Eric Abetz: The Smell of the Voice Referendum By James Reed

Eric Abetz, former Federal Senator, has given an excellent critique of the Voice referendum, the idea that there will be by constitutional amendment, the creation of a body which will oversee all laws; some say a third chamber of parliament. Hence the move for constitutional change, otherwise this will get knocked over by the High Court. Abetz makes the good argument, that the details of the reform are being kept vague, and it is unwise for voters to give the elites a blank signed cheque. This is something that the ordinary person can say to others. Vote no, because we just don’t KNOW!

https://politicom.com.au/voice-smells-like-a-rat/

“But surely changing our Constitution should be more difficult as even more serious consequences might flow. 

In 2016 Australians faced a double dissolution election on three pieces of legislation all of which I happened to have drafted. 

Before a double dissolution election could be held every single word, letter, comma and full stop had been tabled and analysed for the world to see, discuss and debate.

SCRUTINY

The Bills were open to full scrutiny. That is at it should be. Our fellow Australians are entitled to know the detail of the matter on which MPs are casting a vote.

However, the proposed change to our Constitution to insert the so-called Voice lacks detail. At best it is a napkin sketch devoid of any genuine substance.

Without the fundamentally essential detail, debate is limited to virtue signalling, slogans and superficiality.

As such a huge disservice is being done to the Australian people on an issue the proponents tell us is of real importance to our unity as a nation.

Yet without the detail there can be no assessment of its worthiness, workability or unintended consequences.

And without that importantly vital input the Australian people would be giving the proponents a blank cheque. Never a good idea. Especially not to Canberra.

And it is not as though the proponents have not had enough time to flesh out their proposal. It’s been around as a concept for five years.

With the amount of taxpayer largesse laid on to assist, Australians are entitled to have expected more. A lot more.

Australians are rightly cynical of political platitudes and have a good instinct when it comes to detecting superficiality.

LEVEL

The proponents need to level with the Australian people.

First, we are entitled to know the detail, the whole detail. Nothing less.

Second, the proponents need to explain why a change to our Constitution is even needed to implement their plan and how that change will actually deliver better outcomes to reduce indigenous disadvantage.

Floating noble goals does not deliver results. Practical Australians suspect actions rather than grandiose referenda will do the delivering so needed in our indigenous communities.

Thirdly, a full and free campaign giving both sides the opportunity to be heard is essential for a fair outcome which can be accepted by the people irrespective of the outcome.

As such equal support and funding to both the YES and NO cases is obligatory. To do otherwise will be ham-fisted and divisive.

FAIR

The above three essential requirements are needed for fairness and acceptance of the result as being a fair expression of the Australian people’s view.

Failure to deliver in all three areas will rightly confirm to the astute Australian that The Voice is, at best, vacuous virtue-signalling by elitists.

It will be a violation of voters’ rights to a fair presentation of the YES and NO cases and, therefore, deserves to be vetoed.”