Cookers stir the crock to stop Australia voting 'Yes'

You may think us overly optimistic or even naive, but IA is choosing to remain positive about the Voice Referendum.

The reasons for this are not all to do with blind optimism.

The reasons we believe Australia will vote “Yes” to give First Nations people a seat at the table are to do with voter intelligence, the rejection of contemptuous politicians and media, and the overwhelming capacity of Australians to do the right thing.

No good reason to vote 'No'

There is a fundamental need for a Voice to Parliament to address the disproportionate burdens faced by First Nations Australians.

REASON 1: COOKED MEDIA

As we have regularly published over the months leading up to the Referendum, the establishment media have either decided to die on the hill of false “balance” or have dispensed with any semblance of balance altogether, choosing to promote the disinformation peddled by those claiming an Indigenous Voice to Parliament will, at the very least, destroy our democracy and probably steal everyone’s homes and money to boot, among other cataclysmic consequences.

The former media representatives present ad nauseam all the, frankly, idiotic arguments that promote confusion and fear, despite being fully aware that the Voice is simply an advisory body whose advice will be decided upon by parliament — under the same parliamentary system we now have.

The same parliament and democratic system within which the Opposition Leader has embraced his Trumpian No stance with a fervour normally reserved for religious zealots. And the same one which allows the Opposition Leader to remain largely unchallenged by the insipid media masquerading as the Fourth Estate.

There’s no need to try to establish the facts if you’re part of this first cohort. You only need to appear to be presenting some fictitious version of “both sides” of the equation.

The latter media club – the ones that usually come out after dark – were never going to present considered coverage of such an important progressive issue, where emotions run deep and where latent racism and hatred may be harnessed for shock value. In this club, the facts were altogether dispensed with long ago — likely well before the News of the World phone hacking scandal of 2006.

Since people have been turning away from both sides (pardon the pun) of this legacy media club in droves, there is a very strong chance that the ongoing campaign to derail the Voice will be ignored and Australians will summarily reject Dutton’s insulting “Don’t know, vote No” slogan.

This seems quite likely since they only need to Google it in order to actually find out and can then make up their own minds.

If this is the case, then it seems reasonable that most Australians, once they find out how modest is the request being asked of us, will vote “Yes”.

Basically, as journalist Ray Martin told the crowd at a recent Yes rally in Sydney:

“If you don’t know, find out what you don’t know… what that slogan is saying is, ‘if you’re a dinosaur or a dickhead… who can’t be bothered reading, vote No’.”

Scare campaigns built on lies not policed by the media

The Voice Referendum has shown we have a toxic, broken media institution where lies are not only excused, but are characterised as clever political campaigning.

REASON 2: OVERCOOKING THE ARGUMENT

For those who read, listen or watch the mainstream coverage, the arguments of the No campaign have largely been either so condescending or utterly fantastical so as to cancel themselves out.

For example, what sensible, reasonable person would believe it is the use of a fundamental feature of our democracy, the Referendum itself – ‘a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision’ – that is dividing the nation?

It is pretty obvious to most people who watch, listen or read these media “reports” that fear and hatred peddled by politicians are at the root of any division that may be occurring.

The basic absence of logic in the claim that “it doesn’t go far enough, so let’s give them nothing at all”, should likewise seem pretty obvious.

A simple way to understand the Voice to Parliament.

Read the full explainer here: https://t.co/jqIDBIkxnr pic.twitter.com/hBP1pkSPvW
— The Shovel (@TheShovel) October 10, 2023

REASON 3: RAW FACTS

Thankfully, there are a great many people who do not or do not only obtain their news and information from traditional media sources.

Many of these discerning people educate themselves on the facts surrounding any situation requiring them to vote, rather than squandering the responsibility that comes with this democratic right.

The raw facts are that there is a gap the size of gaping chasm between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on every recorded measure of health and life expectancy. This gap in equality is what an Indigenous Voice to Parliament would attempt to address.

The Liberal Party were in government for almost ten long years during which they chose only to give lip service to "Closing the Gap". Now, despite agreeing to the need for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament prior to losing government, they are choosing to turn their backs on First Nations Australians, yet again.

#QandA Highlights: Q+A questioner Clayton says he hasn't heard a good argument from non-Aboriginal Australians about why they would vote "No". pic.twitter.com/7fi8jIo8UI
— ABC News (@abcnews) October 10, 2023

REASON 4: POLL CUISINE

As we have said before, conservative forces continue to push conservative poll results on their compliant media platforms.

This is not to say that all the polls are wrong but simply that the polls are not always indicative of the outcome, as, for example, former Victorian Premier Dan Andrews proved in three elections.

Atlas Network's fossil-fuelled campaign against the Voice

The campaign against the Voice to Parliament has ties with companies that have long been misinforming the public about the climate crisis.

REASON 5: REJECTING RACISM, FRIED, BAKED OR BOILED

Any reasonable politicians that still remain in the Liberal Party, such as Bass MP Bridget Archer and Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff are voting "Yes".

Finally, if none of the above reasons resonate with you, here are five more reasons to vote “Yes”:

Peter Dutton;
Pauline Hanson;
Peta Credlin;
Andrew Bolt; and
Clive Palmer will be voting "No".

Voting "Yes" to allow dispossessed and disadvantaged First Australians the ability to put forward solutions for matters that affect them is simply the right thing to do.

As SA Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas said on ABC's Q&A on Monday: