NO SAYS THE MOB …. AND THE COMMUNISTS ARE EXPOSED

Here are real Blackfellas, hear what they think of their smart arse part Aboriginals so called leaders, and their Referendum and treaties.. Your educated Descendants may learn a thing or two if they listen to this video.    

Please watch and be angry

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0iBi26Jk9c5LN2EwGYMKZkLhrTJp9AH2uGxNGFaEuePDG4RLtYXMiaMJKh8tnuogfl&id=100000206630341&mibextid=Nif5oz

 

---

PAY THE RENT WHITE ees

Is this the sort of dose of Communism that you think Australia needs as a result of distorting the intent of our Constitution?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lRR2x_HZuw

Should we be disturbed when our Prime Minister publicly compliments Mayo on his revolutionary Communist promises to tear down Australia?

Queen Lydia is straight out of our worst nightmare.

Labor’s campaign is designed to transform Australia into a genuinely racist country – virtually a constitutional form of “Apartheid”, with other undeclared sinister objectives to follow.  Fortunately, the Covid-con quarantine gulags have already been built in most Oz states …

It is clear that “The Voice” is a political Trojan Horse using Aboriginal victimhood often created by aboriginal elders) to camouflage their Marxist-Leninist objective to emasculate Australia’s Westminster System, with its rigid separation of powers and replace the Capitalist Free Market with authoritarian Socialist totalitarian governance (as prescribed by the Fabian Society, the WEF, Agenda 2030, Davos,(Bill) Gates of Hell, WHO, etc).

Alistair Pope

I acknowledge and welcome to modern Australia the nomads who managed to survive a harsh existence without inventing the wheel, medicine, pottery or buildings.

I recognise the benefits provided by science, philosophy, construction, British law, fossil fuel energy, increasing CO2 and the enlightened inspiration of the Renaissance.

I respect our leaders, past and present, irrespective of race or origin for providing all modern Australians with tremendous lifestyle advantages through innovations in science, mining, manufacturing technology, medicine and education.

I value the diversity of opinions through freedom of speech enabling the best ideas to rise by enhancing societal cohesion.

I thank our combat level military forces for protecting our freedoms and way of life.

 

---

Vote NO

Albo, take Pensioner Paul Keating’s advice “if you do not understand it and it cannot be explained, then vote

NO

How low has Australia sunk when it considers apartheid, a racist divide and a return to the pre-Stone Age a virtue?  Another political FUBU * in the making.

*- Ask a Commando what it stands for ..

Naturally, we will have to pass our version of the German Nuremberg Race Laws of 1937 to preserve the purity of the new Master Race …

https://twitter.com/TheMilkBarTV/status/1665817033492111361?s=20 

 

I acknowledge and welcome to modern Australia the nomads who managed to survive a harsh existence without inventing the wheel, medicine, pottery or buildings.

I recognise the benefits provided by science, philosophy, construction, British law, fossil fuel energy, increasing CO2 and the enlightened inspiration of the Renaissance.

I respect our leaders, past and present, irrespective of race or origin for providing all modern Australians with tremendous lifestyle advantages through innovations in science, mining, manufacturing technology, medicine and education.

I value the diversity of opinions through freedom of speech enabling the best ideas to rise by enhancing societal cohesion.

I thank our combat level military forces for protecting our freedoms and way of life.

 

---

IMPORTANT “YOU WILL OWN NOTHING”

They are using the “VOICE” to change our lawful CONSTITUTION by using our Indigenous Brothers & Sisters to change everything we own over to NATIVE TITLE under the current Aboriginal Native Titles Act. Under that NATIVE TITLE, NO ONE will have any ownership rights whatsoever under NATIVE TITLE.
The VOICE VOTE will end so that all Private Land Ownership will be handed over in Australia to the WEF/AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT for complete and total control over all of us.

“THE WEF/NEW WORLD ORDER WILL BECOME OUR GLOBAL LANDLORD”

MILLIONS WILL BE OUT ON THE STREETS… Both current Landlords and renters alike. They will have everything confiscated by FORCE!. The business owners will lose their premises.
GLOBALLY OWNED MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS WILL BE EXEMPT…
Think I am joking. Study the difference between NATIVE TITLE and LAND TITLE…
THE END RESULT IS WE WILL ALL END UP THEIR SLAVES, INCLUDING OUR INDIGENOUS BROTHERS & SISTERS.

 

---

THE VOICE – AUSTRALIA’S TROJAN HORSE 💯🇦🇺😳🐴

This is EXACTLY what’s going on…
If this goes through it’s over and we are in deep caca.
This sort of info needs to be seen by EVERYONE.

 

---

PLEASE READ THIS & SHARE TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE

This is the bombshell Albo tried to hide.

 

But now it’s out and every Australian needs to hear it before voting on the divisive Voice.

You know how the PM keeps saying the Voice is a “modest change” to the Constitution?

Well, the real agenda behind his Voice referendum has finally been revealed.

Secret government documents the National Indigenous Australians Agency was forced to release under freedom of information laws say that “any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process” 1.

And what’s in the treaty?

According to these secret documents, it must include a “fixed percentage of Gross National Product. Rates/land tax/royalties”.

The documents explain:

…a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law…

This a direct quote from the secret Voice documents:

“Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it.”

Doesn’t that just tell you everything you need to know?

But it gets worse.

According to these documents, they want to abolish the Australian flag, because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”.

This is why I get so angry when Albo says this is a modest proposal.

What’s modest about forcing you to change your flag or pay a percentage of the entire economy as reparations?

Sounds like a bloody BIG change to me!

Just to be super clear, this is how their plan works:

They enshrine the divisive Voice in the Constitution and it’s there forever.

The Voice forces Australians into a “treaty”.

The treaty means Australians pay a percentage of the GDP – that is, a percentage of the entire nation’s economy – to the Voice … every year.

On top of that, Australians are forced to pay “rates/land tax/royalties” to the Voice.

This is why Albo wants you to think you’re voting on a “modest” change.

Because when Australians find out the truth, there’s no way they’d support it, let alone enshrine it in their Constitution forever.

Yours in unity,

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price

on behalf of FAIR AUSTRALIA

 

---

🇦🇺⚖️ – A sneak peek at what the Voice to parliament will be like 💁‍♂️

 

---

 

---

HOW ABOUT we take the initiative NOW and print this out and letterbox drop to get it out to the unconverted … whose with me on this?

https://twitter.com/Josieamycashman/status/1641063860970098690?s=20

 

---

Reconciliation will die’ if No vote passed, Noel Pearson says

If this were to be so, then perhaps it may be a good thing.  After all, just how much RECONCILIATION is actually enough for people of your ilk and mind set.

Noel Pearson attends the working committee for the Voice to Parliament at Parliament House Canberra. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

• By Paige Taylor , JOANNA PANAGOPOULOS and Tricia Rivera  May 1, 2023

Indigenous voice to parliament yes campaigner Noel Pearson says reconciliation will die if a no vote is passed in the referendum.

What is Mr P saying here?  From the PM down all we have been told it is a MODEST change to our constitution, so it is neither here nor there if it is not accepted by all Australians

“I’ve never been able to conceive of a plan B,” Mr Pearson told the voice joint committee on Monday.

Really, Mr P, you never thought you would not get your own way. That is either an attitude of bigotry or bullying, or both and certainly not democratic. Your way or the highway, eh.

“I think that if fear mongering about it resulted in a no vote, it’d be a complete tragedy for the country, I think. Because I don’t know that you could pick up the pieces after that.

Please, Mr P, if you are not fear mongering from your perspective, then what is it you are doing. What pieces are you referring to in this statement.  DISADVANTAGE ABORIGINAL descendent Australians are still going to need help, because your elite mob have had the reins for decades now and you have achieved nothing other than the squandering of an obscene amount of money. Perhaps the pieces you are talking about are in fact your own ego and that of all your city dwelling elites.

I can only foresee that a no vote would result in an ad infinitum future of protest… And that is a very depressing and horrible outcome.”

You are really blind to your own BULLYING and SCAREMOGERING.  It is perhaps the reason why you and your lot have failed in your decade after decade long control of the Aboriginal Industry.

The Indigenous advocate and lawyer said the nation will “change the minute” the referendum is successfully passed.

Holy mackerel, now you are the great one who has powers akin to God, that is, “follow my way and all will be righted”  

“It’s a simple change, but it’s very profound. And I think the impact of that is going to be absolutely tectonic, it’s going to change the country, and it’s going to change the country in a good way,” he said.

More God like spruik, who do you think you are.

“We have an opportunity to show other than other societies how you can come to terms with this, with these grievances and marginalisation and the legacy of colonialism and so on. We can deal with that. “

Mr P, your logic is bizarre, WITHOUT colonisation this country would still be as it was prior. Said to be tens of thousands of years. A great open space with 500 small tribes of hunter gatherers with a harsh territorial based existence.

Mr Pearson addressed submissions questioning the inclusion of the executive government in the referendum wording, particularly, Jesuit priest Frank Brennan’s suggestion that the voice should be able to advise executive government via ministers only.

Mind numbingly absurd proposition. The contention is that it would be totally harmless for people representing less than 3% of Australian’s, to have direct access (personal / one on one conversations and correspondence) with the Executive Government, when the other 97% of the Australian population, have no such privilege.

“I detect the lack of trust in in the third institution of our Constitution, namely the High Court,” he said.

You bet ya Mr P, there is no confidence / trust in the High Court, on the issue of the VOICE.

If you doubt this, maybe we should have a referendum on that as well.

 

---

‘The Voice’ Stands on Foundations of the Flimsiest Sort – Part 1 of 3

This article is Part 1 of 3. 

I venture to suggest that if the majority of Australians in a majority of states and territories could be persuaded that The Voice amendment to the Constitution would deliver material improvement in the education, health and welfare of indigenous communities in regional and remote Australia, the referendum would be likely to succeed.

The burden of persuasion lies upon the proponents of The Voice. They will not, and will not even attempt to, persuade the Australian community that The Voice will deliver tangible improvement in future education, health and welfare of indigenous communities. Special Envoy for The Voice Senator Patrick Dodson claims that “the 2023 referendum is the best chance we’ve ever had to create structural change that will deliver better outcomes for the First Nations peoples”.

Dodson’s optimism brings to mind Paul Keating’s biographer Don Watson, who sharpened our radar about the use of weasel words: “creating structural change” and “better outcomes” are meaningless phrases. They make us feel better, tell us nothing, and sit more comfortably in a script for the ABC’s comedy, Utopia.

Education & Welfare

There should be no doubt as to the deep reservoir of goodwill in the community about redressing past injustices, improving the dreadful status quo in many indigenous communities and wanting to bring about a future in which we see indigenous Australians performing leadership and mentoring roles in medicine, science, law and engineering to match their extraordinary contributions to the community in sport, music, and the arts more generally.

The disjunction between the demonstrated talents of indigenous Australians between these two spheres is graphic. The dazzling talents and attainments of a Cathy Freeman, an Albert Namatjira or a Gurrumul are largely the product of their DNA. Whereas roles in medicine, engineering, architecture and the social sciences require education and of a high standard for both indigenous and non-indigenous alike. The disjunction can only be resolved by education from early years to adulthood. The 11 existing indigenous federal parliamentarians have each grasped the opportunities of formal education. Perhaps what is most impressive about Noel Pearson’s dedication to Cape York community is his insistence on the primacy of education.

That there is a deep reservoir of goodwill in the community wanting to materially improve the lot of indigenous Australians is a given. It did not take the 1967 referendum to bring this about, but the result was a true reflection of it back in baby-boomer 1967.

Since Federation at least, both government and private welfare bodies including Christian missionaries have, with the best of motives, albeit with some practices we now recognise as ill-conceived, sought to uplift indigenous communities by providing education and massive spending on social welfare.

Despite the success of the 1967 referendum, none of the capacity of both federal and state parliaments to legislate and fund social welfare, the High Court decision in Mabo, the findings of the Stolen Generation Royal Commission, the Rudd Apology or the innumerable Welcomes to Country, have made a tad of difference to the day-to-day impoverished existence of regional and remote aboriginal communities.

The Voice, we are told, will be the panacea for indigenous and non-indigenous alike. For the first time, we are informed, indigenous communities will enjoy a platform where appropriate and effective representations to Parliament and the Executive will now take place. We are assured that The Voice will herald a new golden age unlike anything that has proceeded it in the 225 years or so since white settlement – or, as the Lidia Thorpes of the world would have it, white invasion.

Co-chair of the “Uluru Statement from the Heart” Pat Anderson AO, in her submission to the first day of hearings (April 14, 2023) of the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum, said: “A lot of money, you know better than me, is spent on us, [it] doesn’t get down to where the real needs are; that’s why we need to talk to the government of the day, as well as Parliament.”

