Jacinta Nampizinpa Price has called on Indigenous Affairs Minister to conduct a ‘forensic audit’ of government spending on First Nations people as she criticized the government’s Voice to Parliament Yes essay for lacking key details.
The shadow Indigenous Affairs Minister has been at the heart of the No campaign so far and no doubt ‘the Australian public sees it for what it is: a dog’s breakfast’.
On Tuesday, official articles supporting a Yes and No vote were released by the Australian Electoral Commission. These essays will be turned into pamphlets and delivered to every household in Australia ahead of the referendum later this year.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has not yet announced a date for the official referendum, but told Sky on Monday afternoon that the Yes campaign must be ‘strong’ to succeed.
“What we do know is that there hasn’t already been enough of a campaign that is just trying to sow doubt,” he said.
The Yes campaign needs to be stronger to make the case because we know that referendums in Australia have been difficult in the past. Only eight out of 48 (have been successful) but it’s a clear and simple proposition to recognize and then listen to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous Australians.’
Senator Nampizinpa Price told 2GB’s Ben Fordham that there are plenty of practical ways to help First Nations people without a voice in Parliament.
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has called on the Indigenous Affairs Minister to conduct a ‘forensic audit’ of government spending on First Nations people as she criticized the official Voice to Yes essay in Parliament for lacking key details.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has yet to announce a date for the official referendum, but told Sky on Monday afternoon that the Yes campaign must be ‘strong’ to succeed.
‘We have been elected by the people of Australia. Taxpayers actually pay our MPs to listen to constituents regardless of their ethnic background.
‘We should come up with policies that suit our constitution – including indigenous people.’
He said: ‘It’s not rocket science. All you have to do is use your ears. It’s what the taxpayer lets us do.’
Fordham said Mr Albanese’s language on Sky indicated he was worried about the outcome of the Voice, a proposal he had promised to look at on the night he was elected.
‘He should be worried about the results,’ said Ms Nampizinpa Price. ‘The government is failing to inform the Australian public.
‘This Yes pamphlet is another failure. Australians want to see how the Voice will work, who will be elected… it’s just dog’s breakfast.’
Ms. Nampizinpa Price said if she were in government and served as Aboriginal Affairs Minister, she would conduct a ‘forensic audit’ of all spending for First Nations people, to ensure every dollar was allocated wisely.
He said such an act would bring out where the money is being used effectively and give the government an option to reallocate money that is not delivering results to grassroots projects that need funding.
Minister Linda Burney, she said, had received advice for practical solutions to help disadvantaged communities, and Ms Nampijinpa Price questioned whether she was ‘waiting for a voice committee’ to implement the plans.
Ms Nampijinpa Price said if she had the role of Minister Linda Burney, she would conduct a forensic audit and implement strategies to help voiceless disadvantaged communities.
The Yes pamphlet doubled down on key reforms listed by Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney last month, arguing that one voice would represent health, education, employment and housing.
yes composition
Mr Albanese, of Yes, said a voice would ‘provide better value for money’.
The Yes article said: ‘Governments of both parties have invested billions in programs that have not solved problems or reached communities.
‘One Voice will help our locals be heard and save money. We’re all better off when the government isn’t wasting taxpayers’ money on things that aren’t working.’
The Yes pamphlet doubled down on key reforms listed by Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney last month, arguing that one voice would represent health, education, employment and housing.
‘We can vote yes to be part of a great united moment that will bring about a better future. We can vote yes: do the right thing by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
‘Give people a say on issues that affect them. Make a practical difference that improves lives,’ reads the Yes pamphlet.
It provides eight reasons to vote yes, arguing the idea ‘comes directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’, will ensure a better life for people and unite our country.
It provides eight reasons to vote yes, arguing the idea ‘comes directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’, will ensure a better life for people and unite our country.
The YES article said the VOICE committee would be made up of Indigenous Australians ‘from every state and territory’, who would act as representatives of their territories and remote communities.
These representatives will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their local area and will serve ‘for a fixed term’ – which has yet to be revealed.
Campaigners and government officials say a voice is needed to help tackle the major challenges facing indigenous peoples, such as eight years less life expectancy than non-indigenous people, worse rates of disease and infant mortality, suicide rates twice as high and fewer opportunities for education and training’.
Eight key reasons to vote Yes are outlined by the Yes essay:
This concept comes directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Constitutional recognition for concrete results Ensure a better life for people Unite our country Save money
You can read Yes essay here
Campaigners and government officials say a voice is needed to help tackle the ‘major challenges facing indigenous peoples’
any essay
The No campaign delivered a key message throughout much of the public debate about a Voice to Parliament: it would be risky, divisive and permanent.
This same theme can be traced through the official essay for No Case published on Tuesday.
‘This is a very important decision,’ reads the essay.
‘Unfortunately, the legitimate questions and concerns of many Australians have been dismissed. Fortunately, this referendum will not be decided by politicians, corporations or celebrities. It will be decided by every Australian. It affects every Australian.
‘If you don’t know, don’t vote.’
The No campaign delivered a key message throughout much of the public debate about a Voice to Parliament: it would be risky, divisive and permanent.
No essay argues that there are better ways to help disadvantaged communities
There are also concerns that a Voice to Parliament could become ‘just another bureaucracy’ and duplicate the work of other government-funded programmes.
‘This year, the government allocated $4.3 billion to the National Indigenous Australian Agency, which has 1,400 staff. The agency’s website and corporate plan state: ‘We… ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a say in decisions that affect them.’ There is no suggestion that this voice will replace any of these It will act as one bureaucracy among many,’ the essay says
Ms Nampijinpa Price and the politicians who wrote the No article set out 10 key reasons to vote No:
This voice is legally risky No details It divides us It will not help Indigenous Australians No issue is out of scope It risks delay and ineffectiveness It opens the door for activists It will be expensive and bureaucratic This voice will last There is a better way forward
You can read any essay here
Read Full News Here