The policy of the Federal Liberal Party to argue against the Voice Referendum is questionable on several grounds.
The latest argument, presented by Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton, that a Yes vote would re-racialise the voters is unconvincing.
Even National Party leader David Littleproud distanced his Party from this oppositionism.
In the 1967 referendum, which removed the non-citizen status of the Indigenous people in Australia’s archaic Constitution (Section 51) , more than 90 per cent voted in favour.
Since then, the Mabo High Court decision confirmed land rights for the Indigenous people.
Today, at public meetings, statements of recognition of the rights of the First Nation are common practice.
If anything, the No case as presented by Dutton reflects an ultra-reactionary view which cannot do the official Opposition Party any good.
Most Australians, if properly informed, will agree that the Voice is a further step forward.
Certainly, there is a lot more to do to improve Australia’s Constitution.
Sadly, knowledge of that Constitution is still very inadequate, as the 2004 Inquiry into the loss of the Republic Referendum in 1999 made clear.
Rewriting it would be the best solution.
Dutton argues that the voters might become re-racialised.
That in itself confirms that the voters are now not racialised, a term he seems to have invented for the occasion.
The task of the Opposition in the Westminster system mainly is to oppose, to say no to the proposals of the Government.
The electoral system has also been shaped in the context of that purpose.
It was formed during the period of industrialisation in Britain in the 19th century and exported to British colonies, also even to most US states.
The principal parties represented the owners of land and industrial capital versus the growing power of the workers.
The Single Member Districts were represented by just one of either Party – Tories or Labour.
This system was exported to all the colonies including Australia, except Tasmania.
The Parliaments were shaped likewise, Government and Opposition, seated opposite.
Compromises are difficult in such systems as the adversarial culture permeating the entire political system is dominant.
However, this can result in highly negative outcomes, including undemocratic outcomes and stagnation.
In Australia it also has frequently stopped constitutional amendment.
It could happen here again with the Voice.
Especially here, because of Section 128, that requires double majorities.
This has blocked most attempts.
It is the principal reason why we have an archaic Constitution.
Australia should change its electoral system to Proportional Representation first adopted in Tasmania following the ideas of Andrew Inglis Clark.
That’s where the Hare-Clark system comes from.
It was later applied to the Senate in 1948 by the ALP.
That is why we have a more democratic and representative body in the Senate, to the chagrin of both Keating and Howard.
Proportional Representation should be applied to all lower houses as well to improve Australia’s democracy.
It would do away with the oppositionist, adversarial character of the two-party system and political culture.
Ninety countries use PR systems; they are fair, democratic and especially suit multi-cultural societies.
Female representation is also much better in such systems.
The essence of them is to seek co-operation to form majority government, after the election in multi-member electorates.
It is a system that would suit Australia’s co-operative social culture perfectly.
Given the shift to Independents in the Federal Government and the quite limited support for the major parties in the 2022 election, it would seem to me that Australia should be moving to a new electoral system based on Proportional Representation.
A system that does not require major parties to come up with nonsensical positions for the sake of oppositionism.
Email, Jun 5
Klaas Woldring, Pearl Beach