It beggars belief that Commonwealth funds devoted to indigenous education and welfare will reach a more appropriate destination by reason of the adoption of The Voice. General though her comments were, one wonders where the funds have been going if other than to where they are truly needed.

Issues on the Ground

Sadly, the marketing of The Voice wildly exaggerates what it might produce. So far, at least, none of its proponents have shown how The Voice will bring about lasting change in the living conditions of indigenous Australians in regional and remote communities. Like Acknowledgement of Country and respect for leaders past, present and emerging, The Voice may serve to salve the social conscience of predominantly white, middle-class Australia, making us feel as if we have (now) remedied past injustices suffered by dispossessed indigenous communities.

To take one current example – the persistent crisis of nightly brawls and violence on the streets of Alice Springs. In February this year, alcohol bans were reintroduced in response to a surge of crime and antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs. At the same time, the Federal Government agreed to provide $250 million in additional funding for central Australia for a raft of measures including youth engagement programs, job creation, improved services and support for on-country learning.

Is it seriously suggested that a government could commit to spending an additional $250 million without first having consulted with indigenous community leaders about what programs needed support?

If there was consultation, then the function of The Voice is already in existence; if there was no consultation, what programs or spending needs other than youth engagement programs, job creation, improved services and support for on-country learning could be identified by the water-divining Voice?

The Voice is built on flimsy foundations; its architecture incorporates a fragile design organised around a series of false premises or unreliable assumptions. The Voice will collapse, sooner or later, under its own weight and that of the bureaucracy it will spawn.

The Prime Minister responded to questions in Parliament about the extent of alcohol abuse and youth crime in Alice Springs: he explained the phenomenon as being “about intergenerational disadvantage. It is about a lack of employment services, a lack of community services, a lack of educational opportunity.”

The Prime Minister did not need The Voice to identify the causes of the chaos in Alice Springs. What particular insights will indigenous leaders offer through The Voice that are different, and better, than the advice already being given by leaders more closely connected with smaller communities? Further, is there any evidence that representations made by indigenous leaders as to what needs to be done in Alice Springs have not been listened to? There is no evidence that should satisfy us that The Voice will serve to improve the health and safety of local citizens there, indigenous and non-indigenous alike. That question has not been addressed by the PM or his ministers.

The Voice is built on flimsy foundations; its architecture incorporates a fragile design organised around a series of false premises or unreliable assumptions. The Voice will collapse, sooner or later, under its own weight and that of the bureaucracy it will spawn. Indigenous consultative bodies left to their own devices do not enjoy an impressive reputation; they have been shown to have an insatiable thirst for resources which the Australian community will ultimately come to resent.

Intended as a display home of reconciliation, the design of The Voice is flawed and in a manner to become a source of mutual discontent and resentment: two “nations” pitted against each other that the Uluru Statement purported to accommodate. Two nations set apart: one “nation” with special privileges protected by the Constitution; the other “nation” not enjoying the same privileges, but who will soon enough come to resent that they are the ones who have created modern Australia and the national character in which indigenous Australians may prosper.

False Premises

One need look no further than the Second Reading Speech of Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, the Explanatory Memorandum and The Voice Bill itself to understand that The Voice embodies several false premises and assumptions.

In his Second Reading Speech, the Attorney-General pointed out that 11 of the 15 Closing the Gap targets set after 2008 remain unfulfilled in 2023 – so that, despite the 1967 referendum, Mabo, the Apology, the successive indigenous advisory bodies (such as the disbanded and discredited ATSIC), massive budget sums dedicated to indigenous housing and other social-welfare programs, the Commonwealth is still failing indigenous communities.

The context for The Voice is, therefore, the failure of white Australia to recognise, to respect and to remediate. The Minister decries the abolition of previous indigenous representative bodies “by a vote in the parliament or the stroke of a Minister’s pen”. What he fails to mention is that the Australian community could no longer abide the funding of dysfunctional bodies such as ATSIC whose performance was characterised more by the squandering of public resources than achieving improved conditions for regional and remote communities.

The Attorney-General explains that, because the Gap will not, on current trajectory, be closed in our lifetimes, it is now time for a new approach. The new approach is to listen. The means of communication and listening is The Voice.

The first premise of The Voice is that only by means of an amendment enshrining The Voice in the Constitution can there be material change in the status quo of indigenous Australians. The premise is false, or at least proceeds upon an unreliable assumption, for there is no demonstrable link between The Voice and the “better outcomes” foreshadowed by Senator Dodson. The Voice guarantees a platform for representations to be made.

Implicit, although not expressed, is that each of the Parliament and the Executive is obliged, in legal terms, to listen, to absorb, to evaluate – but not to accept or accede to. Like the inception of a Charter of Rights, it is another hoop through which decision-makers must pass. Immediately, as a lawyer, I can see more than one avenue of challenging the making of decisions by reason of a perceived failure to honour the terms, if not the spirit, of The Voice. Not that a challenge is bound to succeed; but a challenge is certain to delay. Delay in public administration is a vice, not a virtue.

A Real Voice

A second premise of The Voice is that the aspirations of indigenous Australians have been ignored in public policy and administration – effectively since before Federation in 1900 and ever since. That successive, federal, state and territory parliaments have proceeded to make laws affecting indigenous communities without relevant participation of, or consultation with, representative indigenous leaders, entities or communities is a false premise. Both federal and state governments have for generations sustained bureaucracies whose purpose has been to plan and conduct health and welfare programs for the benefit of indigenous communities. It is an exaggeration to suggest that these bodies have done so without the benefit of consultation and participation by leaders of indigenous communities.

If there are shortcomings with the most recent Northern Territory Government Social Order Response published on November 3, 2022, on account of a perceived failure to listen to indigenous people, then someone might identify what those shortcomings are and how The Voice could be expected to provide different advice from that provided by the Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation.

A third premise of the Bill is that anything short of incorporation of The Voice into the operative parts of the Constitution (rather than merely its Preamble) will mean that there can be no constitutional recognition of First Nations People or of the fact that Aboriginal Australians have occupied the continent for over 60,000 years. This is also a false premise.

Overwhelmingly, the Australian community would welcome an amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution in appropriate words to recognise indigenous prior occupation of the continent. But the Prime Minister has rejected a model wherein the referendum contains two elements: first, the amendment of the Preamble (as propounded separately and in different ways by Father Frank Brennan and Tony Abbott); second, the establishment of The Voice.

Many Australians will vote in favour of both elements; equally many will not; some might reject both. Unnecessarily, the Prime Minister has decided to bet the house by offering only the latter.

 

Paul Santamaria KC is a member of the Victorian and NSW Bars.

 

---

Phillip Thompson OAM, MP – Veteran

April 26, 2023

Let’s walk together as one: Jenna and I believe in equality in all that we do. Race-based Constitutional change puts one person in our marriage above the other, which goes against our entire belief system.
That’s why we’ll be voting NO to The Voice.

 

---

 

---

 

---

Uncomfortable Truth

Where was the voice for those locked in their home for months?

Where was the voices for those who suffered injuries at the hand of health bureaucrats?

Where was the voice for the people who lost their jobs, their livelihoods, their lives?

They don’t care about people. They just care about power and control.

 

---

Let’s make the yes vote the new Bud Light.

They want an indigenous voice so that title can be written into the Constitution… a land grab of epic proportions… as if wiping out bloodlines during death shot crimes wasn’t enough. This will end land ownership where bloodlines would be protected.

 

---

Sovereignty? Why has the government appointed a First Nations AMBASSADOR?

Speeches

Has the government appointed a First Nations Ambassador because they are pushing for a separate sovereign nation to be established for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders?

That’s what many of you have asked. It’s just another example of the push by Government to divide us on race which One Nation will continue to oppose.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and thus today to Senator Farrell. An ambassador is a person sent as the chief representative of his or her own government in another country. Given that you have appointed a First Nations ambassador, does the government believe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are a separate, sovereign nation?

Senator FARRELL: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for your question and your earlier advice about the fact that you were going to ask that question of me. The Albanese government is committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full and embedding Indigenous perspectives, experiences and interests in our foreign policy. Australia’s foreign policy should reflect who we are: home to more than 300 ancestries and the oldest continuous culture on earth.

We have, as you have rightly said, appointed Mr Justin Mohamed as Australia’s first, inaugural, Ambassador for First Nations People. He will lead an office for First Nations engagement within DFAT to listen to and work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Mr Mohamed has worked for decades in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, social justice and reconciliation, in roles spanning the Aboriginal community, government and corporate sectors. Our First Nations foreign policy will help grow First Nations trade and investment. Having had the opportunity to discuss an Indigenous role in trade and investment, it is a significant issue of interest for other countries—and, I might add in that area, tourism as well. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Will you guarantee that the First Nations ambassador, Mr Mohamed, will not make any representations to foreign countries or bodies on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty? A yes or no is sufficient.

Senator FARRELL: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for very helpfully suggesting how I might answer your question! With due respect, I’ll answer it in the way that I would like to and that I think addresses your point quite directly. This appointment is about making sure that Australian foreign policy tells our full story: home to peoples of more than 300 ancestries and the oldest continuous culture on earth. Our projecting this reality
of modern Australia to the world enables us to find common ground and alignment with other countries so we can work together towards the region we want—open, peaceful, prosperous and respectful of sovereignty. First Nations’ connection to the countries of our region goes back thousands of years. They were the continent’s first diplomats and the first traders. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: City based, white-skinned activists imported the term ‘First Nations’ from Canada and installed it in our universities. The term has nothing to do with our Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Given these facts, do you agree that it is insulting to call our Australian Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders ‘First Nations’ and to appoint an ambassador using that term?

Senator FARRELL: I thank Senator Roberts for his question. No.

 

---

“The Voice” is pure racism

Instead of treating people differently because of race and entrenching racism, we need to ensure Aboriginal Australians can access the same opportunities given to all people within our beautiful nation. We are all Australian.

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I propose there should not be a new body called the Voice. The Voice, if a referendum approves, would constitutionally enshrine differential treatment based on skin colour or on identification with a race. I’m completely opposed to introducing such a divisive, discriminatory concept that is racist.

At this stage there has been no detail telling voters how this Voice would be exercised and what obligations would need to be met, nor by whom. Locking the Voice into the Constitution would perpetuate parasitic white and black activists, consultants, academics, bureaucrats and politicians in the Aboriginal industry. It’s known that activists want the Voice to have significant influence on creation of laws. It’s not known how much consultation would be needed before the laws would be made. It’s not known how much it will cost to implement a run. It is clear this detail will not be in the referendum question put to voters.

I’ve travelled widely across remote Queensland and listened to many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, from Deebing Creek in the south, across Cape York and to Saibai Island in the Torres Strait. Few of the people I spoke with or listened to had even heard of the Voice.

Last week I met with a delegation of Aboriginal leaders strongly opposing the Voice because these real Aboriginal leaders say it’s racist. They fear the Voice will divide the community into two distinct groups: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. When they say, ‘In reality we are all Australians,’ doesn’t proposing the Voice admit that the current 11 Aboriginals in federal parliament and the current National Indigenous Australians Agency are failing to represent Aboriginals?

I oppose perpetuating the Aboriginal industry suppressing Australians. Instead of treating people differently because of race and entrenching racism, we need to ensure Aboriginal Australians can access the same opportunities given to all people within our beautiful nation. We are all Australian. We are one nation.

Senator Malcolm Roberts

 

---

AUSTRALIA UNDER ATTACK BY THE UN – Insider Discovers Plot to Use ‘Voice’ to Strip Our Assets!!

https://www.man-up-australia.au/Files/PDFs/Scheming-for-a-New-World-Order.pdf

 

---

Cartoonists are the antenna of the race, they draw what people think .

 

---

HEART FOUNDATION

“ PUMPING the VOICE”

CEO and Board Members or  Leadership Team in HF Speak

The Heart Foundation leadership team brings together experience from commercial, government and charity sectors to lead our fight for all Australian hearts.

David Lloyd – Chief Executive Officer

Professor Garry Jennings AO – Chief Medical Officer

Maree de Bondt – Chief Operating Officer

Chris Miers – General Counsel

Penny Tribe – National Manager – Philanthropy & Development

Erin Bowen – National Manager, Research & Innovation

Peter Thomas – National Manager Public & Local Affairs

Dear David (CEO) and Board Members,

 

Re: USING the HEART FOUNDATION as a POLITICAL PLATFORM for the VOICE

 

Since my heart event in 2021, when I was so blessed to have Professor of Cardiology Doctor Mark Hands on duty at SCGH Perth WA, who got me through that day and every day since, I have been a consistent financial donator to the Heart Foundation. When my heart event occurred, I was on the Prospector to Kalgoorlie. The train was stopped at Northam, I was taken to the Northam Hospital and stabilized as well as possible and eventually started the Volunteer Ambulance journey to SCGH. I was barely conscious when Doctor Hands spoke into my ear and ask for permission to do whatever he could to save me. He is a genius and has been all the time since that day in 2001

 

Extracting from the Heart Foundation (HF) website the following sets out the Federal Governments conditions of operation of the HF.

 

The Heart Foundation is a public company limited by guarantee as are five of the Divisions
(Queens land, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, A Australian Capital Territory ). The other
three Divisions (South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory) are incorporated
associations. The Heart Foundation, and each State and Territory Division, has been
separately endorsed by the Australian Taxation Office as an income tax exempt charity (Item
1.1 charitable institution, subdivision 50 – 5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997), and
as a deductible gift recipient (Item 4.1.1 public benevolent institute ton, subdivision 30 – B of
the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

 

I do not have any categoric knowledge of the overbearing ACT that the HF is required to operate under, but it must be either the Associations Incorporation Act 2015 (the Act), or something along the lines of this ACT.

 

It seems to me that the HF has no charter to be involved in POLITICAL ISSUES in any way, shape or form, and is possibly in violation of the  ACT.

 

You and the board have opened the doors of the HF to be part of an extremely conniving, deceitful, political purpose in BLATANTLY deviating from the HEART FOUNDATION’s specific purpose, to support and promote a community dividing POLITICAL issue.

 

People like myself are so grateful for our beautiful country and the democratic West Minister System of DEMOCRACY that we all live under in AUSTRALIA. It is a fair and just system run by adherence to the CONSTITUTION.

 

The Australian Constitution is not a play thing for Ideological whims from any Political Parties and Groups that surreptitiously work behind the back of the public to course and force a dangerous change to the Constitution based on the RACE of ONE group of people, within our Commonwealth.

 

To do so, is to insert RACISM into the AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION.  

 

The following hyperlinks are all from the Heart Foundation web site and all will lead you to the devious promotion of the YES vote for the nation dividing VOICE referendum being driven by the Prime Ministers Anthony Albanese’s mantra of “ GUILT”, if one VOTES “NO” in the referendum.

 

About Us | The Heart Foundation

 

National Leadership Team | The Heart Foundation

 

NT Advisory Board

 

WA Advisory Board

 

The above are hyperlinks to the HF web sections and hereunder is the contents in the HF- WEBSITE / PAGES / SECTIONS

 

The Heart Foundation supports the Voice to Parliament

The Heart Foundation supports the Uluru Statement From The Heart and a ‘yes’ vote in the forthcoming referendum on the Voice to Parliament.

At its meeting on March 26, 2023, the Board of the National Heart Foundation agreed with a management proposal to support the Uluru Statement from the Heart and a ‘yes’ vote in the forthcoming referendum on the Voice to Parliament.

The Heart Foundation’s view is principally informed by evidence and data on current inequities in heart health outcomes for First Nations peoples in Australia. 

We note the broad consensus from First Nations communities and leadership on this matter, and the abundant evidence that health outcomes are significantly impacted by the social, economic, and cultural determinants.

We believe The Voice has the potential to address these inequities, particularly by informing the development of relevant policies and services for First Nations peoples.

We acknowledge all Australians, including staff, supporters, and stakeholders of the Heart Foundation, are entitled to engage in respectful expression of diverse views. The Heart Foundation aims to provide an environment in which discussion can take place with good will and in good faith. In this spirit, we appreciate members of the Heart Foundation community may choose to vote ‘no’ in the referendum, and we respect that diversity of view.

 

NOTE: Just in case this propaganda is missed in one section of the HF website it is repeated in each of the following sections:

• Media Releases
• News
• Aboriginal Health
• Heart Disease
• Partnerships

It is astounding that the HF appears not to understand its own position when it comes to the Public of Australia.

We are not all blind puppets of anyone, any organisation, any group or any ideology being relentlessly forced down upon us. We have a right to have an open and honest say on EVERYTHING that impacts our lives and our country.

The HF in my opinion has no right or charter to speak and promote anything that does not fall COMPLETELY within the CHARTER of the HEART FOUNDATION.

It is also my view that the HF by getting involved in this very divisive issue has SHOOT ITSELF in the FOOT.  Consultation with the donating public before any grand standing and virtue signalling may have been a more appropriate path to take.

I owe my life to my CARDIOLOGIST Mark Hands, not to the HF.

I do not intend to donate any further to the HF but I would be very much like to be invited and will certainly attend any HF debate, as referred to in the last propaganda para – The Heart Foundation aims to provide an environment in which discussion can take place with good will and in good faith.

In anticipation of my invitation to any such debate in WA, I am available at any time on any day, please email or tex message me in ample time.

Yours in sincerity,

Peter Billington

0419700405

Dated 17 the April 2023

 

---

Good decision-making requires clarity of mind. 

You will face a big decision in the ballot box later this year. 

This decision will shape our country for generations to come. 

We need clarity on this one, so let me lay it out for you: 

– Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wants to upend 122 years of Australian representative democracy and introduce a new body—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice—into our constitution. 

– Membership will be based on race, and it won’t be directly accountable to the Australian people through elections. 

– It will have a say on the laws passed in our Parliament and also decisions made by our government. 

The Voice will affect your life, and you won’t even get a say. 

Think of the Voice as the equivalent to the British House of Lords—where your family and connections matter more in getting ahead than your own hard work. 

That doesn’t sound like modern Australia to me. 

That’s why I’ll be voting NO in the ballot box, and I urge you to do the same. 

Here are two straightforward reasons to vote NO:

1. The Voice strikes a blow at fairness and equality.

Australia is the land of the ‘Fair Go’, where migrants can settle and get ahead by hard work.

The Voice will undermine equality of citizenship by creating special privileges and rights for one group of people over the rest of Australians.

This will damage our social cohesion.

2. The Voice will undermine our representative system of government.

It will have a say on all our laws. It will have a say on all government decisions—from submarines to parking tickets. It will have a greater say than the rest of us.

Our system has been tested over the last 122 years—through two world wars, a constitutional crisis and the recent pandemic. It’s not perfect, but it does the job.

The Voice will fundamentally change it—for the worse. There will be less accountability, more bureaucracy and more special interests than ever before. 

That’s why I’m voting NO.

It is down to us to protect the good things we’ve inherited, and that means stopping Anthony Albanese changing our shared rule-book. 

I’ve made a short video—click on the link below if you’d like to watch it.

Regards

Andrew Hastie
http://www.andrewhastie.com.au/

 

---

INTENTION of the VOICE – Scary Stuff

Pauline Hanson claims secret note reportedly found at Canberra cafe reveals 11-point Voice ‘agenda’

The national Indigenous body has flatly denied it is behind an alleged Voice document that Pauline Hanson claims was found at a Canberra, cafe.

‘Disgraceful’: Aboriginal elder slams the Voice

Referendum lies to be called out

‘People in Alice Springs Going to get killed’: Dutton’s grim warning

The national Indigenous body has flatly denied it is behind an alleged document that Pauline Hanson claims outlines a radical 11-point plan for the Voice to Parliament.

The One Nation leader told the Senate on Wednesday she was handed the note, which has not been verified, by a concerned member of the public who claimed it was found at a cafe in Canberra.

“It disturbed me greatly,” Ms Hanson said. “I’m trying to say to people… understand if you give this the yes vote, this is what you could be opening yourself up to.”

The document outlines a number of radical proposals such as “job quotas” with a “minimum 10 per cent appointments” of First Nations people for roles including judges, magistrates, Australian Defence Force officers and state and federal police, among others.

It also suggests “no entry tests” or university fees, first preference for all public housing, and “all beaches and national parks to be property of the relevant tribe” with “non-First Nations people to be charged” for their use.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), a government body aimed at improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, has denied involvement in the creation of the plan.

Ms Hanson claimed NIAA staff members who were discussing the document at the cafe. The note Pauline Hanson claimed was found at a Canberra cafe.

It was headed “Early Action / Opportunities for the Voice”.

 

“If the Prime Minister is aware of these initiatives set out by the NIAA, it would appear that Mr Albanese continues to mislead the Australian people over the extent of powers given to the Voice to Parliament,” Ms Hanson told the Senate.

In a statement to The Daily Mail on Friday, the NIAA said it “is not and has not” been drafting an ”early action/opportunities” plan for the Voice.

The alleged letter shared by Ms Hanson stated that income tax for First Nations people should be cut by 50 per cent.

It also proposed reducing the age eligibility requirement for the pension “because we die younger”.

In addition, it proposed reducing entry fees for sport and music events on public land for First Australians by 50 per cent. Traditional owners would also be given ownership of rivers and streams, enabling them to charge fees for water consumption and generate revenue from mining royalties.

The Voice would also aim to review and approve all new liquor licenses and ensure that Voice staff receive the same salary as the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Ms Hanson expressed increasing “anxiety” after receiving the correspondence.

She has previously lashed out at a proposal that could see Australians pay “rent” to traditional landowners, labelling the idea “outrageous” and “offensive”.

The Pay The Rent initiative proposes a weekly payment from non-Indigenous homeowners to a “Sovereign Body of First Nations people” who will decide where the money is allocated without government input.

The body, which is driven by the motto “saying sorry isn’t enough”, hopes to turn the scheme into an organisation that encourages all Australians to “honour the legacy of the Elders” by giving back to the land through monetary donations.

“It is a somewhat more just way of living on this stolen land,” its website states.

Aboriginal rights activist Robbie Thorpe, who ran a similar scheme in Melbourne in the 1990s, has suggested one per cent of weekly wages be paid to the body.

There are no calls for the race-based “land tax” scheme to be made government policy — although ex-Greens senator Lidia Thorpe has backed the scheme.

It came after the Prime Minister’s emotional press conference where, alongside Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney and members of the referendum working group, Mr Albanese unveiled the question he intends to ask all Australians in a referendum this year.

Australians will be asked, “A proposed law: to alter the constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

As Australians would be aware, the Voice Referendum Machinery Bill. Is in place the
starters gun is in LABOR hands, for what will be an extraordinarily divisive constitutional change where we peg Indigenous Australians against all other Australians.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA), operates within the remit of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

A body of 1,317 bureaucrats, funded to the tune of almost $4.5 billion this financial year, reportedly set up to improve the lives of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The NIAA are an unnecessary, duplication body set up in addition to the roughly 3000 Aboriginal Corporations, all registered under the CATSI Act that also claim to do the same thing.

The DPMC they refer to stands for Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

If the Prime Minister is aware of these initiatives set out by the NIAA, it would appear that Mr Albanese continues to mislead the Australian people over the extent of powers given to the Voice to Parliament.

If on the other hand, the PM does not know about the list, then who from Prime Minister and Cabinet is overseeing the actions of the National Indigenous Australians Agency?

Australians have a right to know the extent of the powers being handed to the Voice to Parliament NOW…. Certainly not whenever this government feels like it.

 

---

 “ Race-Based” change to the Australian Constitution

We are living in an age where controlling politicians hide things not just from the people who elect them, but from their fellow politicians. 

And language has been so corrupted by vested interests pushing their causes, words and concepts which were once simple to understand have become meaningless. 

With this deliberate process the whole history of Australia and its inhabitants has been distorted, enhanced, invented and reinvented to a point that makes it almost impossible for “contemporary” Australians to know the real history and real facts of this land’s past.

The use of the word “contemporary” is my deliberate way to separate the old and real from the new and unreal.

This word “contemporary” is chucked around so liberally and repetitively these days that it can only mean or represent one thing and that is “Of or in the style of the present or recent times; modern.”

It is even used in discussion, documents and papers to differentiate our young current service ADF people from those of the past. The use is such that it implies the Soldier of today is somehow not the same as the Soldier of yesterday.

I am not sure why the term/word is used so liberally in reference to ADF Personnel because the only thing that is REALLY different is the quality and effectiveness of their arms and equipment. The character, dedication, discipline, and bravery are hoped to be no different from that of all of our incredible ANZAC’s that have been and gone before this time, the present.

So, because this term/word is so prevalent, it should resonate with most people out there in the public domain. However, the difference that I would like to portray is that the majority of people today really are “contemporary” (ie: the present / modern people) and unfortunately seem to have lost contact with reality across so many areas and aspects of life and living in this magnificent land of ours, Australia.

Nothing has changed in this vast land for as many years as you choose to select. So let us just pick and say sixty thousand (60,000) years. That is this place is still the same as it has been forever. The only thing about this place is that it has more population than it did 60,000 years ago. Back all that time ago this land supposedly had Indigenous people scattered all over the continent in many small tribes. These tribes were not a collective nation in anyway. There is no proof in any shape or form that the idea of these scattered tribes can be seen as a nation. To make argument and statements of this being a fact is simply not honest or the truth in any respect.

