Posts

“Voice running costs? Don’t you worry about that.”

,

Senate Estimates exposed the billion-dollar costs given to indigenous agencies and the unlimited costs required to run the Voice if the Voice is agreed to at the Referendum.

An open cheque book will be required from the taxpayer to fund thousands of jobs and a brand new bureaucracy for the Aboriginal industry to exploit at tax payer expense.

There has been no detail provided as to how the Voice would work if it gets up. The government approach is one of “Don’t you worry about that. We are the government and we are here to help you.”

Click Here for Transcript | Part 1

Chair: I understand Senator Roberts has some questions for the NIAA, so I give the call to you, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing today. What are the total dollar costs to the taxpayer of holding the proposed Voice referendum?

Dr Gordon: Thank you for the question. In the 2023-24 budget, the government provided $364.6 million over the three years from 2022-23. That included $336.6 million over two years for the AEC to deliver the referendum; $10.6 million to produce information pamphlets for the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases; $12 million over two years to deliver a civics education program on the referendum, the Constitution and the referendum proposal; $10.5 million in 2023-24 for the Department of Health and Aged Care to increase mental health supports for First Nations people during the period of the referendum; and $5.5 million in 2023-24 to the NIAA to maintain existing resourcing levels to support the referendum. Those measures build on measures from the budget in October last year, and those measures were $50.2 million to the AEC to commence preparations for the referendum, $6.5 million over two years to NIAA to support the referendum and $2.4 million to the Department of Finance and the Attorney-General’s Department.

Senator Roberts: That totals $364 million?

Dr Gordon: It’s $364 million in 2023-24 plus those figures from the October budget last year.

Senator Roberts: What is the $10.5 million to be spent on mental health for?

Ms Guivarra: I think we’ve got colleagues from the department of health in the room next door. We might just get them to come in so they can provide more detail on that.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Senator McCarthy:I’d just note, too, there was a follow-up question from Senator Stewart around the mental health as well.

Mr Matthews: I missed the question. I think the question was to understand a little bit more about the $10½ million for mental health support for the referendum. Is that the question?

Senator Roberts: That’s correct.

Senator Stewart: We both asked it.

Mr Matthews: You both asked the same question? That’s good. I’m just clarifying that I’ve got the frame of the answer right. The budget does provide $10½ million in support for mental health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the referendum. That’s in recognition that the referendum process may have an impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and cause levels of concern around the debate that plays out publicly in that. So it is to provide additional supports and places that they can go. The measure will basically provide funding through to the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, who will coordinate the use of that funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to reach in. It will provide a range of supports for people. That will be co-designed very heavily with NACCHO and other mental health experts into the design and delivery of that funding. There is also half a million dollars in there for a process to monitor and evaluate that process.

Senator Roberts: So $10 million is for mental health assistance and half a million dollars is for monitoring that assistance?

Mr Matthews: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Are there any expected mental health issues?

Mr Matthews: There’s obviously wide research over time about the impacts of racism on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the impact that that has on their mental health and wellbeing and, indeed, their broader health outcomes. That is a known phenomenon. I think there is also a range of literature and lived experience that, when there are a range of public discussions around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs or things that are sensitive around that, that can bring up issues for people and make things difficult for that. So it’s to ensure that there is support for that.  Part of this also leverages back to the experience of the same-sex marriage debate. I think the learned experience out of that is that that also did raise issues for many people in the affected communities for that that were looking for increased support through that process. So it’s looking at what happened in that experience, and this is really framed to respond to that experience and ensure that, upfront, we’ve got supports in place and are expanding on it. It also builds on the existing mental health effort—that’s probably the other bit that I should add in. It’s not a standalone thing. The government invests probably about $1½ billion per year on mental health funding overall. That’s for mainstream and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There are, obviously, specific things within that funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health generally but also the mainstream population. This would put a specific support over and above that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but obviously the vast weight of that money is also for—

Senator Roberts: What do you mean by ‘the mainstream population’?

Mr Matthews: The broader Australia population, so anybody can access it.

Senator Roberts: Can you confirm the total sum of $781.5 million was allocated to the NIAA in the October 2022-23 budget, building on $1 billion and $21.9 million previously announced? That’s a lot of money.  The figures are taken from the budget papers. Is that correct?

Ms Guivarra: We have our CFO online. Nick, do you want to confirm those for the senator, please?

Mr Creagh: Sorry. Could you repeat that question, Senator?

Senator Roberts:Can you confirm the total sum of $781.5 million was assigned to the NIAA in the October 2022-23 budget, building on $1 billion and $21.9 million previously announced?

Mr Creagh: Senator, I will have you shortly. I just have to quickly draw on the October portfolio budget statements. It might be best if you go to the next question, and then I will come back to you when I’ve got the answer for you.

Senator Roberts: Okay. Does the role of the NIAA, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, already include raising to government issues that are specific to the needs of the four per cent of the population of Australia who are Indigenous?

Ms Broun: Thank you for that question. The NIAA has a broad role working, leading and influencing right across government and leading a couple of important pieces of work like Closing the Gap, so we do have that role, but we are also a deliverer of programs to First Nations people right across the country. That is a role that we take quite seriously—that leading, influencing and working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—but we are a government agency.

Senator Roberts: So will the NIAA still be relevant if the Voice proceeds?

Ms Broun: I think that there’s a lot of work to be done before that question can be answered, and we don’t have a position on it at the moment.

Senator McCarthy: The response is yes, Senator.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Should the ‘yes’ vote in the coming referendum be successful, please tell us what the set-up costs of the Voice are estimated to be and what the yearly running costs of the Voice would be.

Ms Guivarra: Of course, the work to date has been in establishing design principles for a Voice. That is the work of the Referendum Working Group. In terms of how the Voice will function, a lot of that obviously will happen through a consultation process that will be conducted post referendum in finalising the design, and of course that design would be considered by parliament. So ultimately some of those features that you’re describing will be things that parliament will need to consider.

Senator Roberts: So we don’t know the cost, really.

Mr Matthews: At this stage, no.

Senator Roberts: There would be many costs involved. There are the direct costs and then the indirect costs in terms of another entity being put in place in the legislative process, for example.

Ms Guivarra: I think it would just be a bit speculative at this stage to try and predict what the costs associated with the administration of a Voice might be. As I said, there are design principles, so we know some of the elements of how the Voice may function, but, indeed, many of the things around the specifics of the design will be things that would be considered through a consultation process with the broader Australian community and be settled with parliament involved as well.

Senator Roberts: Yes. Minister, it leaves me concerned because, the way this parliament works, it doesn’t work on data when it makes policies and legislation. To have an open-ended script or a blank cheque doesn’t seem the right way to go. I have some questions for you, representing the Prime Minister. Why are these costs of running the Voice being held back from Australian voters?

Senator McCarthy: Senator Roberts, there’s nothing being held back. We’ve been as open and transparent as we can be in terms of our steps towards the campaign and in terms of the referendum itself. We’ve certainly been open and transparent about the costs that are associated with running a referendum, the costs associated with running a civics education campaign and the costs, of course, of the actual referendum itself, right across the country. We’ve also been very clear that, should the campaign and the referendum be successful, the debate has to occur within the parliament, and that will take whatever the next 12 months will be post the referendum. We’re also incredibly mindful that this is a challenge. It will be up to the Australian people to determine whether they’ve got enough information as we lead into the campaign proper. We still have to debate the constitution alteration bill that’s before the House at the moment. We still have to debate it in the Senate. We still have some work to do just here in the parliament.

Senator Roberts: So there’s a lot of uncertainty?

Senator McCarthy: There’s always uncertainty about any referendum.

Senator Roberts: Especially when the proposal is not clearly defined.

Senator McCarthy: The debate hasn’t concluded in the Australian parliament yet.

Senator Roberts: While people are tightening their belts during this period of out-of-control costs, with savage inflation biting and huge cost-of-living increases, how can Australians afford this expensive exercise of destroying the Australian parliamentary system of democracy that has worked so well to date?

Senator McCarthy: I totally disagree with your concept that any debate that we are having right now is destroying anything. It’s enabling our country to have the democratic conversation that we should.

Senator Roberts: I agree with you: debates are always wonderful and very useful—if they’re done openly, and that’s my concern.

Senator McCarthy: It’s before the House at the moment. It comes to the Senate. There is nothing that has not been brought before the parliament in terms of the bills. This is where we have the open debates.

Senator Roberts: I’m talking about the definition of what the Voice would, will like, how it will operate, what the systems will be, where it will impact—

Senator McCarthy: Those principles and the design principles are very clear. You may not accept them or like them, but they are very transparent and open for everyone to see.

Senator Roberts: It’s not matter of whether I like them or not. It’s a matter of definition—

Senator McCarthy: It clearly must be, because you keep referring to the fact that there’s nothing out there, when it is out there, in terms of the design principles. We’ve said that on numerous occasions here in this estimates process. It is there on the website. It is there in the information for the public to access.

Senator Roberts: Do you think the Australian voters will support a ‘yes’ vote if they know how much this will cost them in taxes to pay for it? It will cost a lot of money to put in additional bureaucracy.

Senator McCarthy: Any referendum in this country is very difficult to win. Forty-four have been held. Only eight have been won. We acknowledge that this is a challenge and that the Australian people will determine the outcome.

Senator Roberts: This is an open cheque written on behalf of the Australian taxpayers. There are so many things that are undefined. The direct costs of running the Voice, if it gets up, and then the indirect costs and the impact on so many operations in this country are huge.

Senator McCarthy: The process is not concluded. The bill is before the parliament in the House and yet to be debated in the Senate. We have not concluded the process of the parliament and therefore, when we do, there will be many things that the Australian people can make their decisions on.

Senator Roberts: Why isn’t the government talking about the indirect and direct costs of running the Voice if it gets in?

Senator McCarthy: You’ve seen the total already. We’ve been talking about the figures, which—

Senator Roberts: No, that’s the referendum.

Senator McCarthy: In terms of the referendum, but we’ve also looked at the costs of going forward with regional voices. These are things that we are bringing forward in terms of our debate in the parliament. I think I’ve made that very clear.

Senator Roberts: The Labor Party or the government has not talked about the potential negatives openly with the people: the frustration of parliamentary processes and the addition of a ninth chapter. We’ve only heard the benefits, and even those have been very vague. This doesn’t give people confidence.

Senator McCarthy: Only time will see on that front.

Senator Roberts: What will be the other costs to voters from the slowing down of government, bogged down with court proceedings and increased bureaucracy?

Senator McCarthy: As we’ve heard from legal experts across the country, that will not be the case.

Senator Roberts: How many new jobs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will be created by the Voice?

Senator McCarthy: This will be an opportunity for First Nations people in every state and territory jurisdiction to be able to speak to the parliament and the executive, should we be successful at this referendum, which will also mean that local and regional voices will also be established. In terms of particular jobs right now, our focus is on jobs across the CDP sector; and the health sector, in terms of the 500 health positions that we want to roll out. These are connected in terms of where we want to lift the problems that we encounter right across the country.

Chair: Senator Roberts, you’ve had a good 15 minutes now.

Senator Roberts: Last one?

Chair: Great. Then I will give the call to Senator Steele-John, and then we are back over to this side.

Senator Roberts: How many new bureaucratic officers will need to be found and what will be the salaries of the thousands of new positions created to service the Voice?

Senator McCarthy: I’d certainly like to think that our First Nations regions, in terms of the Voice should it be successful, will need the capability of a secretariat of sorts to assist them in terms of defining specifically what that will be. Clearly we have to see what happens with the outcome of the referendum and our debate post that.

Senator Roberts: Sticking to that point about the bureaucracy: having travelled to all of the communities on Cape York—mixed communities and Aboriginal communities—they’re very concerned, frustrated and sometimes angry about the lack of impact of the funds that we give them on the ground. They see that the bureaucracy, whether that be black people or white people, it doesn’t matter; the bureaucrats, the lawyers, the activists, the politicians—people are frustrated. They want real change, not more bureaucracy.

Senator McCarthy: Nowhere is that more clear than for those of us who’ve only just come into government in the last 12 months. We understand that, and that’s why we’re trying to create the changes that we see will give our country hope going forward.

Senator Roberts: But you’re adding more layers of bureaucracy.

Senator McCarthy: We’re giving hope.

