Ken Wyatt’s stance has the potential to split the Australian Government

Ken Wyatt’s stance has the potential to split the Australian Government, by Peta Credlin.

It’s hard to avoid the suspicion that Ken Wyatt, the new Minister for indigenous Australians, is trying to railroad the government into a much more radical position on Aboriginal empowerment than it’s likely the Prime Minister wants. …

Last week he was at it again, telling the nation’s media that he wanted to see a constitutionally entrenched indigenous voice to the parliament if it could become the “consensus option” for constitutional recognition.

Even after the subsequent three days of confusion — with the Prime Minister ruling out a constitutionally entrenched indigenous Voice and distancing himself from any special new body chosen by indigenous people, for indigenous people — Wyatt was still at it, saying that a legislated Voice to parliament could be a “better way”. …

A bad, racist idea:

Constitutionally entrenched or just legislated, like the ultimately abolished ATSIC two decades ago, a special body chosen by Aboriginal people with a remit to bring an Aboriginal perspective to all the decisions of the parliament is a really bad idea.

Sure, Aboriginal people are the First Australians, but that shouldn’t make the rest of us second-class citizens. We wouldn’t have a women’s body chosen only by women to advise the parliament on women’s issues; and we wouldn’t have a migrant body chosen only by migrants to advise the parliament on ethnic issues, so why should we have a special indigenous body asserting what would become a kind of veto on the decisions of the government and the parliament? …

So why on earth would we want to revisit having two classes of citizens: indigenous people, who could vote twice — once for the parliament and then again for an indigenous voice (constitutionally entrenched or merely legislated) — and everyone else, who could only vote once, and whose parliamentary representatives would be subject to second-guessing by an indigenous advisory body that would get a say on everything, because doesn’t everything impact on Aboriginal people? If it didn’t, that’s racist by its very definition.

“Reconciliation?” Sounds good, but what is it exactly? All I know is that anyone who opposes it is labelled “racist” by the usual suspects.