The path to a referendum, to insert a racial clause with what will be immense power if it has reference to the executive of government, has now been set with the passage of legislation to put in place the machinery of that vote. It is a one-way street, where there will be no way to turn around or back out from if leads to a dead end or disaster. To contemplate that we could have another referendum to remove 'The Voice' in the future is beyond ludicrously naive.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The tables are tilted firmly in favour of the 'Yes' campaign in funding, business, and political support. I would say that it is a tactic because it starves the 'No' case of funding and, dare I say it, a voice. Fortunately, the public is endowed with a healthy scepticism that filters out guilt campaigns.
Read more:
It is not racist to vote 'No'. To vote 'Yes' does endorse new rights based on race in the Constitution. It gives an extra franchise to some based on their DNA. It does not deal with the issues and circumstances and the problems thereof in the location where they are found, but rather on the circumstances of how you were born and the race you align with because of that.
Perversely a 'Yes' vote does not give Indigenous Australians an extra vote so they can elect who they want to represent them in "The Voice". The contenders to be a part of "The Voice" will be 'selected' not 'elected'. An Indigenous man from Mossman apparently could be eligible for a further say in the operation of government all the way to the High Court striking out legislation because they may deem it unconstitutional that there has not been the appropriate consultation with "The Voice". An Asian living on the street in Moree would not be entitled to a path that gave them the same opportunity because of their race.
The interpretation of the extent of "The Voice's" power will be by the High Court.
- Barnaby Joyce
The Attorney General has said that "The Voice" will have referral to the executive and, as he knows, that means they have referral to the High Court. The interpretation of the extent of "The Voice's" power will be by the High Court. The Parliament does not determine the extent of constitutional powers, the High Court does. If the Australian parliament were to pass legislation to restrict the extent of the powers of 'The Voice', it would undoubtedly be challenged and most likely struck out, by the High Court.
The Voice exists in grey space between a third layer of bureaucracy and a third chamber of parliament. The more power it has over the executive, the closer it acts like a third chamber of parliament.
Legislation that affects Indigenous Australians is any legislation that affects Australians, which is a very wide remit. It is not possible for there to be a campaign to hold members of 'The Voice' to account and endorse, or otherwise their members' action by a vote of all Indigenous Australians as The Voice is selected not elected.
A better process is if Australians believe a government is unmotivated, incapable, or incompetent in addressing crucial issues in Australia, then Australians at the next election vote them out.
The Constitution in 2023 should be blind to race, religion, your political leaning, or creed. Any changes to this driving manual of Australia should be to move it to a purer document of that form as we did in 1967. The circumstances that do not allow all Australians the greatest opportunity of equality, should be addressed by location or circumstance not on the race of the person in that location or that circumstance.
Think about it as soon as you endorse that a certain Australian has 'right by reason', of their race you endorse that another Australian is devoid of a 'right by reason' of their race. That is something I did not think I would be debating in 2023.
Barnaby Joyce is the Federal Member for New England.