Senator Roberts: Thank you, Chair.

Click Here for Transcript | Part 2

Chair: Senator Roberts, you now have the call.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Continuing our discussion, Minister, on ATSIC’s failure. It was a dismal failure, and it showed money without accountability is no substitute for truth. We see Aboriginal women like Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price talking about the real issues affecting Aboriginal communities and Aboriginals across Australia, and they’ve won huge admiration across all sectors of Australia’s population.  Wouldn’t an open discussion be far more productive than spending and wasting billions more dollars? We have to get the truth.

Senator McCarthy: Senator, I just want to pick up on the lead-in to your question, about ATSIC. I think that everyone has a distorted view of ATSIC, and I can certainly reflect on the ATSIC that we had in the north, with Garrak-Jarru and regional councils. They were certainly not a problem for our organisations across most of Australia. The incident around the particular chair at the time, and others, was seen in a different view, and there has since been political commentary, even by the Liberal-Nationals, in relation to that previous Indigenous affairs minister and ministers who could have handled that very differently. So I do want to pick up on that; it is wrong to use that as the example for why we should not embark on a referendum.

Senator Roberts: You didn’t answer my question, Minister. I said that an honest debate with truth would be far better than another bureaucratic body without accountability.

Senator McCarthy: I did actually answer your question previously today when I said that we have been transparent in every way. We have brought to the parliament, from the very first night we won government, that we were maintaining the promise we took to the Australian people that was qualified in us winning government.  We have then proceeded with a working group, an engagement group, and we’ve certainly continued with the principles of the design around the referendum, which are on the website for all Australians to see. We’ve had debates in the parliament over the referendum bill, which have been open and transparent. And we currently have the constitutional alteration bill before the House, yet to come to the Senate. All of this is open and transparent, as it should be.

Senator Roberts: I’m talking about a debate on what the Aboriginal people need and what Australians need.

Senator McCarthy: This is the debate of the parliament, and every single member of the parliament is able to bring their reflections and their views in terms of the people they represent.

Senator Roberts: I’m not talking about a debate on the Voice. That is going ahead. I’m talking about a debate on the issues affecting Aboriginal people and why their needs are not being met. I acknowledge that they’re not being met, and I’d say it’s largely because of the Aboriginal industry. That’s not a slight on the Aboriginals; that’s a tarring of black and white consultants—

Senator McCarthy: It is a slight. You’ve used the word ‘industry’—Aboriginal industry. Straightaway, you’ve put First Nations people in the negative.

Senator Roberts: You cut me off.

Senator McCarthy: You need to be mindful of your words. Words can be weaponised.

Senator Roberts: That was very cleverly done. I was about to explain what the Aboriginal industry is. It’s white and black consultants, activists, politicians and bureaucrats who seek power and manipulate power. That is not looking after the Aboriginal people; that is hindering.

Chair: It’s the same industry we have here in parliament, Senator Roberts, and we all belong to it. I don’t think races have particular industries, unless we’re all part of one here.

Senator Roberts: That’s correct.

Chair: Senator Roberts, do you have a question?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I do. Wouldn’t it be better to have a truthful debate about the real issues—not about the Voice but about the real issues affecting and holding back Aboriginal communities?

Senator McCarthy: Can I ask you what contribution you’ve made to the Close the Gap debate when we have that every year in February?

Senator Roberts: I have proudly called out the Close the Gap initiative because I’ve listened to people across Cape York and people in the Torres Strait Islands, and they have told me that Close the Gap only perpetuates the gap because of the Aboriginal industry. We need to get to the issues—

Senator McCarthy: Doesn’t that answer your question, then? That is the time that we debate all of these issues that you’re raising. Don’t you think you’ve just answered your own question?

Senator Roberts: No, I do not.

Senator McCarthy: The reason why we have Close the Gap debates every February—prior to that it was every October because the previous government changed it for a couple of years; we brought it back to February—is that it reflects back to the stolen generations apology from the Prime Minister at the time, Kevin Rudd. As a result of that, we began Close the Gap so that the parliament, every single year, would know about the treatment of First Nations people and the spending of monies to First Nations people, and we would debate it in a respectful way. That happens every year.

Senator Roberts: I’m ashamed of the way the current Prime Minister and previous opposition leader and the current opposition leader have discussed the gap. It’s just a farce. It’s a sugar coating and a veneer. What I’m talking about is an open and honest debate about the real issues, as Senators Nampijinpa Price and Kerrynne Liddle have discussed at length widely around the country, and as Senator Pauline Hanson has discussed widely around the country. That’s what I’m talking about—a real debate.

Senator McCarthy: Are you saying that the Close the Gap debate is not real?

Senator Roberts: Criticism is not racist.

Senator McCarthy: That is the opportunity. This is what I’m pointing out. You’re putting your questions as though we don’t talk about it at all in the parliament—when we do. We have a specific time when we do it. We also have time, as you know, through the Senate processes: through motions and through private senators’ bills.  They are thoroughly discussed and debated in a very open way. I’m not too sure where you’re going with this when we already discuss it. It doesn’t mean that we’re pleased with the outcomes. Certainly, I would agree with you on that.

Chair: We have time for one more question and one answer, and then we’ll break for afternoon tea. Thank you.

Senator Roberts: We are not discussing this openly and honestly. It’s about labels, veneers and pretence.  What we’ve got in this country, through this kind of discussion—a charade around an insincere closing the gap—is an ‘us versus them’ situation, which will be exacerbated by the Voice.

Chair: Senator Roberts, where is your question? These are statements. These are debating points for the parliament.

Senator McCarthy: I disagree with you completely, Senator Roberts. You are in a position of power. You are in such a position of power as a member of this parliament. For you to say that it does not get discussed and debated is really quite appalling.

Senator Roberts: It wasn’t discussed until these two women entered the parliament.

Chair: Senator Roberts, you don’t have the call. Minister, have you finished your answer to Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: I haven’t got my question out yet. Isn’t the Voice based on race?

Chair: You are raising debating points, not clear questions.

Senator Roberts: I haven’t finished my question.

Chair: I did say we were about to break for afternoon tea.

Senator Roberts: The Voice is based on a racist proposal.

Senator McCarthy: You’re wrong. You’re totally wrong.

Chair: It seems you’re trying to invoke a debate about this question. On that basis, we will temporarily suspend for afternoon tea.

/8 Comments/by

“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.

Transcript

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.

/17 Comments/by

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

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.

/2 Comments/by

Deals done on Voice Referendum don’t fix core issue

The Liberal/National party and Labor have done a backroom deal on the referendum machinery bill. This bill is more about technicalities of how voting will be organised at the referendum rather than the voice itself.

There are some proposed amendments that are very concerning. If they are incorporated, I won’t be able to support the bill.

None of this fixes the core issue about the voice to parliament. Anything that seperates us based on race is racist, #voteno.

Transcript

As a servant to the people Queensland and Australia, I note that this Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 is about updating the mechanics of referendum voting, and is entirely appropriate and necessary. It has, though, unearthed yet another Labor Party deceit on its Voice proposal.

While many senators have chosen to speak about the Voice proposal itself, I will speak primarily about the bill’s mechanics.  My comments on the Voice proposal for now are that, if passed at a constitutional referendum, it will entrench and deepen the neglect and suppression of Aboriginals in our country.  

It will do so in favour of the Aboriginal industry, which fattens the bank accounts of parasitic white and black academics, consultants, lawyers, activists, ignorant and uncaring virtue-signallers, and politicians. That’s at the expense of taxpayers and everyday Aboriginals and communities across our nation. 

The flood of amendments from across the Senate reemphasises the need to update the referendum process. The amendments, though, include one that is very disturbing to me: namely, Senator Pocock’s addition of schedule 9, on the referendum pamphlet review panel. It flushes out yet another example of the teal Senator Pocock working with the Labor Party to advance Labor’s deceit.

This amendment is disguised as Senator Pocock’s and yet it seems to be, in reality, a Labor Party amendment attempting to enable Labor to take control of the referendum pamphlet’s content. Firstly, my understanding is that if this amendment is successful then a Labor minister, Ms Linda Burney, who has already declared support for the ‘yes’ case, will nominate a Labor controlled review panel that must approve the pamphlet’s contents.

