Dutton’s Half Nelson

RIFFING years ago on the rancor between the sexes, Dave Chappelle mocked the tips offered in a quintessential women’s magazine feature he caricatured as ‘A Hundred Ways To Please Your Man’. “Get outta here. There ain’t no hundred ways,” he said. “That list is four things long.” Alas, I can’t essay Chappelle’s abridged requisites at a family blog, so let’s segue directly to our analogy’s better, but equally absurd, half. Namely, the post-election review conducted for the Liberal Party by Brian Loughnane and Senator Jane Hume. Completed in December, it recommended 49 reforms to start rebuilding the old Toyo that Scott Morrison wrapped around a tree last May. Forty-nine? Get outta here. That list is one thing long: principle. Presupposing courage, conviction and constancy, that’s the only thing the Liberals need to rejuvenate their fortunes but it’s the one Peter Dutton is doing everything possible to dodge. His unwillingness to unqualifiedly oppose the sinister Voice – using the middle-way expedient of requiring more “details” from the Prime Minister – is nothing less than a refusal to defend the Constitution. A Liberal Party unwilling to conserve the document that created from scratch one of the greatest nations in history is worse than “not fit for purpose,” to use Loughnane and Hume’s phrase. It has no purpose.

Prima facie, Mr Dutton doesn’t have much in common with his ill-fated predecessor as Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson. One used to be a copper, the other a medico. The former was a dedicated Liberal from a young age, the latter had a road to North Shore conversion after a youthful preference for the ALP. The first has a hard man image he’s eager to soften, the second was a Wet forced to muscle up. Both of them, however, took on the most thankless mission in Federal politics: keeping the show on the road after a shattering annihilation and a lengthy occupancy of the Treasury benches. That shared tendency to finesse their way out of the doldrums via saleable pretending should be worrying to anyone who cares about the Liberal Party’s future. Certainly, Mr Dutton is better at it; he is vastly more experienced than Dr Nelson was and his pragmatic self-editing is far less clumsy.

Nevertheless, fifteen years ago the Nelson-led Opposition was struggling to find its rhythm against a Labor Prime Minister using race as a legacy plinth and being given the fluffy pillow treatment by the Love Media. Back then, Kevin Rudd’s planned apology to the “stolen generation” was touted as the magical key to a new epoch of equality and advancement for Aboriginal people. Opponents of this curated atonement and its improbable historiography were denounced as hateful racists. Does any of this sound familiar? By 30 January 2008, Dr Nelson had to make a decision: either endorse the ‘sorry’ hokum and alienate conservatives or oppose it and become piñata du jour for the Press Gallery ad infinitum (as if that wasn’t his fate anyway). He opposed it and the “culture of guilt” he said it would foster forevermore. A week later, he changed his mind to avoid the embarrassment of Turnbullites crossing the floor and to bolster his standing with opinion-makers. When he spoke in support of the apology motion on 13 February, left-wing crowds watching big screens around the nation reacted with hatred and vilification. The Nelson era ended eight months later. Parliament’s loss, such as it was, became the War Memorial’s gain.

After a fortnight that showcased Anthony Albanese’s laggardly victory lap approach to everything, Mr Dutton’s Voice strategy is now being hailed as a masterstroke by cons and a headache by pros. Media duchessing begets flabbiness in Labor champs – a rare though handy advantage for Liberals that the Opposition Leader has deftly exploited. The PM didn’t bother to commission advice from the Solicitor-General, will not rule out legislating a Voice anyway – so much for the old discarded democracy – falsely claimed a Voice would be non-justiciable and refused to draft a bill prior to a referendum to allow everyone to see if this ignis fatuus can even be reduced to writing. Suddenly, Chris Kenny, Peter van Onselen and other backers began pleading for Mr Albanese to start doling out particulars. Yes, it was a tactical victory for the Opposition but equivocation remains a strategic risk. We have all the details we need: this is an attempt to subvert Australian governance for the purpose of institutionalising left-wing cultural control. It will have no more ameliorative effect on the lives of our much-beloved Aboriginal compatriots than Sorry Day. It is therefore worse than counterfeit, nebulous, insincere and useless. It is cruel.

