The Admirable Demonstration of Dan Tehan And Other…

Apparently, Dan Tehan was on QandA last night. I only know this…

Condensed Fun Facts, Dates, Myths/Misconceptions

By Richard Whitington Fun Referendum Facts Fun Referendum Facts #1: The ballot paper for…

Cannabis: We can shut up, toe the line,…

When President Obama commented that he thought cannabis was likely less dangerous…

Corruption suspicions hang over secret PNG refugee contracts

Refugee Action Coalition Media Release AUSTALIA’S SECRET PNG DEAL MUST BE INVESTIGATED Refugee advocates…

Dianne Feinstein: National Security State Diva

The tributes for the late Democratic Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, heaped…

Media Alert - Refugees Say "Fair Go, Albo"

A protest vigil will be held for 4 days at the electoral…

The Voice reveals the urgent need for truth…

The fact that Elon Musk has just halved his election integrity team…

Desperate refugees hold their ground

In Melbourne, there have been rolling protests by refugees outside the electoral…


Yes and No and a Bit of Mischief !

The official Yes and No pamphlets are out and a hard copy will hit your mailbox any day. But in the meantime there is already controversy over some of the claims. This AEC website gives both arguments.

The No campaign has been accused by Professor Greg Craven of cynically using his early remarks to portray him as being opposed to the Voice.

Craven has said he was “thoroughly irritated” to be quoted. He said he was critical of the early drafting of the amendment but had supported it since the wording was settled.

“It’s well known to everyone in the No case and the opposition that my fundamental position has been I’m absolutely in favour of the voice and will campaign for the voice with great determination,” Craven said.

In an earlier article in The Australian Craven had said:

“I think it’s fatally flawed because what it does is retain the full range of review of executive action. This means the Voice can comment on everything from submarines to parking tickets… We will have regular judicial interventions.” (Professor Greg Craven AO).

I won’t consider the merits of the respective pamphlets in any detail here beyond noting that the No campaign continue to insist on using the slogan ‘If you don’t know, vote no’ which I find particularly irritating as clearly, if you don’t know, you should go and find out.

These pamphlets, now that they are out, cannot according to the Electoral Commissioner, be changed or amended in any way. As the Commissioner noted today, the AEC publishes what it is given by the Yes and No campaigns. The AEC does not fact-check and doesn’t even have the latitude to correct a spelling mistake or a grammatical error: that’s it folks these are the arguments on which the referendum will succeed or fail.

Let’s have some vigorous and courteous discussion.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button


Login here Register here
  1. JulianP

    Thank you Terence. As you correctly note: “…if you don’t know, you should go and find out.” I have come to the conclusion that the “NO” case is not really about the Voice – rather it is about spreading confusion and fear. Anyone can have a sensible discussion about the Voice, but the “NO” movement seems not to be campaigning on that level. I think this is the point you make Terence?

  2. Anthony Judge

    All the jaw jaw and nobody dares to have a mock parliament with voice. Not for schools. Not for university students. Not for citizens groups. Not for the ABC.The possible reality is too terrifying.

  3. Kerri

    Remember the catch phrase of the anti vaxxers?
    “I am doing my own research.”
    About time those of a similar mind actually did their own research and voted with knowledge.
    Maybe at the polling booths they should be asking for name, address and some indicator that you know what you are about to vote for before the donkeys blindly follow the nasty Queensland cop into ignominy.

  4. Phil Pryor

    If you don’t know, you might be lazy, stupid, ignorant, difficult, negative, backward and any combination, so, get your finger out, insert it in mouth, wake up sharply, find out the truth, seek facts, do research, act honest, be modest, support the side that appears right. Yes.

  5. Clakka

    Have been watching the excellent ABC’s ‘One plus One – The elders’ with Dan Bourchier – diverse and enlightening. All the interviews so far have across Oz revealed the same theme of First Nations folk rising from a background of poverty and colonial and post-colonial institutionalised and systemic brutality, abuse and oppression, to personal success and to lead cultural reinvigoration. There are many many more than could be interviewed, academics, scientists, public servants, politicians and others. Oz post-colonial history is replete with such folk since day one, most who speak multiple languages including having learned english in record time.

