Indigenous voice to parliament ‘yes’ campaigners have enlisted the star power of Australia’s sporting legends to make their case to voters.
Both the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ camps have revealed the arguments they will make to win voters to their respective sides in the coming referendum.
The Australian Electoral Commission will on Tuesday publish online the formal ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases for the proposed constitutional change.
Asking people to vote for a “better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and all Australians”, the ‘yes’ case has the endorsement of Indigenous stars including former tennis world No.1 Evonne Goolagong Cawley, the NRL’s Johnathan Thurston and AFL’s Eddie Betts.
Thurston, a Gunggari man, said Indigenous young people “deserve the chance to be their best”.
“I work closely with schoolkids in the Yarrabah community in Queensland,” he wrote.
“I’ve seen the obstacles they face.
“Nobody understands that better than their local community. Giving them a say will mean more of our kids reach their potential. That’s what the voice is about.”
Ms Goolagong, a Wiradjuri woman, said voting ‘yes’ was a chance to “help the next generation chase their dreams”.
“Let’s grab this moment with both hands,” she wrote.
The ‘yes’ case emphasises the practical outcomes it claims the voice will help achieve, in addition to the primacy of parliament.
“The Voice will give advice on key issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, from better infant health to improving services in remote areas,” it said.
“Parliament and government will still be responsible for all laws, programs and funding.”
Indigenous Australians Minister and Wiradjuri woman Linda Burney said the idea for the voice came from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
“This is our best opportunity to move the country forward together,” she said.
The ‘no’ case claims the voice proposal goes beyond recognition, and posed the “biggest change to our constitution in our history”.
“It is legally risky, with unknown consequences. It would be divisive and permanent,” it said.
“If you don’t know, vote no.”
Quoting a number of former judges, the main arguments laid out describe the voice as a risk, lacking detail, divisive, and being impractical for Indigenous Australians.
“This voice has not been road tested” and there is no comparable constitutional body anywhere in the world, it said.
“A centralised voice risks overlooking the needs of regional and remote communities.”
Voice opponents claim the proposed advisory body presents a “real risk” to Australia’s system of government.
“The High Court would ultimately determine its powers, not the parliament,” it said.
“It risks legal challenges, delays and dysfunctional government.”
The vote will be held between October and December.
© AAP 2023
