Election Decision D-Day for Victorians is almost here. Saturday 26 November is the official Victorian Election Day though many Victorians have already cast their vote at prepoll centers which opened on Monday 14 November.

In the back of Victorians’ memory and Melbournians in particular is the 262 days of lockdown ordered by Dan Andrews in 2020-21. I lived through all those days of lockdown in Melbourne and it was truly a horrific scaring experience. Dan Andrews was a dictator during those lockdowns controlling every aspect of our daily lives. His menacing lecturing and hectoring daily press conferences determined what we were and weren’t allowed to do.

Victoria’s lockdown number 6 ended over a year ago. 2022 saw Dan Andrews slowly remove most remaining restrictions. In this election campaign, the pandemic is officially over as Dan Andrews did not renew the pandemic declaration which expired on October 12 shortly before the official election campaign period.

But with another covid wave underway which won’t be the last many Victorians rightly fear and if Dan Andrews and his Labor Government are re-elected for another 4 years on Saturday that the era of covid restrictions, mandates, and even lockdowns may not be over.

The police state covid response is the Andrews Labor Government’s most egregious policy against the Victoria people, but there have been others. The misuse of taxpayers’ funds and cronyism by the Andrews Government has resulted in 5 investigations by the state’s Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. Victoria’s debt is the highest in the country. Almost every major infrastructure project has experienced a cost blowout. Waiting times at emergency departments and elective surgery have increased.

The Government’s social agenda has seen so-called conversion therapy banned which criminalizes private conversations about sexuality and gender identity between people. They are also establishing a treaty between the state Government and Indigenous Victorians.

This election Dan is promising another radical agenda. A government-owned renewable energy company bringing back the State Electricity Commission (SEC). More debt through the most expensive piece of infrastructure in the state’s history the Suburban Rail Loop.

Liberal Opposition Leader Matthew Guy is the only viable alternate Premier to Dan Andrews. He has not impressed freedom advocates or the wider electorate. In every poll he falls short of defeating Dan Andrews’ Labor Party on Saturday. His and the Liberal Party’s platform’s main message is they are not Dan Andrews: they won’t be as corrupt, autocratic, and divisive as Dan Andrews.

Who is Premier after Election Day will be determined by which party/parties can form a majority Government in Victoria’s 88-member lower house the Legislative Assembly. Members are elected from 88 single electoral districts using the preferential voting method. Candidates that can realistically win those seats are Labor, the Liberals, Nationals, Greens, Teal Independents and other community Independents. Independent Ian Cook is running in Dan Andrews’s own set of Mulgrave and if Cook is able to win even if Labor was re-elected in with a majority of Legislative Assembly seats Dan couldn’t be Premier.

Victoria has a 40-member upper house the Legislative Council. Apart from money supply bills legislation must pass both houses to become law in Victoria. For the past four years, Dan Andrews has had three reliable members of the upper house crossbench to pass his legislation, most important extensions to the State of Emergency and the Pandemic Management Bill. The three stooges are Samantha Ratnam of the Greens, Fiona Patten of the Reason Party, and Andy Meddick of the Animal Justice Party.

Members of the Legislative Council are elected via proportional representation from 8 5-member regions every four years so minor and micro parties have a more realistic chance of being elected. Victoria remains the only jurisdiction in Australia whose upper house is elected using group voting tickets. This is where if you vote above the line with 1 next to the party of your choice, that party determines where your preferences go and your preferences may end up electing a party you may not agree with or never heard of.

Heston Russell and Chris Burson of the Angry Victorians Party leaked their Zoom call with preference whisper Glenn Durery who has worked with and for minor parties for close to 25 years in the group voting ticket system to get them elected from small primary votes on preferences from other parties. Durery admitted his goal in arranging minor party group voting tickets in Victoria was to elect a crossbench that the Dan Andrews Government could work with. He also admitted the Sack Dan Andrews Restore Democracy was one of his parties used to harvest preferences for the parties he is working to get elected.

If the polls are correct and Dan Andrews’s Labor Party wins a third term forming government in the lower house a major handbrake on its legislative agenda is if there is an upper house crossbench that is pro-freedom and anti-Dan’s socialist agenda. So who are the freedom parties running in each of the 8 upper house regions that Victorians can vote for? I’ve created a freedom party guide summarizing their policy platforms and listing their most prominent candidates.

