Since the government released the wording of the constitutional amendment we’ll be voting on later this year, we’ve been hearing the word ‘details’ a lot. How can we add something to the Constitution when we don’t know the details?
This question was one that came up in the conversation at Well Thumbed Books, Cobargo on 2 May.
The Australian Constitution is 42 pages long. If every clause was detailed, it would be a huge, unwieldy tome. Instead, it states the bare minimum of an idea – the vibe, if you like – and leaves the details to be debated in parliament by our elected officials.
Case in point: subsection 51(vi) of the Constitution states, ‘The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth’.
No detail, just a clause allowing for the general idea of defence forces. The vibe. And, you’ll note, no mention made of the air force. Of course not – the Constitution was enacted in 1901 and the Wright brothers flew the first aeroplane in 1903. So planes were yet to be invented, let alone deployed in protecting the nation. But when they did became available, the parliament of the time debated their use and legislated that they be added to our defence forces mix (the RAAF was formed on 31 March 1921). No need to change the Constitution because an allowance was already there.
Similarly, in this year’s Referendum we’ll be voting on a proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament amendment that will ensure that an advisory body will be protected by being enshrined in the Constitution. But future parliaments will always have to define and debate the details – namely, to ‘make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures’.
The left is worried that the amendment doesn’t give the Voice enough power, and the right says it will give it too much, so the Government probably has it just about right.
These conversations will be held at Well Thumbed Books on the first Tuesday of every month, and we’re all invited. Come along with your questions and join the conversation so that when Referendum Day comes you can be confident in your vote, be it Yes or No.
This piece was first published in The Triangle community newspaper in June 2023.
I wish you were running the Yes campaign, Jen. As always, you cut straight through the misdirection and distraction. Keep up the good work.
Ha, thanks Elizabeth but sometimes I just feel like retreating under a rock. I applaud those who are running the ‘Yes’ side — people are out on the streets starting conversations with strangers, organising panel events, giving out badges … and the new ‘You’re the Voice’ ad has me pulling out my hankie every time.
Great post. There is so much talk about the lack of detail. I had no trouble whatsoever finding all the details. And how much detail do you need, when all that’s being asked is should our First Nations people have the right to have their voices heard by the executive government. . The government isn’t even compelled to act on the advice. It doesn’t get much simpler. It will be a tragedy if the No campaign succeeds in muddying this simple idea, and I dread to think how long it will be before Australia gets another chance to rectify this.
Thanks Tony. Unfortunately, when you live in a swamp all you have to throw is mud. How they sleep at night, it’s hard to fathom.