The Australian Constitution is quite a remarkable document. Few of those with whom I speak have ever read it. It is worth the read. Especially, section 128. Section 128 sets down in clear terms the unique manner in which the citizens of our nation can actually exercise their democratic right directly – and in the most democratically pure way. In fact, this is the only way Australians can directly exercise their democratic rights.
The power of the Australian people to make changes to the constitution is given to them by Section 128, namely, 'Mode of altering the Constitution': '… a proposed law is submitted to the electors [and] the vote shall be taken in such a manner as the Parliament prescribes', and so on. This means that each citizen gets one vote without any distribution of preferences that have been hammered out by political parties and independent candidates of the day in back room deals. No, this is direct, one person, one vote on any changes to the constitution – and no one can interfere with that right. The constitution is for all Australians - equally. And so, this puts the question to amend our highest law (the constitution, which is above the federal parliament) wholly in the hands of the people.
And that is why both sides of The Voice campaign are in such a frenzy – no one can touch a single vote cast. Each vote expresses the sincere unforced will of the voter. This is as it should be – pure democracy at work, untainted by any other electoral, or political mechanism. A basic human right.
This is precisely why I am concerned that this parliament has not guaranteed us citizens anything remotely approaching a level playing field between the “Yes23” camp and the “No” camp, in terms of spending power on their campaigns, and unhindered access to media forums. According to a recent article in The Australian (3/9/23) the Yes23 campaign will have between 7 and 10 times the spending power compared to the No campaign (which was at first denied tax deductibility back in February, but was finally granted tax deductibility on June 19th - months after big donors had given their hefty tax-deductible millions to Yes23). This proposed change to the constitution is enormous – it is most definitely not modest (Mr Albanese) by any reckoning. It is not benign – and is far, far more than just recognition. Recognition and the voice are two different things, but these two separate issues have been carefully fused into one proposed change and presented as modest when it is not. If it was that modest, the debate would not be as fierce and as nasty as it has become. There would be barely need for any serious debate. If the referendum was purely about recognition of our first settlers, my guess is that overwhelmingly Australians would happily vote yes. Law professors Peter Gerangelos and Nicholas Aroney – experts in Australian constitutional law, state clearly that this proposed law entrenches a right for some citizens which 96.6% of other citizens will never enjoy, and it will be permanent. The very proposal has divided us already.
And this deeply grieves me – to see our nation so now divided. And worse, if the proposed change comes into being, is to have our constitution – which is for all Australians – forever divided also. The division would be enshrined in law that no parliament can change.
The point in all this, regardless of outcome, is that the democratic ideal embedded in section 128 has been trashed. I have deep concerns about the anti-democratic impact of big corporations actively seeking to influence outcomes with their huge donations and in so doing trampling on the democratic rights of employees and shareholders, as well as the rest of us. They themselves are not entitled to a single vote! The very manner of the campaign is not about placing unambiguous and easy to understand information before the citizenry so that they can make their own informed decision – surely, pure democracy would want this? Add to this the undemocratic censorship of big tech and big social media like Facebook, and so on, who take it upon themselves to decide who can say what in the public forums. Then there is the bullying of people who do not agree with the Yes23 line – one leading activist voice said this week that anyone intending to vote ‘no’ is a racist. This, too, is shockingly undemocratic. The name-calling and abuse, the accusations and so on, has disgraced us all. All of this is wrapped in deceptive obfuscation and semantics that have failed miserably to assure the people and inspire confidence.
All of this raises the critical issue of democratic integrity and one of its key component elements, social harmony. This referendum has little of it. Our parliament has, as one of its very highest ideals, the democratic responsibility to ensure fairness and fair process for all. This is true equality. This is respect. This is at the heart of the constitution. But that ideal has been kicked aside by voracious forces that are hard at work in the campaign because they sense the rare opportunity for securing entrenched, unelected power, and big business and big tech have aided and abetted them. This blatant lack of integrity is doing far more damage in the name of power, than not doing anything at all.
The catch cry has been brandished like a baseball bat of late: “If not now when?”, (this is purportedly about recognition). And I would gently answer, “When the ‘what’ is about forgiveness as the basis for an enduring reconciliation, not the law.” Without forgiveness for the terrible wrongs suffered by our first settler peoples there can be no reconciliation and social harmony - no matter how many new sections are added to our constitution. What is being proposed, in my humble opinion, is an entrenched right for a very few, that has nothing to do with reconciliation. This will only set up fresh dynamics for punishing and further shaming of non-indigenous citizens. The current tensions cannot end without forgiveness.
The bottom line for me here in this piece is not about reconciliation – which is a separate issue, and I pray we will see it come to be in our lifetimes – but the destruction of our democratic system by changing the inherent nature and ideal of our constitution forever. To me, this is the greatest danger.
Please pray into this huge issue with me – it is even bigger than the anti-Vietnam divisiveness we suffered in the 1960’s. And this new divisiveness will last a lot longer than 60 years, especially if it becomes embedded in the Australian constitution whose central ideal of pure democracy will be broken.
Once again …
2 Chronicles 7:14 (NIV)
“… if My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
Pray for our Prime Minister, pray for our parliamentarians, pray for our nation, pray for genuine reconciliation which starts with forgiveness. Only then will peace, not hurt and anger, govern our national unity.
Pray into all these things.
Ps. Milton
[Sources: Google, The Australian, Sydney University Faculty of Law, The Australian Constitution, Louise Clegg, a Sydney barrister]