Dutton isn’t just ignoring First Nations peoples — he’s spitting in their faces

In January, when Peter Dutton was demanding “details” of the Voice proposal, I wrote this:

[Dutton] has no intention of engaging sincerely with the Voice. He will, sooner or later, drop the mask and tell us to vote no. And we will know why.

I claim no great prescience; seeing what was coming was as easy as predicting that Donald Trump’s next words will be a lie. Dutton was always going to oppose the Voice. It was just a question of when. As it turns out, he was waiting until after the disaster of the Aston byelection, presumably so he’d have some clear media air.

The precise details of the Liberal Party’s declared position are important to consider.

First, the party says it is “a yes” to symbolic constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This is simply a reversion to the formula that former prime minister John Howard supported nearly 20 years ago. No Indigenous peoples — and certainly not the Uluru gathering that produced the Statement from the Heart — want it. The conversation long ago moved on from pure symbolism, and it is insulting for Dutton to resurrect it now, pretending that it answers a question anyone is asking.

Second, the Liberals reject any constitutionally enshrined Voice, but are in support of a legislated model for “local and regional voices”. Where’s the detail? Not Mr Dutton’s job; he’s just putting it out there as an idea.

What such local bodies could achieve that land councils and other community-based organisations have not isn’t explained. There’s no evidence base for the thought bubble, but more importantly — again — nobody’s asking for this, least of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The practical and legal objections to this idea, including that a legislated body can be as easily abolished as it is instituted, are of far less consequence than the fact it perpetuates one of the patterns of colonial behaviour that led us to where we are today: white people deciding what is good for Indigenous peoples without regard for their wishes or concerns.

Third, the Liberals are a “yes to better outcomes for Indigenous Australians”. What the Liberals are a “no” to, according to Dutton, is “dividing Australians”. He explained what this means: “It should be very clear to Australians by now the prime minister is dividing the country, and the Liberal Party seeks to unite the country.”

As a rhetorical argument, that’s a difficult one, because the Voice referendum is a yes/no question that will by definition divide the country into people who vote yes and people who vote no. What Dutton really is saying is the government is causing that division merely by asking the question. By logical extension, governments should only ask questions to which everyone is guaranteed to give the same answer.

So, that’s nonsense, which leaves the only possible true meaning of Dutton’s words: the old argument — which also goes back to Howard — that it is an act of racism to insert a racially based provision into the constitution that gives some Australians rights that others don’t have.

Now, that would be an argument grounded in principle. It is beloved of Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott, but it causes a tingling sensation on the back of the necks of the parliamentary party because it does the one thing the Liberal Party wants to pretend it is not doing: utterly reject the Uluru statement and its fundamental principle that this country bears a wound that can only be healed through the three-step process of voice, treaty and truth.

The sophistry of Dutton’s position is transparent, no big deal to see through that. But we must recognise its deeper significance beyond the petty politics: it doesn’t just reflect an ignoring of what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have asked for in open-handed sincerity, it spits it back in their faces.

Dutton, and his party, are entitled to take a stance and do their best to ensure that this referendum fails. How, individually, they will do that in good conscience, I don’t know, but that’s for them.

I’ll be arguing the Yes case from start to finish, so take my words with that in mind. But do ask yourself why it was so easy to predict that the Liberal Party, which said it would be considering this issue with an open mind, was always going to end up saying no.

At least, as I also said in January, the Nationals came right out with their rejection before they even knew what the question was going to be. Old-fashioned bastardry, almost admirable by comparison with the pantomime their Coalition partners have just performed.