Weasels of the Liberal Party … His Master’s Voice … Leeser’s Lesser Voice … Moderates in a pickle … Spoiled for choice … Furphies and figments … Polly Peck reports 

This was not before he spent weeks and months moistening Peter Dutton’s pocket, joining in with demands for more details, pushing back the timing of the government’s proposed constitutional referendum, and hacking at the wording so as to make it meaningless and unintelligible. 

Dutton’s version is NO to a constitutional voice, i.e. “Canberra’s Voice” –  instead he will campaign for a cut down version of constitutional recognition and a legislative framework of local and regional Voices with a “narrowly targeted remit”. 

The official briefing note handed to MPs at the Liberal Party room on April 5, also included a proposed legislated national body. Liberal MPs believed this was integral to the party’s position. 

The briefing note said that the legislated national body for the Voice … 

“… would be subject to clear caveats clearly defined responsibilities for the national body and proper connection between the local and regional bodies and the national body.”  

Yet, when Dutton announced the party room decision he made no mention of the third arm of the policy. It vanished after MPs agreed on it.

Abandoning the dizzying career heights of Shadow Attorney General, Leeser said he had “irreconcilable differences” with his parliamentary Liberal colleagues. “I believe the time for the Voice has come.” 

He meant the time has come for Leeser’s Voice. 

He too wants local and regional voices “connected into a national voice”. 

The architecture proposed by the Referendum Working Group recommends a Voice of 24 members drawn from regions in each state and territory, plus members representing remote regions. 

So, there seems to be wide agreement on that point. 

Distilling Leeser’s over-larded verbiage, it seems he still wants a constitutional voice but without the core provision of the government’s proposed amendment: 

“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.” 

The ex-shadow wants that dropped entirely because activist judges might use it to change the face and fabric of the nation. 

Kenneth Hayne has pointed out, people can litigate if they want to, but how far they get is another matter. 

“I can’t see any constitutional litigation coming out of it that is likely to be arguable. [As for] administrative law litigation, again, I can’t see the likelihood of frequent or difficult litigation in that space.” 

Judicial activism is a traditional conservative furphy and Leeser is using it so that First Nations people have no greater voice to parliament and the government than the Mining Council of Australia or the Business Council or any of the other rent seekers and log-rollers camped around Canberra. 

Leeser also doesn’t like the constitutional provision that provides for recognition: 

He wants the last six words of that paragraph removed. In fact, he would prefer not to have a constitutional recognition at all because “the Constitution is not a good place for historic or symbolic statements, however well-meaning”. 

“The parliament shall have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.” 

See Leeser’s April 3 speech to the National Press Club.
See Leeser’s April 11 resignation press conference. 

While Dutton is saying NO to a constitutional Voice, Leeser is not far behind, saying NO to a constitutional Voice that has much practical benefit. 

There’s little to no point in the whole exercise if the nation ends up with a Leeser Voice – a Voice that has no moral authority to make representations on matters of direct relevance.  

Pathetic is the least of it. 

The rusticated frontbencher is committed to “moving the dial on Indigenous education, health, housing, safety and economic development”. 

Will he chop off his head to save his heart? He’ll have to vote YES when the referendum arrives, because there’ll be little other credible option. 

It suggests that so much of what passes for his heroic principle, is just posturing. 

Another so-called Liberal moderate, Simon Birmingham, shadow foreign minister, laid bare his tortured sole: 

“My perspective that I bring to this I think will be one of largely letting those who have the strongest views and the passionate opinions bring those forward. I can certainly see some of the competing debates that occur on this issue. I respect those debates. 

“Ultimately, I get … a single vote in a referendum, the same as every other Australian, and that’s the way I’ll respect that process.” 

Gutsy stuff.