There’s no requirement for a balanced view, and the panel can censor and exclude material. I suspect that the ‘no’ campaign material will be unfairly censored. The panel will include people who were part of the working groups in favour of the ‘yes’ campaign: academics and other ministerial appointments. So the panel will be weighted in favour of a ‘yes’ vote. 

Secondly, why is this panel not comprised of persons with an independent background?

Thirdly, why is the panel not designed to represent all the varied views from across all the parties and Independents in parliament, and, especially, from all across our nation? This is a terrible amendment, designed to appoint a pamphlet review panel whose purpose is to produce a biased pamphlet with taxpayer funding. It’s an abuse of taxpayer funds. This seems to be yet another example of teal Senator Pocock working for and serving the Labor Party.

While I will support this bill at the moment, and I will support most amendments, if the teal Pocock amendment is successful, I will oppose the bill. I cannot support such a dodgy amendment. I will wait, though, and listen to opposition speakers raising specific concerns regarding funding, tax deductibility, audits of campaigns, and security from international interference. 

The Labor-Greens-teal campaign for the Voice is becoming a train wreck for Labor. The Voice is a racist proposal that will divide the nation on race. It’s based on race. What happened to the fundamental principle of democracy that started with ancient Greece 3,000 years ago—namely, that every person has an equal voice and equal vote?

As we have seen with the Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock behaviour in the Senate, guillotining and ramming through damaging bills with horrific future consequences for our nation in just the few months this government has been in power, the abolition and bypassing of democracy is yet another trait of this Albanese government that is a reincarnation of a Soviet style politburo.

History shows what happened to that after the people endured decades of needless, inhuman pain and suffering. 

In Australia we have one flag, we have one community, we are one nation. We must stay as one nation made of people from many backgrounds, all with an equal voice. 

/by

Aboriginals aren’t victims, stop trying to be white saviour lefties

The current government is proposing the Voice to instil and make racism systemic, separating and dividing.

It follows and perpetuates a disgraceful legacy of paternalism and victimhood which harms all members of our Australian community

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I serve all people of Australia. I want to celebrate especially the Aboriginal people of this country. There is a higher proportion of Aboriginals in the NRL’s elite athletes, higher than across the community. There’s also a higher proportion in the AFL. Scientists, lawyers, parliamentarians, government—Aboriginals are part of these groups and doing a fine job. 

They’re doing well in business, people like Warren Mundine; in carers roles—people like police, nurses, doctors—and the previous speaker mentioned Steve Fordham from Blackrock Industries who’s doing a phenomenal job, and now he has been gutted by the bureaucracy. I note Ash Dodd in Queensland who is sponsoring the Collinsville coal fired power station project. Senators like Nampijinpa Price and Kerrynne Liddle are telling the truth, which is so important. 

Senator Pauline Hanson is uneasy with praise but probably watching in her office. When I was first elected, I approached the office of our party in the suburb of Albion. I was met at the door in our car park by three Northern Territory Aboriginals who had come down specifically to meet with us because, they said, ‘Pauline Hanson is the only one who understands the Aboriginal plight and the only one willing to stand up and say so and speak out for what they need.’ I will say that, if the Howard government had adopted her policies, we would now have no gap or a little gap. The Caucasian and Aboriginal people I have met in travelling through every Cape York community and the people I have met in other Northern Territory communities are quietly getting on with it and doing a stellar job. 

They’re closing the gap. I’ll tell you about an Islander who was on a council in the Torres Strait. He told me that Closing the Gap perpetuates the gap because the consultants that feed off this program actually have to maintain the gap in order to keep their money. That is what perpetuates the gap. 

There are many challenges our nation faces, and every problem I see around our country is due to government. I am ashamed of governments, state and federal, and churches who blindly assumed they knew what was best for the Aboriginals—good intentions maybe, but arrogantly and ignorantly paternalistic and patronising, cruel, damaging, stultifying. I am angry with the Aboriginal industry. Communities tell me of Noel Pearson interfering, land councils acting as effectively robber barons controlling land, water, resources and funds. Billions of dollars every year supposedly go to the people on the ground, but are interceded by these robber barons. The Aboriginal industry is perpetuating victimhood, but, worse, fomenting hate and separation because that’s what their industry is based on and they want it to continue. 

