Book Review – The Spirit Behind the Voice: The Religious Dimension of the ‘Voice’ Proposal
A peculiar consideration for a secular, multicultural nation.
More a Gag than a Voice
This collection of 17 essays plus a foreword by Bess Nungarrayi Price (Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s mother) comes at an urgent time in our shared history, when several fundamental principles about the composition of the human race, let alone of our “liberal” constitutional democratic-monarchical state, are being challenged.
The principles under challenge are equal rights under the law, judicial and executive independence (disinterestedness), and the constitutional guarantee that there be no compulsion in religion and no religious test for employment. These are all being “put up for grabs” in the referendum on the Voice to Parliament set for October 14.
Now, these principles are not being challenged by way of an intellectual, philosophical or theological debate that puts their merit in doubt but by way of an operation of obfuscation and browbeating. This operation, like the dog in the manger, displaces a careful consideration of the proposal and fills the air with vague appeals to “the right thing to do”, “righting historical wrongs”, and the like without taking into account the delicacy of the vehicle of our freedoms; that is, our Constitution.
Theocracy
In short, a particular problem comes to light in relation to the Voice and religion in the course of the essays in this volume. It relates to a danger to freedom of religion; with the associated danger of an imposition of certain religious beliefs and practices upon the entire population.
Some of the essays in this book address this danger. Gabriël Moens explains that whether the Uluru Statement from the Heart is a “religious” document depends on a legal definition of “religion”, which is notoriously difficult to be dogmatic about. He quotes Mason CJ and Brennan J in Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-Roll Tax (Vic) that: “For the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief.”
Moens goes on to note that the Uluru Statement makes use of the term “spiritual sovereignty”, which, he says, “serves as the rallying point of those who want to entrench the Voice in the Constitution”. The appeal thus to “spirituality” makes the Uluru Statement a religious document in just about anybody’s book, even a legal tome.
Oddly enough, even within the limits of that definition, it seems that the imposition of religious practices has already taken place – without the machinery of any Voice – in the “Smoking Ceremonies” that take place at any number of civic, sporting and entertainment functions throughout the country. To go to a graduation ceremony, attend the footy, hear a lecture, means being subjected to a distinctly pagan dispersal (practice) of demons (supernatural Beings) ceremony.
That has certainly gone under the radar of most of the population of this country, whose religions are most certainly not so syncretic and devil-may-care as our actual practice of them would give others to believe.
So, is the Voice a bridge too far, or is it just the next step in swapping our birthright for a mess of pottage?
Inherent Contradictions
Most of the essays in this book are valuable for their explication of the basic principles that are pushed aside for the sake of the Voice, as alluded to above. However, the most valuable on the specifically religious dimension are those by Rabbi Shimon Cowen and Fr John Fleming.
Rabbi Cowen, in his very analytic essay, refers to three tiers of ownership: that of the Creator (it’s His world, after all); that of the state; and that of the individual. He goes on to explain that the state’s sovereign ownership must be singular; a “divided” sovereignty is a contradiction in terms. Therefore: “So long as the Voice is tied to a concept of distinct Aboriginal sovereignty, its acceptance must mean that the Australian State must dissolve its sole sovereignty.”
Rabbi Cowen also astutely draws our attention to the fact that the 2021 iteration of the National Curriculum makes no reference to the teaching of any spirituality in our schools except one – Aboriginal spirituality. Thus, all Australian students are to be taught a spirituality that is a million miles from anything most of them would receive at home; that is default establishment.
He ends:
“With the Voice referendum we have the … possibility: that instead of the traditional monotheistic Judeo-Christian society with its attendant values, the society as a whole is intended to receive the identity of the stylised and idealised pristine indigenous morality of the purported ‘victim’, in the form of a standardised neo-Paganism for society from education right through to forms of public ceremony.”
Against the Grain
Fr John Fleming also writes most cogently, if more combatively than Rabbi Cowen, making the case, in agreement with Voice “Yes” campaigner Greg Craven that the Voice is a moral issue, but contra Craven that it “flows deeply from my Catholic faith”.
