The news that a ‘kangaroo court’ has decided to charge Donald Trump with a pile of spurious charges from many years ago has come at an intriguing time of year: Easter. The symbolism is simply too tempting.

Thus begins the long climb up the hill for Mr Trump to Calvary and his promised crucifixion at the hands of the Democrats. A time of martyrdom the likes of which the modern world has not witnessed in a long time. The baying mobs, the heavy load of one sinful night long ago which Mr Trump himself will have to atone for.

Of course, no Easter tale is complete without the resurrection, and we would not be the first to point out that rather than damaging Mr Trump, for many Americans this perceived persecution will only add to his allure. How peculiar that it is his sworn enemies themselves who seem so hell-bent on Making Donald Great Again.

Well done, Dutts

Readers of this magazine are more than familiar with the arguments against a proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament. From the most basic objections – that enshrining a lobby group within the constitution flies in the face of every democratic principle – to the most complex legal considerations surrounding the reach and scope of the Voice, our writers have explored every nuance and exposed every flaw.

As far back as August last year we were among the first to point out the obvious glaring howler surrounding the entire plan, when we wrote: ‘Why do we need a Voice when we have eleven indigenous parliamentarians who could, if they want, form a committee of the parliament to review any relevant legislation?’

Indeed, the strongest and most consistently insightful voice on the Voice has been Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a resident and former deputy mayor of Alice Springs who has – unlike virtually every other participant in this debate – actually confronted many of the vexatious problems that confront authorities in remote Aboriginal communities. As Senator Price pointed out only last week, by enshrining an Aboriginal bureaucracy in the constitution for all time, does this assume that indigenous Australians are going to be disadvantaged for all time?

From the moment Prime Minister Albanese went grandstanding to the Garma crowds, it has been glaringly apparent that the sinister ‘fix’ was the linking of a hugely expensive and bloated bureaucracy to the nation’s founding document. It was this linkage which made strident opposition to the two separate proposals – a new indigenous body and a form of words within the constitution recognising the history of pre-settlement Australia – so confusing to the average, fair-minded Australian. To the non-engaged, saying Yes in the referendum was merely a matter of ‘being nice’ and ‘doing the polite thing’.

Labor hardheads were clearly of the opinion that the Voice provided a golden opportunity to enmesh a powerful, left-leaning entity into everyday political life. And this Trojan horse would be welcomed through the gates thanks to the self-evident goodwill of most Australians to their indigenous brothers and sisters.

The Liberal party room is to be congratulated for staring down this scam. It clearly was not an easy decision, although the Nationals managed to arrive at it (presumably with the help of Senator Price) months ago without the same degree of hesitation and hand-wringing.

In this week’s issue, one of the smartest minds opposing the Albanese proposal, Louise Clegg, writes about another angle to the debate, and that is the risk that rather than encouraging ‘reconciliation’, the Voice would itself – as a powerful political entity – become despised.

The referendum deserves to fail. The political ramifications are manifold, and raise the enticing possibility that the Liberals have now reached the point where they realise that chasing wokeness is a one-way path to oblivion. Better to fight!

Congrats, Dutts. (And while you’re on a roll, how about abandoning net zero?)