It's OK for Australians to say 'No' to enshrining the Voice in the Constitution
At the very essence of a democratic referendum is the right to say either 'Yes' or 'No'. The right to exercise a choice. If we diminish this right, then with it, we diminish all our freedoms.
With the referendum to change the Australian Constitution to give some sort of recognition to indigenous Australians (details of which remain largely unclear) set to take place later this year, it is worth examining what referendums are, how they work in the Australian context and why it is ok to vote ‘No’.
I recently made a presentation to Voting Matters in Brisbane on exactly this matter. This presentation was based on my chapter “It’s OK for liberals (and anyone else) to say ‘No’ to indigenous recognition in the Constitution” in a book edited by Peter Kurti and Warren Mundine AO titled Beyond Belief: Rethinking the Voice to Parliament. In this presentation and within my chapter I do not consider the specific arguments for or against such a proposal, soon to be put to the Australian people. Others at this meeting and within the book make those arguments, far more succinctly than I could. Rather, the focus of my talk and chapter is that the very essence of having a referendum in a democracy is the right to say either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and to be able to argue for whatever case you prefer.
It should be remembered that in Australia, unlike the USA or Canada, all Australians who are eligible, vote on a referendum proposal. In those other countries it is a vote in the national and state/provincial legislatures that decide if their constitution is changed. Moreover, in Australia we have, in recognition of our federal system, a double majority requirement to change the Constitution that is it must be BOTH a majority of voters across Australia plus a majority of voters in a majority of States for a proposal to change.
The very basis of this very democratic process in Australia is that voters are directly involved in such decisions and therefore it is important for people to be able to exercise choice. Exercising choice in our political system at elections, as well as in our lives, is the essence of a liberal democratic society.
Moreover, changing the Australian Constitution is a more serious matter than even voting in a government at an election. This is because when you change the Australian Constitution, unlike in the USA and other countries, the decision cannot be reversed. It is there forever. By contrast, voters can, and often do, vote in a new government at one election and after one term, realise they may have made a mistake and throw them out at the next election.
It is for this reason and given the complex legal nature of the language in changing any part of the Constitution, that Australia since 1912 has had the requirement that there be sent to voters 14 days prior to a referendum the case for ‘yes’ and the case for ‘no’. This clearly shows that it is OK to argue and vote against ANY referendum proposal to change our Constitution, just as it is to argue and vote for any proposal to change it. Indeed, that only 8 of the 44 proposals to change our Constitution have been successful shows that Australians have exercised their right to say ‘No’ on many occasions. Exercising choice also means being able to argue for your preferred option. If we diminish this right to argue your case, including against this proposal, then we diminish our basic democratic freedom of choice. It would mean our referendum process would be no different to those of dictatorships in 19th and 20th centuries, where voters could only vote ‘Yes’ to their governments’ proposals regardless of their worth.
Watch my presentation in the link below.👇👇
You can purchase a copy of Beyond Belief: Rethinking the Voice to Parliament from Connor Court Publishing here.