Seniors First Supports “Yes” For The Voice Referendum: Here’s Why

By Darren Moffatt

September 4, 2023


interest rate reverse mortgage

Australia stands on the brink of a transformative moment. On October 14, all citizens will have the power to reshape the nation’s foundational document and recognise its First Peoples in a manner that holds the promise of justice, inclusion, and unity. Seniors First, as a leading force in the over 60’s community in Australia, strongly supports  the “Yes” vote in The Voice referendum. Here’s an insight into why.

Formal Recognition of Indigenous Peoples

The Australian Constitution, which has been our guiding document since the inception of the federation, is devoid of any mention of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the continent’s original inhabitants. Voting ‘Yes’ in the referendum would correct this oversight, giving these communities the formal recognition and respect they deserve.

Collaborative Policy Making 

The proposed Voice is not just symbolic; it’s about ensuring that Indigenous perspectives are heard and factored into the nation’s policies. By having a dedicated advisory body, the chances of drafting better-informed policies that genuinely cater to the needs and aspirations of Indigenous communities will significantly increase.

Improved Outcomes for Senior Indigenous Communities

The driving force behind the Yes campaign is the hope for better outcomes in health, education, employment, and housing for Indigenous Australians – particularly older members of the community. By having a platform that can directly advise the parliament and executive government, the unique challenges faced by these communities can be addressed more effectively.

Strong Backing from Multiple Quarters

This isn’t a partisan cause. The Labor Party, Greens, select Liberals, and multiple other political entities back the Yes case. The corporate sector, including giants like Qantas and Telstra, sporting bodies from the AFL to netball, and various community organisations, have all rallied behind the cause, signifying its importance to the broader Australian community.

Amplifying the Uluru Statement from the Heart

The Voice referendum is deeply rooted in the aspirations of the mainstream Indigenous community of Australia. The Uluru Statement is a testament to this. Resulting from extensive consultations involving over 1200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives, it echoes the collective sentiment of coming together after a struggle.

The Power of Listening

One of the core tenets of effective human communication is understanding, and listening. The Voice is a platform for Indigenous perspectives, ensuring that their invaluable insights guide government decisions, resulting in more comprehensive and effective policies.

The Precise Nature of the Vote

Voters are not venturing into the unknown. The referendum question is clear-cut, asking Australians if they approve of the establishment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. If the majority votes ‘Yes’, the Constitution will be amended, making provisions for this new body.

The Voice represents an opportunity for Australia to listen, recognise, and evolve. 

It is not taking anything away, from anyone.

It simply empowers First Nations people to better advise the government on issues affecting their communities. 

Supporting the “Yes” referendum aligns with the Seniors First ethos of inclusivity, progress, empathy, and respect for elders. 

We urge our community to seize this chance, casting a “Yes” vote for a united and inclusive Australia. 

Regards, Darren

PS: John Farnham lends his iconic song to the ‘Yes’ campaign 

Finally, just yesterday it was announced that Australian music legend John Farnham has licensed his iconic song ‘You’re the Voice’ to the yes campaign.

You can watch the full advertisement here:


  • I do not think it appropriate for you or any other organization to take a formal stance on the Voice. As the polls are now greater than 50% for NO, you are talking down to and belittling the majority of Australians and have no right to represent all Australians and tell them what to think.

    Your comments, like the whole YES case, is largely devoid of any factual basis and repeatedly is just an emotional plea to close the Gap for indigenous peoples – the aim of which I and hopefully the vast majority of Australians totally approve of.

    It's just that I don't think this is the right mechanism.

    You present the Voice as some soft and nice benign change which has no untoward future consequences. Every YES campaigner and town hall meeting I have been to [all heavily biased to YES – where is there any proper democratic real debate being publicly held?] do not address clearly and with believability the REAL and LEGITIMATE CONCERNS put up by the NO side. Most I've spoken to have not read the NO side contained in the AEC pamphlet or have viewed the far fewer presentations online by the NO proponents.

    I won't list and address these real concerns here but they are many and just using emotional blackmail and virtue signaling just doesn't cut it in a proper debate.