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” writes Fr Fleming, “Sentimentality does not trump basic moral principles.”
He goes on to elaborate on how a Voice to Parliament will mean in practice a deviation from the Catholic social principles of participation, solidarity and subsidiarity.
Participation will be adversely affected because the Voice will displace local voices of Aboriginal people (dog in the manger syndrome); it will operate against solidarity because the Voice is a structure that divides the Australian people into those who are awarded rights under the Voice based on racial identity and the rest of us; and it will entrench in our political apparatus a body consisting of a small number of “representatives” in Canberra that will make decisions for hundreds of tribal groups spread all over this land that should in the main be enabled to make those decisions for themselves.
I lack the space to elaborate on all of the many good essays in this book, so I will merely point the interested reader to those in particular by Augusto Zimmermann, David Daintree, David Pellowe and Rocco Loiacono, all of which contribute to a persuasive argument that the “Yes” case really has no case.
Highly recommended.
___
Originally published in News Weekly.
3 Comments
Leave A Comment
Recent Articles:
28 August 2026
1.4 MINS
When floods hit Nepal, killing dozens and leaving Australians missing, the Greens found their villain: Australian coal. A look at climate politics' newest ritual — the search for a sinner.
28 August 2026
3.5 MINS
Alice Springs' Greens-backed mayor had her car stolen — then refused to press charges. James Macpherson asks why the progressive answer to rising crime is to fix the narrative instead of the crime.
28 August 2026
2.8 MINS
A veteran Seattle Times sports columnist resigned after editors blocked his column defending Sophie Cunningham's stance on transgender athletes in women's sports, calling it a matter of journalistic integrity.
28 August 2026
2.6 MINS
Thomas Aquinas questioned Muhammad’s credentials to speak for God. His question remains uncomfortably relevant.
27 August 2026
2.6 MINS
Religious leaders are urging Labor to exempt faith-based charities from its new 30 per cent discretionary trust tax, warning the reform could severely cut philanthropic funding for vulnerable Australians.
26 August 2026
1.6 MINS
Victoria's cults inquiry report lacks clear definitions and religious freedom safeguards. ACL welcomes support for survivors but warns mainstream churches and homeschooling families could be wrongly caught up.
26 August 2026
4.5 MINS
Hindu Dara Singh, convicted for burning missionary Graham Staines and his sons alive in 1999, is seeking early release. His case reopens questions about justice, remorse, and religious violence in India.
If we acknowledge that Indigenous Soveregnity over Australia has never been extinguished and that a Treaty is necessary , BUT A TREATY WITH WHOM (KING CHARLES ?), then EVERY piece of legislation which has ever been passed by the States and by the Federal Government , including the Australian Constitution , and the Right to hold this Referendum , and , the Right to an Amended Constitution ,are retrospectively NULL and VOID ! Furthermore, an Amended Constitution would similarly be retrospectively illegal, ie NULL and VOID ! This, would , also, mean all Land Grants under the Mabo Decision of the High Court and all monies previously allocated to Indigenous Australians (under this definition of Indigenous Sovereignity ) are therefore ,” illegal ” acts, and, therefore , the land and monies should be returned—but to WHOM ? This would mean we have no legal Prime Minister of Australia who had any Right to call an illegal Referendum , therefore , Albanese should vacate the position immediately if we accept this concept of Indigenous Sovereignity and the “illegal “Referendum should be cancelled forthwith ! Etc, etc !
The Supporters of “The Voice ” cannot have it both ways ! If Indigenous Sovereignity still exists, there are serious legal implications , not least for Deals the Australian Government has done with other countries ! What a Constitutional MESS ! It is going to be very interesting if “Yes “wins — party, party for Constitutional lawyers , and , while Rome (aka Australia ) burns Nero (aka Albanese ) plays his fiddle !
I did not know that the Smoking Ceremony is to drive out evil spirits. I have never liked it. I did not know that all students receive study in Indigenous Spirituality , ie in paganism. They do not learn languages any more , they are ignorant of Western and other cultures, but, concentrate on Womens’and Indigenous Studies . No wonder students are ignorant .
Excellent article!