In January, when Peter Dutton was demanding “details” of the Voice proposal, I wrote this:
[Dutton] has no intention of engaging sincerely with the Voice. He will, sooner or later, drop the mask and tell us to vote no. And we will know why.
I claim no great prescience; seeing what was coming was as easy as predicting that Donald Trump’s next words will be a lie. Dutton was always going to oppose the Voice. It was just a question of when. As it turns out, he was waiting until after the disaster of the Aston byelection, presumably so he’d have some clear media air.
The precise details of the Liberal Party’s declared position are important to consider.
First, the party says it is “a yes” to symbolic constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This is simply a reversion to the formula that former prime minister John Howard supported nearly 20 years ago. No Indigenous peoples — and certainly not the Uluru gathering that produced the Statement from the Heart — want it. The conversation long ago moved on from pure symbolism, and it is insulting for Dutton to resurrect it now, pretending that it answers a question anyone is asking.
Second, the Liberals reject any constitutionally enshrined Voice, but are in support of a legislated model for “local and regional voices”. Where’s the detail? Not Mr Dutton’s job; he’s just putting it out there as an idea.
What such local bodies could achieve that land councils and other community-based organisations have not isn’t explained. There’s no evidence base for the thought bubble, but more importantly — again — nobody’s asking for this, least of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The practical and legal objections to this idea, including that a legislated body can be as easily abolished as it is instituted, are of far less consequence than the fact it perpetuates one of the patterns of colonial behaviour that led us to where we are today: white people deciding what is good for Indigenous peoples without regard for their wishes or concerns.
Third, the Liberals are a “yes to better outcomes for Indigenous Australians”. What the Liberals are a “no” to, according to Dutton, is “dividing Australians”. He explained what this means: “It should be very clear to Australians by now the prime minister is dividing the country, and the Liberal Party seeks to unite the country.”
As a rhetorical argument, that’s a difficult one, because the Voice referendum is a yes/no question that will by definition divide the country into people who vote yes and people who vote no. What Dutton really is saying is the government is causing that division merely by asking the question. By logical extension, governments should only ask questions to which everyone is guaranteed to give the same answer.
So, that’s nonsense, which leaves the only possible true meaning of Dutton’s words: the old argument — which also goes back to Howard — that it is an act of racism to insert a racially based provision into the constitution that gives some Australians rights that others don’t have.
Now, that would be an argument grounded in principle. It is beloved of Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott, but it causes a tingling sensation on the back of the necks of the parliamentary party because it does the one thing the Liberal Party wants to pretend it is not doing: utterly reject the Uluru statement and its fundamental principle that this country bears a wound that can only be healed through the three-step process of voice, treaty and truth.
The sophistry of Dutton’s position is transparent, no big deal to see through that. But we must recognise its deeper significance beyond the petty politics: it doesn’t just reflect an ignoring of what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have asked for in open-handed sincerity, it spits it back in their faces.
Dutton, and his party, are entitled to take a stance and do their best to ensure that this referendum fails. How, individually, they will do that in good conscience, I don’t know, but that’s for them.
I’ll be arguing the Yes case from start to finish, so take my words with that in mind. But do ask yourself why it was so easy to predict that the Liberal Party, which said it would be considering this issue with an open mind, was always going to end up saying no.
At least, as I also said in January, the Nationals came right out with their rejection before they even knew what the question was going to be. Old-fashioned bastardry, almost admirable by comparison with the pantomime their Coalition partners have just performed.
“Pantomime” is a good word for yet another Liberal debacle. Dutton was too frightened to say outright no so he went on asking interminably for more detail. As if that fooled anybody. At least we can now chalk him down as negative as well as gutless. Is this today the best the Liberal Party can up with as a leader?
Currently, yes. And it’s just as well as it gives the nation a welcome breather from a Coalition government.
Completely in line with the bankruptcy on full display within the Torys and (once) GOP leadership fields.
The common denominator being Murdoch media.
News Corp has become the Liberal party, no daylight between.
I think that we are overlooking or choosing to not acknowledge the effect of the Lying Rodent and the Crosby Textor group’s hidden agenda.
Stoke the fires of hate and bigotry! This approach should help with making our society more cohesive.
If this referendum fails then the rodent and all his friends may need to return to their “Mother country” where they think society is so better organized.
Dreadful though it sounds, the answer may be ‘yes’. Look at the dearth of talent within the Lib/Nat ranks. Susan Ley as leader? Angus Taylor? …Barnaby Joyce?
If (when?) Dutton loses his seat it will have to be one of these or maybe they should elect Bridget Archer.
A Voice doesn’t mean anything when you’ve got water lapping at your door Mr Dutton. May the Voice snuff your flame and drown you out
Great question. Please put it to Mr Dutton in writing. If you don’t hear back from his office, please send it again, week after week, and keep us updated on the responses.
The Voice to Parliament would already be made up of “local and regional” voices and others besides. What is Dutton on about? Is it that the Libs want to see National party people appointed to a “voice” in remote communities. At this point it sounds like the way they want to stack the shires and councils with those favourable to their party not with those freely elected by Indigenous Australians.
Spot on Michael – Dutton’s views and opinions on Indigenous matters are clear – unfortunately this is a blow to the referendum.
Having one of the most unpopular people in the country on their side may not be great for the No case. It’s entirely possible he will be lapped up by the existing No converts and considered with enormous scepticism by everyone else. He might end up as welcome by the No campaign as he was by NSW and Victorian Libs at the two most recent elections.
Like Noel Pearson, I didn’t get much sleep last night. But after some day time reflection, this incredibly disturbing development could very well benefit the Yes campaign, though a lot of people will be hurt in the process.
It wouldn’t surprise me if support for the Yes vote hadn’t gone up by 10% overnight……………………
………..Dutton has morphed into Typhoid Mary.
Not necessarily – another 100 year record may be broken, and Dutton rewarded with yet another enormous kick up the arse.
It says a great deal about Dutton that he timed his rejection of the Voice to be just after the Aston By Election, but did not take into account that the timing would hit Aboriginal communities (and their supporters) who are mourning the death of the Old Man who spent his life campaigning for proper recognition for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples.
”Insensitive” is too weak a word for that insult