Instead, the Coalition favours regional bodies to enhance effective communication with stakeholders.
As could be predicted, the Labor government chastised the decision of the Liberal Party and called it “shocking.”
Even before that, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, following the Aston by-election, confidently predicted that the government will “work tirelessly to see our recognition of our First Nations people through a Voice to Parliament referendum later this year, and when that happens, it will be one of the great unifying moments for our nation.”
Curiously, state Liberal leaders have indicated they will either campaign for the Yes vote or await further developments.
For example, West Australian Liberal leader Libby Mettam has wasted no time revealing she will defy her party’s federal position.
Of course, there should be no special recognition of ethnic groups under the Australian Constitution. “We’ve got here first” is a poorer constitutional idea than the equalitarian principle that “We are all created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights.”
As stated by Ian Callinan QC, a former judge of the Australian High Court:
“Any constitutional provision which might seek to justify a different law for peoples of different ethnicity on grounds of that ethnicity should be resisted. This must be so for reasons of fairness and social cohesion, as well as clarity of application.”
What Is the Proposal?
The federal Coalition objects to the government proposal to insert the second paragraph of The Voice proposal in the Constitution:“There shall be a body to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
“The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
“The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions powers, and procedures.”
The third paragraph is superfluous because the Parliament, according to section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution, already has the power to make laws with respect to the members of any race.
It is the second paragraph that is highly problematic because its lack of specificity makes it into a minefield of potential conflicts, some of which might end up in the High Court.
For example, it fails to explain what “representations” mean; it fails to indicate which agencies of the executive government must seek the advice of the Voice.
And the meaning of the phrase “matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” is ambiguous because it fails to disclose the matters that would trigger The Voice’s right to make representations to the Parliament and the executive government.
In the absence of such specificity, the claim that The Voice would evolve into a parallel government is credible.
There Are Aboriginals Who Also Disagree
In a recent comment, Greg Craven, a constitutional lawyer, notes that “A society that spurns the most ancient and disadvantaged component of its community will be a deeply troubled nation.”However, it is reasonable to believe that a successful Voice proposal will divide Australia.
Constitutional recognition offers the potential to create different rules for people with different ethnicity and ancestry. This could benefit a few, but it could also keep many Aborigines from reaching their full potential.
“This practice has sometimes ended in tragedy,” says Anthony Dillon, a university lecturer who identifies himself as a “part-Aboriginal Australian.”
Because of such race-based discrimination, Dillon explains:
“Some children have suffered, all in the name of ‘culture.’ A colour-blind culture or way of life, characterised by love, is a far more important consideration than a culture that is assumed to be Aboriginal simply because the adult potential carers themselves have some Aboriginal ancestry.”
The great hypocrisy is that the paternalism of the past that the ruling elites decry is basically what they now wish to constitutionalise through the Voice proposal.
Sadly, writes Dallas Scott, an Australian Aborigine, “this is the enduring legacy of Aboriginal affairs in Australia.”
Voices Shut Down
Quite recently, one of the authors of this opinion piece, both new arrivals to this country, experienced a telling example of disunity when he was interviewed on a talkback radio station about The Voice.A caller-in who identified herself as an Aboriginal woman explained that, as the interviewee was obviously a migrant—from his accent and introduction—he should not be allowed to make pronouncements on The Voice.
But even common sense suggests that all citizens should enjoy “political equality,” regardless of whether they are descendants of Indigenous people, non-Indigenous citizens born in Australia, or new arrivals.
There is a swath of reasons for voting “No,” but these have been or will be canvassed in other opinion pieces.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that if The Voice were to be successful, Australia would be a divided country for the simple but compelling reason that burdens and benefits would no longer be distributed regardless of race, and the promise of “political equality” would become a distant reminder of a saner past.
In this context, it is useful to consider in what a society freedom-loving people would have chosen to live in, if they had been behind a veil of ignorance.
Surely, it would be a society where there is “political equality” and where any suggestion of constitutional recognition of any particular race in the Constitution is regarded as a violation of this principle.
Ultimately, the ruling classes in Australia have a vested interest in fomenting a divisive agenda that further undermines the democratic principle of equality before the law. This is basically a revisitation of the old “divide and conquer” strategy that was so successfully applied by the ancient Romans.
Accordingly, The Voice proposal is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the political and intellectual elites to concentrate more power by radically changing the Australian Constitution to fulfil their own ideological ambitions.
