-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Peter Dutton - How Long?
- Thread starter Cookie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Schneebly11
Cancelled
- Apr 7, 2020
- 2,311
- 4,977
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Interesting trivia
In Australian history the new leader of the opposition after a government has been turfed out of office has never gone on to become PM. The theory being after a loss the party puts in some stooge who takes the unpopularity until they get replaced by someone who has an actual chance of becoming PM.
So Shorten never became PM after Labor lost in 2013.
Nelson never became PM after Coalition lost in 2007.
Beazley never became PM after Labor lost in 1996.
Peacock never became PM after Coalition lost in 1983.
1975 was a bit different as Gough stayed on as Opposition Leader but same principal applies, he never became PM again nor did his immediate successor Bill Hayden.
Sneddon never became PM after Coalition lost in 1972.
Chifley was PM then to Opposition leader in 1949 but he never became PM again nor did Evatt his immediate replacement.
Arthur Fadden was minority PM in 1941 when he lost House confidence and went to Oppostion leader, he never became PM again.
Scullin went from PM in 1932 to Oppostion and never became PM again.
Nor did a John Latham in 1929 not Frank Tudor in 1917.
Andrew Fisher went from PM to Opposition leader to PM in 1913-1914 but he remained Labor leader the whole time, he wasn’t a new leader after an election loss.
If Dutton became PM it would be the first time in Australian history. So no.
Get around him
if Hawthorn can defy the odds and win in Perth (as they did in 2015)
Dutton can beat Albo at the next Federal election!
Schneebly11
Cancelled
- Apr 7, 2020
- 2,311
- 4,977
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Apart from SBS and the Guardian Dutton’s sexism was ignored by the rest of the Australian media. It got more coverage overseas.
Like I said before last election, media want a close election so when the Libs are stuffing up it gets buried.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
GreyWind
Norm Smith Medallist
At least you're consistent in your delusional goo chugging.
- Sep 10, 2010
- 18,224
- 25,466
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I've never understood why it had to be gendered to begin with. Speaker is a perfectly respectful term on its own. I feel the same way about the use of "Mr Justice X" for judges.
raskolnikov
Hall of Famer
What a complete *******. If this is the best the Libs can get they're in massive trouble.
Not Important
never test the depth of water with both feet.
- Oct 4, 2016
- 13,746
- 23,877
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
what an embarrassment is this clown.
- Banned
- #313
I think a few years ago he said, in hindsight, it was a mistake and his views on such matters had evolved since then, blah, blah, etc.
- Banned
- #315
Probably a bit to do with him being a) a Queenslander and b) an ex-QLD cop. Just a guess.
Ticky009
Moderator
- Jun 2, 2014
- 26,905
- 70,612
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- The Rebel Alliance
- Moderator
- #316
His reason was - and its one he's using now also - is that domestic violence & the assault of children in indigenous communities is rampant. These are the things that should be tackled not what Dutton calls agendas that make no difference.
- Banned
- #317
Rings a bell. I think that is his current "talking point" on the issue.
We shouldn't get distracted from real problems, which I'm raising as a distraction from the issue at hand.
"Did you do anything about those real problems when you were in Govt?"
We shouldn't be distracted by talking about what we did or didn't do when there's legislation at hand.
Deep as a puddle, is our dear Peter Dutton. The man's rich enough, why is he so intent on humiliating himself as a politician for our amusement and to the detriment of less well-off people?
- Banned
- #319
CRIKEY today .......
Opinion / Indigenous Affairs
MICHAEL BRADLEY
JAN 10, 2023
44
UPDATED: 4.06PM, JAN 10
Share
OPPOSITION LEADER PETER DUTTON (IMAGE: AAP/LUKAS COCH)
Let’s suppose that Liberal Leader Peter Dutton has any credibility regarding matters concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, or on matters of race at all. Pretend that his walk-out on the parliamentary apology to the Stolen Generations didn’t happen, or that as home affairs minister he didn’t race-bait African-Australians, refugees and Muslims.
Say we take him at face value on his commitment “to being constructive on the issue of reconciliation” with Indigenous peoples. That is what he wrote in his letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the letter he dropped with the media before actually sending it.
Dutton, unlike his Coalition partner, the National Party, professes no fixed position on the proposed referendum to amend the Australian constitution by establishing an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. The Nationals have rejected it outright, both complaining about the absence of detail and concluding that they wouldn’t like the detail anyway.
The ostensible purpose of Dutton’s letter is to warn Albanese he is “making a catastrophic mistake” by not supplying sufficient detail on the Voice proposal ahead of the planned first-stage referendum later this year. Australians, he says, “have a right to make a fully informed decision”. Sounds fair.
Dutton goes on: “Your government’s position that detail isn’t needed before a vote and will be contained in subsequent legislation is unreasonable … and undermines the integrity of the process … you are treating the Australian people like mugs.”
Pure of motivation, Dutton is focused on “tangible improvements to the lives of Indigenous Australians”, notwithstanding that on every measure the decade-long government, of which he was a senior member, failed to deliver any improvement whatsoever.
Helpfully, Dutton has provided a list of the details the Australian people need before they can consider the Voice proposal. It is at that point he reveals himself fully, and we can safely predict what happens from here.
Dutton makes Tony Abbott look subtle, so it isn’t difficult to pick up what he’s doing, or whose idea he’s copying. The play is an attempted repeat of John Howard’s successful three-card trick that brought down the 1999 republic referendum: 1) demand the detail; 2) when it’s provided, demand more detail; 3) claim there’s now too much detail and advocate a “No” vote on the basis that, if you don’t understand it, you’re being conned.
The details Dutton says we must have are, in truth, a collection of dogwhistles dressed up as reasonable requests. Who gets to be on the Voice body? What is the “definition of Aboriginality”? How much will it cost? Will it have “decision-making capabilities”? Will it be used to negotiate a “national treaty”?
I get it — Dutton will defend his perfectly reasonable queries all the way to referendum day, and point to any reticence about answering them as an indicator of something sneaky or even malign. How can we decide whether to build an Olympic swimming pool until we know who will be allowed to swim in it?
There are two answers to this ploy, apart from the really obvious one, which I’ll leave for my punchline. First, the government’s design is explicit. What we will be asked, in a first-stage referendum, is the question of principle: do we support the creation of a Voice, as asked for and articulated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart? If yes, then the detail will be legislated.
Secondly, apparently Dutton has forgotten, as have all of his colleagues, that the minister for Indigenous Australians in their own government, Ken Wyatt, prepared and attempted to table in cabinet on two occasions a highly detailed plan for implementation of the Voice. It was ignored; it seems none of them ever read it.
He has also apparently forgotten the exhaustive work carried out by academics including Megan Davis, Tom Calma and Marcia Langton, producing volumes of detailed analysis and explanation of what the Voice would be — and would not be — which are available to anyone who cares to, and can, read.
Detail? That’s not the issue. The issue is whether we choose to listen to Indigenous peoples and respect their carefully considered judgment that the Voice — as Langton and Calma said two years ago — “is an urgent matter for redress on our journey to equity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”. Listening, of course, requires shutting up.
Shutting up is not Dutton’s way, nor is it that of any of those who have already declared their opposition: Abbott, Howard, Bolt, Jones, Credlin, Price, Mundine, Joyce, Littleproud — all the names you’d expect to be shouting a loud and reflexive “no”.
The proof of Dutton’s disingenuousness is in the detail of his supposedly open-handed approach. One of the details he demands will suffice: will the Voice body be empowered to make decisions? No, one million times, no. Nobody has ever said, suggested or implied that it will or should be anything more than advisory in construct and effect. It is a big lie, fully known to those who peddle it, to keep pretending otherwise.
Dutton is propagating the lie. He 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.
Do you think more detail is needed about the Voice referendum, or is Peter Dutton just stirring division? Let us know your thoughts 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.
Michael Bradley
LEGAL CORRESPONDENT @MARQUELAWYERS
Michael Bradley is a freelance writer and managing partner at Sydney firm Marque Lawyers, which was created in 2008 with the singular ambition of completely changing the way law is practised.
Opinion / Indigenous Affairs
Dutton’s letter demanding Voice detail fuels lies and division. Is anyone surprised?
The opposition leader's letter to the prime minister ignores the reality of the Voice proposal — and even plans tabled by his own colleague.MICHAEL BRADLEY
JAN 10, 2023
44
UPDATED: 4.06PM, JAN 10
Share
OPPOSITION LEADER PETER DUTTON (IMAGE: AAP/LUKAS COCH)
Let’s suppose that Liberal Leader Peter Dutton has any credibility regarding matters concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, or on matters of race at all. Pretend that his walk-out on the parliamentary apology to the Stolen Generations didn’t happen, or that as home affairs minister he didn’t race-bait African-Australians, refugees and Muslims.
Say we take him at face value on his commitment “to being constructive on the issue of reconciliation” with Indigenous peoples. That is what he wrote in his letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the letter he dropped with the media before actually sending it.
Dutton, unlike his Coalition partner, the National Party, professes no fixed position on the proposed referendum to amend the Australian constitution by establishing an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. The Nationals have rejected it outright, both complaining about the absence of detail and concluding that they wouldn’t like the detail anyway.
