Australian PM Cites Jan. 6 Riots in Bid to Win Support for Changing the Constitution

A speech of subtle contradictions

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese addresses the 2023 Chifley Research Centre Conference at the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra on Feb. 5, 2023. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas

Avoiding an incident like the Jan. 6 Capitol riots in Australia is one reason why voters should support a major alteration to the country’s Constitution, says Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

In his latest bid to win over the public for The Voice to Parliament proposal, the prime minister claimed such a “sensible” change would protect Australia’s democracy against “poisonous conspiracy theories.”

Albanese also alluded to the controversy around the 2020 U.S. presidential election result, as well as the more recent Brazilian uprisings, saying “we must also heed the warning they carry.”

While he spoke about the need for the Constitution to be “nourished, protected, cared for, treated with respect,” he also said it was “dynamic, not static.”

“Change driven by the people is not a threat to the system—it is a vital and necessary part of it,” he told the Chifley Research Centre at the National Press Club on Feb. 5.

Also, in a salvo aimed at critics of his Labor government’s proposal, the prime minister said there were people pushing “misinformation on social media” about The Voice.

“Drumming up outrage, trying to start a culture war. That’s an inevitable consequence of trying to achieve change,” he said.

The speech drew a sharp response from the Indigenous leader Warren Mundine, who said Albanese was grasping at straws and struggling to make an argument for The Voice.

What Powers Will ‘The Voice’ Have?

The main thrust of the Voice to Parliament campaign is to embed an advisory body into the Constitution that “would enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to provide advice to the Parliament on policies and projects that impact their lives.”

However, the proposal has raised a swathe of questions over the extent of the powers of such a body, with critics pondering if the body, for example, would have the power to veto legislation. Could it hold up bills already passed by the existing houses of Parliament? Who would decide who sits on the new advisory body? And why does it need to be enshrined into the Constitution instead of just legislated via Parliament?

Albanese maintained that the body would not have any “special power” or be a “third chamber” to Parliament.

“The Referendum Working Group have already outlined some clear fundamentals. The Voice won’t administer funding. It will not deliver programs,” the prime minister said.

“It will not have any kind of veto power over decision-making. And in the course of the year, there will be more information for people to examine.”

Yet whether those details are provided before or after a national referendum is yet to be decided.

Further, the prime minister said no details of the actual working mechanisms of The Voice would be written into the Constitution.

“That’s not how it works,” Albanese said.

“For example, the Constitution says the Commonwealth Parliament will have power to make laws for the ‘naval and military defence of the Commonwealth.

“It doesn’t spell out the size of the [Australian Defence Force], or where it should be based or what sort of defence hardware we should have,” he said, effectively hinting at the possibility that The Voice’s authority and powers can be changed (and widened) in future like how other government departments are.

Current Indigenous Policy Does Not Work, That’s Why We Need ‘The Voice’: PM

The prime minister also conceded that governments from both sides have invested billions into Indigenous policy to little effect.

“But by and large, we have been repeating the same process and expecting a different outcome. Imposing decisions from Canberra,” he said.

“But assuming that one size will fits all and ignoring the wisdom of the community.

“Enshrining a Voice in the Constitution is our best chance to change that because it has come from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves.”

Yet this is the exact point detractors of The Voice have been critical of.

Former Labor MP Gary Johns wrote in The Epoch Times that there is not one single Indigenous voice.

“Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney recently also claimed that not enshrining the Voice into Parliament would ignore the ‘wishes of the more than 1,200 First Nations leaders who took part in nationwide consultations that led to the Uluru Statement,’” he wrote.

“Yet the Statement was composed by a small coterie and presented in Alice Springs to a gathering of just 250 delegates.”

Meanwhile, former national president of the Australian Labor Party, Warren Mundine, said there were still many questions about how The Voice would resolve on-the-ground issues like youth violence in the central Australian town of Alice Springs, which has garnered national headlines in recent weeks.

“Why is it so important to change? What is the benefit of it? Is it going to stop situations like Alice Springs? Because Alice Springs is just the tip of the iceberg, and the government can’t even respond to that,” the No to The Voice campaign member told The Epoch Times.

“No one knows what The Voice is, and they haven’t been able to explain why it is going to make Aboriginal lives better. How’s it going to resolve all the plethora of problems that Aboriginal communities deal with?” he said.