That Divisive Voice, Racializing Everything. By James Reed
The latest from Peter Dutton, who I found out is Opposition Leader and not just a nice bald-headed guy, has given his strongest critique of the Voice referendum, saying that if the Voice is established, it will result in a range of radical things, from preventing a defence base from being established, to having what John Howard called the black arm band view of Australian history being taught in schools. Even finalising budgets will be difficult, maybe impossible. It would also put race at the centre of al activities, and thus fundamentally change Australian culture. Good to hear the truth coming out; I said this early in the debate that the Voice rulers will dictate by wokeness all policy in Australia, and our weak mice in parliament will not stand up to it, for fear of being called “racist” by regimes like communist China, when they take time out from industrial scale organ harvesting to morally condemn us:
“Peter Dutton has warned the Indigenous voice to parliament may stop governments from finalising their budgets, seek a particular version of Australian history to be taught in classrooms or stop a defence base from being expanded, as he rejected the government’s “regressive” and “divisive” model.
The Opposition Leader was the first speaker in the House of Representatives to talk about the government’s Constitution Alteration Bill in the second reading debate, and said the voice would “re-racialise our nation at a time when we need to unite the country”.
He laid out why he believed the constitutional change to be put to the people at the referendum – which he said would be one of the most important decisions Australians made in their lifetime – should be voted down.
Mr Dutton said the government’s proposed second clause, which gives the voice the power to make representations to parliament and the executive government, was the “most problematic” aspect of the wording to be inserted in the Constitution.
“In substance, this clause establishes a constitutional guarantee the voice would be able to make representations about any matter. For example, on the economy, on defence, on national security, on foreign affairs, infrastructure, health, education, and more besides. No issue would be beyond the scope of representations made by the voice,” the Liberal leader said.
“Say for example the government’s planning to expand a defence base, the voice may make a representation to stop that building work for proceeding because it will take place on lands with Indigenous conviction.
“Or the government’s finalising its budget priorities. The voice may make a representation to question funding allocations holding up the process. Or the government’s amending the Australian curriculum. The voice may make representations seeking a particular version of Australian history to be taught in classrooms. Such representations would not operate in a policy vacuum. They would affect all Australians.”
Mr Dutton said the government wanted Australians to vote for the voice “on a vibe” and Anthony Albanese wanted to “leverage the overwhelming public support for constitutional recognition to piggyback his poorly defined, untested and risk-ridden Canberra voice model”.
“The voice is regressive, not progressive and it should be very clear to Australians by now that the Prime Minister is dividing our country, not uniting us,” he said.
Greens to oppose Leeser amendments
The Greens will oppose amendments from Liberal MP Julian Leeser that he argues improve the government’s proposed constitutional amendment to establish an Indigenous voice to parliament.
The Australian understands the Greens will announce on Monday they have rejected the two Leeser amendments, which would remove the constitutional amendment’s second clause and preamble.
The preamble says “in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia”, while the second clause says the voice “may make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.
Mr Leeser believes the parliament should decide who the voice makes representations to and what it makes representations about via legislation, not the Constitution.
Greens ‘want to see’ voice legislation passed unamended
The Greens will back Labor’s Constitution Alteration Bill to establish an Indigenous voice to parliament and executive government unamended, with leader Adam Bandt saying the party wanted the referendum to succeed.
“The Greens want to see the legislation passed unamended,” Mr Bandt said.
“We won’t be supporting amendments that have been sought by members of the opposition.”
The Greens’ First Nations spokeswoman Dorinda Cox said the model proposed by the government, which gives the voice powers to make representations to the parliament and executive government, would “not stop the normal business of parliament”.
“It will continue to tick along as it does with some great advice from First Nations people, (the) first peoples of this country who will begin to have a say about issues that are affecting them,” she said.
“We are sick and tired of seeing the dog whistling to the conservative base by the Coalition. And we want to make sure that we are standing on the right side of history. We are doing this to enable future generations of Australians to come together as part of this process and having a successful referendum later on this year will ensure that.””
Better yet, to see the voice crushed.
Comments