Freedom Party of Victoria

Led by anti-lockdown activist and Host of the MCJ Report Morgan C Jonas with former Queensland state MP Aidan McLindon as Deputy they promise to remove all pandemic legislation, and mandates and have a state royal commission into the Andrews Government’s covid lockdowns.

One Nation

One Nation and its federal leader Pauline Hanson needs no introduction. The party for 25 years has advocated Australia first policies and for the protection of Australian sovereignty and culture. Pauline Hanson introduced a bill in the Senate last year to ban vaccine passports. Warren Pickering who was the party’s Victorian Senate candidate at the federal election is the party’s state leader.

United Australia Party

Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party (UAP) Version 3.0 ran in the federal election under the leadership of former Liberal MP Craig Kelly with the slogan freedom forever. It was not surprising that it was the state of Victoria that elected a UAP Senator Ralph Babet who has been a vocal advocate against medical cohesion and anti-Australian cultural marxism. The state leader of the UAP is former state Liberal MP Geoff Shaw, also running is Ralph Babet’s brother Matt. The party does not have any Victorian state policies clearly believing their national policies against lockdowns and mandates apply just as much at the state level.

Democratic Labour Party

Candidates running for the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) include former Liberal MLC Bernie Finn and former Labor MLC Adem Somyurek. The DLP was formed during the Labor split of 1955 and is the official Labor Party according to the Supreme Court of Victoria. In addition to running on its traditional platform supporting life, families, children, workers and religious freedom, they are committed to removing all pandemic legislation, and mandates and will hold inquiries into abuses of power and police brutality during the Andrews Government’s lockdown.

Family First

The Family First Party has reformed and is running in all Upper House and lower house regions. Its state leader is Lee Jones. As the name suggests it advocates policies that are pro-family, and its platform is more focused on cultural and social issues, particularly removing cultural Marxist indoctrination in the education system. Family First will push for a Royal Commission into the Andrews Government’s pandemic response and restore the primacy of parliament overseeing public health.

Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrats are a classical liberal and libertarian party. It has two MLCs in the Legislative Council David Limbrick and Tim Quilty. They have a detailed policy platform which includes establishing a Bill of Rights for Victoria, having safeguards in place for emergency powers, and real teeth for the state’s integrity agencies. They also want to end nanny state laws, cut green tape to increase energy production, and cut government waste to reduce the debt and deficit.

Angry Victorians

The Angry Victorians Party is the state branch of the Australian Values Party founded by Retired Special Forces Major Heston Russell who is based in Queensland. Its policy platform is focusing on rebuilding Victoria both economically and mentally. Its slogan is people, not politics. Its state leader is Army Veteran and former Police Officer Chris Burson. Seeking re-election with the party after failing to register her own Victorian Independence Party is Catherine Cumming MLC who generated controversy by saying she wanted Dan turned into red pink mist.

All parties except the Angry Victorians Party participated in Reignite Democracy Australia’s crowd-driven election Q&A event filmed by Real Rukshan.

Above and Below the Line Voting

For those who want to vote for one of the freedom parties that I have listed in the Upper House, there are two voting options. If you just want to put a simple 1 above-the-line party of your choice in your region the Victorian Electoral Commission has published all parties’ group voting tickets on its website.

If you want to control your own preferences like you can in the Senate in the federal elections you must number the individual candidate boxes below the line at least 1 to 5 to cast a valid vote.

It is compulsory to vote in Victoria so best cast a valid vote and make your small contribution to the makeup of Victoria’s Parliament for the next 4 years.

Cassius Turvey, a 15-year-old boy, was tragically killed on the 13th of October on his way home from school in Middle Swan, Perth WA in what was potentially a case of mistaken identity. Although, this is just speculation at this stage. The alleged perpetrator a 21-year-old man has been arrested and small details have been revealed as to what unfolded prior to and leading up to Cassius tragically being killed. Nothing regarding motive, however, has been directly identified by the Police at this stage.

Cassius leaves behind a mother, Mechelle Turvey, completely devasted at the loss of her son and a community deeply hurt by the loss of a young, friendly, and well-liked boy. Vigils attended by thousands have been held across Australia and even as far as Los Angeles and New Zealand. And it’s been fantastic to see a family provided with national and global support in what is arguably the worst possible thing that could happen. I’m a parent and I couldn’t imagine the pain Ms Turvey must be in so the more support the better as far as I’m concerned.

