Voice referendum Yes activists driven by revenge and retribution

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton makes his final pitch for the No case.

Our democratic system has been the source of our stability and progress for 122 years.

A voice would be the most consequential change to our system in history. There is nothing “modest” about it.

Whether you are an Indigenous Australian, were born Australian, or have come from around the world and become Australian, we are all Australians and are treated equally under the law. A voice will change this fundamental democratic principle conferring a privilege on one set of Australians based on ancestry.

We all recognise the disadvantages facing Indigenous Australians, especially in remote communities. But a voice will not deliver improvements we desire. The voice will be more Canberra bureaucracy that hoovers up more taxpayer dollars.

Thomas Mayo said the voice was “a black political force to be reckoned with”. Teela Reid said the voice was “the first step in redistributing power”. The longer version of the Uluru Statement mentions the goals of “self-government”, “self-determination”, “reparations” and “a financial settlement”. Does this sound like a “gracious request”?

Activists want a constitutionally powered voice to pursue an agenda driven by resentment and retribution – not reconciliation and improving Indigenous lives.

In January, I wrote to Mr Albanese respectfully seeking answers to 15 questions about how the voice would function. Australians are none the wiser today. Instead of explaining how the voice will help Indigenous Australians, Mr Albanese wants voters to uncritically accept it as the panacea. Our best legal minds are divided on the voice showing this change is risky. The words that would be included in the Constitution mean that no issue is off limits to the voice and that the High Court – not the parliament – will determine its powers and remit.

The Prime Minister could have made this referendum about recognition only, established the voice through legislation, or put forward separate constitutional questions on recognition and the voice. He rejected these options, chose a controversial question and bet the house because he wants his Redfern moment.

A few home truths may sink in for the Yes campaign leaders if the No vote prevails. You don’t insult your way to victory. You don’t rally people to your cause by questioning their morality. You don’t win votes by dishonestly claiming that those with whom you disagree are peddling misinformation and disinformation or pushing scare campaigns and conspiracy theories.

Saturday’s vote is about whether we believe in Australia. I believe we have the capabilities and commitment as Australians to find solutions to national problems, including Indigenous disadvantage. We don’t need to change our Constitution to do this. We just need to have confidence in ourselves and the courage to speak difficult truths and to take actions which have been avoided.