During a parliamentary year, many bills are made into law which have bipartisan support. The danger is to fall into the trap of thinking bipartisanship is healthy for a democratic society.

In March 2023 there will be a state election in New South Wales. Due to the two major political parties’ effective bipartisan position on climate change policy the election is a waste of time. It does not matter who you vote for energy costs will face the same uphill spiral. Neither party is committed to reducing energy prices because both are committed to the insane notion of saving the planet using inefficient renewable energy. Democracy is therefore not given a chance to work.

The same thing happened in last year’s federal election and in state elections in Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, and Queensland.

In Victoria, the Labor government and the Liberal Party promoted identical policies, especially on climate change during their election campaign. Their differences were so subtle that their message was indistinguishable. Due to the bipartisanship approach by the Victorian Liberal opposition, the despotic Andrews government was able to remain in power. The Victorian people had no effective choice and therefore democracy had no opportunity to function.

The Albanese government is one of many governments around the world pledging monetary and material support to Ukraine to assist them in their war against Russia. The reason given for siding with Ukraine is to support democracy. A third world war with nuclear weapons that can potentially kill a billion people worldwide is being risked in an effort to protect that promise of democracy.

In Australia, however, the Albanese government is promoting a change to our constitution which will create an unelected chamber of Parliament based on race and not the vote. This will end democracy in Australia. It is completely disingenuous to try to assist in preserving democracy in a country in eastern Europe when at the same time you are trying to end democracy in your own country, Australia.

On this issue the federal Liberal opposition should steer well clear of any bipartisanship position. They should clearly stand with their coalition partners, the National Party, and declare opposition to the Voice to Parliament on a matter of principle. The principle being to preserve our democracy.

A few weeks ago, I listened to interview Chris Kenny had with Julian Leeson, the Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Mr Leeson said during the interview that he ‘believed in the principle of the Voice to Parliament’. He failed, however, to articulate what he believed the principle of the Voice to Parliament to be. By making that nebulous statement it suggests that the Liberal opposition is taking a bipartisan approach with the government in the hope of creating an unelected race-based chamber in Parliament, ratified by the Constitution.

This is the great failing of the modern-day Liberal Party. They are far too eager to compromise on their principles for bipartisanship. In doing so they are an easy target for their opponents the Labor-Green alliance and the left-wing mainstream media.

The Labor-Green alliance are both unyielding and perversely refuse to compromise on their principles and that is why they are in power today. The modern-day Labor Party principles are made very clear by their leaders.

Prime Minister Albanese wants to end democracy as we know it by introducing a race-based constitutional amendment. Treasurer Jim Chalmers wants to end capitalism as we know it and replace it with capitalism based on equity. He made that clear by his 6,000-word essay which his colleagues laundered as a literary work for the ages. Albanese, Chalmers, and the assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones are committed to changing superannuation laws which no doubt will mean in the long run more people will be aged pensioners with a socialist need for dependency on the government.

The Labor Party and the Greens are committed to saving the planet from the non-existent existential threat of climate change and if it means a significant reduction of the Australian standard of living, that is a small price to pay to save the world. The Greens have no interest in National pride. Their leader, Adam Bandt refuses to stand in front of the Australian flag, but rather stands in front of other flags.

The Labor-Greens alliance manifesto can be summarised in this way. Replace our democratic legal system with a system based on race and identity politics where voting is superfluous. End Australia’s vibrant free enterprise capitalist economic system and replace it with a capitalist system based on equity, or more commonly known as communism. Sacrifice Australian living standards on the altar of climate change. Surrender Australian sovereignty to the World Economic Forum, World Health Organisation, International Monetary Fund, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, and any other new globalist institution which may be popular on the world stage.

It would not be difficult for the Liberal Party in Australia, both federally and in each state to commit to opposing such an idiotic set of principles and support principles such as democracy, free enterprise, capitalism, nationalistic pride and Australian sovereignty.

Promoting such principles without the thought of compromise makes it much easier to stand together on a unified front.

The electorate can then easily identify the different ideologies, be given a choice and true democracy can be provided.

For example, former Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe promotes black sovereignty. The race debate which is fraught with danger confuses and obscures so many political, social and emotional issues. Someone must stand and declare that we believe in the principle of Australian sovereignty for all Australians and leave it at that.

In a country that endorses the concept of free speech, robust debate is a sign of a healthy democracy. Compromise and bipartisanship are a by-product of debate. Never, however, compromise on matters of fundamental principle because in the current political environment you are debating with a wolf in sheep’s clothing.