Australians are being asked to approve a permanent change to our Constitution. This change is racist in intent and divisive in effect.

No humans evolved in Australia – all of our ancestors came from somewhere else. The literal meaning of ‘indigenous’ is ‘born here’, so by definition most of us are indigenous. To try to divide indigenous Australians on the basis of skin colour or length of ancestry is more about politics than justice or good government. We are all Australians and we should never contemplate constitutional changes that promote and solidify racial division.

I am voting ‘No’ because this proposal is going in the wrong direction and appears to be in service of other agendas.

There are many other reasons to vote ‘No’…

Australia’s pioneers, of all colours, came from somewhere else, usually arriving on things that floated. Rock art in the Kimberleys and other relics tell us that the current Aboriginals may not have been the first humans to occupy this land. Instead, it is a complex history.

Despite having ‘Native Title’ over far more land per head of population than all other Australians, remote Aboriginal groups often live in disadvantaged communal enclaves with poor community protection, especially for women and children. Many have suggested they would fair better with individual freehold titles rather than communal title.

We need to question any political agenda promoted so strongly by the ABC, large corporate entities, big banks, mining industry, our bureaucracy, and political parties such as the ALP, Greens, Teals, and the Communist Party.

Political power should not be granted to one race of Australians – especially as Australia is now home to people of many different ancestries including Aboriginal, Islanders, English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Dutch, Italian, German, Scandinavian, Melanesian, Greek, Asian, Kiwi, Afghan, African, a range of European ethnicities. Most have made permanent homes here. All who embrace Australian citizenship should be treated equally before the law.

This Voice proposal would make a permanent racial division in Australia. But how will the favoured racial group be continually identified? Will we sink so far as to require DNA evidence to prove our identity?

When it comes to the argument of representation, people identifying as Aboriginal already have more representation in Parliament than their percentage of population. In addition, huge government departments with billions of dollars are already representing Aboriginal interests, leaving people to wonder why conditions are not improving.

We have noted how some Australians are already being banned from certain tourist spots after public land was handed over to Aboriginal councils and groups. Private landowners also feel threatened by the relentless advance of ‘Native Title’.

Australians are continually annoyed to be ‘welcomed’ to their own country at every large event, sports match, or public gathering.

Australians are also frustrated by place names being changed suddenly and without warning or consultation. Imagine what is in store for names like Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Cooktown. Or King George Square? And what about the nation of ‘Australia’ that was created in 1901?

Next, the statues will start to fall.

Books containing inconvenient history or anthropological records are disappearing from public libraries as history is rewritten. Will the Voice end up deciding what we are allowed to read?

‘The Voice’ would soon be clamouring for treaties, reparations, and the seizure of more land. However, individual Aboriginal people are not benefiting from this massive portfolio of land because it falls into communal ownership controlled by a handful of people. Property owned by everyone is cared for by no one.

Giving a special ‘Voice’ to people of a certain skin colour or genetic history will promote everlasting division and hatred. This proposal from the Labor government aims to separate and give special privileges to certain people and their descendants forever.

For these reasons, and more, we must vote ‘No’.