How Can They Say That?

 

Image: Unsplash

I find it interesting that some prominent people are saying what specific issues the proposed Voice to Parliament would and would not address. But this makes no sense to say. In fact, if I have understood the Voice to Parliament correctly, I don't know how anyone could say this.

Because the Voice to Parliament that is being proposed in the upcoming referendum would legally enable the chosen members of the body to address parliament on any issue which they believe effects Indigenous Australians. So, how on earth could any politician anticipate how other people, from a very different worldview perspective would utilize this? In fact, it would appear the whole intention of the Voice is to hear "voices" that politicians could not anticipate.

This must mean that the people chosen to represent the Voice to the parliament are the only ones who know what they will address and why, and they can only know this when the time finally comes?

Am I wrong to conclude this?

In other words, people are being asked to change the structure of our nation in a way that cannot be predicted, and is designed in this very way.

As Kerry O'brien has written, "And as a permanent institution, it would be guaranteed to have time to mature and evolve, just like the Parliament itself has done."[1]

It is recognized that it cannot be fully predicted where the Voice could go, in the very literature which is supporting the Voice. No government Bureaucracy stays in stasis, they all grow over time and become more than ever intended. This is in the very nature of Bureaucracies. In fact, the Voice has been acknowledged as not an end in itself, but merely one part of a means to other ends, as O'Brien writes, "Importantly, though, we should always see constitutional recognition and the Voice as part of a trilogy – Voice, Treaty, Truth."[2] So, the intention is to start here and build on this.

Politicians can tell us the limits of the reach of the Voice, that it is not part of parliament, it is not in parliament, but that it does have a right to address parliament. But I do not see how they can limit what it will address and how this will effect policy, since it is designed to include voices that they have even said, do not think like that do; which is the whole point of the proposed idea.

This appears to be a much more open ended policy decision than people realize. You are not simply voting to affirm that you respect Indigenous Australians, which is how it will be sold to people. You are voting for the initial stage in a process of fundamental change to our society. In a time when the cost of living has been driven through the roof by the pouring out of funds from government interventions in the economy, should we be really focusing on this kind of issue? What effects could it have? 

List of References

---

[1] Mayo, Thomas; O'Brien, Kerry. The Voice to Parliament Handbook (p. 15). Hardie Grant Explore. Kindle Edition. 

[2] Mayo, Thomas; O'Brien, Kerry. The Voice to Parliament Handbook (p. 11). Hardie Grant Explore. Kindle Edition.