    I beseech all Australians to look carefully and dispassionately at the details of the NO case and only then will they be fully informed in order to make a proper and reasoned decision. I think the YES proponents are really scared of people doing exactly that!

    And if after properly weighing up the potential benefits [unproven, and look at what's happening in New Zealand – how's that working out for them?] against potential consequences [PERMANENTLY enshrining in our Constitution a divisive race-based extra bureaucratic layer of undue influence on our government which favours one group of Australians above all others – completely against the very basis of our Democracy; real likelihood of Treaty leading to amongst other things, massive reparations including more transfer of land to they who represent about 3% of the population but who already own/control 55% of the Australian land mass] and wish to still vote YES then good luck to you for having at least done due diligence and carefully and after full refection of ALL the issues made your decision based on your own conscience of what is best for ALL Australians, not because some big organization told you so..

  • Interesting stand to be taking. Agree that recognition in constitution is long overdue but other ramifications that could and would emerge from such an open document in this form are both divisive and discriminatory across all Australians whilst presenting an invitation to tie up any Government decisions with legal challenges. There is not enough information in the document to properly evaluate what power such a panel would have. Why do we need a further tax payer funded committee when there is already numerous bodies supposedly in place to address the existing problems. A commission into the effectiveness of these would be a starting point before more bureaucratic groups are established. Why would one even consider voting yes when there is such a vague nonsensical explanation given in the posted hand out from the Government. By all means yes to constitutional recognition for the first people but the world has seen ethnic groups destroyed, adsorbed or driven out from the start the human race. Whilst distasteful that is history and it will continue.

  • Seniors first should not be involved with the Voice in any way it's up to people of Australia to decide.

    Presenting one side is very wrong.

    The Uluru Statement from the Heart is 26 pages long. Makarrata is another word for Treaty page 19 it

    calls for reparations , financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP. Truth commission

    Page 3 Resistance This is the time of Frontier Wars , when massacres, disease and poison decimated

    First Nations people

    There are two sides Truth Telling and Aboriginal warfare see link below

    We do not need the Voice we already have the

    "National Indigenous Australians Agency

    Web2 Aug 2023 · The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) vision is to ensure Aboriginal and

    Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered. We recognise each First Nations

    community." A very large agency. The one page poster does not disclose the real agenda behind the Voice

    • MY questions are :
      (i) where is the the 4BILLION paid to the indigenous people go .
      (ii) Who handles the monies surely someone is accountable .
      (iii) Also all the assets .properties that have been given to the fund where has the monies gone and to who.
      (iv) when we have marches around Australia representing the indigenous people and they shout : "WE WANT OUR LANDS BACK" well i think we have given enough property back and places like the red rock now controlled by the indigenous people . Propertiesin Sydney etc given over to the fund and disapated .
      (v) I believe enough is enough. Yes we should look at education health and well being of all of the indigenous people . Those claiming also indigenous heritage should have to prove there geneology .
      (vi) If we were to say Yes what other rights and requests will the this extra party or group want from the Australian people.
      (vi) Surely we have enough members of the current Parliament representing the indigenous people in Australia.
      (vii) yes all the indigenous people in Australai should be consulted and a better plan worked out to ensure that they are getting looked after and currently any indigenous person can consult with a member of parliament or there respective Elders to bring matters to the respective member of Parliament.
      Lets Hope that we can have a resolution to the "VOICE " for once and all.
      Lastly We are all Austra;lian
      Iam a 4th Generation Australian and i was led to believe that when the British landed in Australia that there was no seed no livestock,tools etc and the whites brought knowledge which has today enritched the Australia as it is today.

  • Seniors first , along with all other notable organisations should not be presenting only one side to the referendum, only both . Or best still no comment at all , nobody spoke to me regarding my decision. My suggestion would be read the details and you may reflect with a different perspective. Many indigenous leaders don’t want the voice enshrined in the constitution, to be victimised forever.
    I guess Albo is stuck in victim hood himself and wants to take us down the same path.
    Indigenous peoples just want to be like the rest of us, Australians .

