Creating a house of review

Dear ,

We’re launching Gary John’s book Burden of Culture in just a week’s time, so please book by clicking here. The launch will be in our offices at 6:00 for 6:30 pm on Thursday May 4. Cost is $25 with discount for members and students.

If you can't attend you can still buy the book. Just click here. If you're attending and what to reserve a book you can do the same and indicate you will pick the book up at the function to save yourself postage.

You may have read that various philanthropies have pledged $17 million to the Yes case. As part of Gary’s book launch we’ll provide opportunities to donate to the Recognise a Better Way campaign, of which he is the secretary. It looks like in this battle it’s going to be the “widow’s mite” against the mighty, but please bring what you can spare.

Since my last email on The Voice I have done some more thinking, and then some arguing on Twitter. What Twitter tells me is that the Yes side is desperate to play down the real significance of The Voice. When I suggested early in April that it was going to effectively be a house of review, like the UK House of Lords, there was a huge pile-on. I’d obviously hit a nerve.

But the more you think of it the more like a House of Lords The Voice becomes. This is a position that Tony Abbott seems to share.

It won’t be elected, but appointed in some unknown way, and to be eligible to be a member you will need to have the right heritage.

The House of Lords isn’t like our Senate. It is not coequal with the House of Commons and cannot reject bills. It can only delay them for a maximum of a year, except a money bill where the limit is one month. It will also not delay a bill that was part of an election manifesto.

As a result the House of Lords can suggest amendments to a bill, but can’t insist on them. They may also write their own bills, but obviously these will need to be acceptable to the Commons, or they are not going anywhere.

The Voice will not be able to do more than make suggestions either, but through its power to litigate, it is quite likely that The Voice could easily hold up bills longer than the House of Lords can. It should be noted that at one stage it was argued that The Voice would not be “justiciable”, but the release of the solicitor-general’s advice would appear to put that one to bed.

It will have some superior powers to the Lords. Its right to advise executive government, which includes the public service, is something which is beyond what the House of Lords, or the Australian houses of parliament, can do.

It will obviously not be as strong in other areas (I’m not saying it will be the House of Lords, just that it will function in some similar ways). For example the UK prime minister can appoint cabinet ministers from the House of Lords, something which has been used to import unelected people into the ministry by giving them life peerages.

However, presumably The Voice will have a chair, who should be able, by judicious use of his or her influence, to be a de facto minister for indigenous affairs, and will have powers much greater than a backbench member of the parliament, who has no powers to advise the executive, including public servants, directly.

I’m fairly sure that The Voice wouldn’t start out using all its potential as a further house of review, but I’m also confident this would develop over time. To see how this might happen we only need to look across the Tasman at the Waitangi Tribunal which has clear mission creep, and whose recommendations are virtually never denied.

It will also be the first step in the "Uluru Statement from the Heart" quartet, with “truth telling”, reparations and a treaty to follow. They will produce a pressure that will cause The Voice to morph into something much more powerful and divisive than it might start out.

The polls are tightening up. The latest results I saw were around 54% in favour to 46% against (after eliminating a 17% don’t know). I think those polls will continue to deteriorate as more and more people start thinking the consequences through.

It’s a pity that Anthony Albanese has embarked on such a divisive course at a time when he should be concentrating on the economy and foreign affairs where there are threats to Australians, no matter what their heritage. We need to face them together, not face-off against each other.

Hope to see you at the book launch.

Regards,

GRAHAM YOUNG
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR