Callum Seán Murray

At this time of writing, polling data indicates the upcoming referendum on a Voice to Parliament will fail. One of the major arguments from the ‘No’ campaign is that there is not enough detail on what this new institution would entail. I recently read Thomas Mayo and Kerry O’Brien’s Handbook to the Voice to Parliament: All the Detail You Need, but I do not think this book alone would persuade individuals who are currently not supporting the Voice to change their minds. Instead, I think it is more persuasive to directly tackle the arguments purported by the ‘No’ campaign and demonstrate their fragility. The ‘No’ campaign lists ten reasons to vote against the Voice on the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) Yes/No Referendum Pamphlet.[1] These arguments have conservative underpinnings and are supported by the Coalition Opposition.

Australia was colonised by the British Empire in 1788 under the false auspices of terra nullius, meaning land belonging to no one. Instructions from London to treat Indigenous people like other British subjects were routinely ignored by colonists. Indigenous peoples were dispossessed, incarcerated, and massacred—genocidal acts under modern international law. Indigenous resistance often led to wanton violence against them. Indigenous peoples were collectively deemed a ‘dying race’ as the twentieth century dawned. At the same time, British Parliament passed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. This foundational legislation set the rules for Australia; colonies became states and Parliament was created.

Indigenous peoples were excluded from the Constitutional Conventions preceding Federation because they were considered unworthy of citizenship and humanity. Amending the Constitution required a majority of voters in a majority of states—a double majority—voting in favour of change. A successful 1967 referendum enabled Indigenous peoples to be counted as Australian citizens, but they remain constitutionally unrecognised as the First Australians. Since the 1960s, Indigenous advisory bodies have been created and abolished by Parliament. The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for “constitutional reforms to empower [Indigenous] people… [and establish] a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.”[2] A Voice written into the Constitution would provide this recognition and ensure its longevity.

The current Labor Government has proposed the following constitutional amendment:

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

  1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
  2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
  3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers, and procedures.[3]

Refuting the ‘Ten Reasons to Vote No’ by the Conservative ‘No’ Campaign

1. ‘The Voice Is Legally Risky’

‘No’ asserts that “there is no comparable body like [the Voice] in the world,” it “will be the biggest change” in Australian democratic history, and “every word can be open to interpretation” by the High Court of Australia.[4] New Zealand has the Waitangi Tribunal. It is a permanent commission established by legislation in 1975 to ensure the Crown does not breach promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi. It operates much as the Voice would—by providing non-binding advice to the government to facilitate reconciliation between Pākehā (European settlers) and Māori. The Voice is not internationally unprecedented as claimed by ‘No.’

Australia became a fully representative democracy in the 1960s after state and federal governments removed barriers to Indigenous voting. The enfranchisement of Indigenous Australians is a far more significant change in Australian democratic history compared to the Voice. The Voice nonetheless represents a change in Australia’s democracy, albeit a comparatively minor one. It will be an elected advisory body and will not have legislative powers like the House of Representatives or the Senate. Parliament—an institution that represents the views of Australians—will decide its powers. The rules of the Voice would therefore reflect the will of the Australian people.

Legal challenges to the High Court are likely to be made, to test whether laws passed by Parliament enshrining the Voice are constitutionally valid. Any judgment by the High Court would likely follow intentionalism theory— where legislators’ subjective law-making intentions underpin legal judgments. The High Court may rely on extrinsic materials including Hansard records, the Solicitor-General’s advice, and minutes from senate committees to determine Parliament’s intentions regarding the Voice. Judicial activism bestowing broad Voice powers is improbable because the proposed wording of the Voice states that only Parliament has the prerogative to make laws with respect to the Voice.

