What is our major concern?

The wording of the proposed change to the Australian Constitution that is proposed to implement the Indigenous Voice to Parliament (the Voice), if approved at a referendum, is completely deficient and must be changed before the referendum is put to the Australian people.

What is this petition about?

This petition is NOT ABOUT whether Australia should have an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. That is a matter for the Australian voters at the referendum. This petition IS ABOUT the completely deficient and dangerous proposed wording change for the Australian Constitution to implement the Voice if voters support the referendum. The Government needs to delay the referendum until it rectifies the language of the proposed change.

What is the problem?

The referendum proposes adding just three sentences to the Constitution and they are:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

3. The parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

This partition argues that these changes are deficient because they provide no Constitutional guidance whatsoever and inappropriately put all powers in relation to the Voice in the hands of the partisan parliament of the day.

Problem 1:

The first issue is that this change simply gives all powers on the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Voice to the Parliament to determine.

1.       This means the ‘Voice’ could be anything that the Parliament decides;

2.       This means the ‘Voice’ could be altered every time the government changes;

3.       Voters have no idea what they are voting for because the Government hasn’t given any details and even if the Government did give details, it could all be changed at any time in the future;

4.       Indigenous Australians have no idea what the ‘Voice’ will be or how it will operate and so even they couldn’t know whether to support the change or not;

5.       There are absolutely no limits on how small or how big the government, or any future government, could make the Voice; and

6.       It doesn’t even guarantee that the Voice would have to include a single indigenous person.

Problem 2:

Constitutions should be designed to specifically include the important things that determine how the government will operate. The Constitution should lock in those things that we don’t want the Parliament or the Government of the day to be able to change without the approval of the citizens at a referendum. This proposed change simply puts everything in the hands of the Parliament of the day. So why even have a Constitutional change if it is not going to set any rules for the operation of the Voice. The Government could simply legislate right now without a Constitutional change to do the same thing that is proposed under this referendum. The current proposal from the standpoint of constitutional law is nothing more than virtue signalling.

Problem 3:

The Constitutional amendment should set out the basic operation of this new function of the Australian government called the Voice by specifying the minimum composition, function, powers and basic procedures for the operation of the Voice to Parliament. Then the Parliament can be left to make laws for the detail as is the practice with all other key parts of government operations.

The lack of basic limits around the operation of the Voice as it would appear in the Constitution means years of potential court cases to determine what laws made by the Parliament around the Voice are constitutional and what are not. For instance, it seems to be the consensus view that the Voice is not intended to have powers to make or alter laws or to act as a semi-judicial body but the currently proposed constitutional change doesn’t explicitly state that. Therefore the High Court might interpret the powers of the Voice differently in the future, giving it powers in respect to Australian laws that were never originally intended.

Problem 4:

This referendum for the Voice is the only chance for this to be approved this decade or maybe longer. Some people will vote yes and some people will vote no. However, now we have a third group who might have voted yes but can’t because they don’t know what the Voice is and whether it is going to make a positive contribution to our Australian society. If the referendum fails because these people vote ‘no’, then the one opportunity is lost and it has cost the tax payers a significant amount of money to hold the referendum, which was based on a deficient Constitutional change in the first place.

Problem 5:

It creates a disastrous precedent that the Australian Constitution should be amended to put the Parliament in charge of the basic system of rules that determine how our government operates. Could you imagine putting a Constitutional amendment about becoming a republic entirely in the hands of the politicians of the day? Who knows what rules we’d get and then it would be changed when the next government took office in an endless merry-go-round. This would be a recipe for disaster for the republic, just as it is now for the Voice.

What should happen?

Delay the Voice referendum until the very basics of the composition, functions, powers and procedures for the Voice can be determined. Draft at least the very basic intentions and limits into the proposed Constitutional changes, so that it provides very clear guidance for the courts and the future Parliaments about what the Voice is supposed to be and how it is supposed to operate.

Only by doing this can:

1.       Indigenous Australians have a clear and undisputed basis for the future of the Voice that is locked into the Constitution; and

2.       All Australians can know what they are voting for when it goes to the referendum.

Please support this petition before it is too late and the Government puts this proposal to the voters.