The biggest loser from No might be Peter Dutton

Save articles for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

Credit: Illustration: Matt Golding

To submit a letter to The Age, email [email protected]. Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.

POLITICS

Amid all the post-referendum analysis one point has been consistently overlooked: the biggest loser of the exercise may yet prove to be Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

Of course Dutton has outmanoeuvred his opponent, the prime minister, and helped ensure defeat of the Voice referendum. In doing so he has emphatically brought down the curtain on what remained of a surprisingly protracted honeymoon for Anthony Albanese. But in reaching that victory there was an opportunity thrown away. Whenever anyone ascends to a new, highly responsible and demanding role there is the possibility that they will surprise us with hitherto unseen depths and unexpected talents. That applies to prime ministers, premiers, ship’s captains, police sergeants, newspaper editors, school principals, chief executives and countless others. People can surprise. Even the least appealing candidates can grow into a role.

Let’s remember that Dutton is the man who walked out of parliament rather than listen to the apology to the stolen generations. He arrived as opposition leader with much baggage.

Had Dutton embraced the Voice, which after all was a concept developed under successive Liberal governments, it would have been at odds with everything expected of him. Coming at the end of a decade of bitter, polarised politics that began with Tony Abbott’s period as opposition leader, a bipartisan approach to the Voice would have been welcomed across the political spectrum.

Had he done that, Dutton would have surprised us, leaving us to think ″⁣there is more to this bloke than we thought … maybe he could grow into a bigger person than he has shown so far″⁣. Voters in those teal seats that appear to have remained firmly in the Yes camp would have been given cause to remain open to returning to the Liberal Party. Dutton could have heralded a new era distinct from our entrenched political warfare and lack of co-operation in which opposition was not as fixed as a knee reflex. But he didn’t. He is just the man we thought him to be. That is his loss.
Ian Munro, Albert Park

Credible claims
How many people voted against the idea of the Voice thinking they could vote yes for Dutton’s First Nations inclusion in the next referendum (“Dutton promises another vote if Indigenous Voice fails”, 3/9) only to discover this idea withdrawn (“Bruised PM silent on next steps for treaty”, 17/10) after the vote?
Ludi Servadei, Malvern East

Truth in advertising
During the Brexit vote, one of the key arguments was that the NHS would benefit by hundreds of millions of pounds annually. The day after the vote, Nigel Farage, who had pushed this point, admitted it was not true and there would be no extra money for the NHS (Brexit has subsequently cost the British economy billions). At least Peter Dutton waited two days before admitting he would not support a second referendum, despite offering that as an incentive to those who say they want constitutional recognition, but not a Voice.

More broadly, misinformation in political advertising is a blight on our society. Claims ought to be true, and penalties applied if they are not. If I buy a $500 item I have consumer protection; if I vote in a referendum that affects my life and those of future generations of Australians there is none. Why not?
Louise Kloot, Doncaster

PM’s blunders
Anthony Albanese’s time as prime minister has been marked by three major policy blunders – the $370billion AUKUS nuclear submarines deal, the commitment to stage three tax cuts for high-income earners, costing $313billion over 10 years, and the Voice referendum debacle. All three of these policies were initiated by Liberal federal governments. If the Australian people had wanted Liberal Party policies then Scott Morrison would still be prime minister. If Albanese is wondering what his next steps should be, he could start by acting like a Labor PM and scrap the AUKUS deal and stage three tax cuts.
Peter Martina, Warrnambool

THE FORUM

Colourblind rules
Now that the dust is settling on what was at times a remarkably divisive and contentious referendum, both sides will indeed enter a season of due introspection about their respective campaigns.
Two key points to take away: First, the voting patterns unequivocally demonstrate that there is now a clear and present social demarcation between the more affluent inner-city enclaves and the outer suburbs. For a host of reasons, new migrants and established communities away from the niche coffee shop and artisan baker strips decided not to amend our nation’s colourblind rule book. It was a vote for universal equality under the law, regardless of your heritage or background.

Second, the mainstream mercifully demonstrated that it cannot be bullied or bought by the moralising corporate elites, self-righteous big businesses or the preachy sporting bodies, who felt that due to the size of their combined bank balances, they had the right to tell the wider populace what to think and do. That is not a healthy attitude towards fellow voters.

Instead, Australia rightly held the line in nationally declaring that what ultimately matters in changing one’s fortunes is not yet more administration, but agency and aspiration.
Peter Waterhouse, Craigieburn

Practical solutions
Imagine, if you will, that the federal government allocated $130 million to a set of test case housing, hospital and education projects in remote areas with associated skills training programs, emphasis on local Indigenous labour and say prefabrication to speed up implementation and a few million more to promote the projects and promise more of the same based upon the lessons learnt etc.

They might just have got bipartisan, in fact unanimous, parliamentary support and not a word of complaint from Jacinta Nampijinpa Price or Warren Mundine et al. Public support would likely be in the 90 per cent range (just like the 1967 referendum). Obviously I am off with the pixies because the KPIs in play were not outcomes for Indigenous Australians but public attention on senior Yes advocates and other activists.
Mike Seward, Port Fairy

Still confused
Now finally, after what can only now be described as a painful if not reprehensible period in our nation’s brief history we find ourselves even more confused. Definitely divided, and in a sort of opaque trance, wondering where to now. The Yes-ers blame the No-ers, and vice versa, and nobody is celebrating. The Indigenous flag is at half-mast and their constituency are largely sad, along with a good portion of the voting public. What has been achieved after more than a decade of what was intended to be a bipartisan compact of “Closing the gap”? Nonsense and more nonsense it appears was the cause of this tragic failure. The cause, however, remains honest and true.
Keith Brown, Southbank

Week of mourning
The decision by Indigenous leaders to retreat for a week of mourning (“Yes campaigners started to draft vow of silence statement before polls closed”, 17/10) exhibits a sophistication and humility that is to be applauded. Their ability to contemplate and reflect before taking action is one of the many reasons they have survived for 65,000 years. We can learn so much from them.
Mark Hulls, Sandringham

State of shock
It is disappointing that your correspondent (“Democratic right”, 17/10) sees fit to do a victory lap while accusing Yes supporters of sulking. With Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price claiming that colonisation has had a positive impact on Indigenous Australians, and Warren Mundine stating that the Uluru Statement was a declaration of war, Indigenous Australians are in shock, and Yes campaigners wondering how such statements were allowed to enter mainstream media with little scrutiny.

Indigenous Australians must be allowed to mourn and come to terms with the fact that their hand of friendship has been left outstretched. Recognition and reconciliation will now be replaced by audits, inquiries and committees, again.
Doug Shaw, Sunbury

Living in harmony
Australians should be strongly encouraged to live in Indonesia for six months. It is there they will clearly see and experience the harmonious, heartening integration of indigenous culture with Muslim, Christian and Hindu religions and cultures.

It will enlighten most, and go some way towards ending the silly racial prejudices and division in this country.
James Henshall, Richmond

Details were there
Those correspondents insisting there were justifications for voting No (“No shame in voting No to an ill-judged referendum”, 17/10) need to be challenged. Claiming there was insufficient information ignores the detailed report that the Coalition government (including Dutton) received and accepted years ago. Claiming that it was a threat to the Constitution ignores the advice of the vast majority of the country’s most senior jurists. Claiming that it was Albanese’s referendum ignores the detailed, consultative work done over many years by First Nations leaders.
Peter McPhee, Abbotsford

Deep unease
I suspect a large percentage of the No vote was triggered by a deep uneasiness about being reminded how Indigenous people have been treated since settlement and an unwillingness to accept any responsibility because that is really awkward. Australia has been a deeply divided country since its inception.
Linelle Gibson, Williamstown

Fair go
Your correspondent asks how The Age could initially publish so many letters on the referendum without any hailing the result (“Out of touch?, 17/10). As a reader and occasional contributor to the Letters page, I believe the answer is fairly simple: The Age and most of its readership is in touch with thoughtfulness, decency, morality, the concept of a “fair go”, and they did not choose to celebrate what is a disastrous outcome for Australia.
Ian Usman Lewis, Kentucky, NSW

Still out of touch
The recent history of Age readers who were out of touch includes those who knew climate change is real, those who knew that Mabo and the Apology would destroy our way of life, and those who knew that marriage equality was right.
Paula O’Brien, St Kilda

