Opposition leader Peter Dutton is right to defend our history during the Indigenous voice to parliament debate

Peter Dutton during Question Time at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Earlier this week Peter Dutton made his best speech so far as Opposition Leader. But it hardly received any attention.

First, because it was in the parliament, and there’s a general assumption that parliamentary speeches are just mindless political point-scoring. And, second, because it was about the Indigenous voice to parliament, and there’s a tacit consensus among most media (other than The Australian) that any opposition to the voice is a breach of good manners.

Dutton took one or two jabs at the government, but this was a speech on the issue, not on the politics of the day, and it should be noticed by everyone who appreciates the portent in changing our Constitution, if only because it’s the clearest statement yet by a national leader of just what the voice might mean.

At the heart of Dutton’s speech was a plea to recognise that Australia was a historical success, made possible, at least in part, by a Constitution that should not lightly be changed.

In his words, “nowhere else in the world is there a success story like ours, one of Indigenous heritage, of British inheritance and of migration and multicultural success – three threads woven together brilliantly and harmoniously”.

Such success was “not something to be toyed with lightly”, he said, yet now we were being urged to change the nation’s rule book without a constitutional convention, with just a “4½-day committee, a kangaroo court” manipulated by a government that was always trying to steamroll the process because, as Dutton said, it “wants you to vote for the voice on a vibe”.

This is the key issue: the government insists we vote only on the principle of recognition – by way of a voice – and that we sign a blank cheque for this change. To deny Indigenous Australians the voice, according to the government, is disrespectful, even racist.

Peter Dutton

“If a voice is embedded in the Constitution,” said Dutton, “the parliament can’t change (it) … or pass laws to override it” because “the parliament cannot out-legislate the Constitution”. It was “here to stay”, he added, even though it “hasn’t even been road-tested” because “if Australians have buyers’ remorse the voice comes with a no-returns policy”.

Who could disagree with this? “As all Australians instinctively know,” said Dutton, “you wouldn’t buy a house without inspecting it and you wouldn’t purchase a car without test-driving it, yet the government wants you to vote on a voice not knowing what it is or what it can do.” That was why he called it “a reckless roll of the dice” to achieve a “moment in history” for the Prime Minister. But that “shouldn’t be at the expense of our country’s future or our democracy”.

As if to reinforce Dutton’s point, the government’s $10m so-called information campaign website (you can see it at voice.gov.au), launched last weekend, is one of the all-time great snow jobs. It’s propaganda masquerading as civics education because none of the information provided rises above the level of feel-good platitudes.

It states “the voice will give independent advice to the parliament and the government” but doesn’t specify how that advice might be arrived at, to whom it would be directed and what its effect might be.

The voice referendum Yes campaign has launched a nationwide advertising blitz: the advertisements feature Indigenous playwright and actor Trevor Jamieson.

It does, however, repeatedly insist “the voice will not have a veto power” even though the Prime Minister himself has said it would take “a brave government” to ignore its representations, while senior lawyers have said the process of making representations and considering them properly could seriously impede the government’s ability to get things done.

The website says “members of the voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the executive government” and “to ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process”.

There is no clue who these people might be who will represent just 4 per cent of us but with a say that impacts all of us. What they won’t be is “responsible”, and that’s a critical point missing in this debate.

Unlike the politicians we hire and fire at every election, those appointed to the voice will be responsible for nothing and to no-one. It’s a body that’s all care and no responsibility, even though the lack of clear lines of accountability for the $30bn or so spent on the 800,000 or so of us who identify as Indigenous is a big part of the disadvantage and dysfunction that afflicts remote Australia.

The website goes on to say “the voice will be empowering, community-led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed”. Yet this is the same voice whose most prominent champion, Noel Pearson, has just attacked Mick Gooda as a “bedwetter” for publicly canvassing changes to the voice; and who earlier attacked senator Jacinta Price as “punching down on blackfellas” and being “trapped in a redneck celebrity vortex” for opposing the voice.

Part II, section 11(4), of the Referendum Act states “the commonwealth shall not expend money in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed (constitutional change) except in relation to the preparation of the pamphlets” setting out both the Yes and the No case.

I’d be amazed if the government’s current misinformation campaign, which includes high-rotation soft-sell ads on radio and television, is not challenged in the courts and found to be illegal.

Despite the usual suspects from big business and the increasingly woke sporting world jumping on the voice bandwagon, its collapsing polls suggest traditional Australian scepticism towards government is starting to assert itself, particularly when the Prime Minister’s obsession with the voice is seen by voters to be at the expense of dealing with their cost-of-living pain.

As voters increasingly sense Labor is trying to rig the referendum and support will continue to slide because an activist government is one thing, but a tricky one is something they won’t abide.

Federal Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney standing with the National Referendum Engagement Group.

Right now, there’s plenty of goodwill for Aboriginal people, but that doesn’t extend to the activists who are always peddling grievance and demanding separatism.

And as for the financial racket that is being welcomed to our own country (as if it belongs to some of us and not to all) and the Aboriginal flag flown coequally with the national flag, my sense is Australians are now well and truly over it.

Why should we have to apologise forever for the British settlement of this country two centuries ago, especially when so many of us are unconnected to the British legacy as migrants of other lands? How is the Greek or Somali migrant of recent years responsible for any colonial “shame”?

It was always a big mistake for Labor strategists to conclude that voter support for same-sex marriage a few years back meant that the electorate had moved to the left and therefore was just waiting to embrace other “progressive” causes.

For one thing, same-sex marriage was about treating people equally, regardless of their sexuality, while this is about treating people differently based on their race.

My instinct is that more and more of the quiet Australians could be getting ready to vote No because they’re sick of being patronised. And it won’t just be the voice that’s top of mind when they do: the whole hard-left push on everything from pronouns to big government will be included, too.