South Oz Forges Ahead With Voice

South Australia, which got the second lowest Yes result in the nation at 35.2%, is going against its electorate and forging ahead with a state-sanctioned legislated Voice. Apparently they don’t seem to care how South Australians voted and are pushing ahead nonetheless.

These are the ten federal electorates in South Australia, and every one of them voted No. It’s hard to imagine that the constituency are okay with pushing forward with this new state-based Voice.

Despite the resounding objection to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, Premier Peter Malinauskas remains confident that residents “know the difference” between the rejected federal Voice and the his brand new, shiny state Voice. Apparently, they’re completely different. He said, “South Australians are pretty smart… I think they know the difference between a constitutional change and a piece of legislation, so I’m not too concerned about that. It’s very different by nature. It’s also a proposition that’s had bipartisan support from a state Liberal party in the past. So it’s not an extreme proposition. And like I said, it doesn’t involve constitutional change. So I think they’re very different. I think most people appreciate that.”

If you’re South Australian, do you appreciate that? Do you think this is completely different, and therefore, you have no objections with it? Personally, I think he’s playing word games. Perhaps he should stick to Boggle.

Although the Queensland Opposition are not against the Queensland treaty, the South Australian Opposition are certainly questioning Mr Malinauskas.

South Australian Opposition leader David Speirs said given the proportion of people that have voted No, he’d like to reassess whether the Voice should go ahead. He said, “We’ve got a state-based Voice here in SA. I’m not sure we really know what to do with it now. SA has overwhelmingly rejected our interest in having a mechanism such as a Voice to the federal parliament and there are clearly going to be misgivings around a Voice to state parliament as well. I’ve always said we were very open to amending this legislation, should it be deemed not to be working, or should we conclude that South Australians don’t want this state Voice. They clearly don’t want a federal Voice. Do they want a state Voice either? I think they’d be immensely surprised that we have a legislated Voice.”

One Nation’s Sarah Game, Member of the Legislative Council, posted a tweet calling for the First Nations Voice Act to be repealed. She said, “An overwhelming majority of South Australians voted no to The Voice. The division caused by The Voice Referendum has been sad to watch and experience. There is no place for the remnants with the legislated South Australian Voice. I’ll be introducing my Bill for an Act to repeal the First Nations Voice Act 2023 this week. It’s time for a plan for needs-based support, not race or heritage-based support.” I’m not South Australian, but I wholeheartedly agree with her on this one.

Mr Malinauskas responded, “I think it's important that politicians honour their commitments. It'll demonstrate that a non-binding advisory committee can occasionally make representations to the parliament on various matters. It'll be up to the parliament to determine whether they accept or reject that advice. It's not particularly controversial and will roll out as planned.”

Basically, Mr Malinauskas is saying, “I don’t care what South Australians think, I’m going ahead with the Voice NO MATTER WHAT!”

WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO SOUTH AUSTRALIA'S FIRST NATIONS VOICE TO PARLIAMENT FOLLOWING REFERENDUM DEFEAT?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-16/what-happens-to-sa-voice-to-parliament-after-referendum/102977318

THIS STATE HAD THE SECOND-HIGHEST NO VOTE, SO WHY IS IT INTRODUCING ITS OWN VOICE?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/this-state-had-the-second-highest-no-vote-so-why-is-it-introducing-its-own-voice/qxrasyk03

MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn