Imagine you’re shopping for a used car. The salesman won’t tell you anything about the car, only that it will be a car and you will have to pay something for it.
How much? He’ll tell you that after you’ve signed the contract. Can you see the car? No, not until after you’ve signed the contract, but, trust him, it will be a car. What kind of car? He’ll figure that out after you’ve signed. What if you don’t like the car? Too bad, you’ve already agreed to pay for it. Will it have four wheels? Definitely — unless it doesn’t.
“Why are you even asking?” the salesman shouts. “Are you a racist or something?!”
This is where we’re at in the “Indigenous Voice” debate.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has been viciously criticised for demanding more details before Australians are asked to vote in the upcoming referendum. As it turns out, not even the Prime Minister can tell Australians even the most basic details, because his government hasn’t even bothered to ask.
Anthony Albanese says the government hasn’t sought advice from the solicitor general on legal issues that could arise from enshrining an Indigenous voice to parliament in the Constitution, but has hosed down suggestions the voice could take matters to court should the government disagree with its advice.
So, he hasn’t even undertaken the most basic diligence a government is supposed to before passing ordinary legislation, let alone trying to amend the Constitution. That’s an astonishing and damning admission — and it was just the start.
In an interview on Wednesday described by the Coalition as “a train wreck”, the prime minister could not answer questions over whether members of the body would be appointed or elected, and would not rule out legislating the voice even if the referendum failed […]
Mr Albanese said that if Australians voted ‘no’ at the referendum, that would mean there would “be no constitutional change”.
Well… duh. Is he really as thick as that, or does he think we’re all that thick? Well, it’s a fair bet that the peanut gallery he is playing to is. I often refer to the left as “low-information voters”: and it isn’t even really a joke. For instance, I’ve recently had a “Voice” proponent try to tell me that amending the Constitution isn’t making a law.
Yes, they really are that ignorant.
But Albanese’s train-wreck fumbling also begs the question that’s been asked from the start: why do they need a Constitutional amendment, when they could just legislate exactly the same outcome by ordinary Parliamentary process?
However, there is nothing prohibiting the government from legislating the voice regardless of the referendum’s outcome, with the enshrining of the body in the constitution simply designed to ensure it is not abolished by future governments.
So… sign on the dotted line with no detail, but no buyer’s regret allowed.
Would you buy a used car on those terms?
When asked whether members of the voice would be paid, Mr Albanese said: “there’s no suggestion of that”, but later clarified that “that level of detail will all be the subject of legislation”.
Mr Albanese also said there would “be some form of an office” or premises in parliament for the body, but again stipulated the matter would also be dealt with by legislation debated in parliament […]
Mr Albanese said the voice would have “no impact on our democratic system and our parliamentary processes” and would be an “advisory body” only.
The Australian
Then what’s the point?
Either it will have no impact, or it will have an impact but they won’t tell us what it is.
Who on Earth would buy a used car from this man?
