Discourse that matters for proposed Voice is not equivalent to debating every issue, says Dreyfus

article-body

Attorney-general Mark Dreyfus has tried to clear up misinformation in the Voice debate, as referendum ‘No’ campaigners have attempted to drag WA heritage law issues into the conversation.

In an opinion piece published on Monday, Dreyfus observed much debate about the referendum was concerned with confusing and conflating issues that had nothing to do with the question on the ballot paper.

“For 122 years our constitution has not recognised the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have lived on and cared for this land since time immemorial,” the A-G wrote in The West Australian.

“Together, Australians can fix that by voting in favour of a simple addition to the constitution at a referendum later this year.”

Dreyfus noted the proposed Voice aimed to remove bureaucratic layers, and very simply was about ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians could advise the government on matters that affect them.

“The Voice won’t solve every problem overnight – but it will lead to better practical outcomes in areas like health, education, housing and employment.

“A Voice will help us listen to locals and direct funding to where it will be most effective, where it makes a difference, and where it achieves real outcomes in health, in education, in living standards,” he said.

The A-G said there were only three things that were being considered in the vote to change the constitution later this year, and that this reflected the way Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people wanted to be recognised.

The three issues Australians would vote for include:

1. The establishment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of this land.
2. That the Voice may advise the parliament and the government of the commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
3. And that it will be up to the democratically-elected parliament to make laws about precisely what the Voice looks like and how the Voice is to operate – in the same way as the parliament makes laws about a range of other bodies and subject matters.

“You’ll notice the proposed amendment does not say anything about heritage laws, land use, or parking tickets,” Dreyfus wrote.

“Like other parts of the constitution, the proposed addition would set out some key principles – and then hand it over to the democratically elected parliament.”

The A-G also pointed out that Australia’s election and voting system operated in a similar fashion: the constitution document itself only set out some high-level principles and mandated that elections would be held.

All other important details about how the nation’s electoral system is conducted – including compulsory voting, where polling booths go or how votes will be counted – are matters left to parliament to determine and legislate.

“This is how our constitution has always worked,” Dreyfus said.

“Putting the Voice in the constitution gives it enduring status, stability and independence, now and into the future. This means the Voice can give frank advice, without getting caught up in short-term politics.”

The commonwealth solicitor-general Dr Stephen Donaghue has confirmed that the proposed constitutional change enhances and is compatible with Australia’s system of representative and responsible government.

Dreyfus also ruled out the possibility the Voice would be able to prevent, delay or veto laws or decisions. He said the fear and confusion being peddled by the ‘No’ campaign was not honest and offered no real solutions to improve the lives of First Nations people.

“The only thing the ‘No’ campaign is offering is more of the same. They want nothing to change, when we know more of the same is not good enough.

“The Voice can do no harm – only good for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and for the country more broadly. All we need to do is vote Yes,” Dreyfus said.