Misplaced criticism
Criticism of Anthony Albanese for proceeding with the Voice referendum is misplaced. He fulfilled a promise to put to the Australian people a request from Indigenous Australians made after an extensive consultative process and supported by a large majority of Indigenous Australians at the time. It was a simple, moderate proposal. Indeed, polling in August last year after draft wording of the amendment was released showed 65 per cent saying Yes given a binary choice.
Tony Ralston, Balwyn North

Does it affect me?
During the same-sex marriage plebiscite, as a heterosexual male I knew that the outcome would not impact me personally but would benefit gay and lesbian Australians enormously. So I, along with many other heterosexual Australians, voted Yes. As a non-Indigenous Australian the Voice would also not impact me personally but would be the beginning of positive change for our Indigenous Australians, so I also voted Yes. It’s difficult to understand why more did not see it the same way.
David Parker, Geelong West

Finding humanity
In 1937, Japanese journalist Genzaburo Yoshino wrote How Do You Live?, a story of a young boy and his relationship with his uncle in the absence of his deceased father. It’s great for young readers, encouraging independent thought, standing up for others and friendship. At the end, the young boy demonstrates his appreciation to his uncle, and his personal maturity, in a written note: “I think there has to come a time when everyone in the world treats each other as if they were good friends. Since humanity has come so far, I think now we will definitely be able to make it such a place. So I think I want to become a person who can help that happen.”
Simon Williamson, Footscray

Pressure to partake
As a former teetotaller and now an occasional drinker, it was wonderful to read the social pressure and irritation felt by a committed drinker when friends suggested she cut back or stop (Comment, 15/9). I cannot tell you how many times I was asked with great suspicion “why don’t you drink?“, wine was poured assuming I would pick up the glass, or it was inferred I didn’t like parties. It was relentless. This went on for 40 years of my life. Now people are waking up to the idea the cost, health issues and boring conversation of drunks are maybe not worth a drink.
Geoffrey Conaghan, St Kilda

Water wars
There is irony in the heading of your article about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan (“State heads for deep water”, 17/10). The Victorian government is opposing the Commonwealth’s intention to buy more water from irrigators to supplement river flows, to in effect ensure sufficient “deep water”. It has long been apparent the health of Australia’s largest river system and its many precious water-dependent species, are suffering because too much water has been extracted. But it is also true that a large irrigation industry, and the communities it supports, have become dependent on that water.

Can we help the river and maintain this scale of industry? No. We cannot continue to deplete nature for our economic benefit. This is a classic illustration of the saying, attributed to Mark Twain, that, “whisky is for drinking and water is for fighting over”.
Ian Penrose, Kew

AND ANOTHER THING

Credit: Illustration: Matt Golding

The Voice
How long must we live in the fairytale world which says, “the Australian people always get it right”. That statement doesn’t help any of us understand what’s being debated now or in the future.
Sue Littleford, Clifton Springs

I can’t help but wonder what the No side actually thinks they’ve achieved?
Michael Carver, Hawthorn East

Obviously Peter Dutton’s offer to have a second referendum to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution was a non-core promise.
Eric Butcher, Eltham

Didn’t know, so didn’t grow.
David Jones, Essendon

The referendum just confirms that we really are a nation divided not just between First Nations people and the rest but between city and country.
Terry Kelly, Coburg

Forty-five per cent of Victoria voted Yes, 32 per cent of Queenslanders did. What are we doing in the same federation?
Tony Haydon, Springvale

I agree with your correspondent who suggests we shouldn’t sulk about the referendum result (Letters, 17/10). That doesn’t mean we aren’t allowed to be bitterly disappointed, though.
Brian Collins, Cardigan

“Grandad, way back in 2023 when Indigenous Australians asked for a say in developing laws that affect them, did you vote Yes?”
Graeme Rose, Wangaratta

Poor fellow, my country!
Rod Martin, Glen Waverley

Furthermore
If only world leaders had the wisdom and compassion of Holocaust survivor Sarah Saaroni (“Innocent people always lose the most”, 17/10) the world would be a better and safer place.
Peggy Cochrane, Hawthorn

The casualties in the war between Israel and Hamas are the innocent. The children and the civilians who just want to live in freedom.
Julie Ottobre, East Brunswick

Patrick Elligett sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.

Most Viewed in National

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article