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

63 Responses to Dutton’s Half Nelson

  1. C.L. says:

    Voice unlawful…

    An important and brilliant column by Janet Abrechtsen:

    PM’s voice amendment in breach of international law.

    Many readers will remember the MV Tampa, the declaration by then prime minister John Howard that “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come”, and the resulting claim that our immigration policies would make us an international pariah.

    And yes, it’s true that many foreign politicians, Europeans in particular, made snide remarks about us. Until their own immigration problems reversed their views. Britain, for example, is now trying to implement our Pacific Solution in Rwanda. The pariah is now a role model.

    The international pariah argument is now getting another run, this time in relation to the proposed voice. While Anthony Albanese was relatively restrained when he said recently that a No vote would be a “bad look”, other voice advocates are already in full-throttle smear mode.

    The BBC’s Nick Bryant, for ­example, wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald before Christmas that “a Yes vote would help quash any lingering vestiges of the stereotype that Australia is a redneck nation. A No vote could be devastating and seen as proof the country is a racial rogue nation”.

    Where is Owen Harries when you need him? One of Australia’s greatest intellects would have made mincemeat out of Bryant’s embrace of this foolish sacred cow about “world opinion”. As Harries wrote in 2002, “the truth is there is no such thing as ‘world opinion’. What we have is a variety of contending and shifting opinions, reflecting different values, interests and states of knowledge. To try to elevate one, or some combination, of these to the status of ‘world opinion’ simply represents an attempt to gain advantage on the cheap”.

    Harries could have been speaking about Bryant’s fulminations today. They are not merely the kind of childish abuse the voice debate should be free from, but are also factually wrong.

    A closer look at our international treaty obligations suggests that we might become an international law-breaker by inserting the Albanese Amendment into our Constitution, because it may well amount to a serious breach of our obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

    Australia is bound by that convention because we ratified it when parliament passed the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975 (unlike the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we voted against at the UN and have never ratified).

    A constitutional voice will no doubt override any breach of the garden variety domestic Racial Discrimination Act. But compliance with domestic law does not relieve us of our continuing international-law obligation to comply with the convention. Insertion of the Albanese Amendment into the Constitution will, for the reasons set out below, violate the convention.

    The convention defines the term “racial discrimination” as any “distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal ­footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” (Emphasis added)

    State parties to the convention, including, of course, Australia, are required to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination and are specifically required “to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights: … (c) political rights, in particular the rights to participate in elections – to vote and to stand for election – on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level and to have equal access to public service.” (Emphasis added).

    Unless a relevant exception applies, inserting the words of the Albanese Amendment into the Constitution would be an act of racial discrimination in breach of the convention because it would confer privileged access to political rights and public service on Indigenous Australians.

    In the absence of a relevant exception, Australia would have a continuing obligation under the convention to “amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations” including the Albanese Amendment and any laws passed pursuant to it.

    So, is there a relevant exception?

    There is only one possible ­candidate for such an exception. The convention does provide that “special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement or certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed ­racial discrimination.”

    But here is the proviso: “such measures must not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved”.

    This caveat is critical.

    Our Racial Discrimination Act adopts all these terms and concepts, and in the leading case of Gerhardy v Brown in 1985, our High Court gave careful directions as to when a measure will fall within the “special measures” exception.

    The case concerned a South Australian Act, the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act, which vested certain lands in the Pitjantjatjara peoples to the exclusion of all others (including other Indigenous groups). The court accepted that the act would have amounted to racial discrimination unless it could be brought within the “special measures” exception. Justice (later Chief Justice) Brennan set out four indicia of “special measures”. Relevantly, these included a “sole purpose” test and a “necessity” test.

    The Australian Human Rights Commission has published guidelines on these tests which show there must be a degree of specificity about the precise aim of the measures and why the measures are necessary to achieve those aims.

    Given that the federal government refuses to give any detail at all about how the voice will work, its specific aims or how it will achieve its aims, it is more than likely the Albanese Amendment would not meet the “sole purpose” or “necessity” tests of “special measures”.

    But the killer blow for the Albanese Amendment is the requirement that “special measures” cannot continue permanently, but must be discontinued once the objectives for which they were established have been met.