But, unfortunately, as with many things this tragic killing has been racialized already without a single piece of evidence other than the fact (not piece of evidence) that the victim is Aboriginal and the perpetrator White. This dangerous and fundamentally irresponsible way of determining motive isn’t only found in Facebook comments and online forums, it’s actually present in the mind of our Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Who, last month stated the following, “This attack, that clearly is racially motivated, just breaks your heart.” How does he know that when the Police still to this day haven’t put forward a substantiated motive? How irresponsible for a world leader to state something like that. And furthermore, does that not make things worse for Cassius’s already grieving family? I can’t conceive of a way things are made better by such an unsubstantiated claim.

To clarify, I’m not saying that this couldn’t have been racially motivated but at this stage, we don’t know and anyone claiming so must provide factual evidence for doing so. Though, it seems that such trivial details like evidence are simply unimportant in today’s highly politicized climate, a very scary thought.  

“I am not how some people try to paint me,” he told the outlet. “If somebody wants to call me a train wreck, well, I’ve been a train that’s been wrecked multiple times and derailed by many different things.”

Aaron Carter, August 2022.

Young American singer-songwriter Aaron Carter was found dead in his bathtub at his California home at just 34 years of age. Needless to say, we all know what drove him to his sad, almost predictable end. A child star life, sexual abuse, followed by a life of drugs, legal issues, mental illness, and failed comebacks.

Aaron Carter’s childhood career was controlled by criminal manager Lou Pearlman who also managed Backstreet Boys which his older brother Nick was a member and NSYNC. Lou Pearlman exploited young boys in exchange for fame and fortune destroying Aaron Carter’s life, corrupting him from the age of 7, and sending him on a lifelong downward spiral to hell on earth. Pearlman died in prison in 2016 while serving a 25-year sentence for running a Ponzi scheme.

Aaron Carter always denied he was sexually abused by Pearlman though his mother Jane believes Pearlman was inappropriate with his brother Nick. Aaron accused his sister Leslie Carter also a singer who died of a drug overdose in 2012 of sexual abuse when he was a child. At the beginning of 2020, Aaron sold naked photos on OnlyFans. In September this year, he lost custody of his 10-month-old son and went back into a drug rehabilitation facility. His final tweet before he died attempted to reach out to rapper Ye (formerly known as Kayne West) for a man-to-man talk.

Such tragedies are rampant in our ungodly, degenerate society. This is the real epidemic. We accept these things happen yet we continue to attend movies and concerts like it’s no one’s business. But it’s everyone’s business because there are powerful people exploiting young children for our entertainment. Heartbreaking stories continue to pour out of Hollywood about young child stars’ lives coming to an unexpected or premature end. When will enough be enough?

At what point do we give the flicks the flick, switch off the iPods or delete iTunes and Spotify. We don’t, because the entertainment industry wields such power over the naïve masses. We are a mesmerized class of indiscriminate consumers who mindlessly absorb movies and music like it’s junk food. We become complicit in this abuse by just viewing it as something that happens in showbiz.

We don’t think twice anymore when we purchase tickets to the next boy band for our young teen who “just wants to go cos all my friends are going”. Have we ever stopped to explain to our offspring that many boys in boy bands have got seriously messed with by some messed up groomer? That those boys on stage might be high on something while they dance and sing to our roaring and clapping. That they are not safe when the show is over and they go back to the hotel with their groomer who likely has other groomer mates on the road with those boys.

We see these tragedies caused by abuse coming but we continue turn blind eyes to the sordid entertainment industry. We are no better than Aaron’s parents who allowed him to get caught up in the dream of fame and fortune, who practically sold him downriver as a slave to be used, abused and tossed around like a piece of meat at the Colosseum. It is a sad and tragic story. But we have become addicted to being entertained. My heart goes out to all the Aaron Carters out there, may they rest in peace. As for Carter’s abusers, hell awaits them.

The ABC published an article in line with the Four Corners Documentary, ‘How Many More’ which premiered Monday the 24th of October and discusses the high rates of death among Indigenous women.

In both the article and documentary, it bravely pointed out that Indigenous women are murdered at 12 times the national average and the authors astutely call it an “Indigenous femicide”. Details are given on the harrowing and horrible deaths of three Indigenous women at the hands of their partners or ex-partners throughout the article. But, it focuses almost exclusively on why in many cases it’s the Police’s fault, how a missing Black woman isn’t taken seriously (whereas a missing White woman is), and even how “colonial logics” contributes to a lack of effort and care regarding Indigenous women experiencing violence primarily from their partners.

