Unlike totalitarian regimes, liberal Western democracies like Australia are based on the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. To be legitimate, it is essential all citizens are treated equally in their ability to elect and influence the government of the day. To give one group of citizens the unique privilege of having a direct line to Parliament and executive government breaches such a principle.

The argument the Indigenous Voice will not have the power to influence government ignores the reality a Labor government will always acquiesce given it relies on the Woke Teals and Greens to pass legislation through the Parliament. As admitted by Prime Minister Albanese, it would take a strong government to deny what the Voice demands.

Even worse, if the ‘Yes’ campaign succeeds, there will be no limit on what the Indigenous Voice is able to achieve when it comes to affecting government policy. The Uluru statement argues Indigenous Australians must have ‘the right to be consulted on legislation and policy that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’.

The danger, as Indigenous Australians are Australian citizens, is that it’s likely an activist High Court would define the right to be consulted as including any proposed legislation affecting Australian citizens – a category that includes Indigenous Australians.

Crucial to our way of government, one that ensures liberties and freedoms are maintained and governments held to account, is that government decisions are open and transparent and voters are critically informed and knowledgeable.

Another reason to vote ‘No’ is that the Prime Minister has refused to detail the powers of the Voice including how it will be elected and what checks and balances there will be to ensure it’s not an elite, self-serving body mired by corruption like the previous Aboriginal body ATSI.

The fact the Prime Minister remains silent is even more disturbing as the Uluru statement is based on the mistaken premise the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788 was an invasion and that the only way forward is for Australia to be divided into two nations – one Aboriginal and one non-Aboriginal.

Instead of being a modest change, what the Uluru statement wants is the ability for the Voice to make ‘agreements at the highest level’ where the ‘Australian government allows First Nations to express our sovereignty – sovereignty that we know comes from The Law’.

Based on what is happening in Canada and New Zealand, where Indigenous rights prevail, if the Voice campaign succeeds there is no doubt Aboriginal activists will demand even more rights based on the concept of Makarrata.

The Uluru statement defines Makarrata as ‘another word for Treaty or agreement-making’. A Treaty, if legislated, would enable Indigenous Australians to ‘reclaim control and make practical changes over the things that matter in their daily lives’.

Make no mistake, central to the Voice is the radical proposal to cede sovereignty to 3.6 per cent of the population who already own approximately 50 per cent of the land and who already receive over $30 billion in government support.

While there are substantial reasons why it’s okay to vote ‘No’, the reality is those campaigning for the Voice to Parliament are their own worst enemies. Instead of arguing in a rational and convincing way ‘Yes’ activists rely on abuse and emotional blackmail.

The leader of the Greens Party Adam Bandt describes the Liberal Party as a ‘small racist rump sliding into irrelevance’, Noel Pearson describes Senator Jacinta Price as being trapped in a ‘redneck celebrity vortex’, while Ray Martin argues the ‘slogan ‘if you don’t know, vote no’ appeals to ‘dinosaurs and dickheads’.

The columnist Troy Bramston goes one step further when arguing, ‘The No camp is led by populist reactionary conservatives, many of whom have been propagating lies and misinformation about the voice, and some have peddled unadulterated racism.’

Geoffrey Robertson’s argument the success of the ‘No’ vote will be seen internationally as ‘the vote of an ignorant and racist populace’, instead of helping the ‘Yes’ campaign, achieves the opposite.

Evidence proving why such emotive and abusive arguments are wrong include the Mabo High Court decision ceding Aboriginal land rights and the fact there are 11 Indigenous commonwealth members of parliament freely elected based on their character and not the colour of their skin.

There is also evidence, after years of being treated as strangers in their own land and, like original sin, being told every succeeding generation of non-Indigenous Australians will be guilty of the sins of the past, enough is enough.

As argued by Senator Jacinta Price, the time of Woke ideology characterising Indigenous Australians as perennial victims and Australian society as guilty of white supremacism has long since passed.

Dr Kevin Donnelly is a senior fellow at the ACU Prime Minister Glynn Institute and a native born Australian whose forbear John Donnelly pioneered what is now Wagga Wagga.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in