Australian Federal Government
The Labor Australian Federal Government is promoting a referendum for the establishment of what it calls “The Voice”. This Voice if passed would be put into the constitution and is based on what is called the Uluru Statement. This document may be downloaded at https://antar.org.au/resources/uluru-statement-of-the-heart/.
Personally, I am against recognizing this Voice and especially having such enshrined in the Australian Constitution. My reasons for opposing this are as follows.
The first paragraph of the Uluru Statements says; “Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.”
Now, if one accepts the theory of evolution this would probably be acceptable. However, for those who believe the Bible to be the Word of the Creator then it is not acceptable. Dr. Diane Eager says;
“The estimate that the earth is somewhere around six thousand years old comes from a combination of Biblical and secular history, but depends mostly on reading the early chapters of Genesis as real history. First of all you need to accept that six days means six real days as we know them now, and that means there is no vast period of millions of years before the appearance of man on the earth on Day 6, as Genesis records. If this is true, then the age of the earth corresponds with human history plus 5 days.
The Biblical text records that mankind’s history began with the creation of Adam and Eve and proceeded through the generations to Abraham as recorded in the genealogies (lines of descent) shown in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. In both of these genealogies the length of each lifespan is given, along with the number of years each generation overlapped the succeeding generation. When you add these figures up, you do get a figure of just over 2,000 years from the Creation to the birth of Abraham.
You need to take into account the fact that only whole years are given, and therefore each generation time will be plus or minus one year, and so for 10 generations you could be up to 20 years out, and that is the best the data is able to tell us. However, because of the long lifespans there are only 20 generations involved so this error will not skew the numbers greatly, and since the error is plus or minus one, any such errors will probably balance one another out.
From Abraham to Jesus there are also genealogies listed, but they no longer provide precise lifespans for many of the named people, or lifespan overlaps. Therefore, for this period we need to cross reference Biblical historical characters and events with secular history. There have been numerous attempts at this, but most come up with estimates of not much more than 2,000 years.
Now add to this the time from Jesus to the present, which is well documented as just over 2,000 years to this year of AD 2012, and, like most people who have tried it, you too will get an answer of around 6,000 years for creation to the present.” https://askjohnmackay.com/earths-age-where-does-the-age-for-the-earth-of-around-6000-years-come-from/
In the same article Daniel Durston writes;
“Over the centuries there have been numerous calculations by those who choose to use God’s Word as the starting point for their world view. In his thorough work, Dr Floyd Jones in Chronology of the Old Testament mentions over 30 chronologists and their attempt to find a biblical age of the earth. (Jones, Chronology, p66) From these 30 or so results, the youngest age for the earth was 5848 years and the oldest was 7513 years. The difference sometimes depending on whether they used the Septuagint or the Masoretic text.
Amongst these well known chronologists was Archbishop James Ussher, an often mocked but nonetheless brilliant 17th century theologian, ancient historian and Hebrew scholar with an expertise on Semitic languages. Ussher dated the Earth at around 6,000 years old by first establishing when King Nebuchadnezzar lived, then working his way backwards through the genealogies Ussher came up with the creation date of 4004 BC.
Independently, Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), who formulated the laws of planetary motion, calculated a creation date of 3992 BC. Similarly one of the most famous scientists of all time, Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727) who is lesser known for his deep interest and respect for the Bible, came up with a ‘chronology of antiquity’. Newton wrote much about biblical history and vigorously defended a creation date of about 4,000 BC. He also often attributed his scientific findings to his biblical worldview.”
Biblically the aboriginals have not been here in Australia 60,000 years! Well, someone will say religion has NOTHING to do with this issue. Well, that is not really true. The Uluru Statement says in its second paragraph that: “This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.”
Now, there are two points to be made concerning this paragraph. One is the word “spiritual” and the other is the word “co-exists”. The word “spiritual” and the statement concerning being united with their ancestors one day indicates there is religious aspect involved here. Many secularists would tell Christians that religion has no place in politics and yet this Government is promoting this statement and pushing to have it put into the Australian Constitution. This present government is basically promoting paganism!
As to the aboriginal people’s “sovereignty” and their co-existing “with the sovereignty of the Crown” seems to indicate two nations rather than one nation! This view of two nation was accepted when the Aboriginal flag was given equal status with the Australian flag. Then they speak of “truth telling”. There is no historical truth to the fact that the aboriginal people ever had a flag or flags for each tribe before the 20th century https://www.pmc.gov.au/publications/australian-flags-booklet/part-3-other-official-flags-australia/flags-australias. Accepting another flag to fly alongside the national flag was the beginning of two nations on one land. This only promotes division!
The rest of the Uluru Statements says:
“How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.”
More about the Makarrata Commission may be found at https://www.absolutely-australia.com.au/indigenous-australia/what-is-the-makarrata-commission/.
This issue will NOT be settled even if the referendum is passed. Why do I say that? Because “…the Makarrata Commission remains committed to the pursuit of meaningful dialogue with Aboriginal communities Australia-wide. It appears that in addition to making significant progress towards healing within Aboriginal communities, it is also creating pathways towards true reconciliation on a national scale. The scope of Makarrata’s work is broad – investigating injustices suffered while finding practical solutions to remedy them – but its purpose is single-minded: to bring peace and healing to all Australians.” https://www.absolutely-australia.com.au/indigenous-australia/what-is-the-makarrata-commission/
This PURSUIT, PATHWAYS and INVESTIGATIONS OF INJUSTICES will NEVER, NEVER cease if The Voice referendum is passed this year or any other year for this push for division will sadly never cease.
Sadly, the answer is NOT more division caused by this VOICE but a recognition that God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth; Acts 17:26.
‘Does the Aboriginal Industry not already have a “voice” to government? What exactly is the referendum’s agenda? Who is organising the “NO” campaign? Dave Pellowe explores these big questions with special guest Dr Gary Johns.’
The following is an email from https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/?
‘Anthony Albanese keeps telling us the Voice is a “modest” proposal.
“It’s just an advisory body,” he says, over and over.
Well, he must be praying Australians don’t get to hear this.
It’s from Marcia Langton, co-chair of the government’s “Indigenous Voice Co-Design Senior Advisory Group” – this is the mob who actually invented the Voice.
She was on ABC radio this week, trying to explain how it would work when “advising” parliament and executive government.
Keep in mind Langton wrote the mind-numbing, 272-page “co-design” report that Albanese says has all the detail you need on the Voice.
“Why would we restrict the Voice to representations that can’t be challenged in court?” she said.
Langton was asked if she thought it was a problem that if a democratic government made a decision without listening to the Voice, it “could be challenged in the High Court and potentially stopped from being implemented until the Voice had been heard”.
Her response?
“That’s a possibility. And why wouldn’t we want that to be the case,” she said.
If the Voice is “completely gutted”, she said, “then the government can ignore all of the Voice’s decisions with impunity”.
The activists pushing the Voice insist that it won’t confer any special rights.
But can you take the government to the High Court of Australia if it doesn’t listen to what you want?
No bloody way!
But here we have the activist who designed the Voice to Parliament saying that if your democratically elected government makes a decision without “listening to the Voice”, they will wind up in court.
Maybe that’s why Albo said last year that it would be a “very brave government” that ignored the Voice?
Nope, there’s nothing “modest” about this massive overhaul of your Constitution.
The truth is that the dangerous and divisive Voice will exert a political – and legal – power unlike anything before seen in our nation.
They want you to think the Voice is just a feel-good “request”, a “modest” change to our nation’s founding document.
But that’s a lie.
This is way bigger than they are letting on.’
‘Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ 6,000-word essay, recently published in left-wing publication The Monthly, shows conservatives were correct in predicting the Albanese Labor government would be a meddling, bigger-spending, anti-capitalist nightmare.
However, while there is an understandable temptation to label Chalmers’ love letter to big government as “socialism”, that’s not quite right.
It embodies something that could prove far worse.
Chalmers’ promise to “redesign markets for investment in social purposes, based on common metrics of performance” sounds innocuous.
As does his purported optimism that “2023 will be the year we build a better capitalism” that is “uniquely Australian”.
However, this supposedly better capitalism, or “values-based capitalism”, as he puts it, is not uniquely Australian.
It’s been virulently propagated internationally for decades by the likes of Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF), under the banner of “stakeholder capitalism”, and is a core component of the WEF’s Great Reset initiative.
The Great Reset is a proposed alliance between big government and big business to “reset” the global economy post-pandemic, by pushing companies to adopt “Environmental, Social, and Governance” (ESG) policies as a condition of operation.
ESG policies are characterised by identity politics and radical climate action, and are determined in part by faceless, unelected corporate elites.
It’s not socialism; it’s neo-feudalism.
ESG policies are the “values” of Chalmers’ “values-based capitalism”.
We know this because his essay bears a striking resemblance to the type of stakeholder capitalism outlined in Klaus Schwab’s 2022 co-written book, The Great Narrative, a sort of sequel to his 2020 book The Great Reset.
This, for anyone who holds right-of-centre values, should be cause for alarm.
Chalmers describes a core component of values-based capitalism as enabling investors “to work out the climate-risk rating of a firm just as a lender can work out a credit-risk rating”.
“In 2023, we will create a new sustainable finance architecture, including a new taxonomy to label the climate impact of different investments. That will help investors align their choices with climate targets, help businesses who want to support the transition get finance more easily…This strategy begins with climate finance,” he continues.
Similarly, in The Great Narrative, Schwab says stakeholder capitalism “welcomes the idea of legislative action to define with precision the benchmarks for ESG reporting and performance”.
My essay in @THEMONTHLY out tomorrow in hard copy or read it here: https://t.co/IxeNPWsazE#auspol #ausecon pic.twitter.com/gktOUGH6Nf— Jim Chalmers MP (@JEChalmers) January 29, 2023
“In the same way that companies have an obligation to report their financial results…in the not-too-distant future they will have a similar obligation to report on ESG metrics… governments will make the last call for setting the legal obligations, targets and incentives around ESG standards.”
Ultimately, the purpose of both values-based and stakeholder capitalism is to justify politicians working with corporations to create big government policies, and insidiously exert the kind of control over markets and individuals that, in isolation, is unpalatable to your average voter.
This is the antithesis of democracy.
Jim Chalmers can claim all he wants that his values-based capitalism is the right thing for Australians, but he seems to forget that values are often subjective.
While he may believe that markets geared towards controlling citizen’s behaviour is a moral good, others (like me) believe this is – at best – overly stubborn.
Chalmers would do well to remind himself of this before he positions himself as the last word on Australia’s so-called “national goals”.’https://www.skynews.com.au/insights-and-analysis/jim-chalmers-valuesbased-capitalism-takes-a-page-straight-out-of-the-great-resets-neofeudalistic-playbook/news-story/d8b32e97ea2a060d4d5d9deeddba44f8
Net Zero and a rush into unreliable renewables is what got Australia into this mess. Next winter ought to be fun with these people running the show!!
‘Labor Cabinet ministers have slammed the gas companies for focusing on “maximising their profits” and halting major supply contracts following the government’s landmark response to soaring power prices.
The September Heads of Agreement deal which saw the gas companies commit to diverting all additional uncontracted LNG to the domestic market could be under threat.
In a shock response to the government’s $12/gigajoule cap on gas prices, Shell has paused its deal to sell 50 petajoules of LNG to energy providers as it “assesses the impact” of the proposed reforms.
The massive gas giant’s Queensland arm, QGC, was in the middle of an extensive tender process to contract the LNG for 2023/24.
“Pausing the EOI process was not an option we wanted to take, however, QGC needs to consider whether the design of the current EOI will meet the new regulatory requirements, including the 2023 price cap and the proposed mandatory Code,” a Shell spokesperson said.
Shell has paused its tender process to sell 50 petajoules of LNG to Australian domestic market. Picture: NCA
But the government has unleashed on Shell and other gas companies threatening to withhold supply to the system.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen said while the company was focused on boosting profits, the government would “protect the Australian people”.
“Gas companies want high profits at the expense of industries at the expense of workers and industries,” Mr Bowen said on Tuesday.
“Shell is one of the most profitable companies in Australia and we don’t mind them making profits in their … gas exports, they can make as much profit as they want doing that, but Australians have a right to this gas at a fair price.
“The government will be acting in the national interest not in the interest of Shell, not in the interest of any gas company, in the interest of every Australian.”
The cost of gas has soared since the war in Ukraine, with the spot price hitting as high as $27/gigajoule compared to typical pre-pandemic prices hovering around $6/gigajoule.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen accused the gas companies of receiving high profits at the “expense of workers and industries”. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage
As a result of the more than 140 per cent increase in the gas price year-on-year, industry giants Woodside has seen the share price jump by 57 per cent.
Fellow competitor Origin Energy has also seen its share price soar by more than 44 per cent this year and was another signatory to the September Heads of Agreement through its part ownership Queensland-based gas company APLNG.
Industry Minister Ed Husic warned the gas companies against pulling out of the landmark supply agreement as he questioned their claims over project sustainability.
“A lot of these players have made extraordinary profits, so, when these firms are making claims about the viability of projects, this is about them trying to maintain their profits in extraordinary times,” Mr Husic told ABC Radio National.
“For (energy companies) to claim this is a shock, or to threaten the nation, effectively, by saying they’ll walk away from a heads of agreement they walked into, I think they will need to consider their steps very carefully.”
Oil and gas company Woodside Energy joined Shell in warning the government its new caps on fossil fuels would create an “environment of uncertainty” which will see investment rapidly drop.
Industry Minister Ed Husic said the gas companies needed to “consider their steps very carefully” if the continued to threaten supply. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman
In a statement on Tuesday, Chief Executive Meg O’Neill said the industry’s ongoing investment was “crucial” to support the government’s renewable drive and added the government’s proposal failed to address falling supply.
“We need to unlock gas supply now. For example, Woodside has been looking at options to increase supply, including through new LNG import terminals, exploration spending and further development on the east coast,” Ms O’Neill said.
“Unfortunately, the proposed market intervention will make it very difficult for industry to economically invest to increase supply.
“No one wants to see energy shortages and gas rationing. We must develop a comprehensive, longer-term solution that addresses gas supply and reliability.”
The Albanese Government’s proposal to cap gas price, provide indirect energy bill relief and strengthen the consumer watchdog’s price monitoring capabilities will hit an emergency session of Parliament on Thursday.
In addition, Labor will also legislate a mandatory code of conduct for the gas industry which will strengthen the existing bargaining system between producers and buyers and establish a “reasonable pricing framework”.’https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/industry-minister-ed-husic-accuses-gas-companies-of-threatening-the-nation-as-energy-minister-chris-bowen-slams-shell-for-pushing-huge-profits-at-australias-expense/news-story/559284e80da3cc4924125304bc284f17?net_sub_id=282058248&type=curated&position=1&overallPos=4
While petrol, electricity and food continue to rise the Australian Labor government is concerned with pushing the climate scam. Yet, it seems the Australian public are content with its leadership. Unbelievable.
whatyareckon 