The Voice Will Change Democracy, for the Worst, Forever! By James Reed
Despite some equivocation, saying that he supports some constitutional recognition of Aborigines in the constitution, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is doing good work undermining the Voice referendum. He is making sound, common-sense observations of the consequences of the Voice, the same made by Senator Price; namely that the Voice will not advance the interests of ordinary Aboriginal people, but instead will create a vast, costly bureaucracy, which will become a “new arm of government,” costing billions. That is just the cost of running the machine. There are the opportunity costs as well, of the influence that the Voice, an essential third chamber of parliament, will have upon the running of government, with the once “normal” parliament not daring to stand against the Voice. Be sure that any dissent will be met with a High Court challenge, and given that the Voice is important enough to change the constitution, a court would have the rebuttable presumption that what the Voice says, goes. What little democracy existed in Australia will evaporate as surely as water spilt in the Simpson desert.
“Peter Dutton says Anthony Albanese’s voice to parliament will change Australian democracy, require thousands of public servants to be hired and cost billions to “run a new arm of the government” without improving outcomes for Indigenous Australians.
The Opposition Leader has launched his political offensive to sink the voice after formally binding his frontbench to the No case and will make any government refusal to answer questions on the operation of the proposed advisory body a key feature of his campaign.
Mr Dutton, a supporter of constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians, will advance an alternative model to create local and regional voices through legislation, arguing this approach would more effectively advocate for Aboriginal communities.
Under the Dutton model, local and regional voices would have their remit narrowly targeted via legislation to focus solely on practical, community-based measures to improve outcomes for Indigenous Australians rather than giving a national body free rein to make representations on any issue affecting Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders.
The local bodies would report federally rather than to state governments, but the model could be adjusted as needed over time by the federal parliament. It would sit outside the Constitution.
“The Liberal Party model will limit the local and regional bodies to issues specific to improving lives and outcomes locally. It has no business in defence, RBA deliberations, energy and environment policy,” Mr Dutton told The Weekend Australian. “It will be in legislation so it can be improved over time.
“Mr Albanese’s voice is deliberately designed as a national voice – not a local and regional voice. It is the complete opposite of the Liberal Party model. The best chance of failing Indigenous people in need of practical support is to implement Mr Albanese’s top-down Canberra elite model.”
Albanese needs to keep his ‘attack dogs’ on a leash with the Voice |
One Nation Chief of Staff James Ashby says Prime Minister Anthony Albanese needs to keep his “attack dogs” on… a leash regarding criticisms of the Voice to Parliament. “Anthony Albanese continues to fail to answer questions,” Mr Ashby told Sky News host Caleb Bond.
Clearing up doubts over the Liberal position following a special partyroom meeting on Wednesday, Mr Dutton also confirmed he was opposed to enshrining a national voice in the Constitution or creating one through legislation.
Mr Dutton has instead opted for an in-principle stand against the establishment of any advisory body that he says could “reach into every government decision” and hopes to galvanise the Liberal base against the proposal, for which he will receive the support of former Liberal prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott.
Mr Abbott appealed on Friday for Mr Albanese to halt the referendum process and instead hold a constitutional convention, arguing the nation was “headed for a train wreck”.
He warned the voice was a “Trojan horse” and a “power grab” that would “create special political entities based on ancestry, akin to local versions of the House of Lords” – a situation Mr Abbott labelled “Indigenous separatism.”
Mr Howard denounced Cape York leader Noel Pearson’s attacks on Mr Dutton this week over the voice, describing them as “wrong,” “deceptive” and “very disappointing”.
The nation’s second longest serving prime minister told The Weekend Australian his position on recognition was still the preamble he proposed during the 2007 election and first raised in the 1999 republic referendum.
Keeping race out of the constitution part of Liberal Party’s ‘DNA’ |
Sky News host Caleb Bond says keeping race out of Australia’s constitution has long been in the “Liberal Party’s… DNA”. He said the Liberal Party’s announcement on its position on the Voice to Parliament was “entirely in keeping with their historic principles”.
While he seeks to energise support for the No case, Mr Dutton must also face the prospect of containing an internal backlash following the resignation from the party of former indigenous Australians minister Ken Wyatt and public misgivings from Tasmanian backbencher Bridget Archer over his response to the voice.
Mr Wyatt, the first Indigenous cabinet minister, said he was resigning his membership because did not “believe in what the Liberals have become”, while Ms Archer, who has built a strong personal brand in her seat of Bass, warned the Liberal Party was “at a crossroads”.
The Prime Minister also accused Mr Dutton on Thursday of taking a “low road” by opposing the voice, likening him to the “undertaker preparing the grave” to bury the 2017 Uluru Statement From the Heart that called for a constitutionally enshrined mechanism to empower First Nations people. Mr Albanese said the Liberal position was confused and disingenuous.
“It said we support constitutional recognition but not now. We support voices, but not a national voice. We’re going to have these local voices but they’re not going to have any possibility of bringing it together,” he said. “Now they’re shrinking further into negativity with their opposition to what is a gracious and generous offer.”
But Mr Dutton said that attempts to dismiss questions on how the proposed voice would work or bully Australians into supporting the Yes case would only strengthen his resolve to fight the constitutional change, rejecting claims by Mr Albanese it was a “modest” proposal.
“Every portfolio will need to consult the voice before making a decision. The High Court will insist on it,” he said. “And we don’t yet understand the extent to which the government will be compelled to implement the direction of the voice. It will require thousands of public servants and billions of dollars to run a new arm of the government to facilitate the consultation.”
Mr Dutton will defend his position in coming months by invoking the final report of the Indigenous voice co-design group, led by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton, which proposed that implementation of the voice begin at the local and regional level, with two key options being put forward.
“Both focus immediately on establishing Local and Regional Voices, with options on the timing for establishing a National Voice,” the report said. “One option is to establish the National Voice once the majority of Local and Regional Voices are in place, and another is to establish an interim body while Local and Regional Voices form.”
Mr Abbott told The Weekend Australian he would participate in the No campaign and was “ready to make speeches, give interviews and write articles” urging people to oppose the voice. He argued it “effectively creates first- and second-class citizens based on how long your ancestors have been in Australia”.
Politicians are set to enter a “pseudo-campaign mode” as Australia heads towards the Voice to Parliament… referendum, says Sky News reporter Cameron Reddin. “We are going to see a lot more of the Prime Minister hopping on jets around the place,” Mr Reddin told Sky News host Erin Molan.
“This assumption that Indigenous people are ‘different’ and need to be treated differently – this separatist mindset – is at the heart of the problem,” he said.
Mr Abbott said he did not doubt Mr Albanese’s “goodwill and decency on this issue”, but warned the nation was “headed for a train wreck because he’s turned the Indigenous recognition that should have been a unifying, reconciling moment into an attempt to shame, divide and humiliate the opposition.”
He argued a better approach would be to establish a “a proper process akin to the one I started in mid-2015 at a meeting co-chaired with Bill Shorten” and the holding of a constitutional convention.”
Comments