We Should Not Be Experimenting With the Constitution: Former PM

Howard says Indigenous Voice to Parliament unlikely to "close the gap"

Former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard attends the state memorial service for the late former Australian PM Bob Hawke. June 14, 2019 in Sydney, Australia. Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images

Indigenous advocacy groups should improve current policies rather than try to alter the Australian Constitution, says former Prime Minister John Howard.

“The question that the [Labor] government has to answer is why are they putting the millions of Australians who care about the future of Aboriginal people through the misery of an election campaign where they’re being asked to endorse something that hasn’t been explained?" he told ADH TV on Aug. 1.

“They’re asked to install a Voice which will add another chapter to our Constitution and become the playthings of constitutional experimentation,” Mr. Howard said. “I worry about what a future high court will apply as an interpretation to this new chapter in our Constitution.”

Later this year, Australians will vote on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament proposal which aims to change the Australian Constitution to include greater recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

One change is to alter the preamble of the Constitution, while the second, much more significant change involves setting up an advisory body that will make “representations” to the Parliament and executive on all matters deemed relevant to Indigenous people.

Yet Mr. Howard said a pragmatic approach was needed rather than an ideological one.

“It was established a few months ago that the relaxation of the alcohol bans was one of the reasons for the rampant abuse and also the rampant criminality which had overtaken the [Northern] Territory,” he said.

“We need state, territory, and national governments to govern better for the Aboriginal people to provide them with better health conditions, to provide them with better educational opportunities. It’s been demonstrated that when that happens things do get better. It’s not all hopelessness and despair.”

Evidence does point to the positive impacts of mandated alcohol restrictions in remote Indigenous communities, most notably reductions in crime, domestic violence, and other antisocial behaviours.

Police statistics compiled by the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress in Alice Springs show that the Northern Territory has experienced, since alcohol bans were reintroduced in January this year, a 37 percent decrease in domestic abuse between then and April, translating to around 70 fewer cases reported per month in Alice Springs.

In the same timeframe, property-related offences also fell 22 percent.

The new restrictions include a ban on takeaway alcohol sales on Mondays and Tuesdays, a cap on the number of purchases a person can make on a given day, additional limitations on trading hours between Wednesdays and Sundays, as well as a minimum unit price placed on sales.

Conversely, the numbers also reveal a spike in crime and domestic violence to new levels after previous bans expired in July 2022.

The “relaxation period” between July 2022 and January 2023 saw the rate of domestic assaults in Alice Springs rise to 255 in December 2022. Total domestic assault rates in the area also increased by 77 percent to 180 cases per month on average.

Dr. John Boffa, an Alice Springs-based GP and head of the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition-a community response to alcohol-related harm in the Northern Territory, believes firm alcohol restrictions are paramount for the safety of residents.

“We’ve seen preventable domestic violence, we’ve seen the problems that alcohol causes in terms of care and protection of children, women not being safe, the community not being safe, the hospital being overwhelmed with alcohol-related harm, surgeons flat out dealing with the trauma, dealing with the fractures, dealing with the stabbings,” he told Sky News Australia.

“For many years, people experienced Alice Springs pretty much as a normal town. That’s how effective these alcohol measures were.”

However, Dr. Boffa was also supportive of an “Indigenous Voice to Parliament” saying it would improve the livelihoods of Aboriginal communities and can help implement measures sooner.

“To bring it back to the practical implications of The Voice, if the Indigenous Voice had existed, it could have advised the Commonwealth government what would happen if this legislation left,” he said.

“This is an example of what could be the practical importance of a future Voice to Parliament.”

The proposed model for a Voice advisory body will include two Indigenous representatives from each state and territory.

Five representatives will act on behalf of remote communities, and another will act on behalf of the Torres Strait Islands, an archipelago just north of Queensland.

The representatives will serve four-year terms and be limited to two consecutive terms each. Two additional co-chairs of different genders will also be selected by the representatives every two years.

The federal Labor government has assured the body will not have the power to deliver services, manage and allocate public funds, or delay bills from being voted on in Parliament. It will simply act as an advisory council.

Although a concrete date is yet to be decided, the referendum must legally be held at least two months after the bill is passed but no more than six months after—leaving the time for the vote between August and December this year.

Recent polling, however, has shown a slight swing against The Voice overall, with Newspoll figures revealing only 41 percent of voters in support.

Among all states and territories, voters from both New South Wales and Queensland are most likely to reject the proposal, with 58 percent planning to vote “No” in Queensland and 55 percent in New South Wales.