Tony Abbott has told a parliamentary committee the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be a “mistake” because it would give “about 4% of the population” a greater say in government affairs than “everyone else”.
The former prime minister initially didn’t make the cut for Monday’s witness list at the inquiry into the proposed Voice, but was granted a slot after he complained in a newspaper article and a Twitter statement about being “gagged”.
“Tony Abbott, the 28th prime minister, but coming as a private citizen to talk about an incredibly important topic,” he introduced himself.
Abbott said he opposed the Voice because it would “divide our country on the basis of ancestry”.
“As you know, I think that this Voice is wrong in principle, and I think it’s potentially quite dangerous in practice,” he said.
Abbott suggested “pulling” the proposal and starting the process again, “in a less partisan way”.
“I would hope that the committee might recommend that we go back and start again,” he said.
“But if it’s not prepared to do that, I do hope that it will recommend some significant changes to the wording, as I say, to ensure that it’s not the High Court that in the end has the last word, as opposed to the Australian people, and to ensure that this doesn’t amount to an effective veto on the workings of government.”
Abbott was asked by Greens Senator Dorinda Cox about a line from his submission to the inquiry where he said: “What’s missing are some of the key features of ordinary Australian life: kids going to school; adults going to work; and communities being policed”.
“You believe that the lack of policing is an issue in First Nations communities?” she asked.
“It’s one of them, it’s absolutely one of them,” Abbott responded.
Ahead of Monday’s hearing, Abbott told The Sydney Morning Herald he had been rejected from appearing.
“Why gag people … I can’t believe that such a big change is being rushed through with so little scrutiny,” he told the newspaper.
By mid-morning, the committee members appeared to have changed their minds.
“The parliamentary committee on the Voice which previously didn’t want oral testimony from me has now asked me to appear … I’m grateful for the chance,” Abbott said in a statement posted to Twitter at 10.12am.
Are you interested in Tony Abbott’s views on the Voice? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Why is it that the people screeching about being cancelled/gagged are always the ones with the loudest voices we can never get away from and have nothing original to say?
Because empty cans make the most noise.
And an emptier vessel would be hard to find………….
His natural career path would have been with the Inquisition, but for anyone born after the Renaissance he has precisely nothing to offer.
The Inquisition as it became known was still active well past the Renaissance.
It had started out as out as Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition(1542–1908), then morphed to the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1908–1965); and until June 2022 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith* now it is now the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
As it took a decree of Napoleon’s to abolish the Inquisition in Venice in1806.
In Portugal, in the wake of the Liberal Revolution of 1820, the “General Extraordinary and Constituent Courts of the Portuguese Nation” abolished the Portuguese inquisition in 1821.
The wars of independence in the former Spanish colonies of the Americas concluded with the abolition of the Inquisition in all parts of Hispanic America between 1813 and 1825.
The last execution of the Inquisition was in Spain in 1826 when execution by a Catalan school teacher Gaietà Ripoll for purportedly teaching Deism in his school. In Spain the practices of the Inquisition were finally outlawed in 1834.
In Italy, the restoration of the Pope as the ruler of the Papal States in 1814 brought back the Inquisition to the Papal States. It remained active there until the late-19th century.
*Interestingly it was as Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 1981–2005 who instead of dealing with sexual abuse that was carried out by clergy and others in the Catholic Church actively shielded the the both the malfeasants and their enablers in the hierarchy.
And as again as Benedict XVI he followed the path of John Paul II in not seriously dealing with such.
grâce à Guardian, NYT, WaPo Wikipedia et al.
While being very coy about comments and remarks made about refugees and migrants while visiting other places with fellow travellers; using verbs like ‘swarms’ to describe migrants i.e. the language of etymology.
He’s far from an enlightened soul, why anyone would request his opinion is beyond me. He certainly is one of the most divisive politicians in recent history and saying that the voice will divide the country through ancestry is surely an overwhelming irony given his love for Australia’s British ancestry and pushing it’s exceptionalism.
Word.
Definitely not interested in Abbott’s views. Nasty piece of work, intent on dividing as usual.
His voters already demonstrated what they thought of his views……………….
………….but like all dinosaurs, it takes forever to reach his pea brain.
I think most dinosaurs have more self awareness than our 28th PM.
How much more say in government affairs than “everyone else” does the wealthiest 4% of the population have, I wonder? And how concerned is Tony Abbott about it?
My thoughts exactly except I was going to compare against the wealthiest 0.1% of the population.
no one else had the ADF occupy their communities
This from a guy that expressed no urgency about anything except giving Phil the Greek an honorary Knighthood, cutting university spending, cutting funding to the ABC and SBS, abolishing the MRRT and carbon pricing for which we are all paying the price, turning back asylum seeker and confining them to Pacific hell holes, setting up a Royal Commission into the Trade Unions, the list of ignominy goes on. Yet he whinges. What a guy!
Turning back asylum seekers who arrived by boat and confining them to Pacific hell holes, while those who arrived by plane were apparently allowed to live in the community while their claims were processed (albeit at a snail’s pace). I have been asking the question ‘why the double standard?’ for 22 years now.