For a while there, it looked as if it was impossible to write anything fresh or original about the Voice referendum. The lines had been drawn and debate had settled into an automated rehash of declared positions. The good news was that so much doubt had been engendered about the proposal that a No result looked as if it was at least possible; all that it needed was another bout of blubbering from the Prime Minister, one more minister squirming under an Akubra hat at a corroboree or one more judge salivating at handing over the title deeds to another slice of Australia, and this foolish and reckless proposal would have been dead in the water. And a good thing too.

But, as usual, I had overlooked something, and this time it was a major oversight. I had forgotten that when all seems won, when you are reaching for the champagne and lighting the candles on the cake, when you are thinking that the brightest hour is just before the dawn, there will always be the Liberal party, ready and willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

And so it was with the Voice. Right on cue at the eleventh hour came Peter Dutton and the Liberal party, aroused from six months of somnolence and indecision, to announce that the Liberal party, or bits of it, had actually made a decision on whether to support or oppose the Voice. All he had to do was to say ‘no’ and sit down. But that was apparently too much for him and his party, too straightforward, too understandable, so he had to inflict on us his bizarre alternative plan, not just for one Voice, but for dozens if not hundreds of them.

The Labor party at least had the decency to threaten us with only one of these bodies that will upturn our system of government, entrench racism in the constitution, destabilise the entire structure of decision-making by elected governments and unleash a lawyers’ picnic every time the Voice had a hissy-fit for not getting its own way.

But the Liberal party left them far behind in its wake to be woke. Its proposal is actually that there should be not just ‘a Voice,’ but that there should be a separate Voice for every local, regional and remote area in Australia. And there being no show without states, the new voices would inevitably be on top of their already declared position that there should be a separate and additional Voice, as well as a treaty and a ‘truth-telling’ jamboree in each and every state. One voice to tell us how guilty we should feel was bad enough; any more of them and we will have a celestial choir. And yet, there it was: a new battery of Voices, and no doubt all of them armed with teams of public servants, consultants, lawyers and unlimited money. But it took the Liberal party to give us the Voice that has everything, the ultimate weapon to immobilise government, provide lucrative sinecures for unelected elites and bend the will of the courts to their demands. As that great bureaucrat Sir Humphrey Appelby would have said, ‘this is the Voice you would buy from Harrods’.

The foolishness of Dutton’s proposal is all too obvious. Having such an array of voices is a formula for chaos as they all jump in with no doubt conflicting and ever-expanding wishlists. And what makes Dutton think that the combined celestial choirs voices will all be singing with the same voice?

And what a ludicrous position to put the No case into. Dutton says we should vote ‘no’ because he wants a ‘yes’, the yes being more Voices than the government wants. His offsider Leeser, now mercifully resigned, says we should vote ‘yes’, because he wants a ‘no’, the no being no Albanese Voice. The voters are already confused, but this new twist will make the whole thing incomprehensible. Perhaps that is a good thing, because a lot of people will now vote No because they have no idea what they are voting for, or against, as the case may be.

Under Dutton’s plan you will open a new frontier of litigation with rival claims between voices, that the advice of one voice was accepted but another’s was ignored; that this voice was asked for advice, but this other one was not; or if they all give different advice, who wins? This one wants the mine to go ahead; that one wants to stop it; this other one just wants the royalties. Oh, don’t forget that the High Court has already moved things along because, according to them, the law does not apply to Aboriginals because they are, well, Aboriginals.

And for those of a constitutional bent, the additional argument emerges of how this hybrid model could possibly pass muster. You would think that Dutton would have advisers to tell him the federal government cannot legislate on local councils and cannot establish local or regional bodies. (Perhaps he needs a Voice to advise him).

And, finally, if you were worried by the cost to the taxpayer of Albanese ‘s Voice, just imagine the cost of Dutton’s. There are 67 regions, 500 Aboriginal ‘nations’ and 537 local councils in Australia and they will all want a Voice. Strange; I thought that was what the parliament was for.

Fortunately, as things stand at the present, the only question at the referendum will be whether there should be Albanese’s proposal  for a Voice on matters ‘relating to’ Aboriginals. It is not, as Albanese keeps saying, ‘directly concerning Aboriginals’ or ‘important things’ any of the other weasel words he likes to use. It is matters ‘relating to’ Aboriginals. That means everything. So, when we vote, just remember that the question is whether we should hand over to a non-elected body, power over everything that a government does. My advice? Just vote No.