After many months of bitter debate about the Voice, an address to the National Press Club this week reminds us that we are back at a point where it seems that, no matter what the truth may be, we will not let it lead to any change, writes Laura Tingle.
If something thats getting added to the constitution requires a bracket explanation, its a poorly worded addition.
Using “make representation” and the advisory body’s involvement in the executive government are two hard red lines. The lack of effort and thoughts in this referendum is screaming out from its text.
It doesn’t, it’s fairly common language. You quoted it wrong as well, “make representation” is different to “make representations”. Why don’t you want parliament to consult First Nations Peoples so they don’t waste money on plans that won’t work? It sounds like you’re against it because you think that it will be race-based. Read it again and tell me where it says that the members actually need to be Indigenous or Torres Strait Islander peoples
Feel free to keep hurling racism accusations again randoms that didn’t even mention any identity group. i’m sure that’ll help with your cause.
Mean while, congratulations on securing a no vote.
I never said you were racist. I just said your concerns about the wording were overblown. I apologise if that’s how you read it
Apologise accepted.
Now, back onto the topic:
We can agree that “make representations” usually means an advisory role, the issue is it introduces ambiguity. The referendum specifically used the word “representations”, which is the same word used to assign seats in parliament. If “make representations” means make recommendations, then why don’t just say “make recommendations” instead? The less ambiguous the wording is more support it will get, i see no reason to use a word that foreseeably stirs up so much controversy.
Also keep in mind that despite what the legal experts says, their interpretations are not legally binding, but words in the constitutions are. If me (and many others) can interpret “make representations” as potential extra seats in parliament, there’s always the risk of this phrase getting reinterpreted later for political reasons to actually give extra seats.
As for the executive branch, the Voice is too vague at its current stage to have it involved. Now, this wouldn’t an issue if we actually reach the treaty stage of the Uluru statement and we have a well-thought out treaty that designates the executive rights of aboriginals. It would be cool if we do that. But with how overarching the executive government is, the Voice should either be more specific (i.e. ditch the “we’ll figure it out once it passed” mentality), or leave it for the next stage of negotiation with aboriginals.
A well-thought out referendum needs to address concerns for everyone across the political aisle before getting pushed forward, especially if a major concern is just the wording. The two issues above should be easily identified at the drafting stage and both have relatively simple fix (i.e. no fundamental disagreement on the underlying purpose), but here we are. I feel bad for the aboriginals, fingers crossed this doesn’t make too much trouble for future referendums.
I decided to do a bit of research on the wording and came across this AAP articel which lead me to the explanatory memorandum for the constitutional amendment bill which uses the term “make representations” extensively.
With respect to your concerns:
That is certainly possible but I assume it would require someone else (likely the opposition) to not challenge it in the High Court. To get past that the judges who would have extensive knowledge of the constitution and legal language to approve whatever the parliament tries to do