WE have a date. On October 14, Australians will be asked to vote either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on enshrining an Indigenous voice into the Constitution.
“To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice,” the question reads.
“Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
It’s the question that has dominated the country’s collective conscience since Prime Minister Anthony Albanese nailed his colours to it during his victory speech following last year’s Federal election.
Almost instantaneously that statement drew battlelines, separating the country into a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ camp.
Intended to provide Australia’s First Nations population with better access to an institution that has largely ignored them throughout history, it’s instead created some pretty vitriolic divisiveness.
Part of that has stemmed from the fact that the purpose and benefits of the amendment has not been properly communicated.
And of course, that confusion and doubt has provided those who are opposed with the perfect ammunition to flip the conversation.
“If you don’t know, vote no” has been the tagline for the ‘no’ camp in recent months.
Actively encouraging voters to avoid making an informed decision is an interesting tactic.
Whether you are for or against the Voice is one’s business, but surely knowing what you are actually voting on should be common sense?
Why wouldn’t you want to have all the facts first?
Quite frankly, its irresponsible rhetoric to peddle.
Brexit is a good example of what can happen if you simply latch on to a few catchy slogans and listen to the talking heads who tell you what you want to hear.
Whatever side of the coin you land on, when it comes time to tick whichever box you resonate with, at least make sure you are properly informed.
