The Daily Advertiser letters: Beware of the disinformation tsunami as Voice to Parliament referendum day looms

Anyone who has taken the time to inform themselves (if you don't know, find out) understands it will be an advisory body with no power to veto, take your land, or change the date of Australia Day.

It will instead advise on matters highly relevant to our Indigenous communities, in particular in areas of health.

The 130 people at the launch of the 'No' campaign were surely well outnumbered by those on the Walk for the Voice.

The online disinformation about the Voice is alarming. More alarming is that the far right of politics has chosen to weaponise an attempt to start the repair of damage done to Indigenous communities over the years since colonisation.

Beware the disinformation tsunami.

Misinformation in a letter from Craig Couzens [September 27] will potentially mislead some referendum voters.

The Australian Constitution was not "deliberately written by our first PM, Deakin to start the White Australia Policy".

Andrew Barton was our first PM in 1901. Alfred Deakin was PM on three separate occasions beginning with 1903. Neither man "wrote the constitution".

More importantly, the so-called White Australia Policy, correctly called the Immigration Restriction Act, 1901, was a separate law. The clue is in the name: it was aimed at restricting non-British immigration and had nothing whatsoever to do with Indigenous Australians.

Thus, Mr Couzens' claim that "from that day on [i.e., somewhere in 1902] the abuse and neglect of First Nations people continued" is wrong and misleading.

Another weird claim is that transported convicts were much more "privileged than those back in Blighty because "permission by the governor" was needed before they were "flogged or hung (sic)"; presumably, those doing porridge back home could be flogged and 'hung' willy-nilly.

Allegedly, those "'privileges' were not offered to First Nations people." Well, yes they were: Phillip expressly outlawed any violence - at all - against the Indigenous population. Indeed, several (need I say white?) miscreants were tried and hanged for just that and no succeeding governor rescinded Phillip's law.

Mr. Couzens asks, rhetorically, in his last paragraph if "a change to the constitution... [should be] seen as a threat...?" There's a very short answer to that but I have sworn-off using the word for another month.

Another day closer to this fiasco of "the referendum" and despite numerous requests, Mr Albanese and his cohorts refuse to deliver a comprehensive assessment of what the terms (and ramifications) of the acceptance or rebuttal of this proposal will entail.

All they give us is a compendium of denials, obfuscations and outright lies.

They promise that the "Uluru Statement from the heart" will be followed to the letter - despite the fact that Mr Albanese insists that he hasn't read it in full.

However he insists that it is only one page, anyway, despite the protestations of the originators of the statement that there are 26 pages involved and they say the whole process will unite the country, not divide it and we should all be equal - Indigenous, migrants, offspring of convicts or free settlers. We are Australians.

However according to the statement, 4 per cent of the population will have power over virtually all decisions and some states are already implementing the conditions.

There is a basic principle involved.

We should never agree to sign up for a proposal which is not properly explained and understood.

The bigger voice?

I'm sure The Voice is very important to most first nations peoples. To me it's a bit of a distraction.

However "Liberal HQ" who spammed me this week with the opposition leaders words "Don't know? vote no" has just made this personal!

Encouraging me to remain ignorant and blindly reject anything I don't know about, is one hell of an insult to anyone's intelligence. Especially when the actual proposed changes to the constitution are so uncomplicated:

"In recognition of ... the First Peoples of Australia: there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; [which] may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to [these] peoples; the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the ... Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures."

That's it! That's all it is! A bit of recognition and an ear for our Indigenous people, which until now has been missing in our constitution. So what's all the fuss? I will be voting yes.

But personally, I'm more concerned that the fossil fuel industry already has a much bigger voice in our parliament that The Voice could ever gain.

Do you have something to get off your chest?

Send your letters to the editor to letters@dailyadvertiser.com.au, or simply click here to submit your letter.

You can also leave your comments directly on articles published on our website, dailyadvertiser.com.au. Simply scroll to the bottom of the story and let us know your thoughts on the issues of the day.