Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has called on the Indian Affairs minister to conduct a ‘forensic audit’ of government spending for First Nations peoples while criticizing the official Voice to Parliament Yes essay for lacking crucial details.

The shadow minister for Indigenous Affairs has been central to the No campaign so far and is in no doubt that “the Australian people see this for what it is: a dog’s breakfast.”

On Tuesday, the Australian Electoral Commission published the official essays advocating a Yes and No vote. These essays will be made into leaflets and delivered to every Australian household before the referendum later this year.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has yet to announce an official date for the referendum, but told Sky on Monday afternoon that the Yes campaign must “be stronger” to succeed.

“What we know is that there has already been a considerable campaign for the No that is trying to sow doubt,” he said.

‘The Yes campaign needs to be stronger in making the case because we know referendums in Australia have been difficult in the past. Only eight out of 48 (have been successful), but this is a clear and simple proposal for recognition and then listening to achieve better results for Indigenous Australians.’

Senator Nampijinpa Price told 2GB’s Ben Fordham that there are many practical ways to help First Nations people who do not have a voice in Parliament.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has called on the Minister for Indigenous Affairs to carry out a ‘forensic audit’ into government spending for First Nations people while criticizing the official Voice to Parliament Yes essay for lacking crucial details.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has yet to announce an official date for the referendum, but told Sky on Monday afternoon that the Yes campaign must “be stronger” to succeed.

‘We have been elected by the people of Australia. The taxpayer actually pays us parliamentarians to listen to constituents, regardless of their ethnicity.

“We should come up with policies that are better suited to our constituents, including Aboriginal people.”

She said: ‘It’s not rocket science. All you have to do is use your ears. That’s what the taxpayer pays us for.’

Fordham said Albanese’s language on Sky indicated he was concerned about the outcome of Voice, a proposal he promised to carry out the night he was elected.

“I should be worried about the result,” said Nampijinpa Price. “The government does not provide any details to the Australian people.

‘This Yes pamphlet is another failure. The Aussies want to see how the Voice is supposed to work, who will be chosen… it’s just a dog’s breakfast.

Ms Nampijinpa Price said if she were in government working as Minister for Indigenous Affairs, she would be conducting a “forensic audit” of all spending by First Nations people, to ensure every dollar has been spent wisely .

She said such a task would eliminate where the money is being used effectively and give the government the option of reallocating money that isn’t paying off to grassroots projects that need funding.

Minister Linda Burney, she said, has received suggestions for practical solutions to help disadvantaged communities, and Ms Nampijinpa Price questioned whether she was ‘waiting for a Voice committee’ to put these plans into action.

Ms Nampijinpa Price said that if she had the role of Minister Linda Burney, she would be conducting a forensic audit and implementing strategies to help disadvantaged Voiceless communities.

The Yes pamphlet doubles down on key reform areas that Indian Affairs Minister Linda Burney listed last month, arguing that One Voice would make representations on health, education, employment and housing.

The test of yes

Mr. Albanese, via the Yes essay, says that a Voice will “offer better value for money.”

The Yes essay states: ‘Governments on both sides have invested billions in programs that have not solved problems or reached communities.

‘A Voice will help us listen to the locals and save money. We’re all better off when governments don’t waste taxpayers’ money on things that don’t work.’

The Yes pamphlet doubles down on key areas of reform that Indian Affairs Minister Linda Burney listed last month, arguing that One Voice would make representations on health, education, employment and housing.

‘We can vote Yes to be part of a great unifying moment that will bring about a better future. We can vote Yes to: Do the right thing by Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders.

‘Give people a voice on the issues that affect them. Make a practical difference that improves lives,’ reads the Yes.

He provides eight reasons to vote Yes, arguing that the idea ‘came directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’, will ensure people have a better life and unite our country.

The Yes essay states that the Voice committee will be made up of Indigenous Australians ‘from all states and territories’, who will act as representatives of their remote regions and communities.

These representatives will be elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their local area and will serve ‘for a fixed period of time’, which has yet to be disclosed.

Activists and government officials say a Voice is needed to help combat the “major challenges facing Aboriginal people, including an eight-year shorter life expectancy than non-Indigenous people, worse rates of disease and infant mortality, a suicide rate twice as high and fewer educational opportunities. and training’.

The eight key reasons to vote Yes, as set out in the Yes essay, are:

This idea came directly from Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders.
Constitutional recognition for concrete results
Ensuring people have a better life
unite our country
Save money
The time is now
Practical tips that work
Make government work better

You can read the essay Yes, here

Activists and government officials say a Voice is needed to help combat “big challenges facing Aboriginal people”

he didn’t rehearse

The No campaign has delivered a key message throughout much of the public debate on a Voice in Parliament: that it would be risky, divisive and permanent.

This very theme can be traced through the official case essay No, published on Tuesday.

“This is a very important decision,” the essay says.

“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 each Australian. It affects all Australians.

‘If you don’t know, vote no.’

The No campaign has delivered a key message throughout much of the public debate on a Voice in Parliament: that it would be risky, divisive and permanent.

The No essay argues that there are better ways to help disadvantaged communities.

There are also concerns that Voice to Parliament could become ‘just another bureaucracy’ and replicate the work of other government-funded programmes.

‘This year, the Government has allocated $4.3 billion for the National Agency for Indigenous Australians, which has 1,400 staff. The website and corporate plan for this Agency say: ‘We…ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a voice in decisions that affect them.’ There is no suggestion that this Voice replaces any of these. It will function as one bureaucracy among many,” the essay says.

Ms Nampijinpa Price and the politicians who wrote the No essay laid out 10 key reasons for voting no:

This Voice is legally risky
no details
divides us
It will not help indigenous Australians
No problem is out of reach
You risk delays and malfunctions.
Open the door for activists
It will be expensive and bureaucratic.
This Voice will be permanent
There are better ways forward

You can read the essay No, here