The Murdoch media has a reputation for being predominately right-wing. This is particularly the case with the Murdoch’s media’s flagship publication, The Australian newspaper. To be fair, The Australian also has liberal left writers who provide a degree of balance which has served to make this newspaper more interesting and thought-provoking.
Nevertheless, it was surprising that The Australian’s associate editor Chris Kenny had an article attacking the proposed indigenous Voice to parliament’s opponents which was entitled the “Hateful Eight: Don’t be fooled by the No campaign’s shallow scare tactics” (Page 20. The Weekend Australian, August 26-27, 2023). In this article, associate editor, Kenny rebutted eight campaign points which the ‘No’ campaign made.
Similarly, on the same page, Professor Greg Craven wrote an article entitled “Constitutional order in the High Court” (Pages 20-21, The Weekend Australian, August 26-27th, 2023). This article by Professor Craven sought to re-assure readers that the appointment by the Albanese Government of Justice Stephen Gageler as chief justice of the High Court of Australia (HCA) would ensure that a judicial moderate would preside over the nation’s highest court should the proposed constitutional amendment concerning the indigenous Voice to Parliament be successful.
However, the overriding point is, why should the Australian electorate empower the HCA with the capacity to decide whether or not the Commonwealth Parliament can legislate in new areas based on submissions made by The Voice? As has been pointed out in two preceding Social Action Australia (SAA) articles; “No to a Constitutional Blank Cheque” and “No to a new Head of Power” there is an acute danger that if The Voice referendum in October 2023 passes then the power of the Commonwealth Parliament will massively expand.
As has been argued in these two preceding SAA articles, paragraph (iii) of the referendum question is where the danger presently lies. Under this paragraph, the federal parliament will ‘have the power to make laws with respect to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice’. This could potentially mean that if the HCA so rules, that the federal parliament could legislate to recognise regional councils, which could fatally undermine the role of states, based upon a submission made by The Voice that such councils be established.
It is true that the HCA could still rule that such a submission made by The Voice to create new regional councils is ultra vires (i.e., beyond the power of The Voice). However, it appears possible that the HCA could still rule in favour of such a submission if a clever enough legal argument was made. The fundamental point is that if the constitutional referendum to establish The Voice passes it will create a situation where power could shift from the Australian people to The High Court.
Why the Devil is in the Detail
Disturbingly, this possible future shift in power from the Australian people to the High Court is a viable scenario given the Albanese Government’s refusal to enter into detailed discussion in the community concerning the rationale for establishing The Voice in accordance with the principles of statutory interpretation. Documentation, such as explanatory memoranda or drafts of enabling legislation to facilitate The Voice’s actual functioning and to explain its purpose have not yet been released by the federal government.
This reluctance on the Albanese Government’s part to be clear and transparent with the Australian people only serves to increase the suspicion that the constitutional passage of The Voice may facilitate various concealed agendas such as, for instance, the ultimate abolition of Australian states.
Why Transparency is Paramount
Noel Pearson, a leading advocate in the ‘Yes’ campaign, has called on supporters of The Voice to show respect to ‘No’ case proponents, which is a positive development. However, respect not only entails politeness and civility, but also transparency. Therefore, the federal government needs to outline the possible powers and role of The Voice prior to the referendum itself. This clarity needs to be provided by the federal government to prevent the potential for The Voice to establish a new and unexpected constitutional head of power so as to massively increase the power of the federal parliament.
There is still sufficient time between now and referendum day (October 14th, 2023) for the Albanese Government to release official documentation concerning the role and function of The Voice. This would assuage fears that The Voice could be a Trojan Horse by which a range of covert agendas, including Regionalization, could be introduced.
Furthermore, there is a current threat to freedom of expression due to the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) moves to introduce new anti-defamation laws. Libel law is already sufficient in Australia to successfully sue to protect against racist slander. However, if libel laws are going to expanded and The Voice is approved so that a new constitutional head of power is established, then public criticism of the Voice’s future submissions to Parliament could be held to be libelous.
Given the potential danger that The Voice poses in terms of transforming Australia by transferring power from the people to the judiciary the question has to be asked as to why some usually conservative columnists in The Australian newspaper are supporting this proposed constitutional amendment?
A possible reason for this phenomenon is that elements of the non-left side of Australian politics support the objective of eventually abolishing Australian states. This contention is given credence by the federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s policy position that -while supporting the current ‘No’ campaign – he wants, should he win government, to hold another referendum to establish indigenous ‘regional voices!’ It could be that ‘regional voices’ is code for Regionalization.
Doesn’t Peter Dutton realize that the best hope for the two coalition parties to survive and prosper into the future is to first win government at a state level? The financial ineptitude of the Victorian state ALP government will eventually become apparent so that there will be Liberal renewal in that state which could even propel the coalition to power federally.
Vote ‘No’ to a Complex Referendum Proposal
Regardless of which party is in power, SAA could support an indigenous Voice to parliament if paragraph (iii) of the current referendum question was dropped and a draft of proposed enabling legislation or background documentation was released as to how The Voice is to be constituted and what its role will actually be. Unfortunately, due to the Albanese Government’s opaque approach toward detailing these aspects of public policy, the current referendum question is – contrary to the ‘Yes’ campaign’s slogan- is anything but ‘simple, practical and positive’.
Instead, the Australian people are being deceptively presented with a highly complex constitutional proposal which potentially creates a new head of constitutional power which could massively expand the Commonwealth Parliament’s power! It is true that for such a radical constitutional new order to be established that the green light would have to first be given by the High Court. But why should the Australian public surrender their socio-political power to the judiciary in the first place by voting ‘Yes’ to this complex proposed constitutional amendment?