A FORMER governor of Western Australia has blasted the upcoming Voice referendum, saying it is "clearly racist" and describing it as a "power grab disguised in sheep's clothing".
Well-known barrister and philanthropist Malcolm McCusker, who served as WA governor from 2011 - 2014, said Australians were being treated "as if they were dupes" by the Federal Labor government, who he said had failed to provide adequate information around the new chapter being proposed for Australia's Constitution.
"To give a special right to all Aboriginal people that makes a permanent division on all Australians based on racial ancestry, not on need, simply on if you're an Aboriginal person or you have Aboriginal ancestry you're part of this special group... it's clearly racist, despite what some people from the 'Yes' vote say," Mr McCusker said.
Ahead of Australians casting their votes at the referendum this Saturday, October 14, Mr McCusker took the opportunity to outline the reasons why he would be voting 'no' to The Voice at the Pastoralists and Graziers' Association of WA (PGA) convention last week.
Mr McCusker, who is a well-respected legal mind in WA, said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's statements which indicated that to include details on the Voice in the Constitution would be inappropriate were "simply false" and "defies common sense".
"The Constitution contains considerable detail about the important constitutional bodies that it has established," Mr McCusker said.
"The Voice is such a body, likened even by Voice supporter Malcolm Turnbull to a third chamber of parliament, and that's the way I think Voice advocates secretly see it to be.
"In relation to the senate for example in the Constitution, sections 7- 23 do not deal with there shall be a senate, details to be provided later, but all of the detail that you can expect - who is going to be eligible for the senate, how many senators are there, where do they come from, which States - all of the detail is there in the Constitution."
Mr McCusker said one explanation for the Federal government's refusal to provide more detail on the Voice, is that if Australians were provided with all of the details on the body being proposed they, potentially, would not vote for it.
He said Mr Albanese was using a scattergun approach with the Voice, as the body being proposed made no discrimination between Aboriginal Australians in real need and those who are not.
Mr McCusker used farming analogy to help drive home his point.
"If a farmer finds there are some paddocks that look as though they are phosphate deficient and so need phosphate treatment, you don't put phosphate over the entire farm, you only treat the areas that are in need of phosphate," he said.
With the past two corporate plans of the National Indigenous Australian Agency (NIAA), (which had a budget of $4.5 billion in the 2022-2023 financial year) stating that the group's vision is to ensure "Aboriginal people are heard, recognised and empowered and its purpose is to ensure that they have a say in all decisions related to them", Mr McCusker said the agency's objectives and existing functions would be duplicated by the Voice if the body were to get up.
"The NIAA corporate plan asserts that all its targets are being achieved either in full or within five per cent of their target...why do we need a Voice when we have a fully and well functioning NIAA?" Mr McCusker said.
Another concern he said had been raised by those within the 'no' camp was the potential for Voice to severely clog the workings of government.
"Just what level of consultation will need to follow representations from the Voice?" Mr McCusker said.
"At the very least it will be necessary to establish that there's a proper consultation and, at the very least, it will require production of all the details about whatever is being proposed if the Voice makes representations
"To say 10,000 or 20,000 public service issues where the Voice may make representations - then the government process grinds to a halt."
With Australia party to the United Nations 'International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)', Mr McCusker said the question as to why the Voice being proposed by Mr Albanese was not in breach of this convention had been left unanswered.
