Indigenous referendum is powerful voice for rights for some but not others

‘Legislation that affects Indigenous Australians is really about any legislation that affects Australians.’

The path to a referendum – to insert a racial clause that will have immense power if it has reference to the executive of government – has now been set with 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 if it leads to a dead end or disaster. To contemplate that we could have another referendum to remove the voice in the future is ludicrously naive.

The tables are tilted firmly in favour of the Yes campaign: in funding, business and political support. I would say this 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 well-resourced guilt campaigns.

It is not racist to vote No. To vote Yes endorses new rights based on race in the Constitution. It will give an extra franchise to some based on their DNA. It does not deal with the issues, circumstances and the problems where they are found, but rather on the circumstances of how you were born and the race you align with.

Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

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 who would be part of the voice will be selected, not elected.

An Indigenous man from Mosman could apparently be eligible for an additional say in the operation of government simply because he deems it unconstitutional that there has not been sufficient consultation with the voice. An Asian Australian, living on the street in Moree, would not be entitled to a path that gave him the same opportunity because of his race.

The Attorney-General has said the voice will have referral to the executive and, as he knows, that means they have referral to the High Court. The body responsible for interpretating the extent of the voice’s power will be the High Court. The parliament does not determine the extent of constitutional powers. If the Australian parliament were to pass legislation to restrict the voice’s powers, 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.

The old and new Parliament House in Canberra.

Legislation that affects Indigenous Australians is really about any legislation that affects Australians, which is a very wide remit. It will not be possible for a campaign to hold members of the voice to account and challenge their members by a vote of all Indigenous Australians because it is selected, not elected.

The Constitution in 2023 should be blind to race, religion, your political leaning or creed. Any changes to this should be to move to a purer document 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 the idea that a certain Australian has a 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 former Nationals leader and the member of New England.