Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, together with all the state and territory premiers have officially backed an Indigenous “voice” to parliament, to advise parliament and the federal government on policy matters. He says it is a priority for his government to secure this successful constitutional referendum in the second half of this year.
In past referenda, federal governments fostered debate by providing pamphlets giving the official cases for and against the proposed changes. At this time, however, debate is being stifled by implying that anyone having a concern for such a proposal might be a racist.
Some will avoid objecting or even discussing the constitutional proposal for reasonable fear of being branded a racist and sued. This appears to confirm the worst fears of Aboriginal academic Anthony Dillon, who once commented: “When discussing Aboriginal matters there seems to be no end to where offence can be taken and accusations of racism made.”
So, it might be necessary for me to clarify that I enthusiastically support the right of Australians of Aboriginal heritage to freely embrace, practise, and celebrate their rich cultural heritage.
However, the voice referendum is not really about seeking reconciliation but about abandoning the nature of our democracy.
Australians will be asked by the government to introduce into their Constitution the idea of racial preference, which, according to Chris Merritt, vice-president of The Rule of Law Institute of Australia, it is about asking them to give one racial group—and their descendants for all time—constitutionally guaranteed additional influence over all areas of public office.
But once this “advisory” entity is enshrined in the nation’s constitutional framework, the Indigenous voice will make representations to parliament and the government that could have influence over the development of every public policy, potentially affecting the broader community while remaining accountable only to its race-based constituency.
A Big Lie
Exactly how members of the Indigenous voice will be appointed is one of the details that has been left undefined. The fact that such a matter is important for all those who value democracy appears to have been ignored.Instead, the final report of the “Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process” raises the prospect that some of its members will be directly chosen by the Indigenous community but nominated by the local and regional “voices.”
This appalling erosion of democratic principles weakens the case for incorporating such a race-based entity in the Australian Constitution.
“Sadly, this is the enduring legacy of Aboriginal affairs in Australia,” says Dallas Scott, an Australian Aborigine, who refers particularly to the existence of self-appointed leaders with no legitimacy to make decisions for other Aborigines and to speak for them.
As Scott points out,
“In a society where citizens have been sent to die for the chance to bring democracy to another country, some turn a blind eye to the undemocratic state of native organisations.”
Scott is very proud of his Aboriginal heritage but sees himself fundamentally as no different from his fellow Australians and have been involved in many discussions on Aboriginal identity.
However, according to him,
“Australians have happily swallowed the lie that Aborigines are one big, multi-coloured family who stick together … Those without a voice trust the rest who have one to speak up for them. They are not the ones lecturing on recognition from a function centre, but the people who are often functionally illiterate and unemployed, thousands of kilometres away from where people are listening and deciding what is important for them.”
Arguably, the political establishment has a vested interest in fomenting a divisive racialist agenda that ultimately undermines the principle of equality enshrined in our Constitution.
Keith Windschuttle, an Australian historian, explains why he believes that Australians have not been told the whole truth about such a proposal to change their Constitution:
“It is not only the Aboriginal academic and political establishment who want parts of it redrafted to suit their own political agenda. The real aim of the hard core of today’s political class and cultural elite is not social amelioration or progress, even if they do regard themselves as ‘progressives.’ It is to gain a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the Constitution to fulfil their own political ambitions.”
Windschuttle then explains that the primary ambition of some elitist elements within our society is not centred on gaining more liberal reforms or making Australia more democratic. In fact, as he interestingly points out,
Institutional Race Card
Be that as it may, the simple and incontestable fact is that establishment of an Indigenous voice in our parliament would create different rules for people with different cultures, ethnicity, and ancestry.Of course, the question of who is Aboriginal and who is not, and what Aboriginal-identifying people are entitled to, is a controversial and important topic.
Instead of creating reconciliation, adding a race-based element to our parliamentary system could drive us further apart than we have been for many generations.
For example, the enshrinement of racial distinction in the Constitution could tempt some people to “play the race card,” thus aggravating the differences between Australian Aborigines and all the other Australians.
One of the great virtues of our Constitution is its equal treatment of all citizens. It is a federal document for all Australians regardless of race, culture or origin. It is improper to use such a document to promote one group over the rest of the population.
According to Ian Callinan QC, a former justice of the High Court of Australia, “Any constitutional provision which might seek to justify a different law for peoples of different ethnicity on grounds of that ethnicity should be resisted.”
I wholeheartedly agree. The should be no different treatment of citizens under the Australian Constitution because: “We are all equal and endowed by God with inalienable rights” is indeed a much better principle of constitutional law than “We’ve got here first!”
But the voice referendum should be rejected not just because it grossly violates the principle of equality but because its proponents have declined to provide the Australian people with sufficient information so they can make a fully informed decision.
