Voicers wheel out the old ‘leftism is really conservatism’ trope

Last seen during the gay ‘marriage’ debate, Troy Bramston press-gangs it back into service.

The voice to parliament is not a third chamber. It would only advise the parliament, which could accept or reject its advice. The voice would not be able to propose, amend or reject legislation, nor would it scrutinise every bill or motion. The voice would only strengthen parliament’s mandate to make laws.

It is a conservative idea in that it would create an institution, constitutionally enshrined, to channel practical advice to politicians. It would be an act of recognition and reconciliation whereby the parliament listened to Indigenous Australians, the first sovereign nations of this continent, and empowered them to advise how to close the gap on health, housing, education, employment, justice and safety.

The idea that Parliament doesn’t currently have a mandate to make laws, that it has never had one and can only attain one via “magic negro” rubrics is straight from the ‘mind’ of Lidia Thorpe. Let me guess: Voice ‘advice’ would be that More Needs To Be Done (meaning more money needs to be spent). If I’m wrong, Bramston is free to explain how first “nations” voices will sharpen monetary policy, rein in the deficit, improve the mathematics curriculum, solve the housing crisis and build a nuclear submarine. Let’s hear it, Troy. Don’t be lazy and don’t be cute. Tell us.

This entry was posted in Fake conservatism, Federal politics, Left-wing extremism. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Voicers wheel out the old ‘leftism is really conservatism’ trope

  1. C.L. says:

    In the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders invited all Australians to walk with them on a journey of reconciliation.

    They asked for understanding, empowerment and a future where there was hope, inclusion and justice for all. They called for First Nations people to be given a voice in the lawmaking that governs this continent.

    The statement called for recognition and a practical mechanism to achieve structural reform: a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution and a Makarrata commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between government and Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, and truth-telling about our shared past as the basis for lasting reconciliation.

    Five years on from the National Constitutional Convention that gave all Australians this generous and unifying statement, there is widespread support from Australians of all walks of life and the critical backing of business, trade unions, churches and faith groups, charitable and civic organisations, and the legal community. It now requires the political will to achieve it.

    Anthony Albanese pledged to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, with the priority being the First Nations voice to parliament. This was a firm commitment made by Labor during the recent election campaign and now, having won a majority of seats in the House of Representatives and a majority of the two-party vote, it has a mandate to deliver it.

    The Albanese government is committed to working across the political divide with all parties to gain maximum support for a referendum to be held this parliamentary term. The government is also working with Indigenous Australians, including the Coalition of Peaks, to design the model and referendum question.

    Last week the Prime Minister told me he would put a referendum to enshrine the voice to parliament in the Constitution even if the Liberal and National parties did not formally support it. This is not to downplay his wish for genuine bipartisanship but a clear statement that he will not allow a “right of veto” to be exercised by the opposition.

    “You don’t need a consensus but you need a broad agreement, firstly, amongst First Nations leaders and then, secondly, you would seek to get as broad a political agreement as possible for a referendum,” he said. “So that doesn’t mean that any group would have veto power because my concern is that unless there is a referendum in the foreseeable future, then the momentum will be lost.”

    This is the right approach but challenges the prevailing orthodoxy about what is needed to amend the Constitution successfully. The conventional wisdom is that a referendum is carried only when Labor and the Coalition support it. The standout example is the 1967 referendum to include Aboriginal Australians in the census and allow the federal government to make laws for their benefit, which was adopted with 90.77 per cent voter support and the backing of all states.

    Since 1901, only eight out of 44 referendums have been carried. Labor’s track record of achieving constitutional change is not good. Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke both put six referendums and failed. The last successful referendum proposed by Labor was on social services during the Chifley government in 1946.

    It is highly unlikely the Liberal and National parties will formally support a referendum to enshrine the voice to parliament in the Constitution. So, holding up a referendum until there is bipartisan support makes no sense. It is, however, likely that some Liberal MPs will support a referendum but it is almost certain that it will not be a party-wide position.

    The last three Liberal PMs have strongly opposed the voice to parliament. Moreover, it was Malcolm Turnbull who wrongly and shamefully characterised it as “a third chamber”. Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison also have perpetuated this characterisation. So has Peter Dutton, although he now says he is open to supporting the referendum.

    The voice to parliament is not a third chamber. It would only advise the parliament, which could accept or reject its advice. The voice would not be able to propose, amend or reject legislation, nor would it scrutinise every bill or motion. The voice would only strengthen parliament’s mandate to make laws.

    It is a conservative idea in that it would create an institution, constitutionally enshrined, to channel practical advice to politicians. It would be an act of recognition and reconciliation whereby the parliament listened to Indigenous Australians, the first sovereign nations of this continent, and empowered them to advise how to close the gap on health, housing, education, employment, justice and safety.

    There is more work to be done on the structure of the voice, the appointment of its members and the head of power in the Constitution to bring it into force. The federal parliament is likely to be able to determine the design of the voice but enshrining it in the Constitution means there must be a voice. State, regional and local voices are worthwhile initiatives and may link to a national voice.

    It is, of course, better to have Liberals and Nationals supporting the referendum on the voice. The appointment of Julian Leeser, a constitutional conservative and supporter of the voice, as opposition legal affairs and Indigenous affairs spokesman is welcome and encouraging. But Albanese is right: the voice cannot be held hostage to a political party. It is too important.

