by ERIC ABETZ – CHANGING the law is not easy. Nor should it be. Serious consequences flow.
But surely changing our Constitution should be more difficult as even more serious consequences might flow.
In 2016 Australians faced a double dissolution election on three pieces of legislation all of which I happened to have drafted.
- Without fundamentally essential detail, debate is limited to slogans and superficiality.
- Voice proponents need to level with the Australian people.
- Otherwise it will confirm to the astute Australian that The Voice is, at best, vacuous virtue-signalling by elitists.
Before a double dissolution election could be held every single word, letter, comma and full stop had been tabled and analysed for the world to see, discuss and debate.
SCRUTINY
The Bills were open to full scrutiny. That is at it should be. Our fellow Australians are entitled to know the detail of the matter on which MPs are casting a vote.
However, the proposed change to our Constitution to insert the so-called Voice lacks detail. At best it is a napkin sketch devoid of any genuine substance.
Without the fundamentally essential detail, debate is limited to virtue signalling, slogans and superficiality.
As such a huge disservice is being done to the Australian people on an issue the proponents tell us is of real importance to our unity as a nation.
Yet without the detail there can be no assessment of its worthiness, workability or unintended consequences.
And without that importantly vital input the Australian people would be giving the proponents a blank cheque. Never a good idea. Especially not to Canberra.
And it is not as though the proponents have not had enough time to flesh out their proposal. It’s been around as a concept for five years.
With the amount of taxpayer largesse laid on to assist, Australians are entitled to have expected more. A lot more.
Australians are rightly cynical of political platitudes and have a good instinct when it comes to detecting superficiality.
LEVEL
The proponents need to level with the Australian people.
First, we are entitled to know the detail, the whole detail. Nothing less.
Second, the proponents need to explain why a change to our Constitution is even needed to implement their plan and how that change will actually deliver better outcomes to reduce indigenous disadvantage.
Floating noble goals does not deliver results. Practical Australians suspect actions rather than grandiose referenda will do the delivering so needed in our indigenous communities.
Thirdly, a full and free campaign giving both sides the opportunity to be heard is essential for a fair outcome which can be accepted by the people irrespective of the outcome.
As such equal support and funding to both the YES and NO cases is obligatory. To do otherwise will be ham-fisted and divisive.
FAIR
The above three essential requirements are needed for fairness and acceptance of the result as being a fair expression of the Australian people’s view.
Failure to deliver in all three areas will rightly confirm to the astute Australian that The Voice is, at best, vacuous virtue-signalling by elitists.
It will be a violation of voters’ rights to a fair presentation of the YES and NO cases and, therefore, deserves to be vetoed.PC
Would love to know who’s pulling Albanese’s strings. And what their motivation is.
Listen to my voice “NO WAY” For a start, you lot are anti Australia, shame on you all!!
Public need The Voice explained – fine details REQUIRED. ASAP
The Devil is always in the details, in this example top secret details and voters asked to trust politicians to make changes to our Constitution.
With due consideration for how desperately Labor has been protecting their secrets we should be very cautious and vote no.
“Public need The Voice explained – fine details REQUIRED. ASAP”
Nonsense. All that is required is the understanding that when a Leftist states or proposes anything, they are only ever:
(a) Lying,
(b) Deluded, or
(c) Both of the above.
That is because Leftists are both very malicious and extremely dull.
It’s no wonder that conservatives are losing the battle, because it’s apparent that they really don’t understand their enemy at all.
The pro Voice folk are saying it’ll be harmless and there’s nothing to worry about. If that were the case why do it? But of course that’s a lie, which is what the left do best. The 1967 referendum is instructive That change of the constitution focused of removing 8 words from S51(26). Those words were:
“other than the aboriginal race in any State”
By removing those words the Commonwealth was enabled to make special laws for aboriginals like every other citizen. Fairly innocuous. Not really; flowing from this change came Mabo and 50% of Australia being controlled by Native Title.
The Voice changing the constitution will be far worse and just as the 1967 referendum initially enshrined equality in the Constitution but which was contorted by activist courts into massive inequality the Voice will be unequal from the start. See Helen Irving:
http://www.kevgillett.net/?page_id=10030
A lot of people clearly do not understand the term ‘racism’. They think it’s only racist if you say something bad or negative about a person of a different race. That’s not the case. Racism means treating someone of another race DIFFERENTLY to those of your own race – and that is EXACTLY what the Voice is planning to accomplish. It is clearly racist to classify Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders as a separate entity within our nation and treat them differently because of their race.
BEWARE. PM Albanese’s clever and possibly effective snake-oil salesmanship is up and running on the Voice. My concern is that: Regardless of Peter Dutton’s legitimate questions, many well written and argued articles by experienced and respected individuals, (eg. Warren Mundine, Janet Albrechtsen, Chris Merritt, James Allan, Jacinta Price et al.), and some poor publicity for Albanese provoked by some clear thinking journalists, ALBANESE WELL UNDERSTANDS that many voters, especially currently, are hard pressed attending on their jobs and families to have time to properly assess the Voice and it’s dire implications. Albanese’s sweet talking and motherhood statements and entreaties regarding the Voice will suck many into voting Yes.
Thus it is important that all people questioning, and critical of the Voice’s effectiveness in addressing real Aboriginal disadvantage, continue to write and be heard, not just to Politicom, but to all available media outlets.
If the vote is not fair and above board, then the result won’t be respected and would be open to attack
The voice is anything but vacuous virtue-signalling by the political elite. It’s a salami tactic, as inadvertently disclosed by Indigenous Affairs minister Linda Burney on Their ABC. Pressed to elaborate on where the voice might lead, Burney remarked it was a step on the path to self-determination. So there we have it, borrowing terminology from de-colonising independence movements, the voice is a procedure that legitimises an insurgency. No wonder there’s also talk about a treaty. Sadly, the utopian Left, led by the stumbling Albo, seem quite unable to recognise that a 3% minority are using guilt to secure their own state within the state. One question remains. Will the Chinese finance the campaign for the voice? They really should, it’s in their interests.
Absolutely agree!
Why is a second voice for some Australians, and with due consideration for failed voices in the past and existing voices to governments, necessary with due consideration for the 1967 Referendum and changes to the Constitution providing for all Australians being able to vote for representatives in parliaments?
What was first introduced as recognition of Australian Aborigines in the Constitution has become a second voice to parliament and that is far from recognition which was achieved when 91 per cent of Australian voters passed the 1967 Referendum.
In my opinion this is political, activist driven, international race based politics and compliant elected Australian MPs intent on creating division. The apparently top secret Labor Government details and recent spectacle of the Prime Minister avoiding answering questions has reinforced my decision to vote no.