If this is to be seen as the truth, that any peoples/tribes living on the same continent must be taken as a Single Nation, then the same conclusion must be drawn on all the World Continents. That is Africa, Europe, North America, South American etc. and so on, should be regarded as single nations.  But this is not the case and these continents are made of separate countries based on different languages and ways of life.

All of the so called “experts” who pontificate and spruik that Australia was a Nation of Indigenous people prior to any settlement and immigration of others, are not honest and are structuring and presenting their opinion, not a fact.

These people are constantly contriving to drive a wedge between Aboriginal descendant Australians and all other Australians.

It is time for ALL “contemporary” Australians to wake up, sit up and speak up about this and a myriad of other more critical things happening in AUSTRALIA that are all far more important and critical than some referendum about giving a small percentage of our population (less than 3%) power and control over us and AUSTRALIA..

Some CRITICAL things we should be focusing on and all pulling in the same direction to support and insist and tell the Federal Government to put on the top of the IMMEDIATE ACTION pile are:

 

• Defence, Defence, Defence

• Sovereignty, Sovereignty, Sovereignty

• Cost of Living across all areas:
  • Interest rates jumping regularly
  • Power bills out of control
  • Housing availability and rental costs
  • Homelessness
  • Food cost being inflated
  • Critical shortage of Doctors, Nurses, Aged People Carers, Police, Tradespersons, Workers generally

• Crime rates shy high
• Old people being bashed in their homes

• Education at its lowest level ever

• Gross Budget blow outs and wasted spending in/on:
  • Aboriginal Industry
  • NDIS
  • Public Service
  • Foreign Aid
  • Immigration and refugees
  • Bottomless Pit of money being given in Renewable Energy grants and subsidies

All costs and Inflation are being driven up by the blind rush to Renewable Energy at the expense and suffering of the people

 

---

We Tried ‘Voices to Parliament’ and Failed:

We Need to Learn from the Past

By Robin Henry

Foreword

As the Australian Government pushes ahead with a referendum intended to

incorporate a Voice to Parliament for three percent of Australians, nobody is

mentioning that this has been tried before and considered a failure.

This article explains why a Voice to Parliament changing our Constitution won’t

solve the challenges within the Australian indigenous community.

Background

Until a referendum in 1967 that changed our Constitution, Aborigines had been

treated differently from other Australians. They were not counted in a census

and were virtually excluded from everything else to which white Australians

were entitled.

After the referendum Prime Minister Holt established the Council for

Aboriginal Affairs. An advisory body, the Council was comprised of three

eminent non-indigenous people: its Chair Dr H. C. ‘Nugget’ Coombs, Australian

diplomat Barrie Dexter, and anthropologist William Stanner. Later the Office of

Aboriginal Affairs was established.

Changes occurred progressively thereafter with special programs and policies

affecting Aboriginal communities and their residents’ lives for the better.

In 1972 the Whitlam Government created the Department of Aboriginal

Affairs (DAA), ushering in a period of significant Commonwealth expenditure

and programming in Indigenous affairs. ‘Self-determination’ was a key guiding

principle in Aboriginal Affairs policy-making. The policy was later described as

‘one of the most revolutionary policy changes ever enacted in Australian

government policy’.

In 1980 legislation established the Aboriginal Development

Commission (ADC), a statutory authority created in order to rationalise the

operations of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission and the Aboriginal Loan

Commission, two bodies concerned with assets acquisition, in order to help

create commercial enterprises which could earn income for Aboriginal people.

The Commission’s board consisted of 10 Aboriginal members and the new body

intended to employ around 100 Aboriginal employees.

The new legislation also gave statutory recognition of the National Aboriginal

Conference (NAC), which was made up of Aboriginal people elected in 35

electorates across Australia, for the first time. The NAC, which had been

canvassing opinions of Aboriginal people across Australia, would report to the

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on the operation of the Commission.

The NAC was established with the objective of ensuring that Aboriginal

views were taken into account in policy formation and implementation.

Yet another major change occurred in 1989 with the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). ATSIC combined staff from both the DAA and ADA an unlikely match since the former was welfare-focused

and the latter commerce-based.

In 1991 I left my comfortable position as head of a business and computing

department at a Queensland TAFE college for a new challenge. When I accepted

the new role with ATSIC as a senior training officer assigned to the Darwin State

Office, outposted to the Alice Springs Regional Office, I found an organisation

still evolving into something new and unique. DAA and ADA staff brought

together in ATSIC struggled a little while new standard operating guidelines,

policies etc, were still being cobbled together in Canberra’s National Office.

What I also found was a group of individuals all focused on improving the lives of

their indigenous clients. Some had been Australian Government Patrol Officers

in Papua New Guinea and therefore had a depth of knowledge in working with

indigenous people. Others were indigenous. Without exception, they were

willing to work hard to homogenise the new commission and determined for it

to be a success.

From a training viewpoint, I had almost total autonomy and a rich harvest of

skills gaps for which training was necessary. The training budget was excellent,

the commission well equipped, and well-funded, an invigorating change from

the rigours of Queensland TAFE where funding was often difficult to conjure up

and equipment sometimes obsolete or obsolescent. (This statement is not

intended to deride the excellent job TAFE does, purely to highlight the difference

between the State and Federal Government systems).

By comparison, as a new, popular agency, ATSIC was awash with money to feed

its 75-odd programs and administration. For most of the 15 years I spent with

ATSIC, the annual budget was around one billion dollars and it had around 1,000

public servants.

            ——————————————————————————————

As an employee new to Aboriginal affairs despite having spent the late formative years of my life (11-18 years) at Tennant Creek, Northern Territory where I began my insight into Aboriginal society and its interface with white Australia, I had no knowledge of how programs benefitting the ATSIC target group worked or the machinery of Federal Government.

I asked the team leader of one of the Alice Springs Regional Office’s project teams if I could work with him on the start and finish of a typical project. He agreed and showed me step-by- step how an ATSIC project began and ended and all the paperwork in between.

I needed this knowledge to later provide grant and financial management training to staff.

Without going into too much detail, a red area excision (part of a cattle road excised from a cattle station property) had been approved and a family given a grant – generous by any standard – to build two houses and purchase a vehicle for mobility between Alice Springs and their new houses. (This despite both parents and adult children being privileged with public housing and owning several vehicles.)

We had a meeting where the two families selected the house each wanted and decided on the type of vehicle ATSIC would purchase for them. At that time, if I recall correctly, houses in remote areas cost around $400,000. As it was pre-Goods and Services Tax and ATSIC was exempt from what was then sales tax, the vehicle only cost around $30,000.

At the end of the project several months later, the senior project officer and I had a handover meeting to give the keys to the families. When I asked them, “Now that you have these houses, will you move here?” Almost in unison, they replied, “No, we’ll come here when we feel like returning to our country.”

I was dumbstruck. Almost a million dollars of taxpayers’ money had been given to two families for properties that were essentially weekenders. They’d continue to occupy scarce public housing in urban Alice Springs. I wondered if the Australian Government had lost the plot in deciding who was, or wasn’t disadvantaged.

            ———————————————————————————

ATSIC’s Voice to Parliament

There have been numerous attempts to provide an Aboriginal voice. ATSICs

seemed to me sensible, although horrendously expensive and sometimes

wasteful.

ATSIC divided Australia into 35 Regional Council Areas (this was later reduced),

each of which would have an elected chairperson and a designated number of

councillors. These were to be elected people within the respective council areas

and I think from memory each region had 10 councillors.

Each Regional Council was required to develop a Regional Plan which, in

accordance with Section 94 of the ATSIC Act aimed at ‘improving the economic,

social, and cultural status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents of

the region.’ The Plans, developed in consultation with communities, aimed to

identify funding priorities in each region, which ensured Councils a direct input

into the ATSIC budget process.

I was involved, with other training staff training councillors within the Northern

Territory about the regional planning process; what it was, how it worked, and

what needed to be done. My team and I later ran workshops with several

Regional Councils to help them develop their regional plans as it was unfamiliar

territory for them and interfacing with the government processes challenging.

In time, every Regional Council had a plan – a voice to Parliament. A copy of the

Alice Springs Regional Council Plan is attached below as an example.

ATSIC’s programs provided a plethora of opportunity and after decades of

bureaucrats making decisions in airconditioned, Canberra offices, and imposing

them on Aboriginal communities, for the first time, a bottom-up approach had

been implemented – a Voice to Parliament!

Why I Will Vote ‘NO’ for a Constitutional Change and Why You Should Too

In my view, the only thing the Constitution Act 1901 needs in relation to our

indigenous minority is a sentence that acknowledges them as the pre-European

occupants of the Australian continent. They deserve that and it’s risk-free.

I’d vote for that in a heartbeat.

Unfortunately, PM Mr Albanese and his Labor Government want to enshrine

something that has the potential to divide our society even more and cost

hundreds of millions of dollars with no likely significant outcome for

communities.

Why do I say that? I’ve seen it so often; bureaucrats, politicians and Aboriginal

groups are very good at endless discussions and collaboration that are all

interesting, but history suggests very little eventuates other than a stack of

reports, to improve the lives of traditional Aboriginal people in communities.

I predict that if the Voice is passed, legislation will be enacted that provides roles

for a select group of largely well-heeled part-indigenous participants who live

happy, comfortable suburban lives, probably in capital cities. There will be

regular “talkfests” with airfares, conference, accommodation, salaries or sitting

fees, and associated expenses followed up by endless ‘reports’ while domestic

violence, crime, unemployment, sexual offences, lack of schooling, and other

problems endemic to many of our remote communities continue unabated.

My essential objections are:

1. There are 11 elected Members of Parliament who identify as being

indigenous, a disproportionate number in relation to the target

population. Their job is to provide a Voice to Parliament for all Australian

constituents and they are paid exceptionally well to do it

2. There are now hundreds, if not thousands of voices from an abundance of

land councils, government agencies both federal and state, committees,

well-intentioned groups, and individuals all providing input about

indigenous affairs

3. I don’t trust the Australian Government to meddle with our Constitution in

such a delicate matter. Governance in Australia at all levels is at an all-

time low, with habitual and invariable political correctness and wokeness

from minorities dictating decisions – the outcome could be a disaster

4. Any additional special Voice to Parliament can be affected by legislation

and Mr Albanese has already said this will be done whether the

referendum is passed, thus we don’t need a referendum or

Constitutional change

5. We already divide our society into “them and us” by providing race-based

programs, policies, and opportunities. Further division will be unhelpful if

we are ever going to reconcile our differences and become one nation

 

6. If legislation is enacted to provide a Voice to Parliament, it can be readily

amended or repealed more easily than anything enacted in our

Constitution

7. The money being spent to hold a referendum could best be spent doing

something positive in remote Aboriginal communities, and finally,

8. We already know what challenges face traditional Aboriginal people and

their communities. We don’t need more discussion, we need governments

to make decisions, no matter how difficult or unpopular, that will achieve

outcomes. Talking hasn’t done it before and it won’t now.

            —————————————————————————–

When you get right down to the root meaning of the word “succeed,” you find it

simply means follow through.

FW Nichol

            ———————————————————————————–

About the author

Robin Henry has a background in the RAAF, policing, and in adult education and

training management. He spent 15 years with ATSIC, most as Staff Development

and Training Manager for the Northern Territory offices. His duties for much of

that time included Regional Council training. In the last 12 months when the

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services department temporarily assumed

ATSIC’s responsibilities, he was reclassified as Senior Development Officer and

managed all areas of Human Resources for three Regional Offices in Central

Australia. When ATSIS was abolished, he was transferred to the Department of

Families and Community Services from which he later received a voluntary

redundancy while working as a lecturer at the Higher Colleges of Technology, Al

Ain, United Arab Emirates.

He is now retired.

Bibliography

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliam

entary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/IndigenousAffairs1#_Toc293318914

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_government#Indigenous_affairs

https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/social_justice/sj_report/sjr

eport05/pdf/sjr-app02.pdf

            ———————————————————————————-

ATTACHMENT

Example Regional Plan –

Alice Springs Regional Council

Alice Springs Regional Council:

Policy Statements

Equitable Access to Resources

Providing Adequate Housing: Ensure there is an adequate supply of housing

for Aboriginal people in the region, with Aboriginal control and management of

the whole of the system of housing provision and management.

Strategies: Achieve adequate funding; seek delegated funding under Aboriginal

control; ensure housing needs are met; provide special housing for chronically ill

and elderly people; achieve appropriate housing design; include essential fittings

in housing design; ensure housing is maintained; strengthen housing management

capacity; promote Aboriginal home ownership.

Achieving Good Health: To shift the provision of health resources into localities

where people are living, placing much more emphasis on preventative health

measures and achieving a good quality of life.

Strategies: Decentralise health services to where people are living; target funding to

where people are living.

