Rugby Australia board issues position on The Voice in new advertising campaign
The Rugby Australia Board has launched a new campaign communicating its support for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. The long copy ad was written by advertising creative director Simon Collins.
Rugby Australia has joined a number of leading sporting organisations in supporting the proposal.
Says Hamish McLennan, chairman of the board of directors for the Australian Rugby Union: “I felt the art of the long copy ad has been lost on the younger generation. The Rugby Australia Board needed to carefully and beautifully articulate its argument for why we supported the Voice, and there was no one more clever, skilled and articulate than Simon to write our position.”
Says Collins: “It was all Hamish McLennan’s initiative. He was my boss at Y&R in New York so he knows how I write – and he may also have known I worked on the Recognise campaign when I came back to Sydney. But anyway, he asked me if I’d write an ad explaining RA’s position on the Voice, and I said sure, and then he bullet-pointed that position really clearly and all I really had to do was joint the dots. But I like to think the result is a little more compelling than if he’d used ChatGPT.”
(Radio grab of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese talking about the Rugby Australia ad on the ABC)
10 Comments
Oh man. That typesetting is truly horrific.
Bring back the craft plz
Joo said it, mang.
I support constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as Australia’s first people.
I believe the vast majority of Australians would happily vote Yes to that – if that was all they were voting for.
But sadly, it isn’t.
The Federal Govt has chosen to make support for constitutional recognition of Australia’s first people dependent
on support for the establishment of The Voice.
This will give The Voice the right to advise government on all and any matter it feels relevant to indigenous Australia,
but – and here’s the sad bit – but it will not have to answer to government.
Any and all disputes will be be decided by the High Court.
In other words, for me to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as Australia’s first people, I have no choice
but to enshrine a body into the Constitution that is forever not answerable to the Govt of the day.
I can’t do that, despite all the flowery rhetoric of the RU ad.
To suggest as the ad does, that:
‘the Constitution still does not recognise Australia’s First People or give them the vote they deserve’ is dishonest at best;
especially as earlier in the very same ad the author writes,
‘that’s what our parents and grandparents voted for when they confirmed the democratic rights of the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people in 1967’.
Yes, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people deserve better.Much better.
Just as all Australians deserve much better from their Fed Govt in the formulation of such an important Referendum.
Well done Hamish and Simon.
Great initiatives Hamish and great copy and HL Simon.
The anonymous individual that mentioned the type forgot to say how wonderful it is that RA is getting behind such a significant issue.
Great words Rugby Aus. Good on you for speaking up!
Hello Here Goes. Whilst I find it odd that someone wants to use ‘the blog’ to push their political viewpoint as opposed to their advertising one, I did notice a fact that could be worth checking in your post.
Didn’t the Uluru Statement propose The Voice? Not the federal government as you state.
Two points:
1] I believe the Uluru Statement from the Heart was supported by the vast majority of the attendees [but not all] and the Federal Govt approved [without change], the same group’s wording of the The Voice Referendum.
But, to your specific point, individual groups do not determine whether a referendum is held. Yes, they can suggest one be proposed, but any actual proposal can only be made by the Fed Govt – which is exactly what the Fed Govt has done.
2] It was not my intent to ‘push’ my personal POV of The Voice, so much as I was responding to what I believe are the serious inconsistencies of the POV expressed in the ad.
Dear @Here Goes. Please do your home work properly and listen to what First Nations people are asking.
1. FACT: The referendum is not the Creation of the Government.
Yes they have put it forward (that’s how referendums work) but the idea for it and the wording have been long in the making under many Governments and is an acceptance of what the Uluru Statement has called for. The Uluru Statement was a petition from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Non Indigenous Leaders (appointed by then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten) that calls for constitutional change specifically by way of a “First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution” . This was not a ‘creation’ of the Government, but a Government listening to its constituency. Support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart grew and grew so that by June 2020, research showed that the majority of Australians supported a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament. Even today, we still have majority support (though confusion and misinformation is certainly muddying the waters). And despite what the minority nay-sayers will have you think 83% of First Nations people support the change. Given this support, the previous Morrison Government set up a Joint Committee which recommended a process of co-design (amongst other recommendations). This co-design was set in train in 2019 under the Morrison Government. Morrison’s Government went further and said it would run a referendum should consensus be reached and it was likely to succeed. The Albanese Government took up the mantle, rightfully believing from the actions of the Morrison Government and research evidence from its Australian constituents, that the referendum would likely succeed. Dutton however decided to make it a political football and spread much misinformation – including your belief that the referendum was originated by the current Government.
2. FACT. The Voice will not have legislative powers.
The Voice is an advisory body only on matters that affect their lives (not an unreasonable ask by anyone’s standards). The Government of the day will have the decision making powers – not The Voice.
3. FACT: The Voice will not see disputes end up in the High Court.
Constitutional experts have rejected misinformation that The Voice would be able to veto decisions of the parliament or open the Government up to legal challenges in the High Court. The Solicitor General supports this and has said The Voice will in no way “fetter or impede parliament”. He went on to say that The Voice “will not pose any threat” to our system of government and that the parliament will have “the ultimate say” on any issues that The Voice advises on.
4. FACT: The 1967 Referendum was about Census Count not Recognition or being heard.
It was whether First Nations peoples should be counted in the census. You might also be interested to know that there wasn’t an official “No” campaign in 1967.
And unlike you, I accept that I am seeking to push my own POV – albeit supported by evidence.
In response.
1) We agree on the history of the referendum on The Voice, but we disagree on whether it’s the ‘creation of Govt’. Or not.
My point is only the Govt can create/propose a referendum.
It is Govt that has created The Voice Referendum – regardless of whether every word in the referendum was created by others. That’s a fact.
2) Don’t disagree. The Voice does not have legislative powers. That’s a fact. I didn’t claim otherwise.
3) Many agree with your POV, but many others disagree including ex-Hight Court judges and constitutional academics and constitutional legal experts. I’m not saying they all disagree with your position, but it is equally true, that not all agree with your position. That’s a fact.
4) I did not say the 67 Referendum gave indigenous Australians the right to vote. Indiginous Australians were given the right to vote in all jurisdictions in 1962 (it was not the case prior). That’s a fact.
I believe the copy of the ad implied ‘voting rights’ when it stated ‘ (the referendum’)confirmed the democratic rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in 1967’.
(Most people interpret ‘democratic rights’ as including the right to vote and representation).
Do not assume I don’t understand the importance of the Voice. Like Julian Leeset I want the wording changed to address the biggest inhibitor to the referendum being passed.
The difference between his position and mine is that he will vote ‘Yes’ even if the wording is not changed as he suggests; whereas I will vote No.
Why does every conversation about the Voice have to be so nasty?Perversely,given the Voice is all about respect,there is disappointingly little shown to those who don’t hold the same point of view,from both sides.I was nodding my head as I read through the well made points of the last contributor,then I got to the last line-why the narky snipe?