Self-righteous elites ‘divorced from reality’

by ERIC ABETZ – LEADERSHIP elites too often live in their own bubble divorced from their members, customers and supporters – and reality in general. 

The current debate over whether Australians should insert a whole new chapter into their Constitution to establish the Voice in perpetuity – allegedly to assist Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities – is a classic example. 

The behaviour of elites in 2023 promoting the Voice is reminiscent of the leadership elites in 1999 promoting the hapless republic proposal, which was so soundly defeated.
Eric Abetz
Former Federal Senator

On October 14, Australians will decide in a referendum whether to alter the Constitution’s preamble to recognise Indigenous people and to set up a permanent advisory body to Parliament.

The body will comprise 24 Indigenous individuals selected – not voted in – for a national committee that will receive feedback from the community and can then make “representations” to Parliament.


Irrespective of one’s view on the issue it cannot be denied that the issue is dividing the Australian community.

If opinion polls are a guide then the “No” advocates have a marginal upper hand over the proponents at this time.

In the direct face of this clear division, certain leaders are brazenly using their privileged positions to hijack their organisations into supporting the so-called Voice.

Be it the AFL, national carrier Qantas and universities – the leaders of which speak about diversity and tolerance while practicing the exact opposite against anyone questioning the Voice.

They sing from the same hymn sheet with a disregard for their membership, customers and supporters.

Is there anybody, anywhere who in any way believes the AFL’s promotion of the Voice is representative of its membership and supporters?

Given the polls and demographics involved, the AFL leadership might be singing from the same song sheet, but they are way out of tune with their supporters.

Not one club is willing to give expression to the current majority view expressed in opinion polls.

Then there is Qantas’ abuse of its shareholders’ money, which is both brazen and highly inappropriate.

Surely the role of a company with shareholders is to maximise dividends within the law for the shareholders, who can then determine on which campaign they may wish to spend their returns or on none at all.

What right does Qantas have to skim a proportion of shareholders’ dividends to promote a cause that is deeply troubling to many of them?

As for universities, they are self-righteously promoting “information sessions” where only the “Yes” case is promoted.


Where have the days gone when universities were a hotbed of discussion and debate with opposing views being robustly thrashed out?

Now they use the excuse of “trigger warnings” and “sensitivity” to bulldoze and show gross insensitivity to those expressing any opposing view.

That the alternate thinkers might be triggered or feel alienated by such a high-handed approach is simply not even considered.

Critical thinking has been pushed aside for groupthink woke style.

This corrosive malaise is not only in our public institutions but in the leadership of the Coalition Parties as well.

There is no doubt, according to the polls, that Coalition supporters are overwhelmingly opposed to the Voice.

If the recent votes at the Liberal and National Party are any guide, the membership of the Liberal and National Parties is even more strongly opposed.

In the face of this, we have former Deputy Leader Julie Bishop actively promoting the Yes case along with former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

But let’s not forget that she and her leader Mr Turnbull wanted to foist an extradition treaty with the Chinese communist dictatorship on Australians, which thankfully was stymied by a few Liberals who remembered that one of the founding principles of the Liberal Party was to oppose the autocracy of communism and fascism.

Another outworking of Liberal principles was the 1967 Referendum which took “race” out of the Constitution with a mammoth 90.77 percent supportive vote. A truly unifying and nation-building referendum.


Yet there are Liberals seeking, albeit one hopes unwittingly, to undo the wonderful gains of 50 years ago to shoehorn “race” back into the Constitution.

The behaviour of the leadership elites in 2023 promoting the Voice is reminiscent of the leadership elites in 1999 promoting the hapless republic proposal of the time, which was so soundly and roundly defeated by the people in every single State.

Thankfully Australians have a history, unlike the leadership elites, of politely listening. Australians also have a history of ignoring such elites.

Time will tell.PC

Eric Abetz

MAIN IMAGE: Cartoon by Johannes Leak. (courtesy The Australian)
RE-PUBLISHED: This article was originally published by The Epoch Times on August 30, 2023. Re-used with permission.

11 thoughts on “Self-righteous elites ‘divorced from reality’

  1. Someone should start a ‘get help’ fund for Noel Jones because he clearly needs to get his head read – what a dope!

  2. Racial selection. That’s monarchy.
    Racial exclusion. That’s monarchy.
    A race-based veto. That’s monarchy.

    Anyone who supports monarchy but opposes the Voice is a pitiful hypocrite.

    1. Constitutional Law Monarchy, no Head of State.

      Governors General appointed by the elected Commonwealth of Australia Federal Government.

      1. The monarch is selected on breeding and bloodline and birthright, with all other races and genes banned.

        Monarchy is a racist institution, based on racist eugenics.

