This is the bombshell Albo tried to hide.

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   P.S. Thanks to your generous support, FAIR AUSTRALIA’s first national campaign ads will hit the airwaves this week. I’ll let you know where you can see them when they’re live. I know you’re going to love ‘em!   1 National Indigenous Australians Agency, Agency FOI Disclosure Logs, FOI/2223/016, date of access: March 10, 2023.

The first big step towards division The Voice is a package deal.     Who is pushing the Voice? Not these Indigenous Aussies The PM keeps telling us the divisive Voice is a “modest request”, a “generous invitation” from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.     The yawning elites are tired of your questions… As expected, the wording of the constitutional change that will enshrine the divisive Voice is continuing to generate d

The yawning elites are tired of your questions…

April 12, 2023Matthew Sheahan 2 Mins Read

As expected, the wording of the constitutional change that will enshrine the divisive Voice is continuing to generate debate and discussion.

Lawyers and academics continue to tease out the implications for our democracy of putting this new and untested representative body in our national rulebook.

This contentious change is a big deal and many respected legal minds take different views on it.

But don’t tell that to the elite activists pushing for the Voice. As far as they’re concerned there’s nothing to see here.

This is the great miracle of the Voice: it’s both modest and historic. It won’t affect Parliament or Government or anything but also if we don’t do it – it will be a disaster.

And as for those technical constitutional questions: don’t you worry your little minds about it.

Professor Megan Davis – who proclaimed the Uluru Statement back in 2017 and has been intimately involved in all parts of the referendum since – simply responds with a yawning emoji when challenged on a constitutional interpretation by a lawyer on Twitter.