A ‘Voice to Parliament’ Challenges Our Democratic System

Prime Minister of Australia Anthony Albanese makes a statement in the House of Representatives at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, on Feb. 13, 2023. (Martin Ollman/Getty Images)

Commentary

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s proposed constitutional change to give Aboriginal people a “Voice to Parliament” is well-intentioned. However, as the proverb says, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Albanese’s Voice proposal challenges the very foundation of our nation as a representative democracy.

Like other representative democracies, this nation is constituted by the ideal that our elected representatives are exactly that—representatives who will take our best interests to the nation’s Parliament so that we are ultimately ruled by the will of the people.

The very idea of members of parliament as “representatives” means that the government of the day should represent and be answerable to the people, not a paternalistic body that dominates the people.

To put the point another way, our model of democracy means that we get to elect members of parliament who will represent us for their term. We are not meant to choose arbitrary overlords for the next few years.

Federal and state Labor governments in Australia right now are failing to work as a representative model.

We can give two examples: The Western Australia McGowan government flagrantly breached its pre-election promise not to deprive rural voters of their representation in the Legislative Council. The Albanese federal government broke its promise on superannuation with little to no consultation with the community.

Premier of Western Australia Mark McGowan speaks during the Labor Party election campaign launch at Optus Stadium in Perth, Australia, on May 1, 2022. (Paul Kane/Getty Images)

In a deeper way, the manner in which the proposed Voice to Parliament is being promoted shows a disdain for the people and the traditions of democracy.

By concealing the details of the Voice from the Australian people, the Albanese government has shown that, at its core, it doesn’t think of the government as representing the people, or being answerable to an informed public.

Moreover, the Voice proposal is an afront to representative democracy. It instead assumes another model of government, one in which parliament is not answerable to the people but is responsive to strong lobby groups and organisations.

To put the point concisely, in a representative democracy, a voice to parliament should not be needed.

Indeed, parliament itself should be the voice for all people. That is, if a group (any group) needs a “Voice to Parliament” to be heard, it shows a dysfunctional, undemocratic, and unrepresentative concept of parliament.

In that light, it is clear that, in a truly representative democracy, the Voice would be unnecessary. However, if Parliament is not acting in the interests of a representative democracy that serves the people, then any voice will be futile.

Thus, while it is no doubt well-intentioned, the proposed Voice to Parliament abandons the ideals of representative democracy.

Who Will Speak for the Nameless and Forgotten?

My view is that if a group like Indigenous Australians need a “Voice,” the problem is not with their voice, but with the Parliament that is not listening. If that is the case, we do not need to change the Constitution, we just need to change the government.

A general view of Australian Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, on Aug. 14, 2021. (Gary Ramage/Getty Images)

The proposed Voice to Parliament should challenge the way we think about our government. Is it to be made up of elected overlords who are answerable to lobby groups and other organisations? Or is it to live out the ideal of President Abraham Lincoln, that government should be, “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

That was certainly the vision of Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the Australian Liberal Party. In his most famous speech, he argued that, in a truly representative democracy, all voices will be heard, especially those of the “forgotten people.”

Menzies rejected the idea that government should submit to “pressure politics.” He proposed instead that a good government will listen to and represent “people who are nameless and unadvertised.”

It is true that the Indigenous people of Australia have suffered much, and they continue to suffer. But they don’t need a constitutional change that will divide Australian into two classes.

Instead of a Voice, they need a Parliament that listens and responds. That is the vision of good government articulated by Lincoln and Menzies.

Such a government represents all citizens, especially the forgotten people. That vision has been neglected all too often.

I would suggest that the political party that reclaims that vision will be truly worthy of governing our nation.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.