    In the Gerhardy, case the judges were clearly troubled that the relevant South Australian Act had, as Brennan noted, no sunset clause. However, the court accepted that, as Brennan said, the convention did not demand legislation have a specific sunset clause because once the circumstances justifying the special measure ceased to apply, the measure “would fall” because it breached the Racial Discrimination Act. Brennan quoted former chief justice Dixon’s comment that “if a power applies to authorise measures only to meet the facts, the measures cannot outlast the facts as an operative law”.

    The problem for the voice then is that the government’s very reason for inserting it in the Constitution, namely to make it permanent, is exactly what the convention forbids, namely a permanent “special measure”. There is abundant evidence that the government’s purpose in inserting the voice in the Constitution, as opposed to merely legislating it, is to put it beyond repeal.

    Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney stated the official government position in the Sun-Herald on January 22 when she said “by updating the Constitution to include the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice we will ensure that the voice cannot be abolished” by “future governments”.

    While a legislated voice could clearly comply with the convention, a voice enshrined in the Constitution to give it permanence appears to be a pretty clear and obvious breach of the convention.

    Ensuring the voice can be abolished by parliament is consistent with the treatment afforded to positive discrimination elsewhere. For example, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said in the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Grutter v Bollinger, which approved limited and targeted use of racial preferences in US college admission processes, “race conscious admissions policies must be limited in time”.

    It’s been a great pity, and a major mistake, then that the Prime Minister, who released the Albanese Amendment in July 2022, chose to outsource legal ­advice on these critical issues to a group of pro-voice enthusiasts. Had the Albanese government sought its legal advice from the Solicitor-General or more usual government sources, it might have found out that permanently entrenching racial preferences is not only a bad idea but will make us a genuine international pariah for breaking international law.

  2. Christine says:

    Much appreciated.
    I’ll have a strong response when lectured on goodwill:

    “this is an attempt to subvert Australian governance ..”

    (may add something florid – the serpent Subversion dressed by Modest&Gracious)

  3. Ed Case says:

    What basis has Dutton got for calling for a No vote at the Referendum when Albanese won’t disclose the Legislation he has planned?

    Going off half cocked, the way the National Party did, turns the debate into a partisan Liberal vs Labor Boat Race with a predictable result.

    Dutton’s wisdom in not being rushed into a decision to advocate for the No position has been vindicated by Lidia Thorpe’s advocacy of No at the Referendum.

  4. Ed Case says:

    It’s been a great pity, and a major mistake, then that the Prime Minister, who released the Albanese Amendment in July 2022, chose to outsource legal ­advice on these critical issues to a group of pro-voice enthusiasts.

    Albanese didn’t commission the Langton/Calma Report, it’s just a diversion.
    As far as Australia being in breach of some International Convention, Albrechtsen
    has done what is called Short Jump in Showjumping.
    She’s jumped the hurdle before she arrived at it.

    The only issue is:
    Before you even get to your Referendum, show us your Legislative cards, Albanese.

  5. Cassie of Sydney says:

    Superb C.L. Just superb.

    I think Dutton’s instinct is NO to the Voice however his equivocation is due to the fact that his inner circle comprises dripping wet scum like Birmingham and Bragg, two men who should be in the Greens. However, for the first time since becoming leader, Dutton has had a good fortnight, but it wasn’t Dutton or the Liberals who can take credit for Albanese’s derailment. It was Ben Fordham on 2GB who started the fire with his brutal radio confrontation with Santo Albo. Listening to the 2GB broadcast, Albo was left flapping in the wind because he clearly wasn’t across his brief, and also, more fundamentally, he isn’t used to rigorous opposition. Albo has never been across his brief about anything, he is simply PM by accident, gifted by Scumbag Morrison and the inept Liberals. Albo spent the election campaign running from curly questions, he was treated with kid gloves by a compromised, biased MSM (with one or two exceptions) and he cruised to victory. He is the Trojan Horse PM. An electorate was rightly tired of a Liberal Party that stood for nothing, that had trashed its core principles, that spat in the face of its voter base and had spent almost a decade doing nothing to fight the culture wars. Oh and sorry to digress but just wait until the March NSW election. It’ll be a rinse and repeat of May 2022. Oh and I don’t know whether anyone has seen NSW polling. Rita Panahi mentioned it last night. There’s been a surge in One Nation support in NSW, mainly found in Sydney’s vast western suburbs, and it’s clearly from disaffected Labor AND Liberal voters. March will not be pretty for the Liberals but that’s what happens when you trash your principles and you spit in the faces of your voter base. We walk.

    Anyway, sorry to digress but Dutton’s been lucky. Since the Fordham mess, Alice has exploded even though, of course, the violence has been going on for months. Maybe Dutton is playing a tactical game, if so then good luck to him. However, I now believe the Voice will fail and the best campaign material for the NO side is Albanese’s 2GB interview, is the left’s incessant trashing of European settlement, colonial Australia and non-indigenous Australians, is Thorpe’s revolutionary rhetoric (for which she should be censured in the senate for but that would take Liberal and National senators some backbone, it was much for them to censure someone like Bettina Arndt). It’s all perfect advertising for the NO campaign. The NO side doesn’t have to spend too much dosh, the material is all there, all it has to do is drop flyers into every letterbox in the country with a picture of Thorpe and her inflammatory and violent words from two days ago when she shouted, screamed and screeched, “this is war”. The NO campaign should be….

    “NO to the Voice, NO to War”.

  6. jupes says:

    Parliament’s loss, such as it was, was the War Memorial’s gain.

    For a while maybe, but Nelson has caved to the race crowd again. He is pushing for the fictionous ‘Frontier Wars’ to be exhibited at the War Memorial.

  7. Not Trampis says:

    Brilliant Albrectson is a contradiction in terms.

    you vote for a voice in the constitution. It is generalist in tone.

    without that passing a referendum the legislation which would be examined by parliament is entirely another thing.

  8. Ed Case says:

    No one under 45 remembers Apartheid, but, on the odd chance they looked it up, they’d probably say
    Great idea
    Anyone that does remember the cant, hypocrisy, lying, humbug and sickening dishonesty involved in the Anti Apartheid Movement woulda switched Head Tilty Yuppie Albrechtsen off as soon as she’d brought it up.

  9. C.L. says:

    It was Ben Fordham on 2GB who started the fire with his brutal radio confrontation with Santo Albo. Listening to the 2GB broadcast, Albo was left flapping in the wind because he clearly wasn’t across his brief, and also, more fundamentally, he isn’t used to rigorous opposition. Albo has never been across his brief about anything, he is simply PM by accident, gifted by Scumbag Morrison and the inept Liberals.

    Yes, excellent point, Cassie. The luck fell in Dutton’s lap. The trouble with the clever-dick middle way is that it delays the necessary reckoning. If the Liberals won’t outright oppose this now, they’ll have to go through it all again when it’s next proposed. Just like net zero, they’ll end up calling quits. They’re conditioning the electorate to believe they’ll always fold.

    Albanese is easily rattled – that’s been demonstrated once again. He seems to just wander around in a generalist cloud of vibes and scripted slogans but has no smarts for sales and implications. When he trips up, out comes snarling Albo.

  10. Jay says:

    I notice Perrottet is backing The Voice (notice it’s not a voice) so I won’t be voting for him now. Having said that, I don’t think that, absent of an unequivocal endorsement, Dutton has to say anything much for the scam to fall over. Everyone is thinking the same thing – it’s bs.

  11. Adelagado says:

    Dutton’s approach is totally correct in my opinion. Declaring opposition to the Voice for any reason will bring all the attention on the Liberal Party. He would be called every name under the sun and blamed for the Alice Springs mess, the Australia Day protests, etc etc. As it is, the yes vote is losing support thanks to Albanese’s evasiveness and haters like Lydia Thorpe. Better to let the The Voice promoters sabotage themselves and then claim that you were on the majority side all along.

  12. Riversutra says:

    this is an attempt to subvert Australian governance for the purpose of institutionalising left-wing cultural control.

