We gave the Voice to Parliament pamphlets to fact checkers. Here's what they said

Title: We gave the Voice to Parliament pamphlets to fact checkers. Here's what they said.

Key Points:

1. Background: The Yes and No pamphlets for the Voice to Parliament referendum are available. The AEC releases them without fact-checking.

2. Yes Pamphlet Claims and Fact-Checks:

   • Claim: The Voice originates from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. FactCheck: Confirmed; it was proposed in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
   • Claim: The Voice will advise on key Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues. FactCheck: True; it will make representations to Parliament on related matters.
   • Claim: Governments didn't listen to ground-level voices. FactCheck: Needs specifics on which initiatives failed and why.
   • Claim: Constitutional inclusion ensures the Voice's stability. FactCheck: True; it provides security and certainty.
   • Claim: The Voice is constitutionally sound and lacks veto power. FactCheck: Confirmed; it won't have a veto power.

3. No Pamphlet Claims and Fact-Checks:

   • Claim: The Voice might risk legal challenges. FactCheck: Incorrect; it can't make binding demands or veto legislation.
   • Claim: The Voice is untested elsewhere. FactCheck: Other countries have similar First Nations consultation approaches.
   • Claim: Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative bodies already exist. FactCheck: The Voice differs in independence and representation.
   • Claim: A centralized Voice might overlook regional needs. FactCheck: The design ensures focus on communities and regional representation.