Australia’s Prime Minister ‘Albo wants you to think the dangerous and divisive ‘Voice’ is just a feel-good virtue-signal that will make inner-city activists feel better about themselves … but the truth is hiding in plain sight.
And now the cat is out of the bag… the ‘Voice to Parliament’ is a TROJAN HORSE that threatens our democracy and would VANDALISE our Constitution.
This is an email received from the conservative ADVANCE.
‘Albo and the Labor party want you to think their referendum on the Voice to Parliament is just another woke virtue-signal.
They want you to think it’s merely a minor change to the Constitution … a “modest request”.
They want Australians believing that it’s nothing more than a small gesture to make our Indigenous brothers and sisters feel more included.
But it isn’t…
The Voice is a trojan horse the likes of which Australia has never seen…
The activists pushing for the Voice won’t tell you this, but Victoria has a version of it already legislated.
And right now, Melbourne’s mini-voice is demanding a “Black Parliament” – their words, not ours.
In 2019, Dan Andrews set up what became known as the First Peoples’ Assembly.
There to “represent Traditional Owners of Country and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Victoria”, it has an “Elders’ Voice”, its own constitution, runs its own Indigenous-only elections and meets in the Victorian Parliament.
Its priority is to negotiate a “treaty” with the Victorian Government.
Using $65 million of Victorian taxpayers’ money, it’s pushing changes to Victoria’s democracy that will see power shift away from ordinary Victorian voters.
Victoria’s “voice” is open about the fact that “nothing is off the table, so we need to think big and push hard.”1
There is no exaggeration here.
These are some of the “First Peoples’ Assembly” specific goals for the treaty2:
Establishing a permanent representative body with meaningful decision-making powers – a “Black Parliament” of sorts.
Having a number of seats in the Victorian Parliament that members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community vote for.
First Peoples oversight of the Victorian Government and public service for the benefit of First Peoples.
And the Andrews Government is backing them, saying in the announcement of the Treaty Framework3:
Treaty is a significant step towards transferring power and resources to First Peoples…
The Voice is not just about including our Indigenous brothers and sisters and giving them a say.
It’s about money and power, and changing our Constitution forever.
…and Albo is pretending it’s not a big deal.
The Voice to Parliament will divide us by race, it will threaten our democracy and – by looking at Melbourne’s mini-voice – we’re only just starting to see the real costs.’
‘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”.
“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.
Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.