From the desk of Roland Rocchiccioli – 16 July

Like most, I was perplexed about the forthcoming voice to Parliament referendum until I viewed an enlightening video of explanation from Shelley Reys.

BY way of bona fides, Shelley Reys AO, is a Djiribul woman from far north Queensland of immaculate integrity; partner and board member at KPMG; CEO of Arrilla Indigenous Consulting; and chair of the Council for the Order of Australia.

In a nine-minute tutorial, Ms Reys, devoid of all emotional judgment, guides the viewer through the swirling labyrinth of misinformation, disinformation, hysteria, and blatant lies, surrounding the forthcoming referendum on Indigenous voice to Parliament.

Incredulously, taxpayers’ money notwithstanding, there is no compulsion for advertising and arguments opposing the voice to be accurate, or true. Given the cost to achieve a result, it is an egregious anomaly; a mockery of our democracy!

Ms Reys’ riveting presentation, quietly and intelligently dispels the scare-mongering of bizarre conspiratorialists. She says, “The voice is not just a symbolic act of reconciliation. It’s a practical action resulting in a path where we can walk together; make decisions together; and deliver solutions together.”

Ms Reys is well-qualified and societally positioned to help unravel the Gordian knot, which is the long-overdue recognition of our First Nations Peoples, and their specific plights and cultural needs in government.

I am unqualified to debate the notion, but beseech you: before deciding, watch Ms Reys’ voice to Parliament video: youtu.be/Nla61MfEtiY.

One of the joys of writing a weekly column is the response it elicits from readers. Whether or not they agree, or disagree, is of equal interest. Often, it sets one to thinking.

Always, I am delighted to entertain another opinion.

While one is mindful of the topic – and much thought is devoted to the choice, I hope, always, it is of interest to the reader, otherwise, what would be the point? With access to the airwaves, or in this case the print media, comes a serious responsibility.

It is imperative arguments should be measured. It is not an opportunity to expound, ad nauseum, a personal ideology; although, by definition, and inevitably, it reeks of my opinion. We are subjective, sentient beings. The task is a most agreeable, challenging, juggling act.

Recently, the column about woodfires, which was balanced in its content, garnered this response, in part, “Do try to gear your column more in the way of non-woke items. There are so many people out there that think they have the right to preach to others whether that be about the voice or wood heaters. We don’t need it thank you. We are doing quite well without the pompacity?? [sic] of people in so called lofty places.”

I am not a shrinking violet, nor I am hyper-sensitive. I give as good as I get. Never, and regardless of consequences, have I been one to shy-away from a verbal stouche. Equally, I accept there is another point-of-view to consider, however jaundiced, or radical.

In this day-and-age, the electronic ether is filled coward, key-board warriors. On balance, I found the tone of the questionable email, which came without salutation or valediction, most unpleasant, and not because of the viewpoint, but from its glaring, and gross, lack of civility! Even on reading the content, and not the intent, I remained disquieted. It was rude, and impertinent. I responded, accordingly.

However angry one might be with the world, bad manners are inexcusable. In short: the email was bloody rude!

Pause, and consider, before you dip your quill into the well of ignorant vitriol.

Roland can be contacted, polite emails only, via [email protected].