In a letter, the opposition leader said that prime minister Anthony Albanese was making a “catastrophic mistake not providing accessible, clear and complete information” regarding the government version of the Voice.
In turn, Albanese accused Dutton of engaging in “cheap culture war stunts” over the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
Dutton’s demand is legitimate because the proposed new body could be used as a convenient tool to pack it with those who enthusiastically support the government’s narrative and to silence people who disagree with the proposed entrenchment of the “Voice” into the Constitution.
As such, the Voice’s membership may not be limited to Indigenous people but could be expanded to include members who are “culturally” attuned to the government’s policies and priorities, meaning membership could be determined by “cultural traits.”
‘Aboriginal’: Race or Culture?
In an article (pdf), Geraldine Heng, an American commentator, explains that for many generations, “race was originally defined only in biological terms and believed to be determined by skin, colour, physiognomy, and genetic inheritance.”Writing about race and racism in the European Middle Ages, she develops the interesting idea that “racism” is not necessarily based on the race of a person but could also constitute a cultural classification.
This view is apposite in Australia, where “Aboriginality” seems to have developed into an amorphous, undefinable concept that has steadily been expanded to cover cultural traits that are different from the mainstream population.
This view is lent credence by the abundance and ubiquity of “Welcome to Country” ceremonies and “cultural” performances, which have become permanent, if not compulsory, accessories to practically all academic, social, and sporting events.
As could be seen recently, during the Adelaide International tennis tournament, these cultural performances have nothing to do with tennis but instead are distracting yet colourful, intrusions into the world of sports.
Of course, there should be room for these performances in other settings, notably in cultural, ethnic festivals, of which there are many in Australia.
Heng illustrates her theme with a discussion of historical events from the Middle Ages. These events indicate that “culture” has been used as a proxy for “race” to silence those deemed enemies of Christianity. For her, “racism” is as much a racial as a cultural phenomenon.
If membership of the “Voice” were to be determined, not on the basis of strict guidelines that define “Aboriginality,” the proposed body could be used to drive a wedge between people potentially, not bringing them together, as the Uluru Statement from the Heart wants us to believe.
Will the Coalition Sufficiently Oppose the Proposal?
For some people, Dutton’s demand might well be characterised as the action of a mature political grouping, capably doing its job of keeping the government accountable.However, the request to be provided with details worryingly reveals that the Opposition is jettisoning liberal principles to serve the temporary and transitory objectives of politics.
In demanding more details, the Opposition implies that the Voice proposal itself has intrinsic merit and that only the details should be looked at. This approach is, however, incompatible with the expectation that the Opposition opposes the entrenchment of the Voice in the Constitution on principle and comes out strongly against violating the fundamental principle that people should not be preferred on the basis of their race.
Indeed, if the Voice referendum were to succeed, it would enshrine discrimination forever into the Constitution, and Australia would be a racist country where burdens and benefits are distributed based on characteristics that have nothing to do with merit but everything to do with political expediency.
A long time ago, referring to the United States, I pointed out that “people and those with claims to relevant professional expertise were often instantly morally catalogued by their point of view” on contentious civil rights issues “rather than by the strength of their arguments.”
Likewise, those who oppose the Voice will likely be targeted as racists and bigots.
The arguments against the entrenchment of the Voice in the Constitution have been canvassed in many publications.
It suffices to recall that they deal with the abandonment of the principle of equal treatment, legislative problems associated with the creation of a third chamber of Parliament, and the possibility of the Voice developing into an administrative Qango empowered to veto new legislation, administrative inefficiency and failure to focus on the real problems of Aboriginal Australia.
But the equal treatment principle may be violated most conspicuously by the government’s failure to detail the composition of the proposed new body. Moreover, in refusing to disclose details of the Voice’s composition, the government may increase its options to adopt its preferred design later.
In this regard, it is unfortunate that the Opposition, by sacrificing their principles for reasons of convenience or practicality, does not present a united front to oppose the Voice, the entrenchment of which will also entrench discrimination in the Constitution.
