A Potpourri of Arguments Against the Voice By Brian Simpson

The Quadrant Special Digital Edition, August 2023, “Why the Voice Would be a Disaster for Australia,” contains the leading criticisms of the Voice, some quite complex and perhaps too time-consuming for the average reader to digest. That is why there is the present special Alor.org blog presentation, which summarises the key arguments, and gives the intelligent ordinary reader, pressed for time, a thumbnail sketch of the key points. Here I mention some articles that deliver a plethora of anti-Voice arguments that the reader can use in their own personal campaign for the No side.

While this topic is grim, there is some humour to be made, as made by Roger Franklin, “Fifty Reasons to Vote No,” details. Some of the reasons are hilarious, but all true, such as:

1. Because you still can.
2. Because you’re sick and tired of woke.
3. Because BHP shouldn’t have opinions on anything except digging stuff out of holes.
4. Because Wesfarmers has no business giving $2 million of shareholder cash to the Yes camp.
5. Because every Yes-backing sporting code in the country has been bought with grants and handouts.
6. Because Albanese & Co can’t or won’t explain what they have in mind.
7. Because you don’t approve of Melbourne being renamed Naarm.
8. Because, sooner or later, the High Court will get involved.
9. Because the High Court has been known to indulge in judicial ratbaggery.
10. Because Australians need their very own “Bud Lite moment”.
11. Because the National Press Club tells us we should.
12. Because the ABC and Nine newsrooms will be awash with tears if Yes loses.
13. Because a No victory will prompt the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments at the Guardian.
14. Because you’re sick and tired of being called a racist.

And most of the other reasons are variants of this, namely that this is a woke New Class construction that will only sow misery for all, except the elites who stand to benefit, and we should vote No, to deliver a message of rejection to the New Class elites.

On a more serious note, former prime minister Tony Abbott, has a piece, “Three Arguments Against the Voice,” which he has presented in other ventures. Abbott, I think wrongly, is a supporter of the recognition of indigenous people in the constitution, but only if done right and not to threaten the system of government and national unity. He sees his attempts to do this, transformed by the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart that called for an indigenous “voice to parliament” in order to given indigenous people much more say on the workings of government. As well there would follow from this as well as treaties between the Australian government and so-called “First Nation” groups. And to top it all off, a South African style “truth telling” commission to pursue other perceived injustices delivered by white Australia.

As for the Voice, Abbott notes that the prime minister was clear that the powers would be a wide as parliament could make it, and it would be unlikely that a parliament would reject any proposal; he doesn’t say why, but it obvious that they would use the magic “racism” death ray, which is kryptonite to whites. And, of course, they will live at the High Court of Australia, challenging any decision they did not 100 percent approve of.

Abbott notes that the Voice would need to be composed of a race-based body, and indigenous people would be elevated to not only having a “voice” via a vote as citizens, but also from the race-based Voice body. There are already 11 indigenous members of parliament, far more than representative of the indigenous population, so there is not a problem of no “voice.” Thus, there is the issue now of a power imbalance.

Second, every issue before parliament would need to be passed by the Voice, which will be in effect a third chamber of parliament and third, even if an issue that the Voice disagreed with, say on national security, did manage to get passed by parliament, the Voice will be at the High Court to contest it, and would probably win hands down.

Finally, if the Voice fails, this will set back reconciliation. Abbott then goes on to outline how a recognition of indigenous people in the constitution could be made. The entire proposal is flawed for just the same reason as the Voice is, because all the problems noted above arise in various forms for it as well. Further, I for one am tired of all this reconciliation business, which is based upon a black armband view of history, and Abbott still is within this woke liberal paradigm; his prime ministership was a failure for just this reason.  Without the settlement by the British, this land would ultimately have been colonised by any number of powers in Asia, and we can be sure that no Voice issue would have ever arose then. That is just historical fact. Nothing like this business is conceivable in Asia, Africa (outside of South Africa), or South America. And nor does he rest of the world, outside of woke care what Australia does, or whether we perish or not. That is reality.