OPINION

Here we go: everybody’s seen the “Voice” pot, and now they’re all lining up to pee in it. If one minority lobby group gets their own “voice to parliament”, well, the rest are going to screech for theirs, too. Why stop with Aborigines, after all?

Sydney’s LGBT community is ­demanding Premier Chris Minns keeps his promise to set up a voice-like advisory council for gay and trans people, after he set up a similar body for religious leaders who have promised to use it to push Labor on policy priorities […]

Equality Australia legal director Ghassan Kassi­sieh […] also called for the government to go a step further and honour an election commitment to establish an LGBT advisory council, and a whole-of-government LGBT inclusion strategy.

What will they call this Poove’s Parliament? My suggestion is The Agglethorpe, as per Douglas Adams’ The Meaning of Liff: “The sound of two pooves arguing in a boutique”.

Government leader in the Legislative Council Penny Sharpe said Labor was committed to a similar board, but it was too early to confirm its details.

“The government remains committed to establishing an LGBT advisory council and we will be working closely with community advocates from across our state as we work to deliver it,” she said.

The real question ought to be: why should anyone get a “voice”, over and above others? If they want to form a lobby group, go ahead: but actually enshrining it in legislation?

The state government last week announced the establishment of a “milestone” NSW Faith Affairs Council to advise ministers on policy that could affect ­religious communities, such as – one faith leader suggested – changes to voluntarily-assisted dying or conversion practices.

There’s no real reason, though, why concerns over those policies should somehow be construed as only religious. As I’ve argued before, the fact that so often religious groups are left to carry the can on such issues shows a gross failure of secular humanists to confront leftist orthodoxies.

And it’s only going to provide a wedge for every aggrieved minority group to start demanding the same “Voice”.

State MP for Sydney Alex Greenwich, who is gay, also applauded the initiative, as he said he did for the government’s engagement with LGBT organisations […]

The MP introduced a bill in August to reform conversion practices in the state. It will return to parliament later this year.

It is that type of policy Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney engagement director Monica Doumit previously said she suspected the council would be keen to be heard on, or provide feedback to.

But the point is, this is a policy that concerns everybody — and which there are perfectly reasonable secular arguments against. Why should only one group — be they religious or gay — get a privileged voice in the ear of parliamentarians?

However, the move wasn’t without criticism.

NSW Liberal Democrat MP John Ruddick described it as a ­“religious voice to parliament”.

“We established the separation of church and state centuries ago; the government should be indifferent to religion and let citizens express their faith as they see fit,” he said.

The Australian

Trying to appease the aggrieved pooves with their own voice isn’t the answer.

Because, where does it stop? Everybody’s going to want their little piece of the “Voice” action, and all we’ll end up with is a cacophonic babble. Any group can form a lobby group and talk to their MPs now. Weaponising lobby groups with legislative clout is a very, very bad idea.

If You Like What You Just Read,
Click Here to Become a Member and Directly Support This Author.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the share buttons at the top or bottom of the article.

Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard. I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade...