Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Advocates de-platforming an Aboriginal Elder’s voice, while simultaneously platforming an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, says it all.

There was no draft legislation to lay out what a Voice would look like, what it could and couldn't do, and whether its members would be elected or selected. Rightly, Australians' good sense raised multiple worries as the Yes campaign proceeded.

On Tuesday, fully 100 per cent of Government senators (Labor and Greens) refused to support an inquiry into the sexual abuse of Indigenous children.

It beggars belief that the overwhelming public rejection of the proposal to create a Voice within the Federal Constitution has not resulted in the SA Parliament removing this structure from the State Constitution.

We have an opportunity now for a change of direction in race relations in Australia, and we need to make it a positive change.

On referendum day, a confrontation between an older white Yes campaigner and an Aboriginal No voter turned ugly.

Australia emphatically rejected enshrining an Indigenous Voice to Parliament advisory body in the constitution at the weekend’s referendum, with a 60/40 split for No vs. Yes.

The Australian Capital Territory was the only jurisdiction in the country where a majority of Australians voted for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

The media has talked for months about enshrining the Voice to Parliament and Executive Government into the constitution. A shrine is something you worship at. What are we meant to worship?

Despite its relatively short length, Voice Treaty Truth contains a wealth of information and background. It is a soul-searching read that will prove vital for the days, weeks and months ahead.

If successful, the Voice will introduce a race-based or ancestry/heritage-based body into the constitution, which is therefore discriminatory and goes against the equality of law in a democracy.

I appreciate your passion, Rev. Costello, in prosecuting your case for the ‘Yes’ campaign. But all things considered, I believe my duty as a Christian is to vote ‘No’.

Years of work for reconciliation and to build a multicultural cohesive society in Australia are at risk with the Voice referendum. I explain cultural Marxism and why I am voting no at the referendum.

The Uluru Statement envisages that with “substantive constitutional change and structural reform”, “two sovereignties [can] co-exist”.

The Uluru Statement makes use of the term “spiritual sovereignty”, which “serves as the rallying point of those who want to entrench the Voice in the Constitution”.

The Albanese Labor Government’s hypocrisy about promoting ‘a voice’ is utterly disgraceful. They have shown themselves to be totally incapable of hearing what the Indigenous people are saying or speaking about.

Are you thinking biblically about the upcoming Voice referendum? Here are three articles from each side of the debate to help make an informed decision.

I am voting ‘No’ to the Voice because of the pagan culture that the proponents of the Voice are seeking to impose on Australian society.

This paper aims to assist Sydney Anglicans in understanding and taking seriously the case for voting ‘yes’ in the planned referendum this year.

Among so many of Australia’s church leaders, on the profoundly important issues of Indigenous injustice, we find caution rather than courage.