What is extremely relevant but barely touched on, sadly, are the other contributory factors. These include the fact that these women are dying almost exclusively at the hands of Indigenous men, substance and alcohol abuse is a factor in the vast majority of cases along with welfare dependency, and that there is a cultural component that many fear bringing up. Pointing these out in no way shifts blame from Police Officers who didn’t take calls for help seriously or from a lack of funding for women’s shelters. Because these are important factors and deserve an appropriate amount of blame and attention. But what is far more systemic is what I’ve just listed, these negative outcomes can be found across the country in remote Indigenous communities. And the suffering they cause is almost unfathomable.

Justice Judith Kelly is a Northern Territory Supreme Court Judge appointed in 2009. On the 26th of August of this year, she gave a speech at the 2022 Women Lawyers Drinks in which she describes in detail many of the reasons why Indigenous women are killed and injured at such astoundingly high rates. Given her position and experience, what she lists as contributors should be taken with the utmost seriousness. The first is an ideology of “supposed antiracism” that treats Aboriginal people as if they’re permanent victims and labels people and entire institutions as racist with no evidence. This cult-like movement dismisses fundamentally important realities in favour of an unfounded belief in systemic racism.

The second is that some people in these communities, who themselves are primarily Indigenous Australians, often turn a blind eye to instances of domestic violence. In her speech, she focused on two instances in which this occurred. In one of them, twenty people saw or heard the victim being assaulted and crying for help without intervening or calling triple zero. Justice Kelly goes on to point out that two Indigenous men were shot by Police between 2000 and 2022 with massive amounts of press coverage and nationwide protests. But, within that same period, 65 Indigenous women were killed by their partner without even a modicum of press coverage and outrage.

The third is the fact that Indigenous men are the perpetrators 99% of the time in these cases. Something I didn’t see mentioned once in the ABC article. Justice Kelly notes that Indigenous people make up about 30% of the Northern Territory population but are 80-90% of the prison population. She goes on to point out that the vast majority of Indigenous inmates are male and a large percentage of them are incarcerated for committing violence against Indigenous women. Again, this wasn’t mentioned in either.

The fourth is the significant cultural component I touched on in several paragraphs above. Justice Kelly states:

“There is still, in some quarters, a view that the use of physical violence to ‘discipline’ wives (and others who have done the ‘wrong’ thing) is justified and is lawful under customary law. There is also a widespread belief that the infliction of violence in retaliation for violence – whether formally in organised payback or haphazardly in individual assaults, raids, or vendettas – is lawful (and at times obligatory). The blood feud is alive and well in the Territory and, by and large, the participants believe that they are justified by customary law.”

She goes on to list a number of individual cases and books wherein it’s clearly evident that this cultural component is alive and well. And further extends to the point wherein it’s often the male perpetrators’ interests that take priority in the communities eyes as opposed to the female victims.

I did not see a single one of these facts mentioned in the ABC article or documentary. As annoyed as I am at the fact that these fundamentally important realities aren’t discussed I can’t say I’m surprised. It’s fantastic that a spotlight is at least shone in that direction but unless it’s illuminating far more important contributors how is it actually going to change anything?

It’s important to acknowledge failures by the Police and local governments as that does and did happen and already has been acknowledged. But in all three cases focused on in the documentary it was clearly evident that alcohol was involved with zero mention. That the abuse was perpetrated by Indigenous men in all three cases and that Indigenous men commit domestic violence at higher rates when compared to the general population. That question wasn’t even slightly hinted at and neither were the factors that lead to higher rates of domestic violence. Things like perpetual welfare dependency and substance abuse.  

Nothing will change in these communities if our national broadcaster puts out an article and documentary highlighting a justifiably called “femicide” without even acknowledging critical truths contributing to it. The Police may well have failed in their duties to protect in these three instances, but why were the women killed in the first place?

Australia’s food bowl has been hit hard with flooding recently, this has destroyed five billion dollars worth of crops which will lead to food shortages and higher prices for groceries this summer. The amount of rain we have been getting is quite unusual. Northern Victoria and southern NSW has been hit hardest while sadly the northern rivers area has been hit with flooding YET AGAIN!