Putting Appropriate Infrastructure in Place: Ensure that people in the region

receive resources to meet essential requirements for water, power, sewage,

transport and communications.

Strategies: Plan for infrastructure provision in priority areas; ensure appropriate

standards for infrastructure provision; evaluate the impact of billing arrangements;

document inequitable service provision; increase community capacity for maintaining

infrastructure; improve transport services.

Promoting Social and Cultural Well-being: Ensure program resources are

directed to promoting social and cultural well-being, reinforcing culture as a

source of strength.

Strategies: Promote provision of community based recreation facilities; improve

management of major sporting events; promote provision of appropriate cultural

facilities; provide services which will improve social support for young people;

improve management of substance abuse; provide facilities and services for families

visiting Alice Springs; improve access to legal aid services; improve support for people detained in custody; provide improved rehabilitation for Aboriginal prisoners.

Building a Strong Indigenous Economy

Promoting Aboriginal Management of the Indigenous Economy: Increase

the benefit to Aboriginal people arising from economic activities in the region.

Strategies: Identify regional economic opportunities; provide greater Aboriginal

input to design and funding of mainstream employment and training programs.

Controlling the Flow of Money: Keep money in local and regional circulation,

and to replace imported goods and employees with locally produced goods and

Aboriginal workers.

Strategies: Identify the way that the regional economy works; improve economic 305

benefits for the regions Aboriginal community; make effective use of purchasing

power.

Creating a Sustainable Investment Framework: Direct Aboriginal investment

funds into projects which will deliver sustainable ongoing benefits.

Strategies: Increase sustainable land investment; encourage investment in resources which have sustainable value over time.

Encouraging Mainstream Employment: To increase the proportion of

Aboriginal employees within the public and private sectors.

Strategies: Increase government recruitment of Aboriginal staff; assist Aboriginal

people make the transition to employment.

Developing Aboriginal Businesses: Providing support for growth of viable and

sustainable enterprises.

Strategies: Assist CDEPs to launch enterprises; provide support for Aboriginal tourism ventures; support Aboriginal arts and crafts; promote viable rural industries; increase Aboriginal participation in the construction industry; improve access by Aboriginal business to funding assistance; provide business incubation facilities.

Making Use of Indigenous Skills: Encourage appropriate employment of those

people with existing skills, and ensure that Aboriginal people receiving training

are able to put their new skills to good use.

Strategies: making use of skills; linking training and employment.

Building the Capacity of our People

Community Access to Appropriate Training: Ensure that training provision is

well geared to the need for skill development in local communities.

Strategies: Improve the delivery of primary and secondary school education; Assess

local adult training needs; improve bus services for people attending school and

training course.

Effective:Staffing of Community Organisations Increase the performance

of community organisations through a process of taking action against poorly

performing staff, recruiting high performing staff and increasing the recruitment

and promotion of skilled Aboriginal people.

Strategies: Take action against poorly performing staff; recruit and retain high

performing staff; replace non-Aboriginal staff with Aboriginal staff over time;

encourage community organisations to seek peer support.

Promoting Effective Management: To encourage the adoption of culturally

based best management practices in community based organisations.

Strategies: Promote management skills amongst staff and Board members; share

management experience.

Local Government Structures: To ensure that local governments can provide

for needs of clients, and that they can benefit from equitable access to

resources.

Strategies: Promote more effective funding of community councils; ensure that

communities are not forced into inappropriate local government arrangement.

Representation within the Public Service: Increase Aboriginal employment at

all levels within public services.

Strategies: Support Aboriginal people obtaining and retaining public service jobs.

Community Based Data Collection: Place an improved and coordinated

system for data collections in the control of local communities, and to ensure

that the data collected addresses issues of importance to Aboriginal people.

Strategies: Design a framework that supports the development of a coordinated data

collection framework; develop local data collection skills; devolve responsibilities

– hand over control of local data collection to local communities.

Strategic Planning at the Local Level: To set clear priorities for planning

activities that will deliver benefits for Aboriginal clients.

Strategies: Fund the preparation of specific community plans.

Moving Towards a Regional Agreement

Representation in Decision Making: To increase the level and effectiveness of

Aboriginal participation in decision making or advisory bodies.

Strategies: Ensure that there are potential recruits to boards and committees; select

capable people as members; assist the election of capable people to decision making bodies; increase Aboriginal representation on agencies of strategic significance to the region.

Multi-Regional Funding: To identify those agencies which provide services

across regional boundaries and to collaborate with other regional councils to

provide appropriate funding.

Strategies: Identify potential recipients of multi-regional funding.

Developing Common Zone Strategies: Develop a common approach to

meeting community needs across regional boundaries within the zone.

Strategies: Develop a framework for collaboration; identify priorities for adopting a

common zone approach; implement shared strategies.

Moving towards Regional Control: To take incremental steps towards greater

regional autonomy through development of regional agreements.

Strategies: Develop regional services agreement; increase delegations to the region;

establish the basis for the agreement.

Further information: This Regional Plan was extracted from a Human Rights

Commission report and full details of all Regional Plans created are available at

the link above.

QED

 

---

Tail Wagging the Dog in Australian Sport

In the past year or so we have witnessed the height of arrogance in Australian Sport, with Players. Ex-players and club Associates dictating to the Sport or Club Management who will be allowed to sponsor their game and on what grounds.

PAT CUMMINGS

Pat Cummings the Australian Cricket CAPTAIN, not long after his appointment  created a massive sponsorship headache for Cricket Australia by refusing to participating in advertisements for Alinta Gas, because of his GREEN attitude to fossil fuels. 

Pat Cummins has confirmed he will no longer appear in advertisements for Cricket Australia’s major sponsor Alinta Energy. Picture: YouTube/Alinta Energy

Cricket Australia is on the hunt for a new major sponsor after parting ways with Alinta Energy, soon after reports emerged Pat Cummins had opted out of participating in advertisements for the company.

Announced as Australia’s new ODI captain on Tuesday, Cummins was quickly asked about his thoughts on the sponsorship ending in light of his own increasing environmental activism.

CA and Alinta Energy have announced the partnership formed in 2018 will come to an end in 2023, with Cummins taking advantage of a contractual clause that allows him to step away from promotional commitments after two years as the ‘face’ of Alinta, The Australian reported.

The sponsorship arrangement has been reportedly worth some $40 million to CA over the duration of the four-year partnership with Alinta.

In that time, Cummins has launched the Cricket for Climate, an initiative aiming to equip local cricket clubs with solar energy panels – though he was criticised for his timing in doing so two days before former coach Justin Langer was sacked by CA.

Cummins has appeared in numerous ads for Alinta Energy since the beginning of their partnership in 2018, however CA has knocked back suggestions the captain’s lobbying to ensure the sport reduces its environmental impact was a factor in the recently announced split.

While Cummins told reporters he had not put pressure on CA to end the deal, he said players have a role in deciding which organisations they want to be associated with.

“It has always been a balance,” he said.

“We have seen certain players make decisions based on religions, or certain foods they eat, where they won’t partner with specific partners.

Netball Player NORER – nee KAYTON

Then there is a relic past player named Norder (nee Layton), who played 46 times for Australia and skippered the team in 2017, calling on the governing body to “do better” than accept money from Gina Rinehart, whom she called a “climate denier”.

Wow, Norder shows herself to be judge, juror and executioner with her cutting, conversation cancelling cat call of “climate denier”

Another bombshell dropped by an old No.1 Membership holder, who with her climate change cronies dumped on the poor old Dockers. Why, because of the Woodside sponsorship that they claim is supporting an irregular business.

What a joke these people are, they have no understanding or knowledge of this country’s achievements through the endeavours of some great Australians.  WOODSIDE Petroleum was founded by Geoff Donaldson, the man who kept the company afloat in its early years. Mr Donaldson, who passed away in June 2013 at the age of 99, was responsible for refocusing the company from Victoria to Western Australia and securing the offshore permits that would underpin the North West Shelf Project. He underwrote the company’s first share issue in 1954 and became the company’s chairman in 1956 – a role he held until he retired in 1984.

Woodside has created many thousands of jobs and huge wealth for WA and Australia.

Fair dinkum haven’t these people got real jobs. It is amazing how Carmen Lawrence can spruik that it is so easy to get sponsors, how would she know, she obviously has not been involved in sports management or any real position of a personal responsibility for her management capabilities.

AFLW Player DIASY PEARCE

Daisy Pearce backs AFL’s decision to scrap minute’s silence for the Queen during AFLW’s Indigenous round

Daisy Pearce has chosen to use incredibly provocative, political and agenda-based language in her speak of so-called support of the AFL’s erroneous discission to cancel the 1 MINUTE’S SILENCE for QUEEN ELIZABETH passing, prior to AFLW games in the last round.

A record of her speak was published by Kate O’Halloran,

Posted Thu 15 Sep 2022 at 1:03pmThursday 15 Sep 2022 at 1:03pm, updated Fri 16 Sep 2022 at 7:38amFriday 16 Sep 2022 at 7:38am

Daisy Pearce with her verbal barrage on all Australians with her perception of who, what and when, someone or something is important, she has done many things wrong and insulting.

I shall briefly cover some of these very serious matters that she has not considered nor has an understanding of:

• Daisy has crossed the line big time by using the AFL platform to promote political ideology and agenda.
• Her spruik was not just about the AFL’s backflip decision on the 1 Minutes Silence issue, it was full blown POLITICALLY driven and specifically about promoting the Prime Ministers agenda for an Aboriginal descendants VOICE enshrined in the Australia Constitution

 

It cannot be coincidental that these nasty issues have arisen all at the same time. Clearly, they have been orchestrated and co-ordinated by a central body for their hope of maximum affect.

With the Prime Minister recently announcing HIS intention to recruit Sports Figures, Clubs and Sponsors, to promote his DIVISIVE campaign for the VOICE, it is very obvious where this direction has come from.

Has this person posing as a Prime Minister of Australia, have any scruples what so ever.

Who Governs with surreptitious tactics against his own people.

How can he pretend to be the Prime Minister for all, when he verbalises guilt, castigation and criticism upon all Australians, every time he speaks about the VOICE.  His aim with this berating is of course to frighten the OLD PEOPLE in particular to vote for the VOICE.

My gut feeling is the public and especially the sporting public have had enough of all this nonsense, creeping into and interfering with our sport and our lives. It has to stop and we the silence majority must push back and expose it for what it is, corrupt and disgraceful politics.

Any way how did SPORT get infested with POLITICS.

The golden rule is still, SPORT and  POLITCS  –  DO NOT MIX

Peter Billington  

11^TH April 2023

 

---

December 12, 2022

No one is pulling any strings against a voice, Mr Pearson

By Janet Albechtsen – The Australian

PHOTO: Noel Pearson’s ‘tremendous work in Indigenous education and other areas … does not give him carte blanche to treat people who disagree with him so poorly’. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen

This column has unashamedly put forward legal reasons and philosophical arguments to demonstrate why inserting a race-based voice in the Constitution is problematic to our democracy.

Whether responding to claims by lawyers or former judges or Indigenous leaders, academics and politicians, I have focused on the substance of the claims made. It has never been personal.

This week I am forced to diverge, at least partly, from that model of debate. Only partly, because the attacks by Noel Pearson a week ago demand a calm, thoughtful response. Anger is no way to respond, or to win an argument honestly or fairly.

READ NEXT

So let us analyse in detail what was wrong with Pearson’s interview last week with Patricia Karvelas on Radio National.

What stood out most was the lack of intellectual rigour from this intellectual heavyweight. Pearson started by condemning the Nationals, saying they were deciding to vote against something that did not yet exist. Yet Pearson and other voice activists have thrown their wholehearted support behind something that also does not yet exist. If supporters can mount a Yes case, why can’t critics mount a No case?

Though we do not have the final wording, we have the Albanese amendment and the legal issues it raises. And we have the principle that inserting a race-based voice into the Constitution undermines equality.

Instead of putting forward intellectual arguments for the voice during his 17-minute interview, Pearson chose instead to launch a series of nasty attacks on those who dared to disagree with him.

Pearson attacked Nationals leader David Littleproud, accusing him of being a “boy”, a “kindergarten kid”. He was a “man of little pride”, boomed Pearson. The Indigenous leader then accused the Nationals leader of having his strings pulled by Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, then accused Price of having her strings pulled by think tanks such as the Centre for Independent Studies and the Institute of Public Affairs. He accused Tom Switzer and me of pulling Price’s strings, too.

PHOTO: Nationals Leader David Littleproud and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

Where does the string-pulling stop? Who is at the end of the line? Who is pulling my strings, Noel? There are no strings. Only ideas and concerns and questions I have raised in great detail over months. Price has done the same.

