Labor Praises Leeser Resignation for All the Wrong Reasons

Commentary

When your opponents start praising you, it’s worthwhile to take stock and examine your position.

The shadow attorney-general and spokesman for Indigenous affairs, Julian Leeser, may well reflect on the accolades and bouquets coming his way from his political opponents after his resignation from the opposition front bench over its decision to oppose “The Voice.”

Julian Leeser MP, the member for Berowra, is a decent, well-meaning, and considered individual. In short, he is an asset to the Australian Parliament. It is to be hoped he continues to serve.

That said, his resignation from the front bench over his support for the concept of a Voice is both understandable and yet difficult to understand.

Understandable because Leeser has been a long-term advocate for constitutional recognition of Australia’s Indigenous people in the Constitution. He also recognises the design being proposed is flawed.

In those circumstances, he was in a cleft stick, and something had to give. With Leeser, opportunism or front bench position would never be a motivator.

As he presented in announcing his resignation from his front bench position, he agrees with and supports his party and leader, but on this particular issue, he respectfully, and one suspects regrettably, disagrees with his colleagues.

Many a Liberal has found themselves in such a position and chooses to leave or cross the floor in a dignified manner without pulling the house down on the way out.

In short, the behaviour of a dignified and respectful individual, for which Leeser deserves admiration.

It is to be noted the other side of Australian politics does not afford such flexibility. With the Australian Labor Party, you are absolutely locked in—to campaign against its position leads to immediate and automatic expulsion.

Leeser, thankfully, was not confronted with such an ideological straight jacket.

Surprising, All Things Considered

What is difficult to understand is that Leeser is willing to support the YES case for The Voice despite knowing the flaws and problems with the proposal, which he himself expressed.

Changing the Constitution is no small thing. Unforeseen consequences can’t simply be rectified over a cup of coffee.

Once in the Constitution, the issue is difficult to resolve or amend if poorly drafted. To correct the flawed change will be long and tortuous.

With the plethora of expert legal voices outlining the practical problems with the proposed Voice, let alone the principle of all Australians being treated equally, it is difficult to reconcile Leeser’s resignation.

Perhaps he has expended so much of his own energy and effort over a long period of time into the proposal that he can’t step back sufficiently to acknowledge the dangerous flaws littered throughout this particular proposal which he himself sees as deficient.

The excitement of some Labor government operatives on learning of Leeser’s resignation from the front bench might reflect on the fact that their own members with misgivings aren’t afforded such an opportunity and that Leeser has also continued to express doubts about the model.

Having expressed doubts about the drafting, it seems Leeser’s heart and emotion held sway over his head and analysis. Most Australians, while initially motivated by a sense of goodwill, should, and one suspects will, analyse The Voice and vote on its fabric and not its vibe.

Vote With Head or Heart?

Recent polling indicates a decline in support for The Voice and, most tellingly, shows the strong NO supporters have gained the ascendancy over the strong YES supporters.

This reflects the turnout for two separate functions for the NO and YES cases held by the Liberal Party in Western Australia.

One addressed by Ken Wyatt a former Indigenous Affairs minister advocating for the YES case, attracted just 20 attendees. The NO function addressed by Indigenous Senator Jacinta Price attracted eight times the number.

It seems the longer the campaign continues and the deeper the assessment of The Voice by the people, Australians are coming to Leeser’s own conclusion that there are faults with the proposal but unlike Leeser, they are not willing to allow their head to be overrun by their heart.

They rightly see the imperative to get the wording correct. Completely correct without any hint of ambiguity.

Forcing into their Constitution, however well-meaning it might be, a vibe or goodwill gesture with real damaging consequences for the good functioning of Australian governments and the Australian Parliament is simply not good enough for them. Nor should it be.

Leeser’s front-bench resignation provides a much-needed distraction and some respite for the proponents who continue to flounder on the substance of The Voice.

They are unable to explain how The Voice will work in practice, its reach into executive government and the parliament, how it will improve the lot of one single Indigenous Australian, and why such a voice cannot simply be legislated without fiddling with the people’s Constitution.

No wonder Leeser’s actions gained him praise. But it was from the wrong quarter and for the wrong reason.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.