Channel 7 News report from Melbourne Australia about the recent floods destroying farms crops. Is the excessive rain apart of the communist program to destroy independent farming or is it just nature?

These rains have hit farmers hard while they are already struggling with government abuse. Our communist government is trying to stop global warming(they say) and are putting controls, laws, limits and restrictions and even the GREEN POLICE onto them in order to stop cows from farting etc. This is leading to farmers going bankrupt. So this communist program to destroy independent farming is already making things hard enough but ad in the mix major floods and thats a lot of problems to deal with for farming.

I recently spoke with farmers explaining the communist attack on their small businesses, it’s absolute fact, the gov is shutting down farming, but the big question is are they doing it to stop global warming? Or is that just the excuse they are using to take over a once-free industry? Are the commies using the climate as an excuse to reign in communism? To kick out capitalistic free-market farming? I think so. It really does appear to be a conspiracy but what’s even more interesting is are they also making it rain excessively to hit the farmers even more?

I spoke with a man who used to perform cloud seeding for the government in the 80s. It was for the Melbourne area. He would go up in a plane and spray iodine at a time when the conditions were just right and this would make rain fall over the catchment areas. It helped fill up our dams. He was getting paid to do it. This man wasn’t lying to me. Cloud seeding is a technology that exists. He also wasn’t a stranger I was friends with him so I knew he wasn’t lying to me or making a joke. There is also an episode of Skippy from the 60s where they make it rain by spraying iodine in the sky, so this technology has been around for ages and it’s probably been improved heaps. So knowing the gov has this technology to make it rain let’s take things further and connect the dots. Are they willing to cloud seed and make it rain far too much in order to destroy independent farming just while they are getting their crops ready?

Click here to see Wikipedia’s article on cloud seeding.

What has definitely made the repeated Australian floods of 2022 more devastating to farmers are government’s refusal to build dams as in years passed they claim there is no point in building new dams because climate change means less rainfall. Of course when it rains they claim that is also climate change. When the next drought occurs as there is less water in existing dams since they didn’t build new ones they will claim that the empty dams and dry weather are due to climate change.

The Perrottet Government is buying back homes in the Northern NSW town of Lismore because of flooding in March this year on the justification that it is built on a flood plain. Dom Perrottet has said that he wants Lismore to ‘build back better’ a slogan of the globalist World Economic Forum. Dom’s father John Perrottet works for another globalist institution the World Bank. The town of Lismore just happens to be on the route of the government-dreamed high-speed rail from Melbourne to Brisbane.

Lots of things to think about as the rainfall and flood warnings continue.

Maribyrnong in Melbourne’s inner west was hit by floods recently, then some scumbags went on a looting rampage. The criminals are from a foreign African country, and many African immigrants have huge criminal records. When will the government stop flooding us with people from countries who are committing crimes in Australia?

Just ask the police and they will tell you how much crime these Africans commit compared to people with other backgrounds. I’m sure there are many non-criminal Africans living and working here but it’s not worth the risk of bringing any of them here, it’s guaranteed to increase crime rates which we don’t want. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO NOT LOCK OUR DOORS FOR CHRIST SAKES or worry about carjackings.

Channel 7 News Report about the dog criminals.

The socialist world government is sending climate police out to destroy farming. With the excuse of climate change they are shutting an industry down, they are bankrupting farmers and forcing them to use practices that don’t work. The same technique was used in Communist China in the 60s which lead to many deaths. Climate change-obsessed bureaucrats are changing the way farmers operate and it’s not for the better, it’s wrecking them. In China it lead to millions dying from starvation, will the same happen to the west?

The above video is a mainstream media news report about what the socialists are doing right now to farming and what they plan to do in the future.

When will we learn from our mistakes? Literally in China the government came in and forced farmers to change how they farmed, they said the changes were for the better, were more modern, but that was not true, they ruined farmers output, then China starved, well the exact same is happening today except they are using the excuse that the changes need to be made to stop global warming, it’s an absolute scam. The world isn’t getting hotter and these forced changes would not stop it from getting hot anyway. Back in the 1960s Chinese farmers told the government that the changes to farming were not working yet the government continued with their program, why? Because they were intentionally depopulating China, they knew exactly what they were doing, they knew the changes would really wreck farming. They blamed the food famines on a draught and farm management mistakes but this is a complete lie, they knew all along that the changes were not working, YET THEY WENT AHEAD WITH THEM ANYWAY!

