Premium Only Content
![My Final Voice Comments Before the Vote](https://1a-1791.com/video/s8/1/g/e/R/q/geRqn.qR4e-small-My-Final-Voice-Comments-Bef.jpg)
My Final Voice Comments Before the Vote
“This is just a non-racial advisory committee… That’s all it is!” This will be my final commentary on the upcoming Indigenous Voice Referendum before the vote this Saturday, but I will certainly have something to say about it after the results are known. I’d just like to point out that I’m not here to sway anybody’s vote. I assume that all of you have already made up your minds. I’m not stupid enough to think that I can convince you to vote one way or the other. Guess how this Albo voted? I’ll give you a clue: It rhymes with ‘mess’. As in, this entire f***ing referendum has been a complete and utter mess! When we see all these polls showing that some people are still undecided, I think they’re lying, not in a bad way, I think they just want to keep their vote secret. Fair enough. That’s their right. The latest polls show that only Tasmania is swinging towards Yes. The entire mainland is polling No!
The Voice is often touted as simply an advisory committee. If you look at the Uluru Statement website, it states, “You’re the Voice!”, well, you’re the Voice as long you’re one of the 3.8% of Australians who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The other 96% of you or so are not the Voice, and never can be. Further down they state, “The Voice will be an advisory body that gives First Nations Australians a say on matters that directly affect them.” An advisory body. That’s all it is. The Government’s Voice website also reinforces this idea, “The Voice will give independent advice to the Parliament and Government”. Advice. Nothing else.
My only question, we’ll be voting on a constitutional amendment, where in this amendment does it say anything about advice?
You might be asking, why am I looking up dictionary definitions? What am I trying to do? Well, what I’m doing is exactly what constitutional lawyers will be doing in the High Court. This is the constitution. This is not our opinion on the latest sporting event. If I can see ambiguity in this constitutional amendment, so will they. This will be debated in court, exactly what I’m doing now. And decisions of the High Court are final. There are no further appeals once a matter has been decided by the High Court, and the decision is binding on all other courts throughout Australia.
“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.” Okay, so as far as I can tell, there is nothing in here stating that this is only an advisory body like the PM has been going on about in all of his interviews.
Next, is the Voice actually non-racial? According to the PM, “And what this is about is Indigenous issues, not race. So, that is what this is about.” He’s not the only one to claim that this is not about race. On the ABC’s Q&A program, one of the panellists, Director for Centre for Indigenous Training Wesley Aird, mentioned race in connection to the Voice and the panel didn’t know quite what to say.
The Yes campaign seem to be stating that this referendum is not about race, and therefore it’s wrong of the No campaign to accuse it of being racially divisive. But then a quick question comes to mind, “Can Indigenous people in Australia experience racism?” Of course! they will answer. Then doesn’t it follow that this is about race?
I think this has become a game in semantics. They say the Voice is not about race. It’s about one’s cultural identity. It’s about one’s ancestry. One’s Indigeneity. One’s ethnicity. Are these not all one and the same? Okay, let’s not use the word ‘race’, but then we could still say, “Only people of a certain ancestry can become members of the Indigenous Voice”. Is this not a racial notion? If I said, only people of Scandinavian origin may join my club, what do you think the activists would say? Racists! Of course they would.
Mr Albanese has said that he will walk away from the Voice if the referendum flops, which in all likelihood, it probably will. “If Australians vote no, I don’t believe it would be appropriate to then go and legislate anyway”.
Don’t worry, this is just a non-racial advisory committee… That’s all it is! Do you buy their BS anymore?
PRIME MINISTER TRANSCRIPT INSIDERS: INDIGENOUS VOICE TO PARLIAMENT REFERENDUM
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/television-interview-abc-insiders
LABOR WON’T TRY TO LEGISLATE INDIGENOUS VOICE IF REFERENDUM FAILS, ANTHONY ALBANESE SAYS
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/08/labor-wont-try-to-legislate-indigenous-voice-if-referendum-fails-albanese-says
THE ULURU STATEMENT
https://ulurustatement.org/
REFERENDUM QUESTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
-
6:36
Daily Insight
2 months agoConflicting Unborn Child Laws in Australia
1392 -
2:01:29
The Nunn Report - w/ Dan Nunn
3 days ago[Ep 601] USAID / CIA | Panama | Guest Sam Anthony of [your]NEWS
8.09K11 -
58:57
The Dan Bongino Show
5 hours agoDOGE Uncovers More Corruption Than We Ever Thought Possible (Ep. 2418) - 02/07/2025
671K1.37K -
47:52
The Rubin Report
3 hours agoCalifornia Businessman Makes Joe Rogan Go Quiet with Never-Before-Told Details of LA Fires
75.8K29 -
2:05:11
Benny Johnson
3 hours ago🚨INSURRECTION: Violent Democrats Storm DC Federal Buildings! Vow to Impeach Trump | 100K Feds Resign
116K244 -
1:06:22
The Big Mig™
18 hours agoGlobal Finance Forum From Bullion to Borders
9.26K7 -
1:34:04
Film Threat
16 hours agoLOVE HURTS + HEART EYES + LOADS OF REVIEWS | Film Threat Livecast
11.2K -
44:41
Tudor Dixon
2 hours agoThe MAHA Movement with Zachary Levi | The Tudor Dixon Podcast
15K -
1:23:18
Caleb Hammer
3 hours agoPathetic Sugar-Baby Is Mad I Won’t Date Her | Financial Audit
18.7K1 -
DVR
Bannons War Room
1 year agoWarRoom Live
112M