by ERIC ABETZ – WHEN your opponents start praising you, it’s worth taking stock and examining your position.
The shadow attorney-general and spokesman for Indigenous affairs, Julian Leeser, may well reflect on the accolades and bouquets coming his way from his political opponents – after his resignation from the opposition front bench over its decision to oppose “The Voice”.
- Once in the Constitution, it is difficult to resolve, or amend, if poorly drafted.
- Leeser’s heart and emotion held sway over his head and analysis.
- Recent polling indicates declining support for the Voice.
The member for Berowra in Sydney is a decent, well-meaning and considered individual. In short, he is an asset to the Australian Parliament. It is to be hoped he continues to serve.
That said, his resignation from the front bench over his support for the concept of a Voice is both understandable and yet difficult to understand.
FLAWED
Understandable because Leeser has been a long-term advocate for recognition of Australia’s Indigenous people in the Constitution. Yet he also recognises the design being proposed is flawed.
In those circumstances, he was in a cleft stick, and something had to give.
With Leeser, opportunism or a front bench position would never be a motivator.
As he presented in announcing his resignation from the front bench, he agrees with and supports his Party and leader Peter Dutton, but on this particular issue, he respectfully, and one suspects regrettably, disagrees with his colleagues.
Many a Liberal has found themselves in such a position and chose to leave or cross the floor in a dignified manner without pulling the house down on the way out.
In short, the behaviour of a dignified and respectful individual, for which Leeser deserves admiration.
It is to be noted the other side of Australian politics does not afford such flexibility. With the Australian Labor Party, you are absolutely locked in – to campaign against its position leads to immediate and automatic expulsion.
Leeser, thankfully, was not confronted with such an ideological straitjacket.
What is difficult to understand is that Leeser is willing to support the Yes case for the Voice despite knowing its flaws, which he has expressed.
Changing the Constitution is no small thing. Unforeseen consequences can’t simply be rectified over a cup of coffee.
TURTUOUS
Once in the Constitution, the issue is difficult to resolve, or amend, if poorly drafted. Correcting a flaw will be long and tortuous.
With the plethora of expert legal voices outlining the practical problems with the proposed Voice, let alone the principle of all Australians being treated equally, it is difficult to reconcile Leeser’s resignation.
Perhaps he has expended so much of his own energy and effort over a long period of time that he can’t step back sufficiently to acknowledge the dangerous flaws littered throughout this particular proposal.
While the excitement of some Labor government operatives on learning of Leeser’s resignation from the frontbench might reflect on the fact that their own members with misgivings aren’t afforded such an opportunity.
EMOTION
It seems though that Leeser’s heart and emotion held sway over his head and analysis.
Most Australians, while initially motivated by a sense of goodwill, should, and one suspects will, analyse the Voice and vote on its fabric and not its vibe.
Recent polling indicates a decline in support for the Voice and, most tellingly, shows the strong No supporters have gained the ascendancy over Yes supporters.
This trend is also reflected in the crowd turnout at two recent functions for both campaigns held by the Liberal Party in Western Australia.
One addressed by Ken Wyatt, the former Indigenous Affairs minister advocating for the Yes case attracted just 20 attendees. The No function addressed by Indigenous Senator Jacinta Price attracted eight times the number.
It seems the longer the campaign continues, and the deeper the assessment of the Voice by the public, the more people are beginning to come to the same conclusions Leeser did. Yet unlike Leeser, they won’t let their heads be taken over by their hearts.
They rightly see the imperative to get the wording correct. Completely correct without any hint of ambiguity.PC
I’m voting NO. I believe in ONE NATION AND THAT WE ARE ALL EQUAL.
Lessor personifies what is wrong with the libs: they are self indulgent, mired in the same woke issues which the alp/greens use to achieve power and have lost sight of the fundamental values of our Western democracy.
In short Lessor is a sap, a manipulated fool. The left don’t care about aboriginals or any of their designated victims, gays, trannies, the climate. These victims are only useful so the left can claim the right to solve the problem, which they never do, and attack our democracy, Saps like Lessor don’t understand this and fall into the trap baited by the left.
For decades vast amounts of money and privileges have been given to the aboriginals; and yet their problem has got worse. And what is their problem: no accountability. The basic value of our democracy is individual rights and responsibilities. The left have grouped all aboriginals as victims with no rights or responsibilities. The left has continually told them they are victims of invasion/colonialism/oppression etc and so we have a swath of the Australian population which doesn’t bother with trying or caring about themselves. It has been a terrible, destructive psychological trick. And Lessor endorses this.
Aboriginals should have equal rights to every other citizen, as individuals not as a group and be personally accountable for their actions. Lessor and the other Voice suckers are supporting inequality and the destruction of the core value of our society. He should be booted out of the libs along with that pencil neck, pious fool Birmingham and any other sap who blindly follows the trickery of the left.