The same is happening here, I’m sure Australian politicians and government workers know these changes are no good, but they are not stopping their evil communist program. I attended a freedom protest by farmers who are sick of the UN, the NWO and our socialist government telling them what to do. They are in dire straits, they can see the future of farming and it doesn’t look good. Listen to their stories below, THE DAMN COMMIES ARE RUINING OUR FARMING INDUSTRY!

I speak with farmers about how the government is destroying the industry and trying to make us starve.

In 2017, just after the Uluru Statement from the Heart was made the then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull famously rejected the idea of a Voice to Parliament for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for three reasons. The first being that referendums the vast majority of the time fail to get accepted. It’s extremely difficult to win a referendum over a controversial issue and since federation in 1901, only 8 out of 44 have been approved. The second is the fact that only Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders would be elected and allowed to elect members which violates a fundamentally important tenet in our society, racial blindness. And finally because of how the Voice would be perceived as a third chamber of Parliament.

But, with a new Government and new Prime Minister it’s clear a referendum on the Voice to Parliament is very likely on the way and so it should be. It should be put to all Australians to decide its fate. What’s important now is that all of the specifics be answered. What the Voice to Parliament would look like, how it would function, what powers it would possess, and all other relevant questions. So far however, many of these questions have only been partially answered if at all. And an example of this comes from a Senator who was unable to directly answer questions related to the process involving the advertising and creation of a Voice to Parliament. This is obviously concerning given the gravity of changing the constitution and implementing, permanently, an advisory body into the Australian government.

Naturally one can’t assume too much from a single Senators inability to directly answer pertinent questions. One can, though, understand a significant amount from a consistent inability to describe how it would help other than to say that ‘it gives a voice to those who don’t have one’, i.e. Indigenous Australians. If a Voice is something lacking, what was the purpose of ATSIC, the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, the Indigenous Council to the Prime Minister and what is the purpose of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs? If these advisory bodies and Ministerial didn’t achieve what they were supposed to, why didn’t they and where is the evidence that what is being proposed will do any better?

The Minister for Indigenous Affairs Linda Burney mentions in a speech given to Parliament last month that real practical solutions will come forth from this Voice should a referendum see a ‘Yes’ majority. What she fails to mention are exactly how these real practical solutions will come about and what would separate this advisory body from all its predecessors other than its inclusion in Australia’s constitution.   

Dr Anthony Dillion of Australia’s Catholic University has expressed his concern regarding a Voice to Parliament. Specifically aspects that are divisive in nature and the way in which it appears to separate Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians as fundamentally different. And I tend to agree. If we look at what’s being proposed and even some of the terminology present in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, it appears to be the case that First Nations are in fact separate from the Australian Government. How else could an official agreement be made unless there were two separate representative bodies of people involved? And furthermore, what does this sentence present in the 2017 statement actually say, “…it captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia…”. Are Indigenous Australians not people of Australia?

I seek not to disparage the Uluru Statement from the Heart as I believe it comes from a good place and is genuine in nature but, I can’t help feeling that it seeks not to include but to divide. And even though a solution will supposedly come from this division, I doubt it will be a very fruitful one.

There have been some attempts to lay these claims to rest such as statements from the Prime Minister expressing directly that it will not be a third Chamber of Parliament and will be subject to the rulings and decisions set by Parliament. These are obviously necessary components and its excellent there’s been clarification from the Prime Minister himself. However, when listening to activists, supporters, and even the Minister for Indigenous Affairs Linda Burney, the lack of specificity is purposeful and will continue until a referendum has been conducted. This, as already discussed above, is concerning given the fact that the Australian constitution might be amended to include a race-based advisory body. And that race-based body, as we’re being told, will have its nature and structure outlined after the Australian people have voted for it.

This brings us to another obvious problem with the Voice to Parliament. If it’s only advising and making representations on Legislation affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, won’t that essentially mean all pieces of Legislation? Given Indigenous Australians are located in every major city and town, in every profession, and in every state and locality, won’t every piece of legislation that passes or is amended by the Parliament require advice from the Voice? These types of concerns are addressed through the understanding of the nature of such an advisory body. And where can such understanding be discerned if it hasn’t been specified? Often in debates and through discussions with those on either side.