  • Thank you Darren for your insight, it is heartening to find people who are open minded enough to think things through and not just rely on knee jerk reactions. History reminds us that it has always been the enlightened people who have brought about the major social changes , for example the abolition of slavery, children in coal mines, universal suffrage etc. etc. The Conservatives have never really contributed to the betterment of society and prefer to run fear campaigns which must reflect their own fear of change.

  • Dear Mr Moffat
    The debate over the Voice has two sides. It is such a pity that the bias towards the Yes campaign is being given such impetus by large corporations, sporting bodies, institutions and, of course, the left wing advertising body known as the ABC. A fair debate should provide unbiased, factual arguments from both perspectives. It does not. The bodies mentioned above support the Yes campaign for political reasons.
    A corporate body like Qantas, for example, has relied on government handouts in the past and would want to secure support for the future. The same with other organisations.
    When Captain Cook landed here he landed on terra nullius.. This was shown to be incorrect. I suggest that had the referendum just changed the constitution to recognise this error and confirm the existence of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders, then the whole population would vote Yes.
    The problem is that the PM has declared on numerous occasions that he supports the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full which indicates he supports the full 26 page document as released under FOI. The document was written by activists and seeks reparations (as a percentage of GDP), free handouts over and above the $32 billion already administered and a treaty. A couple of points:
    As former PM John Howard pointed out, you cannot have a treaty with part of yourself and 1st Nation people became Australians in 1948.
    Secondly, under Tort Law, to receive compensation you have to be a living victim. You cannot claim compensation for your antecedents. More is the pity as I would claim form the Celts, the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings and the Normans, all of whom had a go at Britain.
    Lastly, the whole exercise is apartheid and creates two forms of citizen based on race. This is extremely divisive.

    • Dear Mr Randle

      You pointing out long past history we all could make a claim I agree with.

      Tort Law

      The Voice: for the establishment under the United Nation Declaration and Rights of

      Indigenous Peoples. which covers all indigenous peoples around the world


      "the action of making amends for a wrong one has done, by providing payment or other assistance to

      those who have been wronged:" is mentioned in this document along with land rights etc.

  • And what about the NO vote?
    You have unwisely chosen to take sides and to a side I don’t agree with.
    You have now lost me as a potential customer.

  • It is highly improper for organised groups, commercial, social, or sporting to take a stand on what is an individual decision.
    A referendum is about of the people, no more no less.
    Information and clarification is fine but it should be balanced, not biased, and left to the individuals to decide.

    The Aboriginal and Torres straight Islander people already have a voice in Parliament – –
    there is a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, with full ministerial powers to investigate and initiate and negotiate for and on behalf of the 4% of Australia's population who "identifies aboriginal", and to do not even have two prove any aboriginal origins. The vast majority are of mixed heritage. If they choose to deny their majority heritage and cling to their so-called aboriginal heritage, that is their choice.
    Being a body with a financial background have you ever considered the top-heavy benefits which already go to the aboriginal community?
    Do you realise that $100 million daily ($39.5 billion annually) of taxpayers money is already allocated to the welfare and advancement of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders?
    Surely you would also realise that this sum of money (provided to 4% of the population) is less than what is allocated to be spread over 100% of the population ($31.3 billion) allocated to Medicare?

    Do you also realise that 40% of Australia's land surface is already under the umbrella of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land rights? Over which a variety of controls and benefits apply.

  • Why are you not presenting both the YES and NO arguments?

    I will be voting NO as I believe we are all equal under the law not based on colour on one's skin.


    • Thanks for your comment Patrick. Just for clarity, we respect all views on this topic. The company has expressed a view on this occasion. This is not unusual, many other organisations are also taking similar action. Individuals are of course welcome to disagree, and we encourage informed debate. Best regards, Darren

      • So , Mr Moffat, you have clarified with every member of your company that they all support the Yes campaign. I doubt that, but when you say it is a company view that is what you are saying g, otherwise it is your personal view, not theirs.

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}