Beyond Belief – Rethinking the Voice to Parliament Edited by Peter Kurti and Nyunggai Warren Mundine
Published by Connor Court, pp.240, $29.95
Governments and the woke elite are falling over themselves with taxpayer and shareholder money to promote the seriously dangerous proposal to force inequality, separatism and disunity into our constitution through the so-called Voice referendum.
This relentless campaign requires an emphatic rebuttal. We now have exactly such an emphatic rebuttal in twelve easy-to-read and understand essays collated in Beyond Belief – Rethinking the Voice to parliament. Powerful and persuasive, it exposes the bankruptcy of the Yes case on all fronts, making it the must-read book for those who want to be fully informed, with the necessary information to debunk the virtue-signalling chorus which tells us, bizarrely, that we need inequality and separatism to deliver equality and unity.
Given the government’s seemingly manic determination to deny the Australian people a published Yes and No case delivered to each household as an educative resource to assist voters, Beyond Belief is the resource we all need, and need to share. A great gift idea!
Each of Beyond Belief’s twelve distinguished contributors provides, in a concise format, an unassailable case as to why we need the No case to succeed.
The book, edited by Peter Kurti and Warren Mundine, greets the reader with the powerful ‘How dare you!’ quote from former Senator Neville Bonner, our first Aboriginal parliamentarian who succeeded not on colour but competence. Then follows the foreword by newly elected Senator Jacinta Price who provides a one-and-a-half page demolition derby of the Yes case.
These two contributions whet the appetite for the short sharp essays that follow. If read by all, they would ensure the No case a massive victory.
Fundamental truths and common sense drip from every page. Truths such as, ‘it is wrong in principle and bad in practice to so divide our society’, together with the shrewd observation that the Yes case can’t argue out of one side of its mouth that the proposed constitutional change is no big deal while asserting out of the other side that it would make a big difference.
We are regaled with a tour de force about the sin of separatism and the deception of self-determination. We are also reminded that the paternalistic view that all Aboriginal people are somehow cookie cutter replicas of each other is nonsense. If proof is needed for that assertion Exhibit A would be the presence of Senators Price and Thorpe in our national parliament. Neither would presume to be ‘the Voice’ for the other. The idea that there is a set Aboriginal perspective on any matter is plain ignorant. The divide between city-dwelling activists and those living on country (all 1200 communities) is stark and their needs and aspirations, both within and between these groups, vary greatly.
Our policy formulations and selection of service providers should be based on competence and not on colour. The pursuit of separatism over the past two hundred years has failed, but despite that lived experience, the proponents of the Voice seek to constitutionalise that failure. It’s not the system but the policy which needs changing. Previous attempts at creating a separate indigenous voice have led to spectacular failure. What’s that definition of stupidity? Trying to do the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result.
Another gem warns that race-based privilege, especially when enshrined in our constitution, makes for a two-tier society which is the antithesis of equality, a fundamental principle of our society on which Australians pride themselves.
As a lawyer, this writer is painfully aware that whenever there is a change in the law, the lawyers come sniffing and the roulette of court interpretation is played out. If passed will the Voice require government to heed it or at least take sufficient time to give the matter due consideration. The mind of an idle lawyer can dream up almost any interpretation. Make no mistake, every Australian has access to our parliament and its members so this Voice must mean something more than currently exists for all of us irrespective of heritage.
On the way through we are reminded that the Voice is built on a flawed if not falsified interpretation of our history rattling the very foundations of the Yes case.
In short the Voice is a repudiation of the Western intellectual tradition, which at its core rightly holds that equality sets aside individual attributes over which we have no control – think skin colour, sex, etc.
In 1967, Australians voted to take race out of the constitution. As Aboriginal activist of the time Faith Bandler told us, the original Australians did not want to be treated as a race apart but wanted to be treated equally with other Australians. The Voice repudiates that principle of equality that was so hard-fought for and won.
Do yourself a huge favour and get Beyond Belief for yourself and your friends. It doesn’t only clip the wings of the Yes case, it plucks every single last feather while cogently outlining why the No case is superior on any metric.