I do not know Price except for a couple of brief conversations, one long before Pearson’s attacks and one immediately after to check on her after listening to Pearson’s demeaning attacks. Even if I’d had 100 conversations with Price, even if she were my close friend, it would not warrant the patronising, belittling accusation that Price is the puppet of someone else.

Attempts to smear people who have concerns about the voice have been going on for some time. But Pearson shows how high the abuse goes, reaching into the upper echelons of the voice proponents. It suggests there is little that leaders of the voice campaign would not do to try to taint those who have raised concerns about a major change to the country’s founding document.

Witness Marcia Langton this week claiming it would be unfortunate if “the debate sinks into a nasty, eugenicist, 19th-century style of debate about the superior race versus the inferior race”. This is a wicked intervention from Langton. No one on the No side has done this. Only an Indigenous leader on the Yes side has mentioned eugenics.

No matter how invested these Indigenous leaders are in the voice, nothing warrants this ripping down of opponents to try to win people over to their side.

Notice the allusions to violence Pearson chose to deploy – people like me had fashioned the “bullets”, he said, and Price’s “black hand is pulling the trigger”. We were, he claimed, “punching down on other black fellas”.

If one wanted to resort to the same foul language, one could point out that Pearson was punching down on a black woman during that interview.

When Karvelas chose not to call out these nasty, personal, anti-intellectual attacks, or Pearson’s demeaning accusation that an Indigenous woman was the puppet of others, it revealed how one-eyed she had become on this matter. Imagine if a conservative claimed that someone was pulling Megan Davis’s strings or Penny Wong was someone’s puppet. There would be an uproar about sexism. But if Pearson demeans a black woman, there is silence from the left.

Sadly, even those voice supporters in the media we might expect to be more balanced have fallen silent, as if Pearson is a protected species. Their silence tells you they are not thinking clearly about the voice.

Whether you agree or disagree with Price, we need more people like her in federal parliament. People who are not political insiders, not former political staffers or union officials. People who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, with a set of convictions that predate politics.

Pearson’s arrogance is dangerous to an informed debate. He claims there are “two kinds of people in the bush”. People such as Littleproud, who disagree with Pearson, are the “heartless” people who “couldn’t give a stuff about black fellas”. People who agree with Pearson are the “decent” people.

Pearson has been rightly celebrated for his tremendous work in Indigenous education and other areas. But that does not give him carte blanche to treat people who disagree with him so poorly.

He sounded ridiculous when he boomed about Price being caught in a “vortex”, “a celebrity vortex”, “a redneck celebrity vortex” and then a “tragic redneck celebrity vortex”. Had he reached for one more adjective I would have called for confiscation of his thesaurus. He then moved on to John Howard, who has expressed concerns about the voice. Pearson attempted to rip into Howard by saying: “Who can arrogate to themselves that kind of presumption that their own view should be the view that prevails?”

Oh, the hypocrisy, Mr Pearson. You spent 17 minutes demeaning opponents and presuming that your view is the only morally acceptable view.

“We’ve landed with the voice,” Pearson thundered to Karvelas, as if a series of conventions and meetings and papers drawn up by Indigenous activists should settle the matter once and for all. In fact, we, the people, have not landed anywhere yet. That is up for debate. And a referendum.

Pearson’s lack of temperance when it comes to the voice reveals a dark side, not just to the voice campaign but to what a body called the voice may look like.

I once feared that a constitutionally entrenched voice would be filled with people like Lidia Thorpe. That changed last week. If the voice comes to sound anything like the bullying from Pearson – with people who believe that attacking people with different views, rather than engaging in a civilised debate, is the way forward for reconciliation – then the country is in trouble.

Janet Albrechtsen

Janet Albrechtsen is an opinion columnist with The Australian. She has worked as a solicitor in commercial law, and attained a Doctorate of Juridical Studies from the University of Sydney. She has written for numerous other publications including the Australian Financial Review, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Sunday Age, and The Wall Street Journal.

 

---

Professor Megan Davis declares: ‘you won’t shut the Indigenous voice to parliament up’

Top referendum working group member Megan Davis. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

By SARAH ISON  Political Reporter and PAIGE TAYLOR Indigenous Affairs Correspondent, WA Bureau Chief

First published at 10:00PM March 31, 2023

Parliament will not be able to “shut the voice up” and the Indigenous body will speak to “all parts of the government” including the cabinet, ministers, public servants as well as statutory offices and agencies from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink, according to top referendum working group member Megan Davis.

A key architect of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and one of six members of the working group that negotiated the final wording of the constitutional amendment with the government, Professor Davis said parliament could not stop the voice from making representations or “shut the voice up”.

The clarification on the broad remit of the Indigenous voice comes after Anthony Albanese this week argued that parliament would have primacy over “what the voice will consider” – a remark that was corrected by legal experts who explained this would be ­beyond the reach of politicians.

Labor members of a new parliamentary committee testing the wording of the Prime Minister’s proposed constitutional amendment said they hoped the inquiry would rebuff criticisms from “naysayers and doomsayers” and bolster the Yes campaign.

Noel Pearson, a champion of constitutional recognition for ­Indigenous Australians, said he was confident the nation was heading towards success and that negotiations over the wording of the constitutional amendment had “landed in a very sweet spot”.

Mr Pearson said Professor Davis had “always been our leader in relation to the constitutional law” and was “our most expert spokesman on the drafting.”

Professor Davis and fellow constitutional law expert ­Gabrielle Appleby from UNSW, writing in The Weekend Australian, argue that the new body will not be “limited to matters specifically or directly related to ­Aboriginal and Torres Strait ­Islander peoples” and it will have the power to “speak on a broad range of ­matters”.

“That is the point,” the professors write.

Liberal Senator Alex Antic discusses how the South Australia state-based Voice will operate after it was passed… by the lower and upper houses unopposed. “It’s going to be a little bit unusual in the sense it’s going to elect two local delegates from the Aboriginal areas or communities.

Professor Davis, UNSW’s ­Balnaves chair in constitutional law, and Professor Appleby say the voice could advise government across the policy spectrum from environment and climate to ­defence or financial matters, but stress that it should choose where it makes its representations ­carefully.

“It would include matters ­relating to the conduct of elections, given the under-enrolment of First Nations people in our electoral system,” they say.

“It would include criminal matters, given the over-representation of First Nations in our criminal justice system.

“It’s important that the voice speaks not just on matters that ­directly, or explicitly, affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but on matters that have an indirect but significant effect on them.”

The pair say that, if the voice speaks on more general matters, such as financial policy or ­defence, its representations will be “weighed up against a number of other interests and groups” and have less political persuasion. “It will have to spend its political capital wisely,” the professors write.

Lack of community ‘involvement’ in the Voice is ‘unforgivable’

The Australian Legal Affairs Contributor Chris Merritt says limiting the “involvement” of the community in a major… change to the constitution with regards to the Voice is “unforgivable”.

“There’s been no input from the general community,” Mr Merritt told Sky News Australia host Peta Credlin. This constitution change will be catastrophic to Australia

 

“The voice will be able to speak to all parts of the government, ­including the cabinet, ministers, public servants, and independent statutory offices and agencies – such as the Reserve Bank, as well as a wide array of other agencies including, to name a few, ­Centrelink, the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority and the Ombudsman – on matters relating to ­Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

“This isn’t to be feared”, Davis said. !!!!!!!!

The Coalition is concerned by the wording in the constitutional amendment that gives the voice the power to advise the executive government.

Leading Liberal moderate Simon Birmingham signalled his hope for this to be reconsidered in the parliamentary committee process. “By putting it in the Constitution, it does then provide ­another layer of wording that can be contested through High Court challenges where constitutional challenges are heard,” Senator Birmingham told the ABC.

Australia is ‘sleepwalking’ into voting for the Voice to Parliament: Barnaby Joyce

Former Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce says the Indigenous Voice to Parliament passing will mean… Australians are now “differentiated” on the premise of race. “Australia is sleepwalking into this … it is not good, but as I said before … if you don’t get fired up this rubbish will go through.

“I hope the naysayers and doomsayers and people engaged in jeremiads will have that ­information rebutted in the course of this inquiry,” Mr ­Neumann said.

Liberal committee member Keith Wolahan said the inquiry was as close to a “constitutional convention” as the nation would get. “The committee should waste no time in properly testing the wording and exploring in an ­honest way all of the constitutional risk that should be considered – and there’s certainly constitutional risk in that wording,” Mr Wolahan said.

South Australian Liberal senator Kerrynne Liddle, another member of the committee, said the inquiry needed to provide for a range of voices to be heard, including controversial figures such as Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay who faced a backlash against her concerns over the voice this week.

Ms Finlay, who was appointed to her role by the Morrison government and a former Liberal candidate, wrote in The Australian this week that the new constitutional amendment went beyond the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and possibly conflicted with other international human rights agreements.

Senator Liddle said Ms Finlay was entitled to her views and was “hopeful that people like commissioner Finlay would feel comfortable expressing their view in what would be a safe, respectful environment to do so”.

Victorian Labor senator and committee member Jana Stewart said she hoped to see “a broad representation of witnesses appear before the committee”.

“I hope to see respectful and robust conversation. The Australian people deserve nothing less,” she said.

Committee members said key players in the national debate over the voice — including Mr Pearson, Professor Davis and other legal experts – should appear before the inquiry to have their arguments “explored and tested”.

 

---

PM ABANESE is NOT GOVERNING for ALL AUSTRALIANS

ABORIGINAL descendent AUSTRALIANS DO NOT NEED A VOICE ABOVE GOVERNMENT and ALL OTHER AUSTRALIANS

– THAT WOULD BE SUBVERSION and definitely RACISM! 

ABORIGINAL descendent AUSTRALIANS already have a voice, and they are well represented in the parliament. 

This is my country, and I am white, and I am disgusted at the behaviour of our Prime Minister Anthony Albanese with his GUILT SPEEKS.

His approach in constantly and provocatively saying and accusing any Australian that does not agree with the VOICE to be callous and have no heart or compassion, is repugnant.

What an example of stupidity on his part, arrogantly and openly engaging in emotional black male of the ALL people of Australia, which he is supposed to be the leader.

His is a DISGRACE to the COUNTRY and the office of PRIME MINISTER.

Where is his obligation to Govern Australia for ALL Australians.

Pitching the wants of a single group based on race (ie: Aboriginal DESCENDENT Australians 2.75% of the population) over and in preference to all other Australians (97.25% of the population), is not just insulting to ALL Australians it is extremely dangerous and could almost be viewed as treasonous.

Extract from the Parliament of Australian Chapter 4 – Treason:

Treason

4.3

The Act moved the offence of treason from the Crimes Act 1914 into the Criminal Code, replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment; and removed gender specific references to the sovereign.

4.4

Under section 80.1 a person commits treason if he or she:

• causes the death or harm, resulting in death, imprisons or restrains the Sovereign, the heir apparent of the Sovereign, the consort of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or Prime Minister
• levies war, or does an act preparatory to levying war against the Commonwealth
• intentionally assists, by any means whatsoever, an enemy, at war with the Commonwealth
• intentionally assists, by ‘any means whatever’, another country or organisation that is ‘engaged in armed hostilities’ against the Australian Defence Force (ADF)
• instigates a person who is not an Australian citizen to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or a Territory of the Commonwealth, or
• forms an intention to do any of the above acts and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Extract from Dictionary.com:

Treason is “the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.”

Its adjective forms are treasonable and treasonous, and its noun form (e.g., a person who has committed treason) is traitor.

Treason can also refer to a more basic violation of allegiance to one’s ruler or state. An act of betrayal is sometimes called treason too in everyday language, often to heighten its emotional impact. Treason is used more facetiously, too, e.g., When my boyfriend started rooting against our home team in the playoff game, I charged him with treason.

The word treason was first recorded in English between 1175 and 1225. Entering English from French, treason comes from the Latin trāditiōn-, a stem of the verb trāditiō, “betrayal”—and literally, “a handing over.”

We have one flag that belongs to all of us, it is called The Australian Flag. 

Our fore fathers did not invade this country, they settled and promoted it and made it what it is today. 

In 1788, 1480 people arrived to settle this country, that’s not an invasion. 

In 2019, 245,000 of the world’s rejects arrived in this country, now that’s an invasion and should be curtailed.

All Australian lives matter equally. Any suggestion that one racial group is entitled to receive preferential treatment over ALL other Australians is dividing the country. Nothing good will come from this. No life is any more valuable than any other lives. 

THE FURTHER A SOCIETY DRIFTS AWAY FROM THE TRUTH, THE MORE IT WILL HATE THOSE WHO SPEAK IT, (George Orwell). 

THIS IS THE TRUTH THE FACTS DO NOT CEASE TO EXIST BECAUSE THEY ARE IGNORED….

