WHAT HAS HAPPENED BEHIND WHAT IS HAPPENING
Philip Ward (DA letters, July 17) indicates that he will vote "contrary to my conscience" against The Voice referendum.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
His justification for so doing appears to be what MIGHT happen - with underlying assumptions of ill-will or selfishness on the part of First Nations.
In voting 'yes', I will follow my conscience. My justification is twofold - what HAS happened and what IS happening.
What HAS happened: dispossession of First Nations by force of arms followed by murders, mistreatment and overt racism - a history that remains largely unacknowledged.
What IS happening 1): the appalling circumstances of so many First Nations today is a direct consequence of the history I have summarised in the previous paragraph. Cultural devastation consequent upon that dispossession has resulted in the dreadful health outcomes, destruction of family structures, substance abuse, alarming imprisonment rates, etc, etc.
What IS happening 2): attempts, admittedly well-intentioned, by previous governments - from stolen children to a more recent intervention in the Northern Territory - have had dreadful or ineffective outcomes, evidenced by ongoing failures to close the gap.
The missing element? A First Nations voice - listening to the people affected rather than arrogantly deciding what they need and what is best for them.
The object of the referendum is to establish a constitutional principle that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are recognized as First Peoples of Australia and that their Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the executive government ... on matters relating to them.
It is essential to remember that our elected representatives in Parliament will retain "power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures."
Denis Nickle, Wiradjuri Country
PROVISIONS WILL STOP REPEALS WITHOUT CHANGE
Wagga is truly blessed by having a resident who knows the Constitution of this Country better than some previous High Court justices who claim that arguments about the ability of the High Court to intervene in matters of the Voice are misplaced. Mr Alexander, it seems, thinks otherwise. I am in need of some education here.
Under what provision of the Constitution of Australia permits a disgruntled body to take a matter to the High Court because that body didn't get what it had advised the government it wanted?
Also, where in the Constitution does it say that the High Court has authority over the federal government? I can't find those provisions anywhere. Perhaps Mr Alexander can enlighten me.
As I understand it, the Voice as proposed, will be an advisory body. As such the Parliament will be able to accept or reject any of its submissions.
The reason why it is wise to have the provisions relating to the Voice in the Constitution is because it will stop any future government from repealing the legislation without a change to the Constitution (which requires a referendum).
Compare this with the repeal of the legislation which established ATSIC by John Howard PM in 2005.
