The visit to these shores, the furthest-flung and smallest outpost of the transatlantic Spectator empire, by our chairman Andrew Neil, is a reminder that in so many ways we are still a ‘colonial’ nation, deriving much of our culture, trade, politics and inspiration from Britain and America. Indeed, his visit these past two weeks has coincided with two powerful news stories, one that defines our future relationship with the two great powers of the Anglosphere and the other which shows how the past, or a fictional version of it, still dominates our political discourse.

The first story is of course the astonishing realisation of just how fortunate we are that Messrs Morrison, Dutton, Albanese and Marles, working in succession, have brought about the Aukus defence agreement, including the Aukus submarines arrangements.

At the same time as Mr Neil was visiting Australia, French President Emmanuel Macron took it upon himself to visit China (did he bump into Dan Andrews, per chance?) where, on his return, he tossed  un chat parmi les pigeons with his confusing comments about France not supporting the US in any conflict over Taiwan. This naturally raised the spectre of what could have happened had Australia been drawn into such a conflict whilst relying on French munitions – the French having a rather disturbing habit of disregarding military supplies contracts if they happen to disagree with the client’s political stance.

As Sky News host Andrew Bolt pointed out in a riveting discussion about the wisdom of the new Aukus submarine deal over the cancelled Macron deal, ‘Australia certainly dodged a bullet over that one.’ Or an Exocet, perhaps.

In a series of  interviews with Sky News Outsiders, The Bolt Report, Alan Jones on ADH.TV, Ray Hadley on 2GB and the ABC’s Q&A, Mr Neil was at pains to point out that the Aukus submarines deal – which he describes as the most important military deal so far of the 21st century – was about far more than just submarines, putting Australia right at the heart of the West’s and the Pacific’s most critical military alliances. Which is why he was equally blunt in condemning the decision by the Albanese government to not take up the offer to attend the next Nato meeting in Lithuania, and choosing to send a bureaucrat instead.

Along with Britain joining the Trans-Pacific Trade Pact, announced only a fortnight ago, Aukus makes it clear that, after a lengthy absence, Britain under a Sunak conservative government is keen to re-engage in this neck of the woods. For those who view the role of the Anglosphere as a force for good in an increasingly dangerous world, this new rekindling of old ties is extremely welcome.

Yet, of course, these good news stories were not the ones that dominated the media during our Chairman’s visit. As he quipped to more than one interviewer (why let a good gag go to waste?), ‘When I left Britain the Voice to me was a TV show, by the time I arrived here it was a constitutional showdown’.

Perhaps Peter Dutton, who graces our front cover this week in fine fettle, has simply been biding his time these past twelve months waiting for Mr Neil to arrive before finally agreeing to take this magazine’s advice and say No to the Voice. Whatever the case, it was welcome news when Mr Dutton did what we always had faith he would do, and put the Coalition in opposition to the referendum question. In thisweek’s magazine, three of our top writers explore that decision and its ramifications.

But it was during an appearance on the ABC’s Q&A that our distinguished foreign visitor got to enjoy first-hand the depths of animosity towards the mother country from certain impassioned supporters of the Voice, with one agitated indigenous activist accusing the British monarchy and empire of everything from child-snatching to genocide. Any sense that for the descendants of the original inhabitants of this island continent, the benefits of British colonialism far, far outweigh the relatively few tragedies and atrocities that regrettably did occur during settlement was clearly not up for debate. Nor indeed was anything to do with questioning the constitutional wisdom of the Voice. A highlight of the show was when Mr Neil inquired of his slightly bewildered ABC host why there weren’t any No advocates on the panel.

Despite nodding in polite agreement, it did appear to come as something of a surprise to the assembled luvvies that there might actually be people out there who are not in favour of the Voice. Yet, in spite of that, his remarks were greeted with enthusiastic applause from the audience, as were his comments more broadly encouraging dissenting opinions in preference to stifling consensus. We shall hold our collective breath to see if the message gets through to the bosses at Ultimo.

Yet after two frenetic weeks in Australia, the key concern Mr Neil expressed on day one about the Voice to Parliament remains: namely, why is Prime Minister Albanese so stubbornly refusing to answer any of the legitimate questions about the Voice and the scope of its powers?