So, the No’s have it. Well it was an overwhelming No in terms of The Voice vote, and it (The Voice) is probably doomed to being kicked down the road like an unwanted can.
But is there a way we could just tear things up and start again? The Constitution is our foundation document but does not recognise the original inhabitants of Australia, and maybe this is the thing that needs to change.
From that point, a retrospective treaty could be created, and life would be fairer. That’s just my take on it. And people reading this, don’t bother putting your two cents worth in by contacting me as there has been enough division over the subject.
Hand on heart, I voted yes, however it wasn’t before a fair bit of deliberation due to my lack of trust when I was told to simply “trust in the process”. And I even had a run-in with one of our senior journalists, who ended the argument with “I’m right and you’re wrong and that’s the end of it” – simply because I wanted clarification around what it meant to vote yes.
But back to the Constitution, the nation’s birth certificate. According to the document:
“The Australian Constitution was then passed as part of a British Act of Parliament in 1900, and took effect on 1 January 1901. A British Act was necessary because before 1901 Australia was a collection of six self-governing British colonies and ultimate power over those colonies rested with the British Parliament. In reality, however, the Constitution is a document which was conceived by Australians, drafted by Australians and approved by Australians.”
It talks about government structures, the Queen and her representative, the Governor-General, and structures of parliament. Check out these couple of extracts that I found while tediously pouring over the 51-page document.

59. Disallowance by the Queen
    The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.
60. Signification of Queen’s pleasure on Bills reserved
    A proposed law reserved for the Queen’s pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent the Governor-General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen’s assent.
    And there’s lots more where that came from, dry dribble about how we report back to Old Blighty.
    So, my point is, rather than trying to cram something new like The Voice into the old crumbling out-of-date document, wouldn’t it have been better for our leaders to have used The Voice money to become a republic in a timely manner? I don’t know when – oh yes, like when the Queen died.
    And then we could surely use this opportunity to put in whatever we want including recognition of our First Nations people.
    Money-wasting bureaucratic rant over…

RE Just Sayin’… – July 3, 2023 Issue 283
I enjoy and appreciate The Local, thank you for providing this free publication. I look forward to getting to the back pages of The Local so that I can be annoyed or buoyed by Kyle’s rant, and entertained, informed and at times provoked by your Just Sayin’… column.
In this issue I was deeply disappointed. You wrote that you don’t know enough about the Voice, and you say the answer to the referendum question should of course be Yes, yet you advise voting No, based on not enough information.
I wonder how much detail the general public have been given in past for constitutional change? This is the first time First Nations people will be enshrined in our constitution and yet you advise to continue to wait? I’m not sure exactly what detail you want?
It is intensely upsetting that you echo and amplify Peter Dutton’s very loud and very privileged arguments, someone who has done nothing significant to improve the lives of Aboriginal people.
I’m not a First Nations person, but white people stole their lands, killed Aboriginal people, stole children and ruined their culture and now prevaricate about ‘letting’ them have a voice, when we are the ones on stolen lands. Enough information is out there to start the process, and the referendum is just the first step in the process.
I’m really upset that you are in a position of influence and are advising readers to vote no, whilst also saying you don’t know enough. Read The Voice To Parliament handbook, listen to podcasts, talk to First Nations people.
Are you hearing the voices of Aboriginal people? Are we used to being in a position of power and not able to see how truly devastating this would be if we voted against the referendum? If people vote ‘no’ then governments will think they have the authority to continue to do nothing of consequence, and nothing will change and nothing will improve the lives of Aboriginal people. Nothing.

From: Mez Lanigan, Trentham
(Ed’s note: For the record, I said the vote should be yes but I fear it will be no. Not to vote no.)
Letters and musings are always welcome. Email news@tlnews.com.au
Any addressed Dear Sir will be deleted – you know why 🙂