The Pot Calling The Kettle Shaq

I get that Liberal Opposition Leaders customarily take some time for themselves after the election of a new Labor Prime Minister. We’re now more than three months into Anthony Albanese’s term and journalists are still sending flowers, gift baskets, bottles of Veuve Clicquot and their knickers to the Whitlam Suite at Canberra’s Club Bubble. The women too. That’s not an entirely bad thing for an old pug like Peter Dutton. Following the concocted ‘pandemic’ apocalypse, the then Defence Minister’s khaki Cassandra during the campaign was not only crisis overload but too highfalutin to retail. He profits from being forgotten for a while. As long as it is only a while. Dutton’s decision to reject an oily invitation to attend the government’s phony “jobs and skills” circus made Nationals Leader and wokel David Littleproud nervous but it was the right call.

One yay for that. Unfortunately, ghosting the summit to send a message of nobody-owns-me pluck isn’t being repeated where it matters most. On the “Voice” – which never ceases to be strange and sinister to write – it looks like the Opposition Leader is sticking to a gun-shy “more details” dodge while reportedly being “open” to the idea. This is strategic ambiguity, of course. To avoid alienating his party’s base while fending off a love media indictment for ‘racism,’ Dutton intends to leave well enough alone. On Tuesday, he took advantage of the kooky Shaquille O’Neill cameo to demand that Albanese comes clean: “I think it’s frankly time to stop the stunts and to answer the questions and that’s what the public deserves.” Sorry, but lying doggo is also a stunt. There are no minutiae that will redeem a plan to infect the Constitution with apartheid. Get it said.

This entry was posted in Federal politics, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to The Pot Calling The Kettle Shaq

  1. Entropy says:

    Still can’t believe Littleproud becomes nats leader.
    He not only is a wokel, he doesn’t give a shit about good policy either. His idea of a good program is spraying money about and damn the logic of the program. It’s about hand outs.

  2. Fat Tony says:

    There are no minutiae that will redeem a plan to infect the Constitution with apartheid.

    That’s the best one line description I’ve read so far.

    (As long as people realise that this apartheid will discriminate against white people)

  3. Boambee John says:

    A little bit of part-frogotten history.

    Under the 1949 Australian Citizenship Act, all Australian-born and other British subjects resident in Australia for the five years prior to 26 January 1949 were automatically Australian citizens. This included aborigines.

    Usually, the Liars proclaim their heroes ad infinitum, however, both the Act, and Ben Chifley, whose government introduced and passed it, seem to have been forgotten in the haste to screech that aborigines only gained citizenship after the 1967 referendum. This amnesia continues today, with ongoing references to the non-existent Flora and Fauna Act.

    If the in”Voice” can only be introduced on the shoulders of blatant lies, then what value does it have? Other than to the recipients of the cash and the political power, who will not be aborigines from the outback camps and outstations.

  4. Shy Ted says:

    Both Dutton and Littleproud were quiet about the appalling policies of Trumble and ScuMo. Neither have done a single thing that would make me consider them.

  5. Baba says:

    Let’s for the sake of argument ignore the 11 indigenous members of the Australian parliament (4.8%) who together exceed the proportion of self-identified indigenous people in the Australian population (3.5%).

    Let’s further assume that none of the existing parties represent the interests of indigenous people (a not unreasonable assumption, otherwise why the Voice?).

    It then follows that a range of parties; ALP, Libs, Nats, Greens, ON, Lib Dems, Teals, KAP, UA etc (ten parties in total) are available to represent the diverse interests of non-indigenous Australians.

    Central to the argument for the Voice is the proposition that an indigenous elite (elected? government appointed? appointed by parliament? Who knows? Vote Yes to find out) will divine THE indigenous position on potentially every matter coming before parliament.

    There must be compelling reasons why the Yunupingu’s, the Stan’s and all the Marcia’s and Megan’s haunting academia (all of whom already have the ears of relevant politicians and bureaucrats) support the Voice but representing the diverse interests of 900 thousand nobodies isn’t one of them.

  6. jupes says:

    Nothing can unite the country more than dividing it by race.

  7. Not Trampis says:

    Just curious.

    What details are you worried about?

  8. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    If you haven’t bothered to read the whole thread, perhaps you should, before displaying ignorance at a level only achievable by a pre-school failure.

  9. Not Trampis says:

    right so no-one can say what the details that are so vital to this process have been lweft out.

    Thought so

  10. C.L. says:

    Did you read the post, dummy?
    I don’t care what the “details” are. That was the point.
    There is no place for apartheid in the Constitution.

    But tell us: if the “Voice” is enacted, would Aboriginal poverty and violence against women and children end immediately?
    No? How long will it take? One term? Two?

    Tell us.


  11. Not Trampis says:

    Hey dummy that was the point. you have no details to whinge about,

    apartheid ? you are a joke. the voice merely gives people a voice. no more no less.

    It shows your opposition is facile at best

  12. Entropy says:

    People of one race get the voice. One race only.
    The other races are specifically excluded.

  13. C.L. says:

    So the ‘Voice’ won’t change anything.


  14. Terry says:

    ‘Just curious.’
    Nope. No, you’re not. You’re anything but, and you don’t know why. (but that’s okay, because you’re inherently incurious). Pretend to yourself all you like, since that is the only person you’re fooling. I don’t care.

    ‘What details are you worried about?’
    Not worried about any details. There are no details, mitigations, obfuscations, or spinning that can make a fundamentally racist premise, not racist.

    You might be okay with racism (racists generally are), but I am not. I actually don’t really care if you and your ilk are racists – be free to be as you are…BUT you are endorsing and promoting the corruption of the nation’s constitution, so now you can F&(% right off.

    I sense plenty of others are also not in a mood to be bullied into accepting racism under threat of being labelled a racist by racists.

    There will be no appeasement of your abhorrent position. It’s simply no deal. The end.

  15. Lee says:

    People of one race get the voice. One race only.
    The other races are specifically excluded.

    The very definition of “racism.”
    Putting it another way, how would the people pushing the “Voice” like it if people of European descent were given different, special, and favourable treatment constitutionally compared with the remainder of Australians?
    They wouldn’t stand for it for an instant, and rightly accuse it as being “racist” and a form of “apartheid.”

  16. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    The proportion of people in Parliament claiming indigenous ancestry is greater than the nation wide proportion. Sounds like a Voice is already in place.

    Giving preferential treatment based on race sounds like apartheid, particularly when they already have a “Voice”.

    Your support is facile at best.

  17. Boambee John says:

    Perhaps we could give separate voices.

    One for those with indigenous ancestry, based on population and a long (though contested) history here.

    One for those whose ancestors arrived between 1788 and Federation, based on population and a shorter (but still long) history here.

    One for those who or whose ancestors arrived between Federation and the post-war migrant boom.

    One for those who or whose ancestors arrived between the start of the post-war migrant boom and the late 1980s, when the surge of asylum seekers started.

    And one for the rest.

    All weighted to give greater voice to a combination of numbers and duration of occupation.

    Granted, that might give those linked to the period from 1788 and the 1980s a bigger voice than the rest, but surely that is fair? A voice for everyone, and everyone with a voice.

    Put like that, the silliness of the whole concept is obvious.

    Unless the idea is simply to give one group preference based on race.

  18. Not Trampis says:

    you people make stupid look good. Apartheid is people only being able to live ina specific place, only being able to sit in a specific place on a bus or at a restaurant etc.

    what we are talking about here is people being consulted on policies that address them specifically.
    Those MPs are NOT representing merely aborigines but all people in the electorate.

    CL as usaul brings up a red herring

  19. Terry says:

    ‘you people make stupid look good’

    Blaming others for making your condition appear more attractive to you is not a mitigant. You achieve stupid all on your own – that’s on you.

    That you suffer no shame or embarrassment for continually demonstrating your condition, well, that’s another ailment on a long, sad list that is probably best dealt with directly with your carer.

  20. C.L. says:

    what we are talking about here is people being consulted on policies that address them specifically.

    So why not a Catholic Voice?


  21. Not Trampis says:

    alas poor terry can’t read.

    They are stupid because like you apparently they have no idea of what apartheid is.

    Well Cl we are not a theocracy for a start and they never work. Perhaps if you read the bible you might understand that

  22. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    Neither are we an indigenous society (in the very narrow sense currently implied, in the true sense, most of us are indigenous), but you are hot to “consult” the (narrowly) indigenous. What have you got against Christians that they should not be consulted on legislation that affects them? Bigot!

  23. C.L. says:

    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    – Galatians 3:28

  24. Not Trampis says:

    because boofhead theocracy NEVER works.
    For a second Christians are in a distinct minority and for a third there is never legislation aimed only at Christians.

  25. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    Indigenous are also in a distinct minority, pre-school failure.

    there is never legislation aimed only at Christians.

    Hmmm, legislation to force Christian hospitals to provide abortions, even though such duty is against the dictates of their staff’s consciences. To provide references to abortion doctors or face legal penalties.


  26. Lee says:

    For a second Christians are in a distinct minority

    You could say exactly the same for the indigenous.
    In fact the indigenous may well be an even smaller minority than Christians.

  27. Boambee John says:


    Many indigenous are Christians.

Leave a Reply

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