2. ‘There Are No Details’

‘No’ argues that “we don’t know how [the Voice] will help disadvantaged communities and close the gap…, how many members the Voice would have…, if they would be elected or chosen, or how this would occur…, [and] how it would make representations or be held accountable.”[5] Marcia Langton and Tom Calma wrote a 250-page report answering several of these questions. The Albanese Government has indicated that this report would influence the composition of a Voice. In short, the Voice would have twenty-four Indigenous members elected by Indigenous Australians; it would have gender parity; and members would have fixed terms.[6]

The Voice would be held accountable in several ways. First, by Indigenous peoples, who elect its members; second, by Parliament, who will have the power to change the rules regarding the Voice’s operational powers; third, by the Government of the day, which can choose to act upon or ignore the advice given by the Voice; and fourth, by anti-corruption bodies like the recently implemented National Anti-Corruption Commission. Such institutions, however, would not have the power to unilaterally abolish a Voice. As such action would require a popularly supported referendum, accountability is ultimately with the Australian people.

Closing the Gap is stagnating, and extant policies require rejuvenation or overhaul. This phenomenon is thought to be because governments primarily make policies for Indigenous Australians, rather than with Indigenous Australians. It is hoped that grassroots Aboriginal voices could filter up through the Voice, enabling community-led and place-based initiatives to have centre stage in Canberra. Empirical findings from other Commonwealth countries demonstrate that when Indigenous grassroots voices are heard at the national level, substantial improvements in their lives follow. Positive outcomes have occurred within Australia when community-led Indigenous engagement is consistently listened to, including the impositions of Koori Courts, which reduce recidivism; and culturally appropriate birthing centres, which reduce infant mortality.[7]

3. ‘It Divides Us’

‘No’ states that the Voice is inherently divisive because it “goes against a key principle of our democratic system, that all Australians are equal before the law,” and the Parliament already represents Indigenous Australians by having “a record 11 Indigenous Members and Senators.”[8] Mayo and O’Brien argue that the Voice is not about giving favouritism to Indigenous peoples, rather it is “about recognising them,” and being “a force for unity and change.”[9] The Voice gives Indigenous peoples express recognition, but this is due to historical wrongs that continue to reverberate in contemporary society.

In 1992, Prime Minister Paul Keating contended that Australia was built on division: “We [European settlers] took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the diseases and the alcohol…. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practiced discrimination and exclusion.”[10] Colonial policies caused intergenerational trauma, which underscores ongoing disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. The Voice is a recognition of these sociological divisions caused by colonisation. Indigenous peoples deserve constitutional recognition to create a more level playing field because their ancestors had distinct traditions and rights attached to Australia prior to colonisation, which have been systematically destroyed.

Indigenous peoples are currently proportionately overrepresented in Parliament. They hold 4.8% of seats yet constitute 3% of Australia’s population. This is an historical anomaly. It was not until the 1970s that an Indigenous person first held federal office. Moreover, unlike New Zealand where Māori are guaranteed five seats, Indigenous Australians are not guaranteed seats in Parliament. Electoral vicissitudes may diminish Indigenous representation in the future. Australian Members of Parliament are also delegate representatives. White Members of Parliament are not elected to represent white views—they represent their electorates. Ditto vis-à-vis Indigenous Members of Parliament.

4. ‘It Will Not Help Indigenous Australians’

‘No’ says that “a centralised Voice risks overlooking the needs of regional and remote communities…. What is needed is action…. What we need in Canberra is ears, not a Voice.”[11] Such assertions are incorrect. First, the Voice is a course of action; second, members of the Voice will be selected by Indigenous peoples to represent their views, with designated regional and remote community representatives; and third, the current Labor Government has used their ‘ears’ to listen to the Uluru Statement of the Heart, where a consensus among attendees asserted that they want a Voice.

A centralised Voice has been pejoratively referred to as a ‘Canberra Voice.’ Such nomenclature implies that by virtue of its location, it would be out of touch with ordinary Indigenous Australians and should not be implemented. The Voice would arguably be more representative than the House of Representatives—also located in Canberra. The lower house has 151 members representing electorates with approximately 100,000 people. There are around one million Indigenous Australians. With twenty-four members proposed for the Voice, each seat equates to representing roughly 42,000 people. If the Voice is not representative, then the House of Representatives is inherently unrepresentative, but there are no calls for the latter institution to be abolished.

‘No’ further asserts that “there are currently hundreds of Indigenous representative bodies at all levels of government, along with the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA).”12 This postulation ignores the reason for a constitutionally enshrined Voice. The NIAA is the latest iteration of legislative bodies to act for Indigenous Australians. The default reaction to insufficient outcomes by Indigenous organisations has been to defund and ultimately abolish them. Enshrining the Voice in the Constitution makes it significantly more difficult for it to be terminated. With longevity, the Voice can adapt and evolve over time, and not be beholden to the three year federal electoral cycle.

5. ‘No Issue Is Beyond Its Scope’

‘No’ stipulates that the Voice could deliberate on matters only tangentially related to Indigenous affairs—e.g. defence. The Voice would focus on four areas where Indigenous people are disproportionately worse off: health, education, jobs, and housing.[12] Those supportive of the Voice are hesitant for it to be granted powers beyond this remit. Parliament could ensure that deliberative powers beyond this purview are circumscribed. That said, there are historical cases where aspects of defence policy would have benefitted from consideration by such an institution. In the 1960s, for instance, nuclear weapons were tested in regions with known Indigenous traversal. Untold Indigenous peoples consequently died from radiation sickness.[13]

‘No’ posits that the Voice is not “just to Parliament, it goes much further—to all areas of ‘Executive Government.’ That includes all government departments, agencies, and other bodies.”[14] This assertion is theoretically correct. However, it is flawed in praxis. Such expansive scope is only feasible if Parliament specifically legislates for it. In the unlikely event it did, however, the Executive would have “no constitutional legal obligation to accept or be bound [by representatives of the Voice],” and there would usually be “little or no scope for constitutional litigation.”[15] The Voice’s scope could be limited by Parliament and advice provided within its scope need not be accepted.

Some progressive Indigenous leaders are critical of the Voice. They proclaim that the Voice’s powers should be much stronger. In its proposed form, they assert that outcomes for Indigenous peoples would be unlikely to improve. Nonetheless, despite such rhetoric, they mostly support the Voice. The conservative ‘No’ campaign has deliberately misquoted these postulations and broadcast them on social media on an ostensibly neutral page called ‘Referendum News,’ which really only shows criticism of the Voice.[16] The conservative ‘No’ campaign is against a Voice with broad scope yet are cynically utilising progressive arguments that call for broader scope as reasons to vote ‘No’.

6. ‘It Risks Delays and Dysfunction’

‘No’ states that “if the Voice is not satisfied with the way it has been consulted…, it could appeal to the courts. How long would this take? Experts have warned this would cause considerable delays in decision making…. The risk of legal appeals and delays means a risk of dysfunctional government. This is not good for Australia.”[17] The Voice does not require Parliament to ‘consult’ it. The Voice would make ‘representations.’ The Solicitor-General’s advice states that the word ‘consultation’ was deliberately not used “as to convey an obligation on the part of the Executive Government or the Parliament to consult the Voice prior to making decisions.”[18]

The Voice is carefully worded to minimise the risk of High Court litigation. Any High Court litigation would not cause ‘considerable’ delays. The Solicitor-General, the second law officer in Australia behind the Attorney-General and an expert constitutional lawyer, asserts that “the suggestion that a consequence of empowering the Voice to make representations to the Executive Government will be to clog up the courts, or to cause government to grind to a halt, ignores the reality that litigation concerning the validity of decisions is already very common and it does not have either of those consequences.” He further contends “that many representations made by the Voice… will concern matters that are not reviewable in a court.”[19]

Government is divided into three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch acts as a check on the other to ensure one institution does not have complete power. The judiciary’s role is to interpret the laws. The High Court’s role is to determine constitutional validity, and hear appeals by special leave from Federal, State or Territory courts. Judicial decisions have important impacts on Australia’s laws. For instance, terra nullius was overturned in successful litigation to the High Court, which paved the way for the recognition of Native Title. ‘No’ argues that potential litigation to the High Court is ‘not good.’ Such action, when it occurs, is a necessary part of ensuring the integrity of Australia’s democracy.

7. ‘It Opens the Door for Activism’

Activism is a core tenet of democracy. Indigenous activism—progressive and conservative—already occurs at Parliament. ‘No’ contends that progressive activists will use the Voice to call for “reparations… and treaty. By definition, a treaty is an agreement between governments, not between one group of citizens and its government.”[20] Reparations do not require a Voice and have already occurred. Australian governments, for instance, have paid reparations to members of the Stolen Generation. A small minority of activists nonetheless call for expansive reparations for colonisation. This is politically unpalatable to many Australians and the major parties categorically reject such calls. Such positions would continue with or without the Voice.[21]

There are already calls for an Indigenous treaty without a Voice. Australia is one of the only former British colonies not to have one. Several states are presently working towards state-based treaties and previous federal governments have expressed support for a national treaty. The conservative ‘No’ campaign misunderstands the concept of treaty under international law. Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous People. It sets out instruments where Indigenous citizens can sign treaties with national or regional governments. However, they would be different to colonial-era treaties signed by two internationally sovereign communities. Any contemporary treaty would be subject to Australian law.23

‘No’ also says that activists could use the Voice to abolish traditional Australian institutions and symbols like Australia Day.[22] Tradition does not equal right. Imagine Japan invaded Australia in World War II. Imagine Australia’s name was changed to Ōsutoraria and the Emperor became our sovereign. Imagine a day of celebration called Ōsutoraria Day was created to coincide with the date of invasion. Replace Japan with Britain; replace World War II with 1788; replace Emperor with King; and replace Ōsutoraria Day with Australia Day. Indigenous people do not have to imagine.

8. ‘It Will be Costly and Bureaucratic’

‘No’ maintains :that we do not know how much additional funding will be allocated to the Voice.”[23] Budget papers indicate that the referendum will cost $365 million. This is similar to a federal election. The same-sex marriage plebiscite comparatively cost $500 million.[24] However, ‘No’ is primarily concerned with how much funding may be required to run the Voice. There are presently no estimates on such costs. However, conservative concerns about such costs may be insincere. The Coalition Opposition prefers a legislative Voice. One might expect operational costs of a legislative Voice to be comparable to a constitutionally enshrined Voice.

The Voice is designed to cut through bureaucracy. Local Indigenous organisations are operationally controlled by government departments. These departments are overseen by politicians primarily interested in re-election. If Indigenous organisations are consulted, their advice is often bureaucratically amended to the point of redundancy.[25] A national Voice would help protect local voices from being filtered out of existence. Indigenous leadership through the Voice would also facilitate greater cultural understanding between politicians and local Indigenous communities to improve policy-making for all Australians. Moreover, the Voice would head responsibility for improving Indigenous outcomes. If inequitable Indigenous outcomes persist post-Voice implementation, blame could no longer reasonably be placed on government bureaucracy.

‘No’ implicitly argues that the Voice is unnecessary because Australia already has one: the NIAA. This assertion misunderstands both bodies. The NIAA is an internal agency of executive government. The Voice would be independent. The NIAA must be impartial and confidential. The Voice would be public and political. Members of the NIAA are appointed. The Voice’s members would be elected and accountable. The Voice would solely consist of Indigenous people. The NIAA is only 20% Indigenous. The Voice would work alongside existing Indigenous organisations because they play distinctly important roles, comparable to federal government working with state governments, who in turn work with local governments.[26]

9. The Voice Will Be Permanent

‘No’ posits that “once [the Voice] is in the Constitution it will not be undone…, once the High Court makes an interpretation, Parliament cannot overrule it…, and we will be stuck with the negative consequences forever.”[27] The second point has already been covered elsewhere. The first and third points imply that changes to the Constitution are permanent. The ‘Founding Fathers’ considered that the Constitution may need to change as political circumstances change. This is the raison d’être for section 128, which outlines the rules for changing the Constitution via referendum. Indeed, this clause is the entire basis for this debate.

Previous versions of the Constitution have marginalised Indigenous peoples. Before its removal in 1967, section 127 stated that “in reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State…, aboriginal natives (sic) shall not be counted.” Beyond recognising Indigenous peoples as human beings, one immediate benefit was that the Indigenous populace was reflected in the allocation of seats in the Lower House. This was particularly relevant to Queensland and Western Australia with large Indigenous populations.[28] If it were not for section 128, the Constitution would remain explicitly discriminatory towards Indigenous Australians.

As outlined in previous sections, perceived negative consequences—dysfunction, bureaucracy, activism, scope— of the Voice are imprecise. Furthermore, the ‘No’ campaign fails to acknowledge that if the Voice is implemented by referendum, it can be rescinded by referendum. One reported hypothetical is that the Voice may be ultimately redundant if it succeeds in ensuring equitable outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. However, this argument is flawed. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg once quipped, throwing out laws that “work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”[29]

10. ‘There Are Better Ways Forward’

‘No’ declares that Indigenous constitutional recognition “can be achieved without tying it to [the] Voice.”32 Indigenous Australians should instead be recognised as Australia’s traditional custodians in the Constitution’s preamble. Australia has already had a referendum on this proposal in 1999. Indigenous peoples generally did not support it because it had insufficient Indigenous consultation and represented only symbolic change. An accompanying Constitutional amendment was written ensuring the preamble would have had “no legal force and shall not be considered in interpreting this Constitution.”[30] The then Coalition Government argued that something was better than nothing. With a concurrent republic referendum, Australians were apathetic towards symbolic Indigenous recognition, and it was rejected.

‘No’ claims that “when previous changes to the Constitution have been proposed, there has been a Constitutional Convention to properly consider options and details. No such process happened here.” [31] This is false. Constitutional Conventions are not mandatory and occur infrequently. However, one did happen in 2017 and was called the First Nations National Constitutional Convention. It was bipartisan and was established to advise the government on how to appropriately recognise Indigenous peoples in the Constitution. This Constitutional Convention underpinned the Uluru Statement from the Heart which called for a Constitutionally enshrined Voice. Moreover, six years have since passed—ample time for detailed consideration.

‘No’ concludes that “others might be willing to consider a less risky Voice option, but the Government has not given you this choice.”[32] This is wrong. When the Voice was initially proposed, the Coalition Government perfunctorily rejected it. By extension, the Australian populace was refused the opportunity to choose whether it should be implemented. This remains the Coalition’s stance. In contrast, holding a referendum on the Voice was an electoral promise by Labor in the 2022 election. They have fulfilled this promise. Whereas the Coalition did not give Australians a choice to vote for or against the Voice, the current Labor Government has.

11. Bonus: ‘If You Do Not Know, Vote No’

Voting is the crux of liberal democracy. Citizens choose how they are governed, which underscores governmental legitimacy. Such consequentialism necessitates informed voting. Representatives or policies selected or rejected with uninformed voting may undermine the collective interests of the populace. Three knowledge areas underpin informed voting. First, understanding how votes are conducted and how outcomes are determined; second, awareness of varying political viewpoints, rather than blind partisan allegiance; and third, context of a particular vote in the democratic system.[33]The AEC has posted basic resources to each Australian household to facilitate informed voting in the upcoming referendum.

The ‘No’ campaign is encouraging people to not inform themselves. People may vote against the Voice even though, if informed, they would support it. Furthermore, widespread acceptance of the ‘if you do not know, vote no’ slogan may significantly impact Australia’s democracy. The ‘Founding Fathers’ entrusted Australians to make informed decisions about constitutional change by inserting the referendum clause. Elements of the Constitution have proven to be unsuitable to Australia’s needs in the past. This may be the case in future decades or centuries. However, if the default response to proposed constitutional change is to not inform oneself and subsequently vote no, future referenda may be unviable.

The Constitution may consequently become brittle overtime. This would put pressure on the High Court to make radical changes. Such changes may or may not align with Australians’ views. The High Court is composed of seven appointed judges who can serve up to the age of seventy. Australians’ democratic rights to decide constitutional change would effectively be abrogated to seven individuals that are democratically unaccountable post-appointment. An informed no vote is good for democracy, whereas an uninformed no vote is democratically corrosive. Moreover, if one remains unsure at the ballot box, an empty ballot is equally acceptable to an informed yes or no vote.[34]

The referendum on whether to enshrine the Voice in Australia’s Constitution will be held today on the 14th October 2023. The ‘No’ campaign is ahead in the polls. My sincere hope is that people who are unsure or indicating that they will vote ‘no’ may be swayed to change their vote because of information in this article.


[1] Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No Referendum Pamphlet, 2023,

[2] First Nations National Constitution Convention, Uluru Statement from the Heart, 2017,

[3] Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No, 6.

[4] Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No, 11.

[5] Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No, 11.

[6] Jack Latimore, “What Would the Voice Look Like Under Albanese’s Preferred Model?” The Sydney Morning Herald, 2022,

[7] Thomas Mayo and Kerry O’Brien, The Voice to Parliament Handbook: All the Detail You Need (Melbourne: Hardie Grant Explore), 81-89.

[8] Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No, 13.

[9] Mayo and O’Brien, The Voice to Parliament Handbook, 73.

[10] ABC Australia, “Paul Keating Speech On Impact of European Settlement on Indigenous Australia (1992),” YouTube, 2020,

[11] Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No, 15. 12 Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No, 15.

[12] Linda Burney, “National Press Club Address,” Australian Government: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2023,

[13] Frank Walker, Maralinga: The Chilling Expose of Our Secret Nuclear Shame and Betrayal of Our Troops and Country (Sydney: Hatchette Australia).

[14] Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No, 15.

[15] Josh Butler, “Voice Supporters Want It To Advise Executive Government. Why Are Critics Worried,” The Guardian, 2023,

[16] Josh Butler and Nick Evershed, “No Campaign Runs Opposite Claims On Indigenous Voice Across Different Social Media Pages,” The Guardian, 2023,

[17] Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No, 15.

[18] Commonwealth of Australia, Inquiry into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Voice Referendum Submission 64, (Canberra: Parliament of Australia, 2023), 9.

[19] Commonwealth of Australia, Inquiry, 22.

[20] Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No, 17.

[21] James Massola, “Anthony Albanese Opposes Reparations For Indigenous Australians,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 2023,  23 Harry Hobbs, Neidi Norman, and Matthew Walsh, “What Actually Is A Treaty? What Could It Mean For Indigenous People,” The Conversation, 2023,

[22] , 17.

[23] Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No, 17.

[24] Paul Karp, “Marriage Equality Plebiscite’s “True Cost” Estimated At $525m,” The Guardian, 2016,; Bryant Hevesi,

“Budget Papers Reveal The $364.6 Million Cost Of Delivering The Voice Referendum,” Sky News, 2023,

[25] Charles Prouse, “Our Communities Are Run By Bureaucrats Who Control Indigenous Lives. That’s Why I’m Asking You To Give Us Our Voice,” The Guardian, 2023,

[26] RMIT ABC Fact Check, “No, Indigenous Australians Don’t Already Have A Voice To Parliament,” ABC News, 2023,

[27] , 19.

[28] National Museum Australia, “Indigenous Referendum,” National Museum Australia, 2023,

[29] Marcia Coyle, “5 Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Most Powerful Supreme Court Opinions,” PBS News Hour, 2020,,you%20are%20not%20getting%20wet.%E2%80%9D.  32 Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No, 19.

[30] Anne Winckel, “A 21st Century Constitutional Preamble – An Opportunity for Unity Rather Than Partisan Politics,” UNSW Law Journal 24, no. 3 (2001): 644.

[31] Australian Electoral Commission, Yes/No, 19.

[32] , 19.

[33] Paul Kildea and Rodney Smith, “The Challenge of Informed Voting at Constitutional Referendums,” UNSW Law Journal 39, no. 1 (2016): 371.

[34] Constitutional Clarion (Anne Twomey), “Voice Referendum – Why The ‘Don’t Know, Vote No’ Slogan Is So Appalling,” YouTube, 2023,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *