Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Recognition and closing the gap are lost in the Voice debate

By Dinesh Malhotra - posted Thursday, 28 September 2023


I have read all 26 pages of Uluru Statement and can tell you it is NOT about taking care of our First Nation people; it is not even about their 'recognition', rather – it is about sovereignty never ceded; it is about 'non-justiciable' power.

In its 2017 final report, the government-appointed Referendum Council recommended that the Voice amendment must be non-justiciable– beyond adjudication of any court.

And perhaps what should shock all Australians is that the constitutionally guaranteed First Nations Voice – in its scope and shape – could turn out to be non-justiciable.

Advertisement

I shudder to think: Is Australia descending into reverse apartheid – that shuts the door of justice on non-Indigenous people?

At least, Australia's internationally acclaimed Human Rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson allows for 'equality before law for all Australians', when he argues around the legal risks of establishing the Voice in his piece he wrote for the Yes camp.

Clearly, there is potential of legal deadlocks and logjams of constitutional functionality.

His argument confirms my fears when he suggests that the Voice should not be considered "legally risky", because it will be entrusted to a robust High Court.

If there were any details on how the Voice would work to give advice, and what would be incumbent on the recipient (Parliament or Government body) of that advice, at least some of the uncertainty could be remedied.

We are being asked to vote on an imaginary framework, without coded details of its composition and functional brief, and our future may depend on the whims and fancies of the officeholder of the time.

Advertisement

They say the devil is in the detail…

In this case, even the devil is missing, a fact which warrants a NO vote on October 14.

The effort so far:
We cannot deny that efforts have been made, starting from as far back as 1837 when a British Select Committee examined the treatment of Indigenous people and recommended that 'Protectors of Aborigines' be appointed in Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

26 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dinesh Malhotra is the contributing editor of Bharat Times, an Indian community publication based in Melbourne since 1997.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Dinesh Malhotra

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Dinesh Malhotra
Article Tools
Comment 26 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy