Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (15)
After the personal abuse directed at Julian Leeser, the former shadow attorney-general, it’s no wonder he has decided to resign from the frontbench, thus giving him the freedom to campaign for a ‘yes’ victory in the upcoming referendum. His departure to the backbench is a further consequence of one of the most disappointing strategies employed by Voice supporters — instead of civilised and rational debate when weighing arguments for and against, we see a blitz of personal attacks, vitriol and emotive language.
In response to Peter Dutton’s decision to argue for the ‘no’ vote, Noel Pearson described the opposition leader as an “undertaker” responsible for burying the Uluru Statement From the Heart. Especially egregious, given Easter’s celebration of Christ’s betrayal, crucifixion and resurrection, is Pearson’s condemnation of the Liberal Party’s decision as a ‘Judas betrayal’.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also paints Dutton as an undertaker burying the Uluru statement while citing the decision to oppose the Voice as an example of “taking the low road”. Greens leader Adam Bandt also employs emotive language when describing Liberals as “a small racist rump sliding into irrelevance” and Dutton as an incendiarist seeking to “ignite a culture war”. Over the last two months, those in favour of the Voice have cheapened the debate by arguing anyone who votes ‘no’ is a bad person and that, a further libel, if the referendum fails Australia will be seen by the rest of the world as racist and guilty of white supremacism.
At a time when emotion and ad hominen attacks are so prevalent, instead of rational, reasoned debate, it should not surprise that critics have ignored the reasons why Dutton and many of those in the party room oppose the Voice. As argued by American feminist Camille Paglia, Western societies such as Australia “are plunged once again into an ethical chaos where intolerance masquerades as tolerance and where individual liberty is crushed by the tyranny of the group”.
In an email sent to Liberal Party members, after agreeing there should be indigenous recognition in the Constitution, Dutton, in opposition to a Canberra-centric, bureaucratic organisation, argues in favour of “local and regional bodies to provide grassroots advice”. Prioritising and empowering those at the local level, in opposition to elitist, centralised bodies far removed from the practicalities experienced by those on the ground, is a central tenet of Liberal Party philosophy. As argued by F A Hayek in The Road To Serfdom, while statism embodies centralised control and a top-down model of governance, far more efficient and morally superior is subsidiarity where the individuals most affected work together to address common problems and issues.
In acknowledging the importance of conservatism, Sir Robert Menzies often spoke of the dangers arising from centre-left parties imposing a collectivist, inflexible and inefficient approach to public policy and governance. Whereas Albanese argues voters should support the Indigenous Voice in order to remain true to the vibe, Dutton refers to the need to think carefully about the “unknown consequences” arising from such a significant and fundamental change to the Constitution.
Especially concerning is Part 2 of the alteration that states, “The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.
English philosopher Michael Oakeshott in his essay On Being Conservative makes a similar point to Dutton when suggesting, that while change is acceptable, it is vital to consider “the disruption entailed has always to be set against the benefit anticipated”. Dutton argues “The facts matter. The details matter” and, if the referendum is passed, there is every chance the Voice “will subsume parliamentary sovereignty and lead to “intervention by an activist High Court.”
One of the cornerstones of Western liberal democracies dating back to Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution and the evolution of universal suffrage is popular sovereignty where all citizens are treated equally and have the right to vote. The right to what the American Declaration of Independence describes as “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is not decided by the colour of one’s skin, one’s gender or one’s position in society. Giving indigenous Australians the unique right to effect government policy and actions by allowing them to appeal directly to parliament as well as the executive government creates two classes of citizens where one has more power and special privilege based on the colour of their skin and ancestry.
Oakeshott argues whenever significant change is suggested “the onus of proof, to show that the proposed change may be expected to be on the whole beneficial, rests with the would-be innovator”.
In particular, that the intended change “is least likely to be corrupted by undesired and unmanageable consequences”. To date, requirements that Albanese and those in favour of the Voice have failed to provide.
Kevin Donnelly is a conservative commentator and author of Cancel Culture and the Left’s Long March.
Humans don’t have “one’s gender “, they are distinguished by their sex. Buy the left’s words and you endorse their ideas.
“Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also paints Dutton as an undertaker burying the Uluru statement while citing the decision to oppose the Voice as an example of “taking the low road”.
Albanese is a fraud. He’s not interested in the indigenous population. Witness his quick foray into Alice Springs recently. That was after his team of ‘sweepers’ had organised to cleanse the place from problems so he wouldn’t be confronted. Yet he accuses Dutton of “taking a low road”, the very thing Albanese did with his Alice trip to look good whilst primping for the press gallery. Another compelling reason that Albanese is a fraud is his unfair and unconstitutional financing and promotion of the YES campaign. This move for a YES vote cannot be trusted. It will bring racial division and apartheid to Australia.
Burying the Statement from the Heart is, for Australians, the best thing that could happen to it.
Remember sneaky, sneaky Albanese’s answer to Ben Fordham’s question about whether members of the Voice would be paid? He said, “There’s been no suggestion of that”. And we’ve never heard that again. The level of dishonesty about the Voice is extraordinary.
Can’t see what all the fuss and feathers is all about for we are all covered by the constitution, laws, parliamentary representation etc. and aboriginals both real and fake since we don’t know exactly what an aboriginal is as in DNA tests, have more than half of our country under native title, they garner huge amounts of money from mining royalties and have privileges not available to we so called white people, and yet want more. Any sane person would surely think that “enough is enough” and vote against the referendum.
While Aboriginal groups certainly do benefit from agreements for cash payments from various mining operations, these payments are *not* Royalties. This pernicious notion derives from the MSM’s spiteful desire to appear magnaminous with other people’s money.
