The Voice campaign is heating up. So, let’s look at exactly what The Voice body would do and its powers. What we find is not pretty.

The “yes” campaign appears intent on gaslighting Australians into believing that The Voice is a minor step whose powers are reasonable while simultaneously claiming it is essential to ensure that indigenous Australians are heard. These two contentions are incompatible. This warrants further scrutiny.

The proposed amendment is:

What then is the problem?

Must government consider submissions?

One of the major issues is that the “Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government […] on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

In theory, all matters can relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. After all, even tax policy directly impacting other people impacts the budget, which can impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This is not an assumption. Voice proponents have specifically stated this to be the case.

But, the real issue is that if the Voice can make representations to the “Executive Government”, then the government is bound to consider those submissions. This looks innocuous. But it is not.

Established constitutional and administrative law requires government to consider all relevant matters when making decisions. However, Proposed Section 129(2) appears to deem any such submissions to be relevant matters. Thus, if the government is accused of ignoring the submissions, then it could be litigated. This adds time and cost to matters.

A retort is that Section 129(3) enables Parliament to make laws in relation to the powers of the Voice. They argue that, in theory, it is possible that they would legislate to render the Voice’s representations irrelevant or to enable the Government to ignore the representations. But that appears unlikely in practice. A more likely outcome would be to force the Government – and relevant agencies – to consider such representations, thereby enlivening the legal issues.

What are the Voice’s powers? They are bigger than you are told

The proposed wording does nothing to circumscribe the Voice’s powers. The amendment merely states that Parliament can make laws “relating to” the “powers” of the Voice. What are those powers? What are the limits? Can the voice bind other agencies? Who knows.

Some have tried to downplay concerns about the Voice’s power, arguing that parliament can limit it, so people should not be concerned.

Others have gaslit by saying that The Voice merely communicates information, asserting that it has no decision making powers. However, access is power. The Voice can access and influence government to a greater extent than anyone else. It is also given funding to do so. This automatically gives The Voice significantly more power than other Australians possess. This is clearly unfair and not to be enshrined in a constitutional document that is supposed to treat all Australians equally.

The proposed amendment enables Parliament to let the Voice override other government agencies. The amendment potentially enables Parliament to grant significant power. Or no power. Do you trust the current Parliament? If you trust it under Albanese, did you trust it under Morrison or would you trust it under Dutton? Or vice versa?

The amendment thus grants Parliament significant power to expand the Voice’s power. And, it is short sighted to assume that Parliament will always reflect your preferred world view. Rather, it is more prudent to limit this power and reduce the risks that Parliament grants the Voice expansive power given the sheer range of factors that impact any Australian, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

These powers are a significant issue. It is clear from the Uluru Dialogues, and the approach towards the Voice campaign, that the end-goal is a “treaty”. Such a treaty would presumably involve ‘reparations’, which tautologically would involve a financial payment.

There is cause to be concerned

It is clear that The Voice will have significant power and a wide reaching ambit. It appears that The Voice body will be able to influence many aspects of society regardless of whether they touch on specific indigenous issues.

The Voice does not merely enable people to have a say or communicate an opinion: It provides funding and access. Not everyone can speak to the RBA or the government. But, The Voice can. By even being able to be ‘in the room’, The Voice will have more power than the rest of us. Is this really fair?