Once upon a time, a newly elected prime minister decided his government would hold a referendum in its first term to enshrine a First Nations voice to parliament in the Constitution. Exactly what this “voice” consisted of and how it would operate, no-one knew. For some inexplicable reason the prime minister had not even produced a model of the proposed draft or the amendment question when he made the announcement.
Neither had he bothered with the intricacies of incorporating an exclusive, race-based, unaccountable ‘advisory’ body in a 121-year-old compact with representative democracy at its core. But as the prime minister explained to the doubters, the most important thing was ensuring the “momentum” for this noble cause was not “lost”.
“Ahhh,” exclaimed the people in wondrous unison. “The momentum – of course!” Thus the proposal for the constitutional amendment was carried overwhelmingly. Contrary to what the naysayers claimed, the new arrangement worked a treat. And the peoples of the country, both First Nations and otherwise, were reconciled and lived happily ever after.
Has ‘momentum’ become the new ‘vibe’? I ask as I have this vision of Anthony Albanese starring in a remake of the Australian comedy film ‘The Castle’ as lawyer Dennis Denuto. “It’s the Constitution, it’s Mabo, it’s the momentum and – no, that’s it I rest my case.” He’s an ideas man, our Albo, not a details man. Hardly reassuring when one remembers the thought bubbles that defined the Rudd government, of which Albanese was a senior member.
As the late American economist Milton Friedman observed many years ago, it is a great mistake to judge programs and policies by their intentions rather than by their results. No doubt Albanese is hoping that voters err accordingly in this referendum.
We can also expect the ‘yes’ case will be based not on substance but rather an appeal to the emotions. The government can rely on the media’s assistance in that respect. When shadow Indigenous affairs minister Julian Leeser told the ABC this week the Opposition would not commit to the proposal until it could first assess all the relevant information, host Patricia Karvelas was almost indignant. “Yes, there are details to be looked at but the fundamental idea here is not debatable,” she retorted. Excuse me?
To the progressive class, the case for the voice is a foregone conclusion. Only ignorance and prejudice can stop it from being realised. Here is the spiritual enrichment our nation desperately needs. Think of it as a Council of Elders and its members benevolently imparting to us their ancient wisdom. For those who have been taught that the legacy of Western institutions is one of hegemony and illegitimacy, this referendum is an opportunity for catharsis and the embracement of primitivism.
The defenders of the voice maintain it is advisory only and represents no threat to parliamentary sovereignty. If that is the case, then why the need for it to have constitutional status? Unless of course the intention is not to complement our parliamentary institutions but to counter and influence them.
Let me demonstrate by analogy. Just about every semi-formal occasion now, whether it be a school assembly or a council meeting or a grand final must begin with a so-called acknowledgment of country. I am told public servants even perform these fulsome recitals at phone hook-ups with colleagues.
We are not compelled by law to observe these rituals, but we are by custom. It is indoctrination in the form of avowing that we occupy land belonging to another. It also is an act of obeisance. To not observe it is a breach of ‘protocol’. It also means the forum and the speaker lack moral legitimacy.
That is the effect the voice will have on parliament, irrespective of the good intentions that led to its feasibility study. The Final Report on the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process, commissioned by the Morrison government, envisaged the body would advise on national issues concerning the “social, spiritual and economic wellbeing” of Indigenous people. As Paul Kelly noted in this newspaper yesterday, this would not be limited to the legislature’s purview.
Even if the voice’s charter were confined to parliament, its influence would be disproportionate. Any law enacted without Indigenous imprimatur would be controversial. Activists would be quick to undermine it. Like many a left-wing institution, it would function as Labor’s government in exile when the Coalition returns to power. As for the assurances this constitutional body would be advisory only, all bets are off when the High Court considers the issue.
Nonetheless commentators who support this proposal object to this body being labelled a third chamber. Okay, it’s a Clayton’s chamber. If you want to quibble, let’s call it a lobby group, and one with privileges, access, and influence that would astonish a seasoned powerbroker. If Albanese really thinks most Australians would vote for this proposal, he needs the advice of The Castle’s Darryl Kerrigan. Tell him he’s dreaming.
More Coverage
Work needed on PS productivity
While our political leaders no doubt are focused on the potential for interest rate relief before the federal election, they should instead be preoccupied with how to lift productivity and grow the economy.
Secrecy has been a big part of problem in terror fight
Much of the concern about the rise of anti-Semitic actions is due to too much secrecy and lack of demonstrated concern, for which politicians and police must share responsibility.