        Anyone who supports monarchy supports racist eugenics.

        1. “Australia is a constitutional monarchy and our head of state is the King. However, the King does not have a role in the day-to-day running of Australia. On the advice of the Prime Minister, the King appoints the Governor-General, who is the King’s representative in Australia.

          The Australian Constitution delegates – gives – certain powers to the Governor-General to act on behalf of the King. These include giving Royal Assent to laws passed by the Australian Parliament and starting the process for a federal election. While these powers are exercised by the Governor-General, in reality this is normally done on the advice of the Prime Minister and ministers.”

          The above quotation is refers to head of state however –

          “The Australian Constitution does not contain the words “Head of State”, nor was the term discussed during the constitutional debates which resulted in the drafting of the Constitution and its subsequent approval by the Australian people. In the absence of a specific provision in the Constitution, we need to see who actually performs the duties of Head of State in order to determine who is the Head of State.”

  3. The 1967 referendum abolished the procedure of not counting nomadic Aboriginal tribes in Commonwealth censuses (at the time, only verrry few individuals were in that category, and by 1989, no truly tribal individuals were left). The second part of that referendum was to give the Commonwealth power to make “special laws” for the Aboriginal people. This actually entrenched a different type of race-based power for the Federal Government to expand on the previously State-based jurisdictions in Aboriginal affairs. Since 1967, rightly or wrongly, the Federal expenditure on Aboriginal matters has ballooned to extra-ordinary proportions relative to the % of the population with Aboriginal ancestry. One thing that the 1967 referendum DIDN’T do, nor the subsequent legislations in this area, was to define exactly who should or should not be considered Aboriginal for the purposes of Federal housing, education, welfare, etc., outlays.

    1. Research the Aboriginal Activists who have been plotting and planning for what is now Uluru Statement objectives and tactics have been beavering away since at least 1960s and student activist period for many of them, described in that video by Uluru Statement Committee member Thomas Mayo (Mayor) when he thanked them for the advice “the Communist Elders”.

      An interesting point not discussed is the role some have had at the United Nations creating the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and working with the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders Commission that was legislated by Labor and later repealed and abolished by the Howard Government for very good reasons, an expensive failure and gravy train.

      UNDRIP requires that consent be the minimum standard of engagement, and that should have meant that all 300-plus “Mobs” on own “country” or traditional lands should have all been consulted before Albanese Labor with the Opposition’s support legislated to conduct the voice referendum. Uluru Statement also supports consent as a right but that has not been implemented.

      To quote Warren Mundine – “The Uluru Statement was adopted at a resort, 25 km from Uluru. I and others have spoken to Anangu elders angry it was named after their country, because it’s not their culture.

      The convention was attended by 250 delegates, hand-picked from about a dozen community Dialogues (at which attendance was capped at 100, with 60 reserved for First Nations groups – and invitations – only aimed to ensure consensus).”

      Indigenous Australian Alwyn Doolan, who completed the Message Stick Walk from Cape York to Canberra in 2019 pointed out – “For 65,000 years First Nations people have lived with the lore that no country can speak for any other country. My mob can’t speak for your mob. Your mob can’t speak for my mob.”

      It is therefore an explanation as to how difficult it would have been from 1788 to sign treaties as the Colony of New South Wales and New Zealand managed to do with the Maori people.

      However, how could fellow Australians today sign treaties with fellow multicultural Australians now?

      For Ghosts of the past and then reparations to the descendants many of whom are of mixed heritage now. For the colonisation by the British Empire to establish a penal colony and aiming to longer term provide convicts with a new life?

      Of course State Governments, the former Colonial Governments until Federation in 1901, have primary responsibility for Indigenous Affairs, used to be Aboriginal Affairs. Of course there are government departments and ministers responsible directly, and many advisory groups. And on the credit side today eighty per cent of Australians who identify having Indigenous ancestry have non-Indigenous ancestry as well. Research the Uluru Statement Committee and Indigenous Australian advisers.

      Legislating another advisory group of voices so called is not being considered because that would not provide the legal pathway for appeal to the High Court to claim that voters supported Voice + Treaty + Truth telling. The Makarratta of Arnhem Land culture and language. Why not as English is our first language just call it Treaty and compensation, and sovereignty that the activists say was never ceded?

      I hope that voters chose to Vote No to this race based divisive con, and remember the politicians we elected to look after our best interests who have encouraged the activists for over thirty years to date.


      Direct Action within the problem communities is the best way forward, noting that eighty per cent of Australians who identify as Indigenous are not disadvantaged.

      1. If you support monarchy, but claim to oppose racial preference, you are a pitiful hypocrite.

Comments are closed.