    The latest interview with Tasmanian, Rodney Gibbins, revealed a highly intelligent, determined, erudite and compassionate man who has dedicated his life to his cultural truth both within and outside government. Whilst stating he would never be a naysayer, he said at the gathering in formation of the ‘statement from the heart’ he and others voted for ‘Truth’, ‘Treaty’ and ‘Voice’ in that order with reason, and was surprised when it was put the other way. He said because of that he was reluctant to vote YES, and may vote informally by drawing a box containing ‘TREATY’ between ‘NO’ and ‘YES’ and ticking that box. He was not happy with a straight ‘YES’.

    I also watched ‘Dark Emu’ last night. The story of Bruce Pascoe and his book which I read about 4 years ago. A wonderful heart-warming story, compared to the somewhat constrained and divisive academic anthropological tomes. Pascoe’s story was obviously an adjunct against the bs white-man’s writ of Terra Nullius and the history of arcane, elite, narrow, divisive, racist laws and lore around surrounding it.

    At the time after my reading, I was not surprised by the attack / defence by academics, Sutton and Walshe. However, the following pile-on and personal attacks on Pascoe by no-nothing media and other commentators, was nothing but horrendous opportunistic bigotry, racism and low-brow hatred, peddling the same old m.o. of greedy, divisive colonialism. In watching Dark Emu last night I was pleased to see numerous academics give support to Pascoe’s story, and delighted to hear the warrior academic Marcia Langston give Sutton and Walshe a serve, and also delighted to see Bill Gammage back Pascoe.

    For the naysayers, the divisive Dutton and gang, Mundine, Price et al to posit that these First Nations folk are the ‘Canberra Elite’ is absurd. It would appear that they themselves are the aspiring elite (at the expense of First Nations folk). Their ‘NO’ case is patently a right-wing political manoeuvre designed to score points against Albanese and at the same time see a maintenance of the appalling failed paternalistic status quo against First Nations folk to favour ongoing institutionalised ‘white’ greed and usury. Professor Greg Craven is furious that the ‘No’ pamphlet refers, without his permission, to one of his earlier statements, he advised yesterday he intends to vote YES.

    The ‘NO’ pamphlet deliberately ignores the necessary logical hierarchy of referendum followed by parliamentary processes in establishing the Voice, it lies about the formation of treaties, and includes a compilation of quasi legalistic scare-mongering thoroughly debunked by Oz’s most senior jurists, Other than that, its selective statements and quotes (often out of context) are designed only to appeal to pre-existing bigotry and ignorance.

    Because of my interest in Oz, its history and humanity, in the face of a minuscule and utterly appalling one-sided school education on the matters, whilst also going about my ordinary living, I have made it my business to travel and commune with our First Nations folk, and researched and read extensively on those matters for most of my adult life. The Voice matter has been going on for years, and has progressively intensified over the past year. The naysayers and those in doubt (other than First Nations folk) have had every opportunity to do their own research, even if that’s just watching a few docos. The likelihood of them doing more would appear to be zilch. They are more likely to call the ‘NO’ pamphlet their research, and other than that be saturated by the yabber yabber of the feckless right-wing pollies and their media mates.

    Should they read the ‘YES’ pamphlet, one might ponder how they could possibly not vote ‘YES’. Then again it is well known that a substantial proportion of folk will respond more to fear, often at the expense of thinking.

  6. leefe

    It’s not mischief, it’s deliberately misleading and therefore barely short of a lie. Not that that’s surprising given the backers of the “no” argument.


    While I have a great deal of sympathy with Gibbins’ views (and, indeed, that was my position when this started), if we don’t get a YES in this referendum, nothing further will be done about the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It’s the only chance we have to move things forward at this point.

  7. Clakka


    Agree. And as such, Dan Bourchier questioned Gibbins’ stance, positing logic and affects from various perspectives, apparently to no avail. I found it sad and frustrating contemplating that Gibbins’ stance may influence many others that admire and respect him.

    That said, I understand the aggrieved stance of Gibbins, like Gary Foley, who both have spent a lifetime up to their gills dealing with the guile, deceptions and dissemblance of governments, like the dismantling of ATSIC, and the ‘intervention’, just to name a few.