    The old certainties of politics are changing, as the recent election showed. Referendums were once viewed as viable only if the two major parties supported it. But a First Nations voice to parliament is one that transcends politics and already has the support of a wide and diverse range of Australians. It has every prospect of success, with or without the Coalition’s support.

  2. Shy Ted says:

    He isn’t nicknamed Mavis for nothing.

  3. Buccaneer says:

    Isn’t it nice to pretend that parliament can reject the voice without being labelled racists…

  4. Pommy Al says:

    Troy Bramston is a fuckwit.

  5. Boambee John says:

    After the recent election, the number of MPs claiming to be indigenous seems to be pretty close to their share of the population. It therefore seems that a “voice” already exists.

    The solution proposed seems more like an attempt to constitutionally enshrine apartheid in Australia, with a small minority having superiority over others. When such a solution was proposed for indigenous Fijians over non-indigenous Fijians after one of the coups there, the so-called “progressive’ left in Australia and elsewhere were outraged. Not so much now.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Proportionally there are roughly as many aboriginal MPs in Federal Parliament as there are aboriginal people in the population. Yet aboriginal people in many places are living in abject misery.

    Will a Voice improve their lot? I don’t think so, since the Voice is a lefty initiative and it’s the Left that has led aboriginal people into that misery.

    How about fixing the problems first? It’d be nice, I’d like that.

  7. Not Trampis says:

    err the advice they would give would be specifically to do with first nations people but you knew that surely

  8. Baba says:

    Not Trampis, please give an example of Commonwealth legislation specific to Aboriginal and TSI people which is not currently subject to exhaustive consultation with them.

  9. Lee says:

    When such a solution was proposed for indigenous Fijians over non-indigenous Fijians after one of the coups there, the so-called “progressive’ left in Australia and elsewhere were outraged. Not so much now.

    I remember that.
    There was zero sympathy for the “indigenous Fijians” from the hypocritical left then, but they didn’t mind the country being well and truly taken over by non-indigenous Indians and other Asians.

  10. twostix says:

    If “the voice” (what is this fresh hell?) has no power to do anything, then why does it need to be enshrined in the constitution.

    State, regional and local voices are worthwhile initiatives and may link to a national voice.

    Ah I see, unable to secure government in Canberra for the bugman political left have decided they’re going to build a whole new unelected parallel government and run the country from there.

  11. twostix says:

    If priority order is given to people based on how long they’ve been here, then the “second ” nations people, the people who actually built this increasingly insane Jonestown like outpost on the bottom of the world and created the Constitution and all the governments and cities, what do we get?

  12. C.L. says:

    …why does it need to be enshrined in the constitution?

    So it can be Brennan-vibed into a third chamber down the track.

  13. Entropy says:

    Exactly

  14. NoFixedAddress says:

    Three people walked into a bar in Townsville about 40 years ago to have a beer and listen to some live music together…. one was a brown skinned woman from the Cape York type area, another was a dark skinned bloke who was a real son of Kanaka type folk and me a white skin descendant of dumb “Black Oirish” types.

    I am still not sure which of us had the better Voice but when a white skinned “bloke” who said he was a Mt Isa union rep tried to accost me you should have seen him scuttle off when the woman was going to belt him.

    All 3 of us knew each others family stories and had respect for each other.

    We had another beer and kept talking.

  15. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    err the advice they would give would be specifically to do with first nations people but you knew that surely

    Err, and given that many “First Nations” people (a cultural appropriation from Canada) are fully assimilated into Australian society, exactly which matters do you believe would be excluded? And why?

  16. jupes says:

    … empowered them to advise how to close the gap on health, housing, education, employment, justice and safety.

    Bramston wants people who don’t send their kids to school, don’t stop their kids (or their own) criminality, burn down their (issued) houses, neglect their children to the point that they sleep (and die) in garbage skips and shoot each other with cross bows to advise how to close the gaps mentioned above.

    Parental responsibility would be a million times more effective than a ‘Voice to Parliament’, but hey, there’s no feeding at the trough in that. Plus it would be racist to suggest such a thing. We live in clown world.

  17. Tel says:

    Moreover, it was Malcolm Turnbull who wrongly and shamefully characterised it as “a third chamber”.

    Accidentally said the quiet part out loud … having a massive ego and genuine belief of being the smartest guy in the room makes it difficult to shut up about these things.

    The voice to parliament is not a third chamber. It would only advise the parliament, which could accept or reject its advice.

    Cobblers … you don’t change the Constitution of a nation, unless you intend to re-constitute the government.

    They can provide all the advice they want right now, same as any other lobbying group.

    Australians don’t want two grades of citizenship.

  18. Tel says:

    There was no National Constitutional Convention in 2017 either, that’s an out and out lie.

    If they aren’t even willing to be honest about that then you can safely presume none of this is legit.

  19. C.L. says:

    err the advice they would give would be specifically to do with first nations people but you knew that surely

    Isn’t everything in the suite of public policy relevant to Aborigines?
    Isn’t it racist to suggest otherwise?

  20. Gerry Jackson says:

    To call small groups of stone-age nomads nations is to abuse the English language.

  21. NoFixedAddress says:

    The 2 people I mentioned in that real actual story above loathed their dark skin because they were identified with dysfunctional Australian Aboriginals.

    I laughed at the Kanaka bloke, and he and I had many different talks together over a 3 month period when I was in Townsville, because he said wasn’t so bad for our folk to come and work here to create the sugar cane fields because we found the gold and emeralds and still know where to find.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *