Following protests, Tony Abbott has been granted the right to express a dissenting voice to proposed constitutional changes.
Initially denied, the former Australian PM said, he will appear before the parliamentary committee on May 1st.
Abbott’s rare public protest is motivated by what he says is the silencing of scrutiny compromising the ability of Australians to make a properly informed decision.
A strong advocate for Indigenous Australians, Abbott is also a staunch opponent of ‘The Voice to Parliament,’ arguing that the improperly defined terms, conditions, and overall proposals have ‘far-reaching ramifications.’
Protesting his ban, Abbott challenged the decision in a statement posted to Twitter.
The former conservative PM explained, that he had been denied by the committee’s Leftist majority.
Four hours after the statement went viral, the apparent government gag order was rescinded.
He then called the silencing of dissent a scandal, asking, ‘What’s the government frightened of?’
Are they worried ‘that someone who knows how government works would explain how the Voice’s constitutional right to make representations to everyone about everything could paralyse government?’
Are they concerned, ‘that government members of the committee might be challenged about how the government intends to have members of the Voice chosen: by election, by selection, or by heredity?’
Are they concerned that Australians will reject the Voice after finding out that the proposals are a ‘blank cheque for radical change?’
It’s a scandal, he added.
‘Especially given that the government has not yet given the same tax advantages to donations for both sides of the Voice debate.’
Abbott then accused the government of funding what looks a lot like a propaganda campaign for Yes, in the guise of ‘information.’
‘Never before have we been frogmarched into changing the constitution like this,’ thundered the former PM.
Tony Abbott’s opposition shares the same platform as outspoken Indigenous leaders such as Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Anthony Dillon, and Warren Mundine.
Mundine’s rebuttal of ‘The Voice’ carries significant weight.
He’s accused campaigners of resting their arguments on myths.
Listing 10, Mundine said the Voice doesn’t have the wide support among Indigenous communities, campaigners say it does.
To add, ‘Aboriginal people are in the constitution, like every Australian.’
In comments which reinforce Tony Abbott’s major concerns, Mundine added, ‘The Voice will reverse the 1967 referendum, constitutionally enshrining a vast Indigenous bureaucracy to speak to everyone about everything.’
Addressing Australia’s current Prime Minister, ‘Anthony Albanese, Mundine stated, I’ve ‘looked to New Zealand on how the Voice will work, and I don’t like what I see.’
This, he continued, will be the ‘fifth attempt at a national, representative Indigenous body in 50 years.’
It will be one of ‘many bodies advising government,’ we don’t need to bolster an already bloated bureaucracy.
‘I’m always tripping over blackfellas in Canberra talking to politicians, public servants, and political staffers. There’s no door that isn’t wide open to Aboriginal people who want to be heard,’ Mundine shared.
Furthermore, Voice members, he said, ‘won’t represent most Aboriginals or any first “nation.” Members won’t be elected; they will be selected by community organisations.
Under current referendum proposals, ‘The Voice,’ will, for the first time, extend Australia’s constitution to recognise “race” as a qualifier for representation.
If the far-left, ‘Yes’ campaign succeeds, a 9th chapter will be added, titled, ‘Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.’
Section 129, the only section under Chapter IX, will contain the vague reference, ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice,’ recognising both ethnic groups as the ‘First Peoples of Australia.’
The arbitrary proposals will seek to institutionalise a race-based “Voice” in the governing of Australia.
Dissenters rightly argue that constitutional changes have the potential to reset Australia’s envied democracy, by creating a melanin, and ethnicity criterion for participation in parliament.
A potential gold mine for its advocates, ‘The Voice’ is viewed as a lawfare minefield by others.
Elevating one ethnicity over others could lend to legal arguments whereby only those from the “right voice” (read: right bloodline and connection to the land) can own land, and determine the direction of the Nation.
As seen in New Zealand, this ‘unelected voice,’ warned Mundine, has the potential to go from ‘advising government, to dictating government decisions; running roughshod over traditional owner autonomy over their own lands.’
Rather than helping Aboriginals, the Voice will hurt Indigenous Australian communities.
Not only are the Voice arguments based primarily on emotion, but the whole referendum proposal is also so poorly defined, even its advocates have trouble understanding it, outside the ad hominem, “Voting No is racist.”
Commenting on the irony of the Voice’s parliamentary panel denying a former Prime Minister a voice, Sky News’ Peta Credlin exclaimed, ‘This says everything about a process that’s been orchestrated from the start to keep the majority of voters in the dark.’
If the optics didn’t speak volumes about the dangers of the Voice, the Yes campaigners’ actions do.
If they’re happy silencing an Australian statesman, when given the power to do so, they’ll be more than happy silencing every other Australian too.