  8. Max Gross

    I still cannot comprehend what Price and Mundine etc hope to achieve by opposing the Voice and rejecting the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Do they hope to maintain the awful status quo? Or what? I mean, seriously, WTF are they doing?

  9. Bruce

    Yesterday the Sydney Morning Herald published a piece about PM and his interview by Ben Fordham at 2GB Radio. Albanese argued “establishing the Voice was not about a treaty or paying Indigenous Australians compensation for colonisation, and said his government would reject advice from the Voice to change the date of Australia Day, for example, if the body proposed such a change.” So, how do you like that, the PM tells us the Voice will be about listening to the Aboriginal people, then drops a clanger that Australia Day is off the table as are Treaty or compensation. We need a new PM.

  10. Terence Mills


    Linda Burney has tried to direct the efforts of the Voice towards helping to overhaul our failed efforts to improve Indigenous health, education, housing and employment as the key policy priorities for this proposed advisory body.

    Albanese was doing the same with Ben Fordham and he got frustrated with this continuous diversion to changing dates, changing place names, reparations, land rights and other red herrings.

    I saw the Bruce Pascoe documentary the other night about his book Dark Emu and what it brought home to me was that the theories on the use of grasses (grains), use of fire, fish traps etc is the story of our species – our evolutionary process has been consistent across this planet and incredibly all of our ancestors evolved in much the same way with the same tools and technologies. Who was first in developing a bow & arrow or a throwing stick or using grass seeds (wheat or rice or derivatives) is immaterial, the important thing is that we did.

    It would be an absolute national tragedy if the Voice goes down due largely to ignorance, deceit, misinformation and outright lies from the No camp.

  11. Steve Davis

    Terence, I agree completely.

    Unfortunately, the treatment of Bruce Pascoe was a foretaste of what was to come.

  12. Terence Mills


    To my amazement there are those who wish to focus on whether Bruce Pascoe has Aboriginal ancestry which is way off point : it doesn’t matter.
    Pascoe is an author and researcher and his job has been to teach and inform and present his theories based on his own research.

    I find him a thoughtful person and he certainly provokes discussion and that is, I think, what he set out to do.

  13. Steve Davis

    Exactly Terence, he stated as much himself.

  14. wam

    Read Leefe 4.22 and think back to the loonies of 2009?
    Start before you finish.
    The only no mob I know are racist or are like those who’s plate at smorgasbords is so full to be indigestible

  15. Anthony Judge

    Rather than commentig on “yes” or “no”, there is a case for commenting on “a bit of mischief”, especially in the light of : ‘Window dressing’: Lidia Thorpe’s Blak Sovereign Movement releases its own Voice pamphlet (SBS, 20 July 2023) — claimed as against both “yes” and “no”. Potentially to be recognized as a “Neither Campaign”, in contrast to those of “Yes” or “No”. That Voice merits a degree of respect (or does it not), whether or not one appreciates the arguments. My “neither” preference comes from the process of buying a new vehicle (in this case the modified Constitution) — just on the basis of the commentary and recommendations from every authoritative perspective. But no one thinks a “test drive” is necessary, as would be obvious with choosing a new car. Hence my previously stated case for one or more mock parliaments — preferably before Parliament makes a mockery out of a “yes” preference in the referendum.

  16. Bruce

    Too practical AJ. The public is to be treated like children, politicians are to pretend they have the best interests of the YES Aboriginals at heart, but not the NO Aboriginals of course. Labor cannot play populist with both groups, it has chosen YES as the way forward. Either way, all I can see coming down the road is a Treaty. Thomas Mayo is on record as pro-Treaty & reparations but maybe he changed his mind recently. My concern is the YES wins and within 12 months all that matters is a Treaty and compensation. That in of itself is not a problem. It only becomes a problem for those who vote YES not expecting that outcome.

  17. Terence Mills

    Reparations or compensation would, if they ever were to occur, be the direct responsibility of the British Crown, no argument about that.

  18. Bruce

    Good idea Terence. The British family is said to be worth $28B, they can afford to fund compensation to Treaty demands. It might be like trying to get blood from a stone but I’m sure our Courts are up to a challenge. All that’s needed is to find a majority of Aussie BAR members willing to betray their British peers and turn against the oath they took to not stitch up the Firm. Probably be an idea to wear bulletproof wigs to work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: