“The scope of the voice is its strength,” said one of its Indigenous architects, Megan Davis. The Voice is racist. It is flawed, divisive — inserting race into the constitution. It would destroy the People’s constitution which is for ALL Australians and replace it with a Politicians’ constitution.
The problem with the Voice is what is being hidden from the public: the power being created and how that power changes our system of government. The ‘Yes’ campaign has no basis for its argument that the powers being created won’t be used and in trying, it is deceiving Australians. There is no doubt that past governments have failed aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ needs despite spending billions of dollars. Since 2018, there have been 19,000 grants given to 300 indigenous corporations for aboriginal purposes, at a grand total of $11.5 billion. The grants and other funds directed at these issues are not closing the gap. Where has this jaw dropping amount of money gone? It is in fact the aboriginal industry that is entrenching this gap to our national disgrace. Billions already spent and billions more to run the Voice.
No one should be surprised that the Native Title legislation’s preamble is littered with references to the Voice’s roots, the globalist United Nations. The Voice would further entrench aboriginal disadvantage, promote victim mentality and sow further division.
The public has turned against the Voice in spite of concerted efforts by government and their corporate sponsors to force compliance.
The PM initially said if people reject the Voice, he would not rule out legislating it into parliament instead. What is the point of a referendum, if politicians will not listen?
I will be voting no!
Transcript
Tonight my remarks go to the path ahead. I serve my home state of Queensland, which is made up of many different people. Some came here first, others were born here and others have come here since. With the Voice referendum legislation decided, the cohesion of our Queensland community is threatened by the most divisive government initiative since the Vietnam War if not ever. Never has this country seen an issue that splits Australians right down the middle, where the vote will be won or lost on just a handful of votes in a handful of states. With the vote so close, every Australian must act with caution. Sadly—tragically—I see no sign that that is to happen. I’m deeply concerned that in the months ahead emotion will be deliberately triggered to leverage the emotional response for votes, which will continue hiding deeply troubled absent details. There will be appeals to fear and there will be shaming on both sides. These are evident now, and the campaign has not yet been called.
Above all else there will be disinformation, which will occur because the Prime Minister refuses to reveal the details of the Voice. By details, I don’t mean the discussion document and the Uluru Statement that are legally irrelevant to the practical application of the Voice. Those documents do not form part of the vote and will not inform a legal challenge to a voice provision should one occur. I mean the legislation that will set out how the Voice will work in practice. If the implementing legislation is presented before the vote then without a doubt the High Court will hold the government to that legislation—no more, no less. That is why the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, will not release it. The less detail revealed, the more discretion the Prime Minister will have to introduce a woke political agenda under the cover of implementing the Voice, an agenda that will fundamentally reshape Australian society.
Don’t take my word for it! Listen to the words of voice architect professor Marcia Langton who only last week said:
People who are opposing (the voice referendum) are saying we are destroying the fabric of their sacred Constitution. Yes, that’s right, that is exactly what we are doing.
I find it difficult to reconcile the words of the architect of the Voice, Professor Langton, with the words of Prime Minister Albanese, who called his proposal ‘modest’. Destroying the fabric of our nation’s Constitution modest? I thank Professor Langton for her candour, and I criticise the Prime Minister for his lack of candour, his cover-up, his deceit. Not that Professor Langton spoke truthfully out of a higher regard for the fundament principles of peaceful discourse—in fact, far from it. In 2019 Professor Langton said:
It would be terribly unfortunate for all Australians if the debate sinks into a nasty, eugenicist, 19th century-style of debate about the superior race versus the inferior race.
Who’s doing that? Who’s saying Aboriginal Australians do not deserve equal representation and do not deserve the same access to opportunity as anyone else in this country? Who’s saying that those on the no side desire less for Aboriginals than they do for any other Australians. No-one is saying it; that’s who—no-one. Those words in and of themselves inject a level of vitriol that the speaker has claimed is coming from the no side. Those comments invite hatred and violence against the no side. Those comments tell everyone who Marcia Langton is, not who we are. Labels and slurs are the refuge of the ignorant, the dishonest and the fearful. They reveal a lack of solid data, facts and logical argument.
I’m concerned that the hatred we are seeing from some in the yes case must lead to violence. I call on the Prime Minister to call out the personal attacks and restore stability to the debate coming from the yes advocates. It is a fundamental principle of One Nation that Aboriginals together with all who are now in this country must be treated fairly and offered equality of opportunity. Anyone who seeks to minimise, to harm, to malign, to deprive those who were here first has no place in One Nation. I implore all Australians to remember the golden rule of free speech, which is this: just because you can say something does not mean you should. I implore both sides to consider your words. Consider your memes and your signs at the rallies, which will no doubt occur. Consider that on the other side of this referendum we will still be the same country composed of the same people, and we will all need to get along. To use an old saying: least said, soonest mended. This advice was first seen in writing in the 1606 literary classic Don Quixote. Ironically, like the Voice, Don Quixote is a cautionary tale of a man who does not see the world as it is but rather as he needs it to be, in order to justify his doomed quest to vanquish imaginary enemies for his own ego. One Nation will continue to advocate for measures that actually raise Aboriginal Australians up, through the provision of basic services, jobs and, above all else, opportunity.
Its something I will not be voting “yes” for and for one reason and one reason only.
I am fed up to the back teeth with the bulldozer attitude against the Indigenous, give them a Voice and will it be heard? No way. The Indigenous are being led like sheep to do the bidding of the Government.
If and I repeat “IF” the Indigenous were to have a real voice they would have the final say on
1. Adani’s coal mine – tell Adani to get off their land.
2. Piss off the Tamboran fracking the Beetaloo Basin which has been ongoing for over a decade. Then the Indigenous could answer expediently as to whether to frack or not, which Minister Plibersek is still doing her indecisive dance for over 12 months.
3. Frequent permits to log virgin areas. And if cleared under the radar, the perpetrator gets a gentle slap on the wrist in fines and told not to be a naughty boy. Then the Government has the audacity to blame the CO2 from the trees and effectively wants them removed by hook or by crook.
Sadly this Government and former ones are all deadheads without any brains. You NEVER mine, frack etc where there is underground water supply for people or stock – only idiots sh!t in their own nest!
Here’s a fact and proof we have deadheads in Government – they did not go to school where they could actually learn something constructive. Trees give off Oxygen for us, and we give off CO2 for trees. The smart and intelligent move, which I might add is sorely lacking in the deadhead departments, would be to plant thousands upon thousands of trees that would absorb all or most of the CO2 for us and also increase oxygen levels for us.
But while this Government keeps butt kissing the USA and its Elitist group (Schwab, Fauci, Gates,Rockerfella, Rothschild) we will never be the great nation as we were in the 1960’s. We are doomed to be ruled by USA idiots and our stupid Government doesn’t have any ballz to say F… Off we rule Australia not the WEF, WHO, CDBC, etc.
Send me a bill now, as I am not voting for any one – not for referendums, or state or Federal. Had a gut full of useless idiots. Send in someone with a vision for the Australian people and for this country to rise above the rest of the world, and someone who has some guts to say to the USA – F…Off!
Has there ever been a qualitative assessment of what was achieved with the 11.5 billion?
Every Australian Government be it state or federal should have an aboriginal representative appointed by a popular vote amongst aboriginals, to address at a fundamental level issues of concern to aboriginals.
I agree that this should have nothing to do with the constitution. That’s nonsense, divisive and destabilising to the fabric of society.
Other countries have had an indigenous representative to parliament for a very long time and there are no problems with it, such as NZ, so it is nothing new.
I do disagree with your position on the voice, however as always you do so with respect and good faith as is proper in genuine debate. Please call out the racist elements in the debate about the voice. Particularly the so called jokes, they are racist and very objectionable.