Time is running out to protect the Voice referendum from lies and deceit
Read MoreThe ostensible purpose of Dutton’s letter is to warn Albanese he is “making a catastrophic mistake” by not supplying sufficient detail on the Voice proposal ahead of the planned first-stage referendum later this year. Australians, he says, “have a right to make a fully informed decision”. Sounds fair.
Dutton goes on: “Your government’s position that detail isn’t needed before a vote and will be contained in subsequent legislation is unreasonable … and undermines the integrity of the process … you are treating the Australian people like mugs.”
Pure of motivation, Dutton is focused on “tangible improvements to the lives of Indigenous Australians”, notwithstanding that on every measure the decade-long government, of which he was a senior member, failed to deliver any improvement whatsoever.
Helpfully, Dutton has provided a list of the details the Australian people need before they can consider the Voice proposal. It is at that point he reveals himself fully, and we can safely predict what happens from here.
Dutton makes Tony Abbott look subtle, so it isn’t difficult to pick up what he’s doing, or whose idea he’s copying. The play is an attempted repeat of John Howard’s successful three-card trick that brought down the 1999 republic referendum: 1) demand the detail; 2) when it’s provided, demand more detail; 3) claim there’s now too much detail and advocate a “No” vote on the basis that, if you don’t understand it, you’re being conned.
The details Dutton says we must have are, in truth, a collection of dogwhistles dressed up as reasonable requests. Who gets to be on the Voice body? What is the “definition of Aboriginality”? How much will it cost? Will it have “decision-making capabilities”? Will it be used to negotiate a “national treaty”?
I get it — Dutton will defend his perfectly reasonable queries all the way to referendum day, and point to any reticence about answering them as an indicator of something sneaky or even malign. How can we decide whether to build an Olympic swimming pool until we know who will be allowed to swim in it?
There are two answers to this ploy, apart from the really obvious one, which I’ll leave for my punchline. First, the government’s design is explicit. What we will be asked, in a first-stage referendum, is the question of principle: do we support the creation of a Voice, as asked for and articulated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart? If yes, then the detail will be legislated.
Secondly, apparently Dutton has forgotten, as have all of his colleagues, that the minister for Indigenous Australians in their own government, Ken Wyatt, prepared and attempted to table in cabinet on two occasions a highly detailed plan for implementation of the Voice. It was ignored; it seems none of them ever read it.
He has also apparently forgotten the exhaustive work carried out by academics including Megan Davis, Tom Calma and Marcia Langton, producing volumes of detailed analysis and explanation of what the Voice would be — and would not be — which are available to anyone who cares to, and can, read.
Detail? That’s not the issue. The issue is whether we choose to listen to Indigenous peoples and respect their carefully considered judgment that the Voice — as Langton and Calma said two years ago — “is an urgent matter for redress on our journey to equity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”. Listening, of course, requires shutting up.
Shutting up is not Dutton’s way, nor is it that of any of those who have already declared their opposition: Abbott, Howard, Bolt, Jones, Credlin, Price, Mundine, Joyce, Littleproud — all the names you’d expect to be shouting a loud and reflexive “no”.
The proof of Dutton’s disingenuousness is in the detail of his supposedly open-handed approach. One of the details he demands will suffice: will the Voice body be empowered to make decisions? No, one million times, no. Nobody has ever said, suggested or implied that it will or should be anything more than advisory in construct and effect. It is a big lie, fully known to those who peddle it, to keep pretending otherwise.
Dutton is propagating the lie. He 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.
Do you think more detail is needed about the Voice referendum, or is Peter Dutton just stirring division? Let us know your thoughts 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.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Michael Bradley
LEGAL CORRESPONDENT @MARQUELAWYERS
Michael Bradley is a freelance writer and managing partner at Sydney firm Marque Lawyers, which was created in 2008 with the singular ambition of completely changing the way law is practised.
Last edited:
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Banned
- #320
Dutton on 7:30 report in 10 minutes talkng about the Voice .......
EDIT: Trainwreck interview for anyone with half a brain.
EDIT: Trainwreck interview for anyone with half a brain.
Last edited:
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,417
- 35,611
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Once a rapist, always a rapist
High profile man charged with rape in Queensland
Well, well...who could that be?
High profile man charged with rape in Queensland
Well, well...who could that be?
Could it be worse than Jane Hume's radio interview on radio national yesterday morning.
- Banned
- #324
The last question nailed her nicely.
With Scummo and Duttons comments today about Pell, you have to wonder if someone hacked the Libs plan and replaced "win the next election" with say as much as we can to offend as many as we can.
Perrottet and Albanese showed the way, polite condolences to family and friends without being seen as taking sides.
On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Perrottet and Albanese showed the way, polite condolences to family and friends without being seen as taking sides.
On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app