Aboriginal descendent Australians want to be taken seriously but they are their own worst enemy…. 40% of females incarcerated are indigenous and 28% of men incarcerated are indigenous, 86% of Aboriginal men who go to court re-offend within 2 years…. All the stats are at AIHW government. 

The biggest threat to Aboriginal people is Aboriginal people, the biggest threat to Aboriginal women is Aboriginal men, the biggest threat to Aboriginal children is Aboriginal adults. 

This is unfortunately the truth, NOT a MYTHICAL STORY, these are the facts that Aboriginal Elite and ANTHONY ALBANESE don’t like to hear. 

White Australians are accused of being privileged, but again the FACTS prove this to be not the case.  

Aboriginal descendent Australians are the privilege ones, as over $34 billion a year is spent on the Aboriginal Industry. That is approximately 700,000 Aboriginal descendent Australians share in this bounty. This is grossly disproportionate to ALL other in Australians. 

A quick sum says Aboriginal descendent Australians receive $48,000 per head, opposed to less than $22,000 per head for the rest of all other Australians 

So, please PM ALBANESE stop making a fool of yourself and Australia, get a grip, pull your head in and act like a MAN and a LEADER of this great country.

 

Peter Billington

24^th March 2022

 

---

March 17, 2023

WHY DO WE NEED A VOICE? THE NIAA IS DOING THAT WELL.

Our vision

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered.

Our purpose

The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) works in genuine partnership to enable the self-determination and aspirations of First Nations communities. We lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.

Our responsibilities

The National Indigenous Australians Agency was established by an Executive Order signed by the Governor-General on 29 May 2019.

The Executive Order gives the NIAA a number of functions, including:

• to lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
• to provide advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians on whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
• to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia’s Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians; and
• to lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation.

You can read the full list of responsibilities in the Executive Order.

Our structure

The NIAA structure is designed to better meet the Government’s priorities to effectively deliver on our Executive Order, strengthen our ability to deliver as one team and enhance our partnership with Indigenous Australians.

Key design underpinnings include creating a greater balance of strategic, social and economic policy including a dedicated focus on economic development in the north; enhancing relationships across jurisdictions as well as in place; and improving Agency wide performance.

The NIAA is led by the CEO, Jody Broun, and two Deputy CEOs each with distinct responsibilities. Julie-Ann Guivarra is the Deputy CEO for Policy and Programs, and James Christian, PSM is the Deputy CEO for Operations and Delivery.

Organisational Chart

• NIAA organisation chart 6 March 2023 (PDF 38 KB)
• NIAA organisation chart 6 March 2023 (XLSX 46 KB)

Our values

• We respect multiple perspectives
• We are authentic
• We are professional and act with integrity
• We invest in each other’s success
• We deliver with purpose

Our Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP)

• NIAA Stretch Reconciliation Action Plan 2022-2025

 ED: The NIAA employs 1300 staff including and executive team of more than 40 people who earn in excess of $200,00 a year.

Last financial year, it handed out money of more than $1.5 billion .. according to the NIAA’s website.

 

3 comments

• Alan Foyle March 18, 2023   Reply →

OK , I accept that they are proud of their ancestors. But so am I. Stick you “Welcome to Country” BS up your ass and the Smoking Ceremony participants should be issued Vapes. The same people would have a bowel movement if anyone came near them with a cigarette yet suck up the smoke from a Smoking Ceremony. How fake is that! In short, far cough with your BS attempts to suck the $$$$ out of the AUS public, get a far king job and support yourselves. Blood sucker from people that have NEVER associated themselves with the Aboriginal population until the $$$$ came to the fore.

• Keith March 19, 2023   Reply →

I am part Irish part British born in Australia with great Grand Parents who were exported in irons from England, I am proud of my heritage but I don’t claim to be either Irish or British, there’s no money in that for me. It is quite obvious that to be part aboriginal is beneficial to an individual regardless, but I wonder why when claimants are less than 50% Aboriginal and born in the cities have any claim to country when they have never experienced it? This is the major anomaly that has to be legislated so that the free loading masses are unable to jump on the wagon. Welcome to country is an insult to any Australian other than real Aboriginals who live out in the communities, where they hold smoking ceremonies as a part of their funeral rites.

• Kenneth Ronald Taylor March 19, 2023   Reply →

We already have a good number of people who are recognised as Indigenous in Government now. But the Pollies with them do not listen to them as it is, so why set up another mob of non active people being ignored?
You got my “Vote” a Big “NO”.

 

---

Anthony Albanese lights a fire for critics of the voice to parliament

Dennis Shanahan

A tearful Prime Minister has appealed in a choking voice for Australians to “own” the change. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Anthony Albanese has committed his government to going “all in” on the Indigenous voice to parliament and executive government, given the Indigenous working group all it has asked and rejected the Solicitor-General’s advice to limit the power of the voice over commonwealth government and public servants.

A tearful Prime Minister has appealed in a choking voice for Australians to “own” the change which he has proposed and declared there are no circumstances in which the referendum will not be put to the people.

“Not to put the vote is to concede defeat,” he said as he announced the wording and principles of the Indigenous voice to parliament and government referendum.

Albanese’s appeal is deeply emotional and he has given the Indigenous leaders all they have asked for – indeed more than the Uluṟu statement sought.

Albanese has opted for a more difficult referendum question to sell in favour of facing a political split in the Indigenous leadership which fits his party political reading that Peter Dutton will be blamed if the referendum fails.

But in so doing Albanese, while conceding there will be differences of opinion, has “lit a fire” for those who are concerned a constitutional right will impose another layer of bureaucracy on government decision making and the potential for legal challenges on all decisions being made by public servants.

The greatest fear of those concerned about the impact of the constitutional power to the voice is that the voice will be able to intervene in all commonwealth public service decisions and make day-to day work impractical and open to constant legal challenge.

Not only has Albanese ensured the voice will have this power of intervention he has thrown out the government’s own recommendation to try and limit the legal risks but he has also enhanced the power allowing the voice to act “proactively” and seek “early advice” from public servants as they develop policy.

Indigenous Voice to parliament

The Voice referendum question

A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve of this proposed alteration?

If a majority of Australians vote in favour of the Voice, the Constitution would be amended as follows: 

• There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

• The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

• The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions powers and procedures.

Even proponents for the Yes vote have expressed serious concerns about this risk – a risk former justice Robert French acknowledged as genuine – wanted these powers limited to avoid the prospect of a New Zealand-style cogovernance developing based on the constitutional right which cannot be removed by Parliament.

Albanese’s genuine belief in offering the voice the maximum impact on the making of government decisions at all levels cannot remove the equally genuine concerns – concerns the government’s own Solicitor-General and Attorney-General had about the impact on the public service.

 

---

Dutton: PM needs to release solicitor general advice

Tricia Rivera

Opposition leader Peter Dutton says Anthony Albanese needs to release the Solicitor-General’s advice after the Prime Minister unveiled the wording of the voice referendum

“The Prime Minister owes it to the Australian people to release that advice [from the solicitor general] and there’s precedent for it and it would be very strange… for them not to release that,” Mr Dutton said in a press conference.

“It’s not just millions of Australians who are not indigenous who want the detail but many Australians of indigenous heritage also want the detail and I don’t think it’s too much to ask for. Some of the groups are more worried about practical action than they are the voice.”

Mr Dutton says he still has questions on how the voice will deliver practical outcomes and that more have arisen after the announcement today.

“I’ve written to the Prime Minister and proposed 15 basic questions pretty common sense questions that Australians are asking and the Prime Minister hasn’t responded to the detail even to this very day,” he said.

“I think it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to explain to the Australian public if you’re proposing a very significant change to our founding document how it will provide outcomes for Indigenous Australians.”

Mr Dutton raised concerns over the legal implications of the meaning of the voice as the parliament may be guided by the high court interpretation.

“The government can’t out-legislate the constitution, that’s the reality so if you’re putting forward a form of words which is open to a broad interpretation by the high court then the parliament can’t rectify that. That’s the issue here,” he said.

“What the government’s proposing at the moment is that the Australian public will go to vote on a Saturday and then from Monday on for six months there will be consultation on the model. Now that is putting the cart behind the horse.”

 

---

Barnaby Joyce wary of voice ‘guilt complex’

Joanna Panagopoulos

Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce says the Prime Minister’s emotional comments on the voice to parliament on Thursday do not change his opinion – and opposition – to the voice.
“I’m very hesitant and cautious of the guilt complex. That is not an argument, that is an emotion,” he said.

“This (the voice to parliament) is a differentiation based on race. The driving manual of Australia, the constitution, should be blind to race, blind to colour, blind to religion, blind to creed, it should be a document that treats every person with equivalence,” he told Sky News.

Mr Joyce outlined his biggest concerns with the voice to parliament.

“What is justiciable, which is how laws pass in the parliament work, is determined by the high court for constitutionality. You might wish it in the parliament, but it’s not your remit anymore as it’s in the driving document of Australia, it’s determined by the high court and they will determine what the term consultation means,” he said.

“The other thing I have a big problem with is there is this belief the voice, which is not defined, is something where you have an equal say to a member of the Greens and the Labor party.

“The parliament in majority in the House of Representatives is Labor and to get in the Senate its Labor and Greens and some Teals, so it’s their view what goes in the voice, not mine. So, I say if they do not trust you with all the details, don’t trust them with you vote.”

 

---

Price: voice ‘walking very dangerous ground’

Tricia Rivera

Country Liberal senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price says the voice is “walking on very dangerous ground” with the body able to advise the executive government.

“Given that there is reference to the opportunity for the voice to make representations to the executive, suggests that they have a power that is basically stronger than a cabinet minister,” Senator Price said in a press conference this afternoon.

“There is no guarantee, they cannot guarantee, that they will absolutely not be challenged in the high court…I would suggest this is now walking on very dangerous ground.”

Nationals leader David Littleproud says a bigger bureaucracy is unnecessary and that the values of equality should be remembered.

“There’s 227 voices representing all 26 million Australians, we do that with the passion and pride of our fellow Australians no matter their colour, their creed, their religion, I take that seriously,” Mr Littleproud said in a press conference,” he said.

“I’m proud of the fact that this parliament, this nation, has elected 11 Indigenous Australians to represent not just Indigenous Australians, but to represent every Australian.”

 

---

Aboriginal Plans for the Future

The idea that non-indigenous Australians should pay rent to indigenous Australians is offensive and outrageous.

Australia belongs to all Australians regardless of race.

Let’s reject this discrimination and focus on real problems affecting all Aussies!

https://twitter.com/i/status/1638050131122733056

 

---

Anthony Albanese has confirmed an indigenous voice to parliament will be able to advise executive government as well as federal parliament if a referendum is successful later this year.

Speaking in Canberra, the Prime Minister revealed the final wording of the proposed constitutional amendment to keep executive government after indigenous leaders said it was one of their key principles for the voice.

Mr Albanese also revealed the final question which will be put to voters later this year as:

“A proposed law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve of this proposed alteration?”

NO I DO NOT APPROVE because :—————–

Aborigines possibly the tenth race to have inhabited Australia

The Torres Strait Islanders are a different race of unrelated people of Melanesian descent, their history goes back about 3,000 years diverging to a mix of Papuan and Lapita people 30,000 years ago. They are a well structured society with agriculture and productive communal industry, and warriors using bows and arrows. The aborigines never had enough smarts to copy their usage or society, they never rose above stone age weapons (National Geographic), had gardens or agriculture.

📷Australian Aborigines were probably the tenth race of people to have lived in Australia

Aborigines are of Indian descent, sharing the same mtDNA, and two basal synonymous mtDNA polymorphisms G8251A and A9156T with the M42 haplogroup, shared exclusively between (pre-Dravidian) Indian and Australian aborigines — “These particular mutations do not exist anywhere else in the world; they are shared exclusively between a few isolated ancient tribes in India and Australian aboriginals” (Quote: Prof Dr Satish Kumar).

Ancient endo cast skulls have been found, strange Flat-Head skulls, others of very different ancestry from Kow Swamp, Nacurrie, Coobool Creek, Cohuna, Lake Mungo, Tasmanian Aborigines were Papuan Ulotrichi referred to by Professor Alfred Cort Haddon in his book, ‘The Races of Man’. We have photographs of the “little people (150 cm) of the Kuranda rainforest.

The many different races to have occupied Australia are scientifically proven by Dr Irina Pugach Dr Frederick Delfin, Dr Ellen Gunnarsdóttir, Dr Manfred Kayser, and Prof Dr Satish Kumar: Supported by research from Drs Norman Tindale, Joseph Birdsell, Peter Brown — and Professors Mark Stoneking, Allan Wilson, Alan Thorne, Colin Mackenzie, Manning Clark, Joseph Greenberg, Alan Cooper, Chris Stringer, and Dr Merritt Ruhlen. You cannot disprove their science.

With reference in the “Atlas of Foreign Countries”, written between
265 – 316 A.D., Chinese Sea Captains describes the mysterious great south land being inhabited by a race of one-metre-tall pygmies: Frank and Alexander Jardine settled Cape York recorded they witnessed the little Negritos being hunted down like kangaroos by the taller aborigines. In the 1400’s and 1500’s, Dutch and Portuguese sailors sighting the Western Australian coastline noted “tall natives in warfare chasing and killing hordes of “little” native peoples”.

There is no need for a referendum to include Aborigines in the Constitution —

They are not and never were the nation’s first people, probably the tenth race to have lived here.

 

---

The Hon Anthony Albanese MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Prime Minister

I write in relation to your proposal to constitutionally enshrine an Indigenous Voice (The Voice) to Parliament via a referendum this year.

As you know, I have been constructive and supportive of the Government on a number of issues where it is in the national interest to do so. I am committed to being constructive on the issue of reconciliation and as you are aware from our discussions the Coalition will support any sensible and practical measures to improve the lives of
Indigenous Australians.

If the referendum is successful, a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament will be a body without precedent and a significant change in how Australia is governed. Many Australians do not understand the scope and operation of the Voice and expect comprehensive information before being asked to vote.

Regrettably, it now appears clear that your political strategy is to not provide adequate detail for Australians to make an informed decision.

I believe you are making a catastrophic mistake in not providing accessible, clear and complete information regarding your government’s version of the Voice, condemning it to failure and, in turn, damaging reconciliation efforts in our country. Your approach will ensure a dangerous and divisive debate grounded in hearsay and misinformation. I have attached a list of issues which many people have raised as not being adequately addressed to date.

You have engaged two of our country’s smartest political operatives, but their advice to you on rushing the referendum and not providing details to the Australian public is wrong and must surely go against your natural instinct.

All voting Australians have a right to make a fully informed decision when considering an issue as significant as changing our Constitution. Australians expect the Government to provide the necessary and balanced information to support them in making a decision and to ensure transparency and integrity of the process.

In turn we all have an obligation to respect the outcome. Your government’s position that detail isn’t needed before a vote and will be contained in subsequent legislation is unreasonable, disrespectful to the Australian public and undermines the integrity of
the process.

In refusing to provide basic information and answer reasonable questions on the Voice, you are treating the Australian people like mugs. Publicly releasing the details on how the Voice will operate will enable Australians to assess whether it would be representative of remote Indigenous people; whether its structure was effective or
just another layer of bureaucracy similar to the failed ATSIC; and whether it would interfere with the system of Government which has kept our country a stable and peaceful democracy for over a century.

Both sides of Parliament seek better opportunities and outcomes for Indigenous Australians. The incidence of sexual assault, domestic violence, and health outcomes, among many other issues, in Indigenous communities (particularly in regional and remote areas) is a national disgrace. It is imperative you explain how a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament will deliver tangible improvements in the lives of Indigenous Australians, which must remain the priority of Government.

Given your government has been in office for seven months and has the ability to pass legislation in both houses of Parliament, legislation for a Voice could be enacted when Parliament resumes at the beginning of next month. This would allow you to demonstrate the effectiveness of your preferred Voice model in closing the gap.

The Government must stop playing clever and tricky political games by withholding detail and rushing the referendum. I again call on you to provide Australians with the necessary detail on how the Albanese government’s version of the Voice will operate.

Yours sincerely

PETER DUTTON

7 January 2023

 

 

Attachment
Australians are none the wiser about the Voice – what, who, where, when and how.
They seek detailed information on the following:
· Who will be eligible to serve on the body?
· What are the prerequisites for nomination?
· Will the Government clarify the definition of aboriginality to determine who can
serve on the body?
· How will members be elected, chosen or appointed?
· How many people will make up the body?
· How much will it cost taxpayers annually?
· What are its functions and powers?
· Is it purely advisory, or will it have decision-making capabilities?
· Who will oversee the body and ensure it is accountable?
· If needed, can the body be dissolved and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances?
· How will the Government ensure that the body includes those who still need
to get a platform in Australian public life?
· How will it interact with the Closing the Gap process?
· Will the Government rule out using the Voice to negotiate any national treaty?
· Will the Government commit to Local and Regional Voices, as recommended in the report on the co-design process led by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton?
· If not, how will it effectively address the real issues that impact people’s lives daily on the ground in the community?

 

---

Proposed change to the Australia Constitution

We are living in an age where controlling politicians hide things not just from the people who elect them, but from their fellow politicians. 

And language has been so corrupted by vested interests pushing their causes, words and concepts which were once simple to understand have become meaningless. 

With this deliberate process the whole history of Australia and its inhabitants has been distorted, enhanced, invented and reinvented to a point that makes it almost impossible for “contemporary” Australians to know the real history and real facts of this land’s past.

The use of the word “contemporary” is my deliberate way to separate the old and real from the new and unreal.

 

This word “contemporary” is chucked around so liberally and repetitively these days that it can only mean or represent one thing and that is “Of or in the style of the present or recent times; modern.”

 

It is even used in discussion, documents and papers to differentiate our young current service people from those of the past. The use is such that it implies the Soldier of today is somehow not the same as the Soldier of yesterday.

I am not sure why the term/word is used so liberally in reference to ADF Personnel because the only thing that is REALLY different is the quality and effectiveness of their arms and equipment. The character, dedication, discipline, leadership and bravery are hoped to be no different from that of all of our incredible ANZAC’s that have been and gone before this time, the present.

 

So, because this term/word is so prevalent, it should resonate with most people out there in the public domain. However, the difference that I would like to portray is that the majority of people today really are “contemporary” (ie: the present / modern people) and unfortunately seem to have lost contact with reality across so many areas and aspects of life and living in this magnificent land of ours, Australia.

 

Nothing has changed in this vast land for as many years as you choose to select. So let us just pick and say sixty thousand (60,000) years. That is this place is still the same as it has been forever. The only thing about this place is that it has more population than it did 60,000 years ago. Back all that time ago this land supposedly had Indigenous people scattered all over the continent in many small tribes. These tribes were not a collective nation in anyway. There is no proof in any shape or form that the idea of these scattered tribes can be seen as a nation. To make argument and statements of this being a fact is simply not honest or truth full in any respect.

If this is to be seen as the truth, that any peoples/tribes living on the same continent must be taken as a Single Nation, then the same conclusion must be drawn on all the World Continents. That is Africa, Europe, North America, South American etc. and so on, should be regarded as single nations.  But this is not the case and these continents are made of separate countries based on different languages and ways of life.

 

All of the so called “experts” who pontificate and spruik that Australia was a Nation of Indigenous people prior to any immigration of others, are not honest and are structuring and presenting their opinion, not a fact.

 

These people are constantly contriving to drive a wedge between Aboriginal descendant Australians and all other Australians.

 

It is time for ALL “contemporary” Australians to wake up, sit up and speak up about this and a myriad of other more critical things all around and coming down on Australia.

 

Things we should be focusing on and all pulling in the same direction to support and insist and tell the Federal Government to put on the top of the IMMEDIATE ACTION pile are:

• Defence, Defence, Defence
• Sovereignty, Sovereignty, Sovereignty

 

---

 

---

CRITICAL STAND AGAINST the BULLYING “YES” VOTE

Top silk Brett Walker rebuked over ‘offensive’ voice defence by barrister Louise Clegg

By Janet Albrechtsen  3:53PM March 12, 2023

A prominent Sydney barrister has issued a stinging rebuke to Bret Walker, after the senior silk accused critics of the current voice model of being racists, labelling his comments “grotesque and offensive”.

Walker, one of Australia’s most distinguished barristers, said that some lawyers who have raised concerns about the likely power and influence of a constitutionally entrenched indigenous advisory body were “racist”.

Barrister Louise Clegg has written to NSW Bar Association president Gabrielle Bashir calling for the professional body to publicly reprimand Mr Walker for his comments.

Ms Clegg also indicated she was considering her legal options, declaring she was “giving consideration to what private action I should take against this appalling slur”.

In the email, seen by The Australian, Ms Clegg describes Mr Walker’s accusation of racism as “shocking” and asks the professional body to “issue a public rebuke to Bret personally for bringing the profession into disrepute and for the unacceptable moral bullying towards lawyers who may wish to openly engage in this monumentally important public debate.”

In her email to Ms Bashir, Ms Clegg said she felt “compelled to draw your attention to the comments by Bret Walker … where Bret says that lawyers who are complaining about the power of the voice are racist.”

|She told Ms Bashir: “This comment is a grotesque and offensive thing for any barrister to say, let alone such a senior barrister. In my opinion this comment undermines the integrity of the entire legal profession. It certainly is a shocking comment to come from a distinguished member of the NSW Bar.”

The AFR reported comments made by Mr Walker, at a lunchtime seminar at Clayton Utz last Friday, where the leading constitutional silk took aim at lawyers for presenting “doomsday scenarios” concerning whether the High Court might get involved in litigation concerning a constitutionally entrenched indigenous voice.

“My view is that this justiciability scare is really nothing more than that, and that lawyers should think carefully before they lend themselves to it,” Mr Walker said. “Some have gone so far as to enlist that figure of speech and talk about the voice as an abomination because it would be a fourth arm of government …

“The notion that the voice is to be abominated because it may have moral force is, I’m sorry, I believe it to be racist.”

Ms Clegg says Mr Walker’s comments were “clearly directed” at her.

“I am currently the most vocal lawyer speaking publicly about this issue,” she said.

In her email to the Bar Association president, Ms Clegg says that Mr Walker’s comments cannot await a “lengthy internal Bar Association misconduct process.”

“I take the view that this conduct is so reprehensible that it demands a response from the Association. If it is not addressed soon, and addressed firmly, it will lead to further poor conduct down the track on this and other matters of public importance,” she writes.

“Almost all constitutional reform is by definition about power, or more accurately about reallocating power. This is precisely what this referendum is about and the architects of the Garma amendment have said so themselves. Bret seems to be saying that lawyers should not talk about the very thing they are uniquely equipped, and indeed duty bound, to talk about in public debates. And he says quite plainly that if lawyers say that there might be unintended consequences as a result of that reallocation of power (which I am clearly saying) then they are racist.”

In her email to Ms Bashir, Ms Clegg recounts a conversation with Danny Gilbert, managing partner of Gilbert + Tobin, one of the country’s most vocal law firms in favour of a constitutionally entrenched voice, where she raised concerns with him about the current model and, as a matter of courtesy, informed Mr Gilbert that she was planning to publicly describe the voice as effectively a fourth arm of government.

“I explained to him the legal basis for saying this … In that conversation Danny said that if I said this publicly, then he’d have to ‘get Bret Walker on to this’ or words to this effect … it didn’t much bother me as I am very happy to engage in a public debate with Bret. So, I was anticipating that Bret would make some remarks condemning the arguments I have been making. But I could never have imagined that he would make this kind of remark.”

Mr Walker and Mr Gilbert were both approached for comment by The Australian on Sunday.

In a column published in The Australian shortly after her conversation with Mr Gilbert, Ms Clegg wrote that the voice as currently drafted “will undoubtedly be characterised by scholars as a fourth, advisory, identity-based branch of government.”

“It is therefore fair to say without any histrionics that the model entrenches the politics of identity in a liberal democratic constitution. In all our history, and in all of the history of comparable liberal democracies, nothing even approaching the idea of a permanent, constitutionally entrenched advisory arm of government with jurisdiction over everything has ever been contemplated, let alone seriously proposed,” she wrote.

Ms Clegg, who has spoken twice at the country’s major annual conference on constitutional law organised by the University of NSW Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, has been engaging with voice advocates, and most recently delivered a paper at the Uphold & Recognise conference in Sydney on 28 February, is one of the few lawyers to speak up in favour of a more modest voice model. She told Ms Bashir that such a model would “be more unifying and have more chance of success.”

“So, it is not as if we are against the voice. We are simply saying there are better, more modest and unifying ways to do this.”

In her email to Ms Bashir, Ms Clegg expresses her concern about the effect of Mr Walker’s racism accusation to the broader public debate around the proposal to alter the Constitution:

“[T]his accusation of racism appears to be a tactic from those advocating for the Garma amendment, including Bret, to use the power of Bret’s standing in the legal community and send a message to me and to any other lawyers engaging (and importantly, who may wish to engage in the future) in this debate: ‘get on board with the voice precisely as we want it, or you will face professional ruin.’ It is clearly a deliberate attempt to intimidate any lawyer who might have misgivings about the voice from engaging in the debate. It will almost certainly have a chilling effect on the debate. This is self-evidently not good for our polity as society relies on lawyers to inform it about many matters, but especially matters relating to constitutional reform.”