Australia's Approaching Constitutional Crisis
A Woke Blueprint for International Chaos
I’d like to thank antipodean subscriber Gordon Evans for contributing this piece on an idea - giving “indigenous” peoples an extra-legal and over and above say in how a goernment is run - that may soon be coming to a nation near you.
Unlike in the United States, Australia did not deal with “natives” in a treaty/reservation manner, essentially - from a governing standpoint - treating all Austrailians the same. Obviously, this is not how it worked in practicality, with native populations being treated - for decades and decades - in a less than equitable/charitable/appropriate manner.
At issue now, though, is the concept of giving that population what is being dubbed a “Voice” in governance. That “voice” would in fact be both seperate and unequal to other ethic groups in the nation and is - at this point and it seems until the vote - amazingly completely undefined as to what form it would take.
There can be no doubt that various and sundry activist groups around the globe are watching this process with baited breath, ready and eager to promulgate the idea internationally.
Here’s Gordon’s website if you wish to visit: https://www.dryeyeinthehouse.com/
Thanks again Gordon!
When we marry we take a risk - has she married five times before and each husband met with a fatal accident? We think we know, but do we really? One of the hints is if she dodges the question, distracts with something else and never really addresses the “are you a black widow?” question. Then maybe the groom should stop and think.
Australia has a looming Constitutional Crisis that will dwarf our last one 50 years ago. If it succeeds it will have ramifications around the world. (It’s probably illegal, but hey, that doesn’t matter anymore - Obama/Biden proved that.)
Our new Labor (Left) government is driving a proposal for a referendum to create an “Aboriginal Voice to Parliament” and have that “voice” be enshrined in our Constitution. Australia has a time-honored process with referenda where the parliament publishes a “for and against” position and sends it to all citizens. The principle before now has been to inform the public and let them make a decision with full facts - it has worked well.
Not this time. Before I get into the details of the proposition the Black Widow question hovers. Anyone who dodges the subject and avoids answering straight questions has to raise red flags . . . and, in this case, the color isn’t accidental.
Our government has specifically said it will not publish or pay for a “no” case study, claiming it will not fund either side. (There are some minor compromises being negotiated - but this was its starting position.)
It is, however, funding private lobby groups to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to promote the “yes” case. But that is not the government . . . sound familiar? Its straight out of the Obama/Biden playbook to circumvent legislative and constitutional safeguards - “We aren’t doing it - its private enterprise - not our problem, free speech and all that.”
The advertisements on TV are so “motherhood”, pulling heart-strings with emotion and no detail - certainly no truth.
The question of what exactly is being proposed is being met with “we know best” tut-tutting - “I have no idea why so many people are concerned. This is a benign change to our Constitution that will give our poor, down-trodden indigenous people - our “First Nation” - recognition in our Constitution and allow them to be consulted on matters that concern them. What could be wrong with that?”
“How many times were you married my dear?”
Our Federal Government is working hard to ensure that we don’t know the details of this change to our Constitution until it is too late. This change will be irreversible, more so because to change it back we will be required to “consult” with the Aboriginal “Voice”. What government bureaucracy has ever voted to remove itself?
As we understand it - and there appears to be a lot of conjecture trying to fill in the blanks from guarded statements from our Prime Minister - there will be a body of Aborigines (appointed or elected) who the Government will be required to consult on all matters before the parliament. All matters. It is highly probable that this will include a veto - depending on High Court decisions on the expected court challenges to every piece of legislation that may impinge directly or philosophically with a stone age culture that has been weaponised over the last fifty years.
No one suggests that aborigines have no social or economic problems - but another, all powerful, consulting body will not help. Australia spends around 30 billion dollars a year on somewhere between 3% and 5% of the population - my guess is 2.5% is closer, the 5% has grown exponentially with the “industry” and welfare largesse. (Until recently “identifying” was enough to become aboriginal.) We have been targeting that sort of money yearly since the 1950s - with some success, but not enough, and even the successes are usually claimed to have been paternal colonialism and “damaging”.
This is an incomplete list of the subsidized lobby and consultation bodies that already exist to do largely the same as proposed by “The Voice” - without constitutional or veto powers. There are 11 out of 250 elected Federal politicians who identify as indigenous - approaching 5% for a population around 3% - not particularly racist or unrepresented:
This Constitutional change would include specific racial criteria and have a separate controlling body only consisting of selected Aborigines - with virtual veto powers over every aspect of legislation and the law. But the government is not allowing opposition to be publicized and is swamping the media with federally subsidized propaganda campaigns and swamping the schools - "mummy you are racist if you don't want The Voice".
Technically it appears to be a contravention of the UN’s Human Rights treaty - by specifying race as a criteria - but that seems to be being ignored in the pursuit of warm and fuzzy “equity” goals.
If the Government appoints “The Voice” members then there is a political factor - if there is a vote that means the entirety of Australia will need to be identified as “Australian” or “Aboriginal” - at a minimum. To confuse matters - and make the Voice even more unworkable - Aborigines generally don’t play well with each other. We don’t have an Aboriginal Ministry - it is the “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ministry” as Torres Strait Islanders refuse to be called Aboriginal. We don’t have an aboriginal word for “aborigine” because they can’t agree on a term - they were and are tribal and belligerent to each other and, some, to everyone else.
The Commonwealth Solicitor General has submitted a report on the constitutionality and legal ramifications of the proposal and the Labor Government refuses to release the advice. As someone said today, "The Constitution is the property of the Australian people - all of them - it’s not the property of some parliamentarians to hijack.”
“. . . and how many of your five husbands have died accidentally?” Still no answers.
Let me reduce the hate-mail. Aborigines are generally wonderful people - there are cultural problems that the West may or may not have exacerbated. However, the Aboriginal Industry aren’t the aborigines I know. They are political activists with agendas that line their pockets and do nothing for “their” people. Any criticism gleaned from this article is for the industry and not our so-called “First Nation”.
There is archaeological evidence that our current indigenous population are not the same as those who arrived 40 to 60 thousand years ago - there is even controversial evidence going back 100,000 years but without any idea of who they were - Neanderthal, Denisovans or other. The term “First Nation” is marketing and unnecessary – every human in Australia is a migrant and, in the time frame of global development, a rather recent one.
All migrants to Australia are equal - at the moment. The new proposal creates a different class where one group gets extra constitutional representation. As mentioned, Aborigines by official statistics make up 3.2% of our population - they currently have about 5% representation in Parliament - elected politicians who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander - and that is without any political interference or additional rights legislation.
As it is generally understood by those who see what is coming The Aboriginal Voice will be embedded in every decision for our Nation. If the Voice is not consulted or listened to there will be a High Court challenge - and the constitution will say they must be listened to so it’s pretty clear what will happen. Delays, atrophy, impossible negotiations, extortion. The Voice proponents are already drawing up rental agreements for every house in the nation.
I will become a second-class citizen in my own country - and people are likely to vote for it because they feel sorry for the plight of Aborigines - without knowing the facts. The facts are - and acknowledged by all but the activists - that The Voice will do nothing for the plight of aboriginal people. The hundreds of millions being spent on virtue signaling would be better spent in Central Australia, making a difference.
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is an indigenous Senator in the Federal Parliament - and she is stridently against The Voice. Her voice is stifled, but snippets get through: she has quoted “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” - that the Australian people are being “duped” - “Aboriginal people are over governed, we have so many gatekeepers on so many different levels… This is another gatekeeper as far as I’m concerned …You’ll find it is largely those elite that have had a seat at the table that are duping you into thinking we haven’t had a voice.”
If it passes, then all that is required is to decide if the non-aboriginals get to wear a gold star or do we all have to wear different symbols for the “Chinese Voice to Parliament”, “Muslim Voice to Parliament”, “New Zealand Voice to Parliament” . . . I wonder if unhyphenated Australian’s get a voice.
If you are reading this from outside Australia be aware - we have arrived here because a campaign to “recognize” indigenous people in our Constitution has been running for decades - something that says “they were here first and we respect that.” It seemed so benign at the beginning and most people accept that a preamble to the constitution would make them feel better (the only benefit). Its thin-end-of-the-wedge politics and the Left is so good at it - the long games. Remember same sex marriage?
I’m left wondering . . . “Will she slip some arsenic into my coffee or will I fall down the stairs?”
Really good piece, Thomas. It's instructional, and a warning!