Calls for treaty to come before an Indigenous Voice to Parliament neglect “the biggest” coming together of First Nations peoples on these issues, says referendum working group member Thomas Mayo.
Senator Lidia Thorpe on Monday announced her resignation from the Greens to pursue leadership of what she called the “Blak sovereign movement”, which she said she couldn’t continue to do from within the party given leadership support for the Voice.
“It’s like you’re telling people that your wish list is already agreed,” Mayo told Crikey. “But it’s not. And it’s one person, who doesn’t represent [all] Indigenous people. She represents the state of Victoria.”
Thorpe has been a vocal critic of Labor’s plan to take the Voice to a referendum this year, instead calling for truth and treaty to come first, claiming a Voice could undermine First Nations sovereignty.
Some constitutional experts, including legal scholars such as Anne Twomey and George Williams, along with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, have rejected the suggestion that a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament would undermine sovereignty.
The Greens, led by the party’s First Nations network, want to introduce a $250 million truth and justice commission as a step before treaty, with the aim of “exploring, understanding and reckoning” with Australia’s colonial past. The party has since resolved to support the Voice.
Mayo said the treaty-first position undermines the consensus reached by the hundreds of signatories to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which accounts for treaty and truth-telling as well.
“It’s ridiculous,” he said. “Because as if Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have a strong desire for treaty — it’s true that most do, but not all — would establish a representative body [such as the Voice] and not go and pursue agreement-making and truth-telling.”
He said pursuing agreement-making is an important distinction to make because the statement in its current form would pave the way to form various agreements. “Treaty isn’t the only show in town.”
The Yes campaign for the Voice was given valuable momentum this week, following a January period dominated by calls from Invasion Day rally organisers to reject the Voice, and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s calls for more “detail”.
Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg, a member of the party’s moderate faction, on Wednesday released a position paper that described the Voice as a “liberal solution” to reconciliation and called on Dutton to embrace the framework.
“This is not a ‘woke’ agenda. It’s not identity politics and it isn’t a separatist agenda which denigrates Australia,” Bragg said.
Bragg laid out five conditions that would need to be satisfied in exchange for his support, of which four have already been met. He still holds reservations about ensuring the Voice’s subservience to Parliament.
“The concern is that if left open to judicial review, the High Court could stipulate the process of consultation between the Parliament, the executive and the Voice, or invalidate proposed legislation or executive decision-making on the grounds that the representation of the Voice has not been given proper consideration.”
Lacking detail remains the sticking point for Dutton. Mayo, as a key member of the referendum working group, met with the opposition leader last week to talk over the framework. Dutton left the meeting claiming the group hadn’t answered all of his questions, but he committed to further meetings.
Mayo said those who want “to confuse voters” are “not going to stop asking for details”. He said they are “not going to stop asking questions that they already have the answers for”.
I haven’t seen a lot of serious interrogation of Thorpe’s treaty before voice position. As Mayo points out, it isn’t a strong argument to vaguely suggest that the Voice would undermine progress to a treaty, or that one is somehow the more morally urgent task. If anything, I would think the Voice provides a necessary operational and legal framework to get Treaty done.
Thorpe is demonstrably a self seeking big noter, like Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price among others. She has no chance of the Australian public agreeing with her at this time and is likely to damage the Yes case for selfish reasons. Her judgement is poor (already demonstrated) and the Greens have committed foot shooting. I am not against a treaty, but I have serious struggles working out how that would happen. LIke many I see The Voice as a serious step on a road forward.
Agree, and suspect some nativist right wing spoiling tactics using this cohort of professionals, as observed elsewhere on different topics; deny need delay.
In US former (fake) left or centrist types supporting FoxNews, Koch etc. appeasement talking points on Ukraine blaming NATO or demanding they cede, in the UK mass of right wing influencers constantly platformed by media to stymie any revisiting the EU and climate science denialists using influencers and/or non scientists to delay transition from fossil fuels.
Unsurprisingly, disinformation is rife as the rump of the LNP struggle for relevance……………
………….ignore all the Smoke & Dust Dutton is trying to throw around.
I am obliged to accord him sufficient intelligence for him to KNOW that he is talking bollocks, and that his sole aim is to stir up an artificial culture war by insisting on “the detail” when he would be fully aware that the detail will be decided by Parliament AFTER it has been given Heads of Power under the Constitution by virtue of a Referendum.
………because Parliament currently has no Authority under the Constitution to legislate for a “Voice”.
Hence the requirement for a Referendum (the only way to change the Constitution)………..
……..and the requirement for a simple “Do you, the People, agree to give Parliament the Power to Legislate for a Voice?”
Dutton will have all the opportunity in the world to bark and howl at the moon when the question is put to the Parliament AFTER the Referendum.
He should also realize that in the (wildly unlikely) event that he finds himself in the Prime Ministerial seat, he will also have the authority to debase the Voice to his hearts content…….
…..which he would NOT have if all the “Detail” were enshrined in the Constitution.
(Which incidentally, is another good reason to have a Federal ICAC with REAL teeth included in detail in the Constitution)
Why does an ostensibly powerless advisory group need to be permitted in the Constitution ?
(This is a fairly fundamental point that nobody on either side seems to want to talk about.)
Subordinate to parliament doesn’t mean it’s powerless.
“The Voice will have no real power” is the most common reply upon any suggest it will be another chamber of parliament, or something to that effect.
Desired change through ‘a Voice’ cannot happen quickly. It will realistically need a generation or two, therefore needing some long term security. As stated on the website ‘fromtheheart.com’,
‘The opportunity before us is to guarantee the existence of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in the Constitution so that while it can be improved, it won’t be left vulnerable to abolition by a future
government’
The constitutional inclusion therefore aims to limit the politicisation.
Yes, ‘so the Coalition can’t remove it’ certainly seems to be the most logical reason.
But, like I said, nobody seems to want to say that out loud.
Which presents something of a problem, because a very large part of the soothsaying about The Voice is that – as I suggested above – it won’t have any real power. Which leads immediately to the question I posed above.
So your corollary is presumably that only the powerful deserve a mention in the Constitution………………
I wasn’t aware that Putin had a hand in it’s drafting.
Do you accept that the Aboriginals are a special case?
Or do you lean towards Dutton’s (and Putin’s) “Right of Conquest” scenario?
What ?
I don’t know yet. I lean towards yes.
But the simple fact that even the slightest query or indication of doubt inevitably ends up with something like a comparison to Putin does far more harm to your case than help. True Believers should make anyone nervous.
Your original suggestion made no sense whatsoever, and had no relevance to my explanation of the actual process required, nor the obfuscation being peddled by Dutton………………
So I fail to see how you can take offence at a logical extrapolation of your viewpoint.
Your explanation assumes the need for Constitutional change.
“Why does an ostensibly powerless advisory committee [the most common description of what the Voice is supposed to be] require a place in the Constitution” is an obvious and relevant querying of that assumption which, as I noted, hardly anyone seems to want to discuss other than in circular logic.
Because a comparison to authoritarian dictators and wannabe authoritarian dictators is quite offensive, and in no way, shape, or form, “a logical extrapolation” of either my actual viewpoint, nor any reasonable deduction of my viewpoint.
Suggested reading:-
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/corollary
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corollary
One aspect is that a huge Yes vote tells our (expletive deleted) politicians that they must stop being complete a’holes. Being an a’hole in several policies at once – poverty, refugees, justice etc – confers a thick skinned belief that it is Good to be an a’hole, that the public Loves a’holes. They seriously need the rug pulling out from under their a’hole feet. The Constitution means Jack You-Know-What, obviously, except as far as it takes care of the wealthy – just take a look around. The only Rights anyone has here are those which can be bought. Constitution? Don’t make me laugh.
Vote yes please.
I agree with Thomas Mayor. But, whether you agree with him or not, he is always worth listening to.
member who refutes calls for treaty before Voice
Gina Rushton, News Editor, should lookup the meaning of “refutes.”