Features Australia

Mandate to harm

Four Labor policies will damage Australia

David Flint

[Getty Images]

David Flint

6 August 2022

9:00 AM

The Albanese government claims a mandate to impose certain policies, some of which will seriously damage Australia. Take just four of the most prominent and permit me to describe them, not as the spin-doctors do, but in accordance with their inevitable consequences.

The first will make electricity so expensive and so unreliable that by 2030 rank-and-file Australians’ living standards will fall dramatically, most of our remaining manufacturing, some agricultural, and even retail activities will be forced to close down, and Australia will risk becoming the Argentina, or even the Venezuela of the South Seas.

The second will increase – significantly – lawbreaking, bullying, and intimidation in the building and construction sector, increasing markedly the cost of delivering new hospitals, schools and indeed all construction. Despite 2,520 contraventions recorded in different courts, resulting in $17.7 million in penalties, the behemoth that is the CFMEU will operate free from most legal control. As Labor’s largest multi-million dollar benefactor, this suggests a quid pro quo which should clearly be at the top of any genuine corruption commission’s agenda.

The third will increase drunkenness, violence, sexual assaults and deaths of men, women and children in remote indigenous communities.

Related to this is the fourth which will insert an ‘indigenous Voice’ into the Constitution in terms so vague that it will constitute not one, but several blank cheques.

These are the inevitable consequences of stated government policies. It is self-evident that the Albanese government could never claim the support of a majority of Australians for any one of these.

With only 32.58 per cent of the primary vote, Labor has ended up with a narrow majority of seventy-seven in the House, all bound by the strict discipline of the dated Leninist and possibly unconstitutional ‘caucus rule’ so alien to Westminster it is completely unknown to the British Labour Party. The great Edmund Burke would be outraged. Moreover, this majority was achieved through the most contrived electoral system to be found among comparable countries. Worse, it is the one most open to fraud, with Labor’s curiously hysterical opposition to the most elementary and near-universal requirement of photo-ID. The reason given, that this would disadvantage the indigenous, is grossly insulting, as if indigenous people don’t drive, collect parcels, or go to banks.

As to the fourth claimed mandate, the so-called ‘indigenous Voice’, it would have been wise for Mr. Albanese to have heeded the warnings of Senator Jacinta Price. Making headlines as few do, her maiden speech attracted approval from one end of the country to the other. As one very experienced observer said to me, this was the Voice’s death knell. Using the PM’s own description of the Uluru Statement, she told him that indigenous Australians don’t need another ‘handout’. Pointing out that she and the disproportionately large number of elected indigenous representatives came into parliament through hard work and sheer determination, she asked that they be defined not by their racial heritage, but by the content of their character. And yet, she said, the PM was asking the Australian people to disregard those elected voices and vote Yes to a constitutionally enshrined advisory body ‘without any detail’ on what that might entail.

Senator Price gave two examples of the Albanese government’s complete deafness to real indigenous voices, the inevitable consequences of which are listed as the third mandate above.

First was the news that the ‘grog bans’ will be lifted in dry communities, allowing the ‘scourge of alcoholism and the violence that accompanies it’ free reign, despite serious warnings about this from the elders in many communities. Coupled with this, she said, was the removal of the cashless debit card that allowed countless families on welfare to feed their children, rather than seeing their money claimed by ‘alcoholics, substance abusers, and gamblers’ in their family group under ‘kinship demands’.

Senator Price said she could not offer two more appalling examples of legislation pushed by left-wing elites that are ‘guaranteed’ to worsen the lives of indigenous people. Yet, she said, we spend days and weeks each year ‘recognising’ aboriginal Australia in ‘symbolic gestures’ which fail to push ‘the needle one micromillimetre’ towards improving the lives of the most marginalised in any genuine way.

But ignoring her wise words, Mr. Albanese is pushing ahead with a referendum, claiming hopefully that, ‘the momentum is with us’. The question is meaningless: Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice?

Saying Yes to this is like signing not one but a series of blank cheques. And not only to the politicians. Not many have noticed that it will also give a blank cheque to a succession of activist judges, even those unborn.

In this context, note that the High Court recently ruled that criminals convicted of violent assaults, who are not Australian citizens, cannot be deported as aliens if they can claim aboriginality under the current, very loose test. To say this ruling was a surprise is an understatement. The previous government asked for a reconsideration of the case, but the Albanese government has very quietly dropped it. You can just imagine the scene in some taxpayer-funded, criminal lawyer’s office when an alien criminal asks about a threatened deportation. ‘If only you were indigenous…’

Ours is a good constitution, but no constitution is perfect. One mistake was to grant the federal government an unfettered power to appoint High Court judges instead of, say, rotating appointments around the states. Given the dangers demonstrated in the US where by ruling that slavery was constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court unleashed the civil war, and after that entrenched segregation, it would have been prudent to put some limitations on our High Court. The British did this through the Privy Council, but this was limited and ultimately irreconcilable with full independence.

When it comes to referendums, Alan Jones offers the best advice. If you don’t know, vote No.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Published by Nelle

I am interested in writing short stories for my pleasure and my family's but although I have published four family books I will not go down that path again but still want what I write out there so I will see how this goes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: