Liberals dig in on Voice doubt, ahead of special party room debate

Two parents digging in with both sides believing they are right over the referendum. And both sides are doing their best not to listen to each other.

Julian Leeser, who could be mum in this exercise or Uncle Julian, has accused the other side of "mucking" up this year's referendum and not having "any substantive engagement" with the government over achieving consensus.

Anthony Albanese is full of "politeness", he told the National Press Club, but he is not being real. He thinks he knows best. Well, Dad, or the Prime Minister, has charged back that there are no signs of any bipartisanship, and no suggestions of changed wording.

"What I see is an attempt to undermine the prospects of a successful referendum when we know that it's hard. I've reached out," he said.

Won't someone think of the children?

The shadow attorney-general and opposition spokesperson for Indigenous Australians is in a difficult position. All the parliamentary Liberals are in that boat after the weekend Aston byelection drubbing, but Mr Leeser is more than a passenger on the Voice proposal.

He supports the idea and has been an active participant for more than a decade, helping out constitutional conservatives get on board, ensuring the proposed words have meaning.

But now, with endless speculation over the Liberals' position on the Voice and the apparent drift towards a "no" position, Mr Leeser is throwing up new doubts and challenges. He is proposing that the current course be changed. Perhaps, he hinted, not this year.

"We have always taken the view that the worst thing that could happen is to put a referendum and it fails, particularly given the sensitivities," he said.

And, if that happens, whose fault will that be? "This is the Prime Minister's process," Mr Leeser said.

There's a charge now of Mr Albanese "abandoning" the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process, the Calma-Langton process. And he has pulled out the Calma-Langton recommendation for a push for local and regional Voices to deal with local problems, while the Voice to Parliament has a presence in Canberra. "Ideally, the local and regional voices would have been rolled out and road tested before any national voice," he said.

He also has a problem with, and wants gone, the suggested symbolic opening and the "lead in the saddlebag" second clause where the Voice may make representations to the executive government of the Commonwealth, saying it is open to judicial interpretation.

None of this appears to be flying with the Prime Minister.

"If not now, when?" Mr Albanese posed yet again, trying to appeal to Mr Leeser's history with the Voice.

"I say, you're guaranteed to not advance it if you don't put it."

Mr Leeser said a Liberal party position may be, but is not a definite outcome, when a special party room meeting is held on Wednesday. The Nationals, very early on, were flatly opposed.

READ MORE:

All roads appear to be headed towards a "no" advocacy position for the entire Coalition, no matter the moral and political consequences. But there are a significant number of Liberals who support the Voice and have reservations about the wording and want a bone thrown their way. This is about the freedom to campaign "yes" or "no".

The wording has to be "safe and secure" when the Australian people have their say.

The Aston byelection loss has shown the Liberals are having a lot of trouble listening to the community. Now it is asking to be listened to.