With a two-letter word, Australians struck down the first attempt at constitutional change in 24 years, a move experts say will inflict lasting damage on First Nations people and suspend any hopes of modernizing the nation’s founding document.
The answer to that lies within the question: why put anything in a constitution? Why have a constitution?
Anything could be made using laws or rules. And anyone can then undo and rewrite them.
It’s because countries generally need a foundational document outlining how government will operate, and how laws will be made, and what the country stands for. And have the stability and security of knowing that those operating principles can’t be easily changed.
So the idea was, by incorporating the Voice within the constitution, you recognise indigenous Australians in your foundational document as having the right to have a recognised voice on what concerns them, and having unique aspects of history, and historical treatment, that make that appropriate.
Not a right to dismiss laws, or change them. Not a right to create laws. Not a right to ignore laws, or amend proposals. Just to have a recognised voice on issues affecting them, and ask the “lawmakers” to do any of the above.
This is important, because yes, you don’t want to enshrine anything that gives a small proportion of the population the ability to sidestep the legislative and political process.
But as a country, we do want to enshrine a means by which indigenous Australians, - a historically extremely disadvantaged group of people, who form less than 4% of the population, and don’t have the financial or organisational means to engage expensive political lobby firms like large corporations and mining companies- can participate more directly with the political process of laws affecting them, and therefore feel symbolically “seen”.
An analogy: If a public company wanted to create a Disability and Equity officer position, and wanted that position enshrined in the company charter to show the public that: the company was really serious about that position; provide good PR; signal to the public the company’s values; and protect it from being included in future job cuts, or made redundant in future for economic or ideological reasons under a different CEO, they would present shareholders with the question and put it to a vote.
The company would not include within that question, details about how much that position would be paid. Or what room of what building they would work in. Or how they would communicate. Or what restrictions would be put on the position. Or how candidates would be interviewed, assessed, and hired.
Shareholders would just see something like: “The company resolves to include the position of Disability and Equity Officer in the company charter, as an indication of the company’s desire that it become a more inclusive workplace, and to signal those values to the general public.”
Because while you want people to know the position is permanent, you also want to leave the nitty gritty details to being guided by other processes, so that they can be changed more flexibly then once a year or more at a General Meeting of all shareholders
Unfortunately those words are largely wasted IMO. If you read the text of the constitutional amendment itself you’ll note that the constitution itself would have only established the existence of the council. Every other detail of it is left up to legislation:
the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”
So again, why is this in the constitution? The Parliament could neuter it on a whim by passing a law at any point that established its composition is one guy and its sole function is to publish a pamphlet for sale in the Parliament gift shop. It wouldn’t make much difference if they could simply abolish it.
Because even with that additional wording was in the constitution, any law or changes that prevented the Voice from existing, and being able to make representations to Parliament, would be unconstitutional.
The answer to that lies within the question: why put anything in a constitution? Why have a constitution?
Anything could be made using laws or rules. And anyone can then undo and rewrite them.
It’s because countries generally need a foundational document outlining how government will operate, and how laws will be made, and what the country stands for. And have the stability and security of knowing that those operating principles can’t be easily changed.
So the idea was, by incorporating the Voice within the constitution, you recognise indigenous Australians in your foundational document as having the right to have a recognised voice on what concerns them, and having unique aspects of history, and historical treatment, that make that appropriate.
Not a right to dismiss laws, or change them. Not a right to create laws. Not a right to ignore laws, or amend proposals. Just to have a recognised voice on issues affecting them, and ask the “lawmakers” to do any of the above.
This is important, because yes, you don’t want to enshrine anything that gives a small proportion of the population the ability to sidestep the legislative and political process.
But as a country, we do want to enshrine a means by which indigenous Australians, - a historically extremely disadvantaged group of people, who form less than 4% of the population, and don’t have the financial or organisational means to engage expensive political lobby firms like large corporations and mining companies- can participate more directly with the political process of laws affecting them, and therefore feel symbolically “seen”.
An analogy: If a public company wanted to create a Disability and Equity officer position, and wanted that position enshrined in the company charter to show the public that: the company was really serious about that position; provide good PR; signal to the public the company’s values; and protect it from being included in future job cuts, or made redundant in future for economic or ideological reasons under a different CEO, they would present shareholders with the question and put it to a vote.
The company would not include within that question, details about how much that position would be paid. Or what room of what building they would work in. Or how they would communicate. Or what restrictions would be put on the position. Or how candidates would be interviewed, assessed, and hired.
Shareholders would just see something like: “The company resolves to include the position of Disability and Equity Officer in the company charter, as an indication of the company’s desire that it become a more inclusive workplace, and to signal those values to the general public.”
Because while you want people to know the position is permanent, you also want to leave the nitty gritty details to being guided by other processes, so that they can be changed more flexibly then once a year or more at a General Meeting of all shareholders
Unfortunately those words are largely wasted IMO. If you read the text of the constitutional amendment itself you’ll note that the constitution itself would have only established the existence of the council. Every other detail of it is left up to legislation:
So again, why is this in the constitution? The Parliament could neuter it on a whim by passing a law at any point that established its composition is one guy and its sole function is to publish a pamphlet for sale in the Parliament gift shop. It wouldn’t make much difference if they could simply abolish it.
Because even with that additional wording was in the constitution, any law or changes that prevented the Voice from existing, and being able to make representations to Parliament, would be unconstitutional.
Alright, its sole function is to present that pamphlet to Parliament itself. Still pointless.