pockets to make them wake up to the appalling discrimination/apartheid that will eventuate. That is if that message can be widely conveyed .

  • Lawrie Ayres says:

    Several questions I have.

    (1) Torres Strait Islanders are not First Nations, longest continuous or anything else. They are very much late comers having been given the choice of Australia or New Guinea and deciding we had more money so they became Australians.

    (2) Who is an Aborigine? First Nation people in North America must have one grandparent who is full blood. Here we have Bruce Pascoe. Does he get to vote?

    This is just another effort by the communists to drive a wedge into our country. They don’t care about the well being of Aborigines only using them as pawns to create division. 31 billion not enough? That works out as $50000 for every man , woman and child who says they are Aborigines.

    As for the fact that no MSM outlet will allow a No voice it falls to us and every similar blog to spread the word, to cast doubts, to remind all of what happened in South Africa. How a powerful, well run country has become just another third world hell hole when Whitey was sent to Coventry as is the aim of the militant blacks here.

  • ianl says:

    >” … it (ATSIC) turned out to be a corruption-ridden debacle.”< [Quote from the above essay].

    That is the very piece of information that will not be (nor has been) published with sufficient clarity for most people to understand that the point of enshrining the gimme in the Constitution is to allow rorts to proceed unhindered. Legislating outside the Constitution removes cover.

    What a state of mediocrity this country has devolved into.

  • Katzenjammer says:

    It needs a brief phrase that encapsulates something viewed as unfair or detrimental about it. We could stress the idea that Aboriginals will get two votes. That’s a brief catch-phrase that can fit on a car bumper sticker, and perhaps make some re-think the consequences.

    “Aboriginals will get two votes”

  • Daffy says:

    The great irony here is a ‘voice’ is sought for a culture that left to itself has produced starvation, poverty, inebriation and pervasive abuse of women and children. What sort of voice will that produce?
    Far better that all Australians are equally exposed to the democratic process that is colour, ethnicity and interest blind; already we’ve seen Aboriginal Australians (or part-aboriginal) elected to parliament in disproportionate numbers. But so be it, it was a fair race and they got in. That’s how democracy works. Rig the books, and it is no longer democracy.

  • ArthurB says:

    Based on what happened with the referendum on same-sex marriage, I am sure that the Yes vote will be supported by the ABC, most journalists, and many prominent business people.

    I note that the supporters of the Voice have been saying ‘Just vote Yes, and leave it to Parliament to draft the legislation’, in other words, the people of Australia are being asked to sign a blank cheque.

    As a sample of what lies ahead if the Voice is enshrined in the Constitution, you might like to read an article in the West Australian of last Tuesday (page 13). The writer of the article is one Emma, described as ‘a legal academic’, and a Nyiyaparli-Yamatji-Nyungar woman from Geraldton. The sub-heading of the article is ‘Traditional owners must be included in licensing decisions’, and most of it is about the development of a national water commission. Emma quotes the Prime Minister as saying that the commission will ‘ensure First Nations knowledge and perspectives are taken into account in its work’. Furthermore, Emma says, ‘The limitations in native title law for rights to water are unacceptable and need to be addressed in any future water law regimes’.

    Emma goes on to say that ‘there needs to be procedural fairness for traditional owners in water-licensing decisions’, and that traditional owners should have the right to appeal against water-licensing decisions. Also: ‘Will Indigenous knowledge be included to sustainably manage water resources?’

    I would be grateful if Emma could describe this Indigenous knowledge, and where it comes from. Perhaps she could ask Professor Bruce Pascoe for his advice.

    If you listen to those who are pushing for a Voice, you get the impression that it will be limited to giving advice to Parliament on matters that relate to Aborigines. If Emma’s article is any guide, the Voice will be used to interfere in all legislation that comes before Parliament. To paraphrase Orwell, if the Voice is imposed on the people of Australia, all Australians will be equal, but Aborigines will be more equal than anyone else.

  • Solo says:

    People are stupid and uninformed, broadly. Look at our politicians, people voted for them to be there.

    Look at all the other things people are quite happy to go along with, to the point they also demand others to follow suit or face legal action or gaol time.

    I’ve written off Australia’s “common sense” a long time ago. Yes will be seen as the moral choice in a land that has abandoned morals.

  • Farnswort says:

    A timely piece – thanks Chris.

    I was entirely unaware of Google’s manipulations during the 2017’s same-sex marriage plebiscite. This is a sinister and shocking intrusion into Australian politics by a giant, foreign-owned corporation.

    In terms of the Voice proposal, the ABC is already beating the drum to create a racially-biased and discriminatory constitution. An open and honest debate simply won’t be tolerated by the national broadcaster. Shame on the useless Liberals from the Howard era onwards for their failure to clean up the ABC.

  • Farnswort says:

    Solo: “Yes will be seen as the moral choice in a land that has abandoned morals.”

    Manning Clark was wrong about many things but there is one thing he wrote that stuck in my head:

    “Australians must decide for themselves whether this was the land of the dreaming, the land of the Holy Spirit, the New Britannia, the Millennial Eden, or the new demesne for Mammon to infest.”

    I would suggest that, morally, we are now well on our way to becoming the new demesne for Mammon to infest.

  • cbattle1 says:

    Farnsworth: You are right about the Liberals from Howard onwards; at best you could say they were naive about the power and influence of the ABC, but naivety in politics is a fatal error!

  • Brian Boru says:

    I have just noticed that my receipt from Coles has the acknowledge custodians and respect elders past, present and emerging mantra.
    That means that Coles respects rapists and pedophiles (amongst other things).
    A reason not to shop there in future.

  • Brian Boru says:

    Here is an elder, the likes of whom Coles respects.
    “Robert Charles Bropho was a Ballardong Noongar Australian Aboriginal, rights activist, and convicted serial child sex offender from Perth, Western Australia. Bropho was leader of the Swan Valley Nyungah Community settlement for over 40 years until its closure in 2003. Conviction(s): Five charges of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 13 years.” Wikipedia

  • Farnswort says:

    If Coles management really feels so strongly about this issue, it should donate all its land holdings and assets to the relevant native title holders.

  • Laurence says:

    Mr. Albanese is not leading the Australian people, he is coercing more than half of the voting population to be shamed into voting yes to a referendum no knows what it actually entails. I agree with the author here, that it is going the same way as the SSM debate. A No vote or to even question the wisdom of a Yes vote equals racism. Mr.Albaneses, whatever happened to compromise.

  • Farnswort says:

    Observe how the Left in this country boldly prosecutes its cultural agenda when in office. Contrast this to the impotent Coalition which sat on its hands for nearly a decade while in power.

  • Rob H says:

    The Australian Constitution is a joke. The are no individual rights to speech, religion, property, life or liberty. Such limits to Government that my exist under Common Law are quickly dispensed with by Courts all too willing to “read in” limits to individual rights. The actions of Governments and bureaucrats since Covid are only the most recent and egregious.
    Shame on us, we will get a lot more of this. See the pending “Australian digital ID”.

  • Carlos says:

    The Voice or ATSIC 2.0

    Behind every great lie, hides a truth. Whist it is indisputable that the lives of Aboriginal people in the remote communities are short, nasty, brutish and violent, the lie is that this is an (unintended) effect of colonialism not just the nature of Aboriginals per se.

    In Nicholas Wade’s book, ‘A Troublesome Inheritance,’ he posits that culture is an effect of genetics. Put simply, the reversion to tribal politics, nepotism and violence seen in Zimbabwe and South Africa is simply the effect of the genetic predisposition of the people expressing itself (in the absence of Europeans).

    With that in mind, the tendency to exogamy in todays activist Aborigines class has in effect been their ticket out of the remote communities mentioned earlier. Almost without exception, most high profile activists ‘identifying’ as indigenous, are themselves the result of several generations marrying/partnering with people outside ‘mob’. Indeed they themselves generally marry outside ‘mob’.

    Interesting indeed that these ‘exagomists’ are the ones who will benefit handsomely from the rivers of gold that the Voice represents, whilst the situation for the Aboriginals in remote communities will change not one jot.

  • melb says:

    RobH. Whilst you may unfortunately be right about Courts all too willing to limit individual rights I do not see it that way and neither did Justice Toohey. He said; in a speech delivered in Darwin in October 1992,
    “Where the people of Australia, in adopting a constitution, conferred power [on the] Commonwealth Parliament, it is to be presumed that they did not intend that those grants of power extend to invasion of fundamental common law liberties – a presumption only rebuttable by express authorisation in the constitutional document.” J Toohey, ‘A Government of Laws, and Not of Men’ (1993) 4 PLR 158, 170 (Public Law Review)

  • lolpg says:

    We need to do more than post comments, there is plently of documentries (for the lack of a better word) pushing the activites and Ideologst point of view. How do we get a documentry pushing the real truth on the likes of SBS and others.

  • Peejay says:

    We need to lobby our local Federal Parliament member to ask in Question Time does the Government have a budget for arguing the YES and NO cases in the Voice Referendum? If so how much for each.

    Another Q could be will the Government ensure that sufficient detail of what people are being asked to vote on is given prior to the Referendum.

    It seems to me that there should be something in the Constitution that stops a Referendum from going ahead if the Q being voted on is not properly explained to allow a “reasonable” person to make an in formed choice.. Maybe RobH is right, the Constitution is a joke.

    I hope that if the (I don’t even want to think about it) YES vote got up that there would be some non WOKE Barristers or QCs of eminence who could mount a challenge to the validity of such a vote. Fingers crossed!

Leave a Reply