The current government is proposing the Voice to instil and make racism systemic, separating and dividing. It follows and perpetuates a disgraceful legacy of paternalism and victimhood which harms all members of our Australian community. Actions need to follow words. We need to unify, not separate. Solving problems requires listening to people to understand their needs. Giving people their freedom to get on with their lives builds responsibility and freedom. We need to give the Aboriginal people freedom, especially in the Aboriginal communities. Addressing all of Australia’s problems begins with acknowledging government as the cause of the problems, and the solution is getting government out of people’s lives, honouring and respecting our Commonwealth of Australia’s Constitution. 

I want and look forward to uniting Australia into one nation. Worst of all, the Voice will perpetuate the hollow, deceitful policies of Labor, the Greens and, to a lesser extent, the LNP. It’s a dishonest distraction that will perpetuate the gap, perpetuate the cruel infliction of punishment and deprivation. We need policies for lifting all Australians. 

That requires policies for restoring sovereignty, implementing sound and honest governance based on data and facts—honesty policy—and, first of all, listening to understand people’s needs. Then, instead of doing things to look good, actually do good.  

/21 Comments/by

Albanese would rather go to Bill Gates than Alice Springs

Albo is proving he’d rather clink champagne glasses with the elites over actually talking to Indigenous people about the violence they are facing in Alice Springs. It’s just more proof that the Voice to Parliament is just about looking good, not doing anything.

Transcript

Last Saturday Prime Minister Albanese met with billionaire Bill Gates at Kirribilli House to talk about opportunities for Bill Gates’ vaccine lobbying, software, agriculture and energy interests in Australia.

The meeting came as Bill Gates spent US$10bn buying new stock in Microsoft. Perhaps they talked about the use of Microsoft products to run Australian Parliament House secure email and data storage systems.

They did talk about the Albanese Government’s decision to give $230m to the Gates-founded Global Health, bringing Australia’s total contribution to just under a billion dollars.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has found time to meet with billionaires.

Only two weeks ago Anthony Albanese met for six hours with billionaire Lindsay Fox in his upmarket Portsea mansion, arriving from Geelong in Lindsay Fox’s own helicopter.

What deals were done there one can only wonder.

Anthony Albanese it seems has all the time in the world to meet with billionaires, yet only caves to meeting the residents of Alice Springs after days of relentless national media coverage.

It was the Albanese Government that lifted the ban on alcohol in Aboriginal Communities, now just months later we are seeing why that ban was needed in the first place.

The Government was warned this would happen at the time, and only a month after the ban was lifted the Daily Mail reported on the rising violence in Aboriginal Communities.

These kids are on the streets instead of at home for a reason.

Anthony Albanese has tried to run away from a problem he caused.

Prime Minister get your arse to Alice Springs and take Linda Burney with you, it’s about time she met with real Aboriginals. How about you actually do something instead of virtue signalling about the voice to Parliament.

Sort your mess out.

/21 Comments/by

Lidia Thorpe division shows The Voice is completely flawed

The idea that one Voice can speak for every indigenous and Australian is flawed and fundamentally racist. The Voice will just be more well paid bureaucrats in Canberra that will do little to help Australians in remote communities.

Transcript

Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe has broken ranks with her colleagues. Again. She’s declared the party won’t support a referendum on the indigenous Voice to Parliament unless the government meets her demands.

I disagree with Lidia Thorpe on a lot of her ideas and conduct, and this latest disagreement shows how ridiculous the proposed Voice to parliament is.

There is no single Voice or opinion for all the indigenous or all Australians. What Torres Strait Islanders need is completely different from what mainlanders need. What people in Cape York need is different from Melbourne and that’s different again from country Tasmania, the Alice, the Pilbara or musgrave park.

Just look at Lidia Thorpe. There’s only a handful of aboriginal greens senators, yet on the Voice they can’t even make their mind up on whether they support or OPPOSE THE VOICE.
The idea of the Voice is that some over-paid bureaucrats sitting in Canberra can speak on behalf of every aboriginal person and that they can’t think or vote for themselves.

There’s nothing more racist than dividing us on race. Vote no to the Voice.

/13 Comments/by