Guess what! The Liberal party in Victoria and its leader John Pesutto have actually shown some backbone, principle and commitment to preserving the proper constitutional way of doing things! I know it sounds scarcely believable, but it is true. And they deserve to be given credit for doing so, even if only for being better late than never.

But what is this remarkable comet that has burst on the political firmament like Halley’s Comet? The party has decided to abandon its commitment to an Aboriginal treaty in Victoria. But why did it ever support it? The Spectator Australia was the first journal to oppose this so-called treaty from the beginning, just as we opposed the Voice from the beginning. We pointed out that the treaty was fraught with defects so fundamental that it should never be supported in any shape or form, being as it is, another race-based policy for a minority hell-bent on obtaining power. And the Liberal party should never have made the encouraging noises of support it has given the treaty since the 2022 Victorian state election. We argued against it at the time, were ignored and the party continued its lame subservience to the fundamental flaws in the proposal, just as it gave token nods to the ever-expanding Aboriginal industry, especially when the Voice was paid for and urged on by Frydenberg’s millions for its so-called design. Like all deathbed conversions, it has got none of the credit it could have harvested had it opposed the treaty from its inception, and it has received, instead, criticism and abuse for now opposing it. But at least, the party has had a deathbed conversion and, for this relief much thanks.

Well, what is wrong with the treaty?

First, treaties are between one government and another and are supposed to regulate relations between them. They are important because they contribute to a more civilised and peaceful world and should be preserved as such. They are not between a government and itself or a group of individuals who simply want the power and handouts they cannot achieve through normal democratic means, which is what the Aboriginal treaty clearly is about.

This leads to a particular vice in the Victorian treaty, soon to be copied in other states. In Australia, treaties are the province of the federal government, the government of the whole of Australia, and they declare our national identity and what the nation as a whole wants to aspire to. They have nothing to do with state governments and guilt-ridden state politicians who want to assuage their confected shame by entering into a treaty to promote the latest race-based fashion with the requisite degree of wokeness.

Second, as with the Voice, we said that the treaty proposal was being worked up by bodies that are essentially (a) race-based and (b) unelected in any sense in which that expression is understood. The so-called First Peoples Assembly of Victoria which calls the shots on the pseudo-treaty is simply working up a wish list of what the apparatchiks of this industry demand. It does not even pretend to be elected in the normal way in which elections are conducted. Rather, its members are ‘chosen by our community’. It is unabashedly brazen in asserting its basic demand, which is to ‘transfer power from Government to Community’. It has set up a Treaty Making Authority to negotiate the treaty, exclude the powers of the elected government and free it from budgetary control. It is, again, a separate parliament and only for one race.

Third, the state treaty may have sprung from Victoria, but it will not stop there. The Albanese government is still wedded to the holy trinity of Voice, Treaty and Truth-telling and all the indications are that we will now see a renewed push for the treaty, especially if it gets up in Victoria. So this new challenge has come in the wake of the Voice debacle and is a new challenge for the federal Coalition. That is why we said that the federal Liberal party should have put its foot down from the moment a state-based treaty was mooted and declared that if the Coalition ever came to power, it would declare void any so-called state treaties that were on the books.

Fourth, we all know what the treaty will contain: money, hand-outs, land rights, obstructing development projects, promoting ‘cultural heritage’ and seizing ‘political power’. And who knows what bizarre projects will come under the heading of removing the so-called ‘racist legacies of invasion’?

But at least the decision by the Liberals to reject this destructive proposal has now been made. As expected, the usual suspects have gone berserk at the news. The Age, of course, was quick off the mark and delved into its dictionary of abuse to describe the change of policy as ’disgraceful’, ‘flimflamming’ and ‘crab walking’. But at least the party has made it plain that there is a new and legitimate political issue here to be debated and, hopefully, won.

We argued against this proposal from day one and the Coalition should have made it plain that it would oppose the treaty as much as it eventually opposed the Voice. Now, its responsibility is to oppose this new iteration of the power grab. The Coalition should announce that when in government it will declare the Victorian treaty and any others that are around at the time to be of no effect; that if treaties are to be made in Australia they will be made by the elected federal government and for the entire population, not by a jumped-up self-appointed body and, above all, not just for one race.

Peter Dutton has had victories on the Voice and preserving Australia Day. His rise in the opinion polls shows he is on the right track. He should continue on the same track, despite the abuse he will receive. It is now up to us to support him.