Previous Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been quoted as saying, “I think this Voice is a very, very bad idea, I think it’s wrong in principle, I think it’s potentially quite dangerous in practice.”
In my previous post (Reconciliation Requires Equality), I have addressed the unjust principle of giving Australians different rights in a liberal democracy based on the race of their ancestors.
As well, there are several undesirable consequences of passing the VOICE referendum, although I'll mention only two of them briefly in this post, together with the doubt that the VOICE will achieve its promoted benefits.
First, the VOICE is intended to reach into every area of Commonwealth Government policy. It will require a huge, top-heavy and expensive bureaucracy that will slow down and make more cumbersome the running of good government.
Previous Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been quoted as saying, “Our democracy is built on the foundation of all Australian citizens having equal civic rights – all being able to vote for, stand for and serve in either of the two chambers of our national parliament.
"A constitutionally enshrined additional representative assembly which only Indigenous Australians could vote for or serve in is inconsistent with this fundamental principle.
"It would inevitably become seen as a third chamber of parliament."
(Mr Turnbull has since changed his mind and will now vote for the VOICE.)
Second, because the VOICE is to be inserted into the Constitution as its own chapter (thereby standing on equal terms with The Parliament, The Executive and The Judiciary), the un-elected High Court will have the final say whenever the VOICE contests any decisions made by those equal others.
In addition to those undesirable outcomes, it is doubtful if the promoted benefits by Yes advocates are likely to eventuate.
The Prime Minister is consistently suggesting that passing the VOICE shows courtesy and respect to our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) fellow-citizens, and will do much to repair past injustices and improve living conditions for the sizeable proportion of aborigines who live in shocking conditions.
My view is that we can do nothing about the past, and we especially can't repair a race-based past with a race-based future.
Equally, the establishment of the VOICE is unlikely to do anything for the living conditions of poorer, disadvantaged aborigines, especially those in remote areas, although it is quite likely to benefit the ATSI elite who will comprise its membership and those employed in its bureaucracy.
My own preference would be to give recognition to ATSI people in the Constitution with a suitable preamble like "Australia is one indivisible federal commonwealth under the crown with an Indigenous heritage, a British foundation and an Immigrant character”, and continue to have parliament-appointed groups, including ATSI groups, to offer it advice as it has done for many years. (Indeed there are hundreds of these bodies currently in existence.)
This would achieve the courteous recognition of (and advice from) indigenous people without destroying our democratic principles with an influential race-based VOICE and without propelling the High Court into active law-making opportunities.
Although there are many practical issues to be faced if the VOICE referendum is passed, my decision to oppose it can be laid squarely at the feet of the principle it trashes, which completely undermines our democratic system of government and God's love for every one of his children, regardless of their ancestry or the colour of their skin.
Blessings, Barry
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Published BLOG at https://barrysgracespace.blogspot.com
Other published Writings at https://www.ibtechservices.com.au
The VOICE would give those Australians with a particular genetic inheritance – and their continuing descendants for all time – an additional method of influencing politicians and officials that would surpass the normal rights of citizenship.
ReplyDeleteEven if some or all of the practical difficulties could be avoided, as some Yes advocates are now suggesting, the embedding of a whole, new, race-based Section in our Constitution is wrong in principle as it destroys the equality of all citizens a democracy is based on.
It doesn't matter how many practical problems are addressed and are negated or minimised, the principle of the VOICE is still wrong.
Another reported quote from Malcolm Turnbull in 2017 before he changed his mind on the VOICE.
ReplyDeleteEvery single law that goes through the parliament, whether it is tax, whether it is defence, whether it is social security, whether it is health – that all affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people because they’re part of the Australian community. And that would mean that that assembly would have the right, if it chose, to examine every piece of legislation. It would be, in effect, a third chamber. I don’t think it’s a good idea and if it were put up in a referendum, it would go down in flames.
Two other (practical) thoughts worth mentioning:
ReplyDelete1. Whenever Labor is in office there will probably be fewer High Court challenges because a Labor government is more likely to accept suggestions the VOICE proposes. Whenever a Coalition government is in office the High Court is more likely to be kept busy with challenges initiated by the VOICE.
2. Some quite frightening prospects are exposed by Keith Windschuttle, Editor-in-Chief of Quadrant magazine. You can read this here:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/the-voice/2023/04/an-ambassador-for-reparations/.
"Every principle of equal rights is breached by the voice. Reversing the arc of democratic progress, it establishes two classes of citizenship, separate and unequal, cementing that discrimination in the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteQuote from Henry Ergas in The Australian Friday 14th July, 2023