But it appears that such discussions are already being vilified as unnecessary and, even, racist in nature, as mentioned by Professor Nareen Young of UTS in her appearance on an ABC program last month. Both the Yes and No Campaigns are obviously necessary in order to facilitate a national conversation wherein legitimate concerns are identified and addressed and avoid a pejorative-filled narrative. This appears not be a priority unfortunately indicating an intolerance of dissenting opinions. Q&A, a popular ABC program that discusses a wide range of issues, held a panel earlier this year to discuss the Voice and did not have a single person who didn’t support it amongst the panellists. As with most things a back and forth is necessary for middle ground to be found and flaws to be identified. With this process impeded potential issues may go unnoticed.  

I can understand the sentiment of wanting constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians and I can sympathize. And that appears to be fundamentally what this referendum is about. Northern Territory (NT) Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price astutely pointed out, “…it’s not enough to pay lip service, but to actually act and commit to practical actions, I’ve yet to see that take place”. This is absolutely right, where is the evidence that practical actions will come about following the constitutional amendment and installation of an advisory body to the Australian parliament? The Indigenous Affairs Minister stated the following two months ago, “We can ensure that we lift the standard of living for First Nations people in this country, and we can see a referendum come forward for voice [to parliament] to be enshrined in the constitution,”. That would be great, but how? And how are those two things supposedly linked as they’re apparently meant to be?

As is obvious at this point, I think this particular advisory body is unlikely to help in any major way and violates the racial blindness our society upholds as a fundamental value and therefore shouldn’t be constitutionally enshrined. However, I don’t have an issue with a constitutional amendment that states the fact that people existed here prior to 1788 with a unique culture and set of practices. Or, for that matter, an advisory body that focuses specifically on issues affecting Indigenous Australians that is not constitutionally enshrined.

This brings me to the second part of this article, a proposed Makarrata commission. For those unfamiliar with the term, the word Makarrata comes from the Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land and essentially means ‘peace after a dispute’. The proposal put forth, as defined by the 2018 submission by the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition (submission 172), can basically be surmised as agreement-making. These agreements will be between Indigenous Australians and the Commonwealth and will likely focus on five specific things related to Indigenous Australians. Recording history, preserving culture, empowering communities to take responsibility, creating commercial opportunities and concluding agreements between governments and Indigenous Australians.

There are, however, a number of issues with such a proposal. These include a reduction in the standard of evidence required to make a claim, regard for the importance of narrative and considering harm to reputation, reparation payments and the idea of forcing someone to apologise for a crime they did not commit to people who were not its primary victims.

It’s likely with such a proposal that a ‘flexible’ approach to standards of acceptable evidence will be taken when discussing historical events and their effects. I understand the reality that not all historical events that did actually occur will have overwhelming evidence to support their status as factual but the issue with this approach is it would be very likely that an even more inaccurate picture would be painted of whatever historical event was being analysed. I certainly believe it’s preferable to have a very accurate partially completed picture as opposed to a slightly accurate complete picture. This is something that is likely to happen should the standards of evidence become too ‘flexible’. And if people are to believe potential falsehoods as historical reality, this isn’t likely to bring peace after a dispute.

What is meant by having regard for narrative and considering harm to reputation? What narratives and whose reputation? If the aim is to ascertain fact from fiction and bring about peace, isn’t the best way forward to focus on the whole truth? I’m not suggesting in the least that narratives and reputations don’t matter, I’m merely pointing out that the point of such a commission is to find the truth because historical accuracy is required for the dispute to be properly addressed.

Although not explicitly stated, reparations (or payments of a kind) are worth mentioning as a likely potentiality. How one would determine the value of a particular payment or payments for an individual, family, and/or group based on a particular historical grievance, I’ve got no idea. And why only focus on Indigenous Australians if such a path is to be traversed? Many other non-Indigenous Australians suffered, should their relatives not be compensated?

And finally, something I’ve always taken issue with, an apology by those who did not commit any wrongdoing to those who have not been that wrongdoings primary victims. Its likely official apologies are to be required in some of the settlements determined by the Commission. I take issue with this primarily because the person apologising is taking partial responsibility for something they had nothing to do with. Its almost arrogant to assume you could apologise for something you had nothing to with and furthermore does nothing to actually help redress the wrongdoing. I can understand acknowledging past policies as abhorrent, but I cannot understand apologising for them if you did not support them or weren’t even alive when they were in effect.

