Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s advocacy for a Voice to Parliament referendum in Australia has turned out to be a significant and contentious issue within the country’s political landscape. He claimed The Voice was designed to empower Indigenous Australians by providing them with a formal mechanism to advise the federal government on issues that affect their communities.
The massive No vote shows that the Australian public just didn’t believe him. The failure of The Voice referendum now undermines his position as the leader of the country.
In addition, many people are calling for public accountability of all government spending. We are appalled at the massive waste of about $500 million on the referendum. This money could have been spent on providing a better education system for aboriginals, as well as housing and health.
The Australian people are fed up with politicians who seem to think that because they have been elected, they are free to do whatever they like with our money and our rights.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is evident that the country is poised for a massive swing away from the current political system. It is quite clearly not working in the best interests of We the People.
The saying ascribed to US President Thomas Jefferson is beginning to ring true in many Aussie’s ears, “When the people fear the government, that’s tyranny. When the government fears the people, that’s freedom.”
Many Aussies have become aware, thanks to the Covid fake plandemic, that the government no longer serves the will of the people. Instead, it has become clear to many of us that the political parties, the media and the judiciary have all been corrupted to play along to the World Economic Forum’s Agenda 21/30 plan.
This plan is designed to enslave us all in an iron grip, monitored 24 hours a day, with digital currency and digital ID to keep us in line.
But was that also the ultimate plan behind the Voice?
The Voice to Parliament Proposal
The Voice to Parliament initiative was rooted in the broader dialogue of “reconciliation and constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians”. It ignored the 1967 Referendum in which Australians voted overwhelmingly to amend the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people and include them in the Census of Population and Housing conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, commencing with the 1971 Census.
It also ignored the fact that the Parliament already has several Aboriginal elected representatives.
Proponents say that the origins of The Voice can be traced back to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which called for a First Nations Voice to be enshrined in the Australian Constitution. However, there is serious doubt about this, as investigations have shown that The Voice is yet another arrow in the World Economic Forum quiver designed to divide the people and create a serious racial divide.
The overwhelming No vote has shown that Australians will not accept racism or allow the politicians to divide us so that they can impose their will on us. The politicians have forgotten that they are the “public servants”, and we are the masters.
The Voice was touted as offering Indigenous Australians an advisory role in shaping policies and legislation that directly affect their communities. Prime Minister Albanese initiated the Voice referendum, stating that it is a significant step towards reconciliation and empowerment.
Albo made every effort to convince Australians to approve the referendum, even though he refused to release any details of the proposed mechanism that would be employed to shape policies and legislation.
Despite this, Aussies were unconvinced. The resounding defeat of The Voice showed that a large majority of Australians were not taken in by the lies and scare rhetoric surrounding the Yes campaign.
The Controversy Surrounding the Voice
The Voice to Parliament proposal faced substantial criticism and controversy. Critics argued that it was unnecessary, divisive, and could lead to a de facto third chamber of Parliament.
Other individuals, like Professor Megan Davis and Marcia Langton, were vocal proponents of the Voice, while others vehemently opposed it, expressing concerns about the practicality and the implications of such a change.
It is essential to note that robust discussions around important constitutional matters are not uncommon in democratic societies. These discussions often involve divergent perspectives, and the controversy surrounding the Voice proposal is a reflection of the challenges that come with altering the country’s foundational document.
Examining the Financial Aspects
The Yes lobby kept trying to convince Australians that the Voice referendum was designed to empower Indigenous communities, but this raised serious questions about the financial aspect of implementing such a mechanism. After all, the Australian government has an abysmal record of wasting vast sums of money on so many public money spending disasters that the people are rightfully sceptical.
Critics raised questions about the potential costs involved in creating and maintaining the Voice, as well as the financial implications of holding a referendum. The exact cost of the referendum is difficult to ascertain, and it is an issue that requires careful scrutiny and transparent financial planning.
As debate about The Voice continued serious questions were raised about the hundreds of millions of dollars already spent on indigenous programs, with very little evidence of helping the people it is supposed to.
As a result, many people are now demanding that all financial spending by the government be audited to stop the massive corruption that the people have seen over the years. Even as far back as the Whitlam years we started to see blatant corruption. Reports circulated of outrageous sums being charged to supply simple things like screwdrivers and wrenches to the military for sometimes up to 50 times their cost. There was even a huge controversy over the supply of ridiculously priced toilet seats dubbed “golden thrones” to the military.
Rumour and controversy like this have obviously seeped into the Australian public’s perception of government spending, and as a result there is almost no confidence in any political party to manage our public money wisely.
It is clear both political parties are guilty of massive rorting of the system. Aussies are also fed up with the huge salaries paid to these public servants for almost no results. We don’t want, and we certainly don’t need, professional career politicians in parliament, especially when they completely ignore our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 and our laws.
Ethnic Background and Personal Attacks
During the Voice campaign, we saw many scathing personal attacks on people with opposing views. The Yes campaigners were the most likely to launch personal attacks, as we saw on TV, in the media, and even in public forums.
One Yes campaigner, no less than Emeritus Professor Denise Ferris from the Australian National University, actually spat on a No campaigner, and ended up getting charged with assault.
The Voice managed to divide the country during the campaign, even before it went to a vote. If Australians had voted Yes, there is no telling the massive damage the Voice would have had on racial issues. It would have divided the country and more than likely racial issues would have possibly been the spark for a huge revolt, or even civil war. Thankfully, that did not happen, as Australians saw the danger and voted a resounding No.
The End Result
Prime Minister Albanese’s push for constitutional change through the Voice referendum represented a significant and contentious issue in Australian politics. But more importantly, it underlined the need for the People of the Commonwealth of Australia to start demanding much closer scrutiny of public spending.
The Voice Chief Architects Thomas Mayo and Noel Pearson
As the Voice campaign ramped up, statements by Indigenous activist Thomas Mayo rang alarm bells for many Australians. He claimed that the Voice would ensure that Aboriginals would “take your land and make you ‘pay the rent’”.
Thomas Mayo claims he is an aboriginal, but an internet search produces many conflicting stories about his ancestry. It appears Mayo has tried hard to hide his real origins.
In the Dark Emu Exposed website (https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/home/thomas-and-me-part-1?rq=thomas%20mayo), a statement on his family tree says his white mother is of English, Polish and Jewish descent, and his grandfather was a Jewish refugee from Poland. Other articles claim his father is a Torres Strait Islander. It’s hard to find any truth about him. Even though he is brown skinned, one thing is for sure; he is not an Aboriginal.
Let’s not forget, either, that Mayo is a product of the Communist inspired Labour movement. He has never denied he is a Communist.
Mayo makes many spurious claims, including that he is a lifelong advocate of Indigenous rights, and that he is an Aboriginal himself. He was part of the original Uluru Dialogue, which saw hundreds of delegates come together to reach consensus on the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017. Despite this attempt to unite leaders of the various tribes, the Uluru meeting eventually degenerated into a debacle, without any real consensus. Too many egos, and a lack of good will destroyed the meeting, even though they did manage to cobble together the Uluru Statement. This 86-page document (yes…the full document is 86 pages!) contained many controversial and even dangerous ideas to give Aboriginals unprecedented control over the lives of every other Australian non-Aboriginal. Download the full Uluru Statement here:
If Albo hasn’t read it…? (cirnow.com.au)
Recently, Mayo addressed a meeting of CFMEU members about the Voice to Parliament. During his speech, he described Aboriginality as a collective that should behave like a union and use the ‘Voice’ as a means to bargain with the government.
‘If we didn’t have a voice we’d be exploited, we’d be ignored, we’d be degraded. We wouldn’t be able to further our interests and get better wages and conditions. ‘We’d be fucked right? If you don’t have a voice you’re fucked.’
Mayo’s vision is severely flawed. He has been brainwashed into believing the divisive race rhetoric so prevalent in the USA. But that rhetoric and racism is based on an entirely different paradigm. Racism in the US is based on the slave issue. It has nothing to do with Australia and our treatment of the Aborigines.
The Makarrata Commission was another idea bandied about at Uluru. It proposed creating a commission to facilitate treaty-making and truth-telling between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. They reasoned that Australia is one of few Commonwealth nations who do not currently have a treaty or treaties with its Indigenous people, despite ongoing calls.
The Uluru Statement twisted the real meaning of Makarrata to try and convince us it means ‘reparations’. But Makarrata is a Yolngu people’s word meaning “punishment, pay back, spear in the leg, castration, depending on the crime.”