    And yet many Libs just won’t see it. They just continue to stand for nothing, thinking they will get their turn again. But if they ever do, they are checkmated before they start.
    A few things the Australia Day goings on established.
    1: The Aboriginal mob in the cities has more European blood than indigenous. And that’s said by a boy from Walgett who has lost count of the times he has heard ” a touch of the tarbrush” . One suspected drop and you could kiss that golf club application goodbye.
    2: It really is all about the money, who gets on the Voice gravy train ( hint: there’s Buckleys chance it will be anyone from the camps/outstations).
    3: The Voice really is only the start (see same sex marriage).

    Anti Apartheid Movement: Mr Case, yes it was full of trots etc and yes , they all sang The Internationale in lockup at Central (before they discovered I was supposed to be at Albion St Children’s ) but even at that age I knew discriminating on the basis of pigmentation was madness ( Walgett taught you a lot if you opened your eyes and mind)

  13. C.L. says:

    The fact that there is always a debate on the non-Labor side about whether or not Liberals should – eek! – publicly oppose wicked ideas is telling, no?

  14. Shy Ted says:

    Dear Janet, it may be illegal but that would require a legal profession willing to stand up and show it to be so. We don’t have one. We have a legal profession deriving their income from government work and related contracts. And a number of Aboriginal Professors of Law whose qualifications might be just a bit dubious.

  15. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    What is your point?

  16. Ed Case says:

    Albanese has a Mandate for some type of ATSIC and a Referendum to enable it.
    It was in their platform, they won the Election.

    Dutton saw the way Rudd behaved when Nelson and Turnbull were Opposition Leaders.
    There was no discussion, it was just
    Get outta the way!
    Remember that?
    Eventually, the worm turned.
    Bottom Line:
    There’s still plenty of goodwill towards Aborigines from people that have never interacted with numbers of them, so there’s no percentage in polarising the discussion along Party Lines.
    Albanese can’t disclose the Draft Legislation without killing the Referendum, so the attention focusses on Dutton and his supposed wishy washyness.

  17. Buccaneer says:

    The reality is that the libs have been stitched up so many time by a compliant media, they are overcautious. In this instance though, had they gone hard about it, in a situation where both sides are claiming the other side is racist, who might the vast majority of media voices actually side with? I don’t think I need to spell that out.

  18. Rafiki says:

    Not trampis makes a valid point. The wordingp of the proposed amendment is general. On its face it does not seem to require the Parluament to enact a law that could not at least be justified as a special measure. BUT, no-one canp foreclose the possibility that the High Court might, at some point in the future, even decades from now, find that those words imply a specific obligation that requires a substantive racial inequality. Just what form this would take is unpredictable; it might relate to funding, or access to the resources of Parliament, or some preferential treatment. As cases like Lange and Kable reveal, the Court has by specious reasoning found rights implicit in the plain words of the Consitution.

    If there is to be some sort of ‘Voice’, it should be a Act. This should be an element of the conservative case for No vote.

  19. Rafiki says:

    Conservatives (which includes classic liberals) should be veey wary of citing international treaty obligations. They (particularly the economic, social and cultural ones) are constantly cited by the self-labelled progressives as the basis for restriction of the rights to property, free speech, et al.fair trial

  20. Ed Case says:

    Conservatives (which includes classic liberals) should be veey wary of citing international treaty obligations.

    Basically, if the only argument Albrechtsen can find to oppose the Referendum is our International Treaty Obligations, then obviously once her phony concerns are met, she has no problems about changing the Constitution.
    59 years after the first Affirmative Action Program to give American Blacks jobs that they weren’t entitled to on merit, has the U.S. been taken to task about preferencing one Race over the others?

  21. Buccaneer says:

    Trampis point appeared to be that because the wording is general, there is no connection between the constitution and the legislation therefore there is no harm by passing the constitutional change.

    If it is meaningless, why do it? If the actual changes are in the legislation, why the delay? There is an actual crisis in the Alice

  22. bollux says:

    You could give them the moon and the activists would be unhappy. I would give them education and hard work and see how that went. Whilst we keep pretending that bush aborigines are the same as everyone else in the city, we will never solve this.

  23. C.L. says:

    Conservatives (which includes classic liberals) should be very wary of citing international treaty obligations.

    Agreed but the external affairs power is now law and precedent; it isn’t as though a case brought against the Voice pursuant to section 51 would be a novelty.

    ———–

    Paul Kelly has an excellent column in the Weekend Australian condemning Albanese’s bungling of Central Australia and the Voice. Surprisingly tough.

  24. Jay says:

    On the other hand, even if this bs scam does get up, so what? A bunch of people will have an inordinate and undemocratic say in political decisions. That’ll suit the majority of Australians, esp. the Anglo-Celtic ones. It’s bad, but it’s not so bad.

  25. Lee says:

    If nothing else, talk of non-aboriginal Australians paying a weekly rent tax to aboriginal Australians should have sent off alarm bells and torpedoed the Voice.

  26. Ed Case says:

    On the other hand, even if this bs scam does get up, so what? A bunch of people will have an inordinate and undemocratic say in political decisions. That’ll suit the majority of Australians, esp. the Anglo-Celtic ones. It’s bad, but it’s not so bad.

    Since Albanese won’t release the Draft Legislation, no one can know what will happen.
    No is a continuation of the Status Quo, so why be stampeded into Yes?

  27. Ed Case says:

    You could give them the moon and the activists would be unhappy. I would give them education and hard work and see how that went.

    Education has been tried.
    It doesn’t work because people with an average IQ of 58 can never become Literate and Numerate by any method of Education yet devised.
    If you’re offering hard work, then what’s the point of Education?

  28. Texas Jack says:

    I’m with Adelagado.

    Consider the counterfactual: Dutton boring in with an immediate blanket ‘no’ that all and sundry would label ‘reactionary’. Within a nanosecond he’d have stoked the claims of the usual suspects who attack him ad-hominem and other opponents with claims against him, taken wall-to-wall media fire, and split the Liberal Party further (if that’s even possible).

    The position he’s in is is excellent. His opponents are squabbling, Albanese can’t explain the detail, the media smell different blood, and Fordham’s interview with Albanese fell fortuitously. Note that it wasn’t Ben Fordham who challenged Albanese with 15 reasonable questions on how a Voice might work.

    Then there’s political reality. What vaguely passes for conservative forces in the parliaments of this country are literally on their knees. WA has virtually gone, and the squabbling behind the scenes in NSW that friends relay suggests March will be a bigger farce than Morrison’s loss. With these facts in mind it’s no using tearing down the one bloke walking the last sinecures of our political tightrope. Better to9 will him to get to the other side with a few small wins.

  29. Mantaray says:

    Ed Case That 58 IQ (I thought it was 62) is when discovered in pristine condition However this average is seriously reduced by the mothers’ abuse of alcohol etc whilst pregnant….and then further reduced by personal substance abuse .

    I’m guessing the average might have been around 30 before all of them were force gene-jabbed. , so let’s say the average IQ is now 10-12….

    Education can still succeed if applied consistently and with rewards. Example: “Black Boy fetch that stick…..drop…..roll over… shake! Fetch….drop…” etc.

    This works just fine with my Border Collies…though they can do quite a bit more useful stuff like gathering sheep AND pushing cattle: things I wouldn’t trust to that First Nations lot on their own!

  30. jupes says:

    If there is to be some sort of ‘Voice’, it should be a Act. This should be an element of the conservative case for No vote.

    Or … they just oppose it on principle.

  31. Ed Case says:

    What’s the Principle involved here?

  32. jupes says:

    Racist policies are immoral.

  33. RacerX says:

    “Whilst we keep pretending that bush aborigines are the same as everyone else in the city, we will never solve this.”

    No but it will offer much better career paths for the city mob.

  34. Nix says:

    CL: I’m not sure which point you prosecute here. But if UTS the voice then I’d suggest that the Constitution isn’t upset if there is a referendum. That’s the requirement. Also: both the lengthy treatise that proposed the voice and the PM say there is no legislative authority in any role of the voice.
    As to the Coalition it seems to me that its problem is that its reliable voters have shrunk to a narrow cohort of old people and blokes. It’s like a saggy version if the Melbourne Club. (Though quite a few members there seem to be ALP voters.)

  35. Ed Case says:

    As to the Coalition it seems to me that its problem is that its reliable voters have shrunk to a narrow cohort of old people and blokes.

    That’s an accurate picture of the Election Day volunteers only.
    It’s possible that the rabble rousing in the CBDs on Australia Day was a Cointelpro to BlackWash the No position, particularly since the cops bent over backwards to assist the rowdy.
    The strategy being that old blue rinse Liberal ladies won’t want to be associated with the No! position after that, thank you very much.
    I’d say Labor Strategists are more tuned to their own outdated fantasies than they are to reality.

  36. C.L. says:

    I’d suggest that the Constitution isn’t upset if there is a referendum

    I’ll need something more authoritative than a suggestion from you, Nix. No offence.

    That’s the requirement.

    ?

    both the lengthy treatise that proposed the voice and the PM say there is no legislative authority in any role of the voice.

    If it has no legislative authority, it has no reason to be in the Constitution. It’s just another advisory body.

    As to the Coalition it seems to me that its problem is that its reliable voters have shrunk to a narrow cohort of old people and blokes.

    Labor won last year with a primary vote of 32.58% – its lowest since 1903.
    The LNP’s primary vote was 35.70%.

  37. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “As to the Coalition it seems to me that its problem is that its reliable voters have shrunk to a narrow cohort of old people and blokes. It’s like a saggy version if the Melbourne Club. (Though quite a few members there seem to be ALP voters.)”

    Really? Nah, I don’t think so, the Liberal Party is actually gaining votes in the outer suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne. The electorate of Lindsay in Sydney’s outer west, solidly working and middle class, solidly aspirational, was until recently a bell weather electorate. It was won comfortably in May 2022 by the Liberals, they even increased their vote from 2019.

    Oh and I suspect that the Melbourne Club now has more Greens and Teal voters than Liberal voters. Perhaps we should ask Julian Burnside.

  38. Rafiki says:

    Yes Jupes, the best reason to oppose the Voice is on principle ( as Turnbull stated it so eloquently- see his memoirs). But this won’t be enough, particularly at this time. Simplified, my argument is that any Voice should be in an Act, and not in discharge of an obligation in the Constitution. Why? To keep the High Court out of any consideration of what the obligation requires.

    At this time, and here Dutton is correct , the amendment proposal needs to be undermined by less dramatic (and probably less grasped by the punters) argument about principle.

  39. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “as Turnbull stated it so eloquently- see his memoirs”

    Turdbull now supports the Voice.

    Turdbull, always has been despicable, always will be despicable.

  40. Morsie says:

    Shy Ted we have a legal profession that has been indoctrinated with left wing tropes for decades now.The graduates come out as fully formed lefties just like in the US.
    The major firms are as woke as the big companies and big accounting firms.
    Conservative lawyers are now a small minority.

  41. Ed Case says:

    At this time, and here Dutton is correct , the amendment proposal needs to be undermined by less dramatic (and probably less grasped by the punters) argument about principle.

    Dutton is saying that?
    I don’t think so.

    You’re suggesting that because Labor aligned forces were able to isolate South Africa over a period of 30 years by calling raaaaacism over and over, that that plan is going to work in reverse over a coupla months to defeat a well planned campaign by Labor to change the Constitution?

  42. Tel says:

    If it has no legislative authority, it has no reason to be in the Constitution. It’s just another advisory body.

    I believe that ScoMo already offered to create an advisory body with no legislative power but with tens of millions of public funding … this was rejected as not good enough.

    Conclusion can only be that they intend to give it legislative powers, hence third house of Parliament … one way or another. It’s the only thing that makes sense.

  43. jupes says:

    But this won’t be enough, particularly at this time.

    No. It is enough, every single time.

    Accepting defeat when things get hard, as you propose, is the reason we are in this mess.

  44. jay says:

    If I understand her point correctly, then I agree with Cassie. The Coalition needs a half decent name to oust Chris Minns from his marginal seat.
    This is why the coalition should not support The Voice. Most of the people in the outer seats are those getting ripped off by it. Make no mistake, the voice is a ruse for Anglo-Celtic hegemony by stealth.

  45. Buccaneer says:

    There is a big Chinese community in Hurstville, Minns will be safe because he is the opposition leader and that will play well in a community that likes authority. Also, they got roundly bagged last time for the racist remarks of the then opposition leader, won’t make that mistake again.

  46. C.L. says:

    Texas Jack (11:59), you put the pro-“details” strategy case very well.

    However, three things:

    1. Things change. Dutton has had a good fortnight but for all we know the Australia Day ugliness and the Alice Springs crisis might actually push a lot of voters into Albanese’s column. Begging for details has also led to the begging of the question: in other words, some Voice advocates are countering his strategy by arguing, ‘OK, let’s come together to hammer out the best referendum proposal.’ Albanese did the same – inviting Dutton to join a bipartisan committee on making the Voice work. And he agreed. He risks being finessed by the people he thinks he’s finessing.

    2. The issue will return. Let’s say the referendum fails; Labor and its leftist/Green/Teal/media allies will simply try again – this time with a more sophisticated sales strategy built around details and outward minimalism. If Dutton is not opposing on grounds of principle but only on grounds of mechanics, he will inevitably be marginalised like Nelson was.

    3. Isn’t Dutton also obliged to provide details? What I mean is that he will soon have to give a thumbs up or down to the general idea of a constitutional Voice, regardless of faults. He too can be harried to reveal the the bedrock truth undergirding his tactics.

    Ergo: Like Jupes, I believe the best, safest and most honourable thing to do is to oppose the Voice permanently – now.

    That’s what the Coalition should have done with net zero. Instead, Morrison (and Dutton) capitulated – believing it would neutralise the Teals. The Liberals couldn’t even be bothered defending affordable electricity and abundant energy. How has that worked out for Australia?

  47. vlad redux says:

    I don’t know what sort of person seriously believes the answer to *anything* is more politicians.

  48. Texas Jack says:

    Ergo: Like Jupes, I believe the best, safest and most honourable thing to do is to oppose the Voice permanently – now.

    Yes, and agreed, but though I’m a staunch “no” proponent based on simple principle, the position you and I can take to oppose it is ultra low cost; nobody’s going to know, notice, or care. Dutton’s position is more difficult and requires a nuanced approach.

    I fully expect him to eventually land on a) a Liberal conscience vote, but b) with Dutton and a majority of the Liberal party room fulsomely supporting the no case.

    Let’s not simply gloss over the fact that it was the Morrison Government that proposed the voice in October 2019, and it was Abbott who’d proposed the constitutional pre-amble mumbo. These clowns built up community expectations, then Moron let loose the Indigenous voice co-design process with Wyatt’s Senior Advisory Group. I always thought is amazing that these things all went through the joint party room, but they did.

    That’s what the Coalition should have done with net zero. Instead, Morrison (and Dutton) capitulated – believing it would neutralise the Teals. The Liberals couldn’t even be bothered defending affordable electricity and abundant energy. How has that worked out for Australia?

    Agree, and have always held your position, but you are assuming Dutton’s position is a soft Yes.

    I simply suggest this is a marathon, not a short term political win for a two night run in the media. It’s test cricket, and we need Dutton to stay at the crease, preferably coming out with a meaningful and powerful No (on principle) once the whole concept has been ‘done slowly’.

    All the signs this week point to Yes camp that is way out beyond the community, that Albanese is out of his depth (again), that indigenous people are divided, and that Dutton’s position is more secure as a result.

    If he were rolled we would almost certainly get Ley as leader. Would the No case be on stronger ground in those circumstances?

  49. jupes says:

    TJ you have perfectly described why the Liberals are useless. They accept the lunatic premis of whatever Green proposal is put before them from the get-go, then try to appear not quite as mad as Labor and the Greens. The ‘Voice’, climate change, Covid restrictions, immigration, gender, trannies, misandry, the list goes on. Being pragmatic or appeasing, whatever you want to call it, never works and never will.

    They lose every single time. If Dutton “stays at the crease” without arguing on principle, we will end up with a racist chamber of parliament. Nothing is more certain.

  50. Ed Case says:

    What principle?
    Albanese told Ben Fordham that the Voice won’t have Legislative Powers, so there’s your “racist chamber of Parliament” argument down in flames already.

Leave a Reply

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