Royalties are payable to the relevant State Govts – the true resources owners under current Crown law. These Royalty payments accrue to expenditure on schools, hospitals, roads and whatever else the Sate Govts deem necessary.
Think about that. If The Voice gets up, will it demand a big shake of the actual Royalty flows ? I’ve seen first hand how the Mabo decision was viewed here by activists.
Sorry ianl, I am not pendantic, just disgusted with the obscene amounts of loot given to the aboriginal land councils. Were they the “Mafia” the monies would be labelled as extortion. The figures below are official government figures on Aboriginals Benefit Account performance for 2020–21
Mining royalty equivalent receipts of $391.4 million were credited to the ABA in 2020–21. This represents a 2.8 per cent decrease on the level of 2019–20 receipts. The decrease in royalty receipts can be attributed to volatility in the market place, fluctuations in commodity prices, exchange rates and world demand. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 summarise the ABA income and expenditure.
Summary of Aboriginals Benefit Account income, 2019-20 and 2020-21
The low road in a Westminster system of Government is bulldozing Bills through Parliament by gagging debate.
In Religion it is referring to Judas a Easter-time.
In History it is refering to Tatoos and Badges on clothing and to Eugenics which related to the death of Millions of people based on religion, nationality and the ability to form a sentence from 3 words.
If Pearson, Langton, Albanese and now Wong are on the High Road ,then ‘we will be in Scotland before ’em. ‘
Let’s hope Pearson, Bandt and Albo are all correct for a change and Dutton has successfully buried the Voice.
All is not lost if the Voice proposal succeeds. “Honorary whites” was a political terminology that was used by the apartheid regime of South Africa to grant some of the rights and privileges of whites to those who would otherwise have been treated as non-whites under the Population Registration Act. Noel Pearson seems to have an extensive knowledge of the use of Star of David badges in Nazi Germany. He would be a suitable Voice commissioner to be in charge of issuing honorary aboriginality certificates to appropriate people.
The central issue, and so far it’s received little coverage, but Paul Kelly and some others are beginning to address this, is that the leaders of the recognition movement, people like Noel Pearson, Marcia Langton, Megan Davis and others, have vision of recognition that, if clearly and fully articulated, would be totally abhorrent to the wider Australian community.
Hence the poetic, sentimental language of the Statement from the Heart, the lack of detail on how the voice would operate, the denigration of doubters and opponents. The case for their Voice is necessarily vague, emotional, and shame based. The case against, however, is clear, reasoned, and principled.
The core of the No case is a single, undifferentiated Australian citizenship, born or sworn, in which Australian is Australian regardless of ancestry; and not having a race-based institution enshrined in the Constitution.
The left usually go in boots and all at opponents with personal attacks or nasty inferences and it’s been on full display with the Voice as Kevin Donnelly pointed out. No shame in their lack of argument but it doesn’t seem to affect their standing with the voters.
As to the core danger of this referendum Warren Mundine stated it very simply. It means the voice will potentially expose every government decision and policy to delay and/or judicial challenge in the High Court and influence the lives of not just Aboriginal people, but all Australians.
What gets me is why would Albanese be promoting this stuff that may well hobble his ALP policy implementation?
The communities of people residing in Australia can be divided up in many ways and each of them is a constituency for various degrees of recognition by Government. Each of them has a voice to be heard. Already one of the loudest, if not already the loudest, voice being heard is from and/or on behalf of Australian Aboriginals. Australian tax payers via Australian Governments already contribute over 15 Billion Dollars a year towards Aboriginal welfare. To achieve such a level of “support” I would propose that Aboriginal voices are already being heard loud and clear.
Over 800,000 Australians identify as Aboriginal. A large majority live in he same places and lead the same sort of lives as the most other Aussies and don’t require any special help or support. This prompts me to ask what should we really be debating? I believe we should not be debating or considering the Voice. We should be discussing which Aborigines are still experiencing disadvantage and what are the true causes of that disadvantage. What are the hard truths?
“We should be discussing which Aborigines are still experiencing disadvantage and what are the true causes of that disadvantage.”
.
Exactly, but let’s do that as we would for any Australians experiencing disadvantage not just one racial group. Could it be that any Australians who are born into a community where you don’t have to go to school or work but are given housing and money for no effort would end up being “disadvantaged”?
.
I suggest that we should not tell people in those circumstances that they are special or that they own Australia.. We should instead be encouraging and assisting those (or their children) who want to improve their lives, to move to areas where they can gain skills and become productive members of society.
.
I would call that assimilation.
So, “after agreeing there should be indigenous recognition in the Constitution, Dutton, in opposition to a Canberra-centric, bureaucratic organisation, argues in favour of ‘local and regional bodies to provide grassroots advice’”. Well, guess what? There already are hundreds of local and regional indigenous bodies providing grassroots advice. For a look into them, just Google NIAA, NACCHO and, the daddy of them all, the Coalition of Peaks, expressly set up with reps from THE LEADING 80 (yes, eighty) indigenous organisations to advise governments on how to “Close the Gap”. Of what possible use could yet another voice be, either legislated or constitutionally enshrined, other than to add to the cacophony already confronting our politicians and bureaucrats? The hidden agenda must be that this is a stepping-stone (springboard?) to “Treaty”, a form of mega-humbugging that will force us second-class citizens to pay reparations and rents in perpetuity to the “(self)-chosen race”.
Further down the track, instead of improving the lot of remote-community dwellers, all I can see arising from The Voice will be social disruption and animosity that could make current events in Paris look like a children’s picnic. And guess which conspicuous group will provide the obvious scapegoat? That Albanese and his acolytes fail to see this only further lowers my opinion of their understanding of human nature, and history. Why have all other national constitutions assiduously emphasised the equal treatment of their citizens?