Why Should the Opposition Leader’s Questions on the Voice Go Unanswered? Will the Rest of Australia’s? By James Reed
This is how the Voicers are treating those who raise questions about how it all will work. Opposition leader Peter Dutton has asked some questions about how the Voice will actually work. The response from Professor Megan Davis, a leading Voice to Parliament proponent, was that "The 'operating manual' of the Voice is substantially done by the ordinary course of parliament, the referendum unlocks the door for our democratically elected representatives to start the process.”
"There's only so far we can go in terms of those questions, we can't tell you the address or the location of the building of the Voice, or what the business cards will look like."
I do not think that the Opposition leader was asking questions about business cards, but rather, what the scope and limits of the Voice actually are, and how it works. As detailed in another article, the Voice proponents are in disagreement with the PM over the scope of the Voice, the PM seeing clear limits, never defined by him, while the Voice proponents, correctly I think, see no limits whatsoever. Thus, it is absurd to give a Yes vote to an undefined proposal, and reason therefore would balance to the No case on this issue alone.
“One of the leading authors of the Uluru Statement of the Heart says not all of the opposition's questions on the proposed Voice to Parliament can be answered before a referendum is held.
Key points:
- A leading Voice to Parliament proponent says some questions on detail cannot be answered
- Peter Dutton has asked for more details to be given before offering his support on the Voice
- Anthony Albanese says attempts to divide people on the Voice were inevitable
Professor Megan Davis met with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton through the referendum working group on Thursday, as Mr Dutton weighs whether or not to back the Voice to Parliament in a referendum.
Last month, Mr Dutton wrote to the prime minister with several questions his party wanted answered before they were prepared to support the Voice.
Professor Davis said Mr Dutton did not ask his questions to the working group on Thursday because the meeting had been focused on explaining the process that had led to the proposal for a Voice to Parliament in the constitution.
But Professor Davis said not all of his questions will be possible to answer.
"The 'operating manual' of the Voice is substantially done by the ordinary course of parliament, the referendum unlocks the door for our democratically elected representatives to start the process," Professor Davis said.
"There's only so far we can go in terms of those questions, we can't tell you the address or the location of the building of the Voice, or what the business cards will look like."
Mr Dutton has been invited to meet again with the working group, and has said he intends to do so.
Albanese says misinformation on Voice was 'inevitable'
The referendum to be held this year on the Voice to Parliament will ask Australians to support an in-principle representative body made up of Indigenous Australians, that would be consulted on issues affecting Indigenous people.
But recent debate has focused on the details of how that body might operate, which would not be determined by the referendum but by parliament through regular processes.
At a speech in Canberra today ahead of the first sitting week of the year, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the fundamentals of the Voice had been clearly laid out.
He said it was inevitable that the Voice to Parliament would face misinformation campaigns online and attempts to "drum up" a culture war.
"That’s an inevitable consequence of trying to achieve change," Mr Albanese said.
"There are always those who want to create confusion and provoke division, to try and stall progress.
"This is about strengthening the parliament's understanding, not supplanting its authority. Not special power. Not a third chamber."
Shadow Attorney-General Julian Leeser, a leading supporter of the Voice to Parliament among Liberal ranks, said Mr Albanese's comments were disappointing.
"He's made this issue into a political one by talking about culture wars. The prime minister needs to convince not castigate, his job as our national leader is to explain and persuade.
"Detail builds confidence, detail actually helps the proponents."
Mr Leeser said the questions posed by Mr Dutton were ones he commonly received when talking to ordinary Australians, and would have to be answered for people to be convinced to support the Voice.
Liberal frontbencher Paul Fletcher said the prime minister should focus on answering the Opposition's questions, rather than making attacks.
"It's not unreasonable to say, 'OK, how is it going to work? What are the details going to be?'," he said.
"And it is curious he is now going down this alternative line of argument, which is to say, 'Oh, well, it's all right-wing extremists on social media.'
"Let's put the political rhetoric to one side, let's come together in good faith."”
Comments