This is the kind of lie and twisted thinking that coloured the Uluru Statement, and it was this racist thinking that ultimately led to the flawed and racist statement that Albo relied so heavily on. Or, at least, so he claimed.
But over sixty percent of Australia has shown by voting No in the referendum that we do not agree with this. We are a great country that has welcomed countless immigrants from countries all over the world, and as a result we have created a nation based on equality and caring for our fellow man. Not only that, but it is enshrined in our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900/01, our Common Law foundational document. Only the politicians and ignorant communist-inspired people like Mayo and his mates continually play the victim card while trying desperately to divide us in an attempt to impose their warped views on us so that they gain total control over us, …. and we are not having it!
During the Voice campaign Albo famously tripped up when he claimed that the Uluru Statement was only one page long, and that he hadn’t bothered to read it. When it became clear he was lying about the length of the document, that was the death knell for the Voice as far as many Australians were concerned.
The good people of the Commonwealth of Australia showed conclusively that we do not support that kind of divisiveness. In fact, we have proved by voting NO so overwhelmingly that we are a very tolerant, inclusive, and cohesive people. There is no place in our Commonwealth for hateful racism.
From now on, we propose adopting the language of the Yolgnu Gumatj dialect, and start calling our Aboriginal brothers Wawa, and our sisters Yappa. By adopting their language, we show respect, and we include them in our ever-changing Australian culture.
Another drafter of the Voice, Noel Pearson, also has a troubled and murky background
While he identifies himself as a Cape York Indigenous leader, Noel Pearson, the main architect for the Voice, has never stood for an election. Noel Pearson, proclaims himself a prominent Indigenous advocate and founder of the Cape York Partnership. He has attracted considerable scrutiny for his role in the administration of taxpayer-funded programs intended to promote economic and social development within the Cape York community.
The Cape York Partnership is one of several entities that have received approximately $550 million in government funding, yet concerns persist about the outcomes and benefits realized from these investments.
Warren Entsch, a long-serving Member of Parliament from Far North Queensland, has questioned the efficacy of Pearson’s programs and his leadership within Indigenous communities. Entsch has raised concerns about the lack of tangible results and accountability for the funds allocated to Pearson’s various initiatives. Furthermore, he has pointed out that Noel Pearson has never been elected as an Indigenous leader and has criticized Pearson’s influence on Indigenous policy and the purported failure of several of his initiatives, including Cape York welfare reform, Cape York Employment, Good to Great Schools, and other projects.
Entsch has also highlighted allegations of racism and divisive language attributed to Pearson in his interactions with others, including Indigenous Minister Ken Wyatt and Indigenous Labor Senator Pat Dodson, further contributing to the controversy surrounding Pearson’s leadership.
Critics argue that the significant amount of Australian taxpayer money funnelled into Pearson’s organizations demands a thorough and transparent financial audit to account for the expenditures and outcomes of these programs. While Pearson has garnered attention for advocating for a constitutional voice for Indigenous Australians, there is growing sentiment that a forensic accounting of the funds should precede any further discussions about constitutional reforms. And while we are at it, we should be investigating rumours that he has secreted funds in overseas accounts.
Pearson’s lifestyle, including his residence in Noosa on the Queensland Sunshine Coast, has raised questions about the source of his income and whether it may be connected to the funds intended for Cape York communities.
Some have labelled Pearson as a “grifter,” given the perception that significant amounts of taxpayer money have flowed to him with limited discernible benefit to Indigenous communities.
In addition, Pearson’s approach to multicultural communities and his attempts to categorize them based on skin colour have met with resistance and failed to resonate with newly arrived migrants, who often seek equality and fairness for all, rather than special treatment based on race or heritage.
We the People demand an immediate Audit of the money given to Aboriginal organizers.
With that sort of doubt about how our money is being spent by the politicians claiming to stand up for Aboriginal rights, is it any wonder so many Aussies are starting to demand full and ongoing accountability?
As discussions about Indigenous issues and constitutional reforms continue, calls for a comprehensive audit of the allocation and use of funds directed towards Indigenous programs, particularly those associated with Noel Pearson’s entities, have gained momentum. Many argue that transparency and accountability are essential before further commitments are made to address the pressing issues faced by Indigenous communities.
What do you think Australia? Comment below.