|
|
|
On the proposed
‘Voice to Parliament’
and change to the Australian Constitution
Forget the hype.
Let’s have a look not at what advocates and detractors may have to say about the reasons for and against a ‘Voice’, but what is actually been proposed and voted on, and the likely consequences if this gets passed.
The first thing to note is that this is a Constitutional change, not simply a vote that in four years’ time may easily be altered through the normal voting processes (‘I don’t like what they’ve done - let’s vote them out!’). Of course, the Constitution may have a future proposed change. As we know, however, Constitutional changes are meant to last. If this one gets passed, what is being established is a Constitutionally required bureaucracy, whose composition and powers are unspecified but subject to the Government of the day. An incredible proposal if ever there was one.
I don’t know about you, but my experience of bureaucracy is as an ever-expanding meddling: for its own ‘need’ to increase its breadth of reach, of power, of resources, and for its ‘advocacy’ to expand. In other words, it will argue that if it is to advocate according to its mandate, it will need to have more people in the field, more ‘data’ to gather, more offices across the face of the land, combined with increased centralised control as well as means by which to be in regular contact and regularly ‘communicate’. In other words, in a short time it could easily become by far the largest bureaucracy, and one that is Constitutionally established, insinuating itself into all areas previously handled by other bodies (both private and public).
The wording is also potentially misleading. By using the term ‘make representation’, it may, to casual reading, imply that it has ‘representatives’ of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander background (even if only a grand-great-grandparent is of such descent). In fact, this is not the case: there is no such requirement in the proposed amendment: the Parliament may decide that its composition may be entirely of former bureaucrats. In relation to ‘matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’, the newly established bureaucracy could decide that any aspect of social, financial, or living engagement by anyone relates, in some manner or other, to its role. After all, if it is decided, for example, that a particular virus is more detrimental to those with Aboriginal genetic ancestry, the bureaucracy, arguing for appropriate powers, could impact all citizens.
Actually, and this is a point worth considering, impact affects all citizens.
And such should, I would suggest, be sufficient to value our current Constitution that, at least in theory despite its shortcomings, has elected Representatives to represent the collective voice of each and every citizen equitably and equally.
The yes and no are not, in my view, equally weighed to the benefit of future generations of Australians.
Therefore...
The actual wording of what Australians will be voting on [my emphasis]:
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
|