To bring this to a close, I’d clarify that I agree with the good intentions of what’s been proposed in both the Voice and Commission. But the intention of a policy has very little and often nothing to do with its outcomes, which are far more important. And I believe that the outcomes of both are likely not bring about the intended changes for a variety of reasons, many of which I’ve listed above.

The March for the Babies was able to make its return to the streets of Melbourne in 2022 after Dan Andrews’ lockdowns forced the annual pro-life event online. The march is held on the second Saturday of October near or on the anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 in Victoria which legalized abortion in the state up until birth to demand its repeal and for all life including the unborn to be protected by the law.

The Victorian Health Minister in 2008 who spearheaded this extreme abortion law was the current Premier of Victoria Dan Andrews. This week Dan Andrews attacked the Anglican-affiliated City on the Hill Church for being against abortion because its chair Andrew Thorburn was briefly the CEO of the Essendon Football Club. Sadly for Dan, this did not stop Christians present from praying publicly, with Pastor Victor Soo leading the prayer from the podium.

The march is led by the President of the March for the Babies Victorian MLC Bernie Finn. Once again, he hosted the march with propriety and his usual witty candour, keeping the people in high spirits. Bernie had been a loyal member of the Liberal Party for 40 years and was the Member for Tullamarine from 1992 to 1999 and has represented the Western Metro Region in the Legislative Council. Victorian Liberal Leader Matthew Guy led a successful campaign to expel Bernie Finn from the Victorian Liberal Partyroom.

Bernie Finn has since rejoined the Democratic Labour Party which he was a member of and candidate for in the early 1980s. Bernie will be recontesting his seat at the Victorian state election on November 26. The recently revived Family First Party also had a presence at the march and will also be contesting the state election.

Every march up to 2019 had begun at Treasury Gardens and finished at a sound stage outside Victorian Parliament House with speeches and songs. But the space outside Victoria’s Parliament House had been booked by the pro-abortion counter-protestors which includes Antifa, Socialists, and members of the Reason and Animal Justice Parties. Therefore the sound stage was located back at Treasury Gardens. Victoria Police wouldn’t even allow the marchers to just walk past Parliament House for ‘safety reasons’.

Still, no amount of security could stop the pro-abortionists from interrupting a peaceful pro-life protest. There were three interruptions from pro-abortion advocates during the formal proceedings including two women who ran up on stage.

The main chant from the pro-abortion infiltrators was that ‘pro-life is a lie’, whatever that means. The only lie being told today is the one telling women that it is ok to kill one’s baby in utero. Thankfully, Victoria Police knew which side to take this time and with the assistance of the Australian Peacemakers hauled them out quickly. Whilst detractors’ behavior was hateful and vitriolic the pro-lifers remained calm and loving. Maybe this is something they can reflect on.

The main speakers were the retiring Liberal Member for Narracan Gary Blackwood, Kay Painter a pro-life abortion regret activist from Idaho in the United States, and Jasmine Yuen the Victorian Director of the Australian Christian Lobby. There were easily over 1000 pro-life marchers in attendance for the first March for the Babies in 3 years. Given the current anti-Christian culture which exists today, it was a change seeing so many Christians rally together to take a stand for life. With a state election a month and a half away the abhorrent state of Victoria’s abortion laws will certainly be on many voters’ minds.

On Monday night Nigel Farage spoke in Melbourne at Jeff’s Shed. He mentioned the Monarchy, the Commonwealth and how it’s important to protect them along with free speech. He believes that the Commonwealth can unite the west against Communist China.

I quiz numerous people at the Nigel Farage event in Melbourne and got some footage of Farage’s talk. Leftism, mental illness, green energy, electric cars and Dan Andrews is discussed.

Nigel promoted the social media platform Gettr and GB News where he hosts a weeknight show as a way to fight against the leftist censorship of free speech, he praised Sky News. A few lefties were kicked out for holding up an offensive banner that said ‘Fuck Off Farage’ which is strange since lefties seem to be so concerned about offensive speech on social media and in life in general. Leftist protest numbers were extremely down compared with Nigel’s visit to Melbourne four years ago where they chanted with bull horns and abused guests trying to get into the venue. Overall attendance was smaller than last time. The first twenty minutes of his talk can be watched here.