The Voice is Actually A Coup in Motion - Part 1
The Voice is an attempted Coup by a group of Australians who want to set-up an Aboriginal Aristocracy.
Sounds like a Conspiracy Theory, I know, but as will be explained over the coming weeks, we here at Dark Emu Exposed are deadly serious and we will provide evidence over a series of posts to support our case.
In our opinion what we are seeing with the Voice process is a ‘Coup in Motion’, an Australian style, soft-coup, not with guns and hard violence, but with rhetoric, bullying and a low-information referendum.
In this post we will use the term, ‘The Voice’, to refer to the whole package of the Uluru Statement from the Heart - Voice, Treaty and Makarrata. This whole Uluru Statement package will necessarily follow and become law in stages once The Voice is enshrined into our Constitution after a successful referendum.
Thus, Australians need to take a step back and take a much broader view of The Voice proposal so they can fully understand what we are all really being asked to accept. This ‘generous offer’, as Prime Minister Albanese calls it, needs to be unpacked completely if we are to decide what it really means to the future of governance in our society and country.
The Voice as a Power Grab
When two commentators from opposites ends of the political spectrum both talk of The Voice in terms of a ‘grab for power’ - Waleed Aly [Ten’s The Project] who claimed that the ‘Statement from the Heart [The Voice] is a gift to the nation, not a grab for power; and Nyunggai Warren Mundine [CIS] who claimed that the ‘Voice to Parliament is a bureaucratic power grab’ - you can be sure that ‘power’, the ‘grabbing’ of it, and who will wield it, is more than likely at the heart of the Voice proposal.
It is our contention that proponents of the Voice like Waleed Aly recognise that, in essence, the Voice will mean that much greater power will accrue to an ethnic minority, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This power will be far in excess of what they could, or should, expect in a truly liberal democracy, which is based on equality for all, regardless of race or background.
Our nation has evolved over two-centuries to become one of the world’s premier, liberal democracies, where we are all equal citizens, with a one person-one-vote-system of power-sharing.
Voice proponents such as Aly therefore need to talk-down and discount the claims of those who are saying that our universal democratic rights are under threat by a power grab by a minority group of Australians.
Experienced commentators such as Mundine see things differently and recognise the Voice for what it is - a power grab by a constitutionally enshrined, Aboriginal bureaucracy of 24 appointed members.
This select ‘Group of 24’ and their supporters will hold massive power over the lives of not only the 3% of Australians who are of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent, but also over the other 97% of Australians as well.
This new, self-appointed Voice Party will insert itself straight into the governance of our country.
This will be a major change in the way modern Australia has been traditionally governed.
If the referendum succeeds, absolutely no legislation will be developed, proposed or enacted without The Voice Party having a default power to demand on being consulted by, engaged with, listened to, and granting the final approval to, Australia’s parliament, government and the executive consisting of our ministers, public servants and statutory bodies.
Voice ‘designer’, academic lawyer Megan Davis confirms the Voice will have a huge power, where,
“The voice will be able to speak to all parts of the government, including the cabinet, ministers, public servants, and independent statutory offices and agencies – such as the Reserve Bank, as well as a wide array of other agencies including, to name a few, Centrelink, the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority and the Ombudsman – on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This isn’t to be feared: as the Explanatory Memorandum says, the parliament will be able to set the procedure through which the voice’s representations are received, with the important caveat that the parliament won’t be able to stop the voice making those representations. It can’t shut the voice up”.
- Source: The Australian, 1 April 2023, here
It will be the end of the supremacy of Australia’s parliament at the core of our democracy as we have known it since Federation.
Instead, there will will be a ‘new party’ In Canberra, a Group of 24 people, backed by the Constitution and the High Court, who will oversee and give, or withhold as the case may be, their seal of approval to any new laws proposed by the other 26 million of us.
A ‘power-grab by a group of Aboriginal Elites will thus have succeeded if the referendum is passed.
The Hereditary Nature of the Voice
We agree with Mundine’s assessment that it is a bureaucratic power grab, but we would go further and add an additional dimension to the dangers that the Voice represents.
The Voice is not simply an Aboriginal bureaucracy but, because it relies on a membership that must be of Aboriginal ancestry, it will also become hereditary.
By definition, only people with the right DNA and family ancestry can join and be counted as members of the Voice - to wit, Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander people, who are about 3% of Australia’s population.
Once enshrined into the Constitution, these people and their descendants will enjoy a power, privilege and a control over our society’s affairs that the other 97% of Australia’s population will lack. In effect, they will be a new elite, an hereditary Aboriginal Aristocracy, a new Nobility in fact.
If the referendum is successful, Australians will have unwittingly installed within our Constitution, in perpetuity, a new power grouping consisting of an ethnic minority that is defined by genetics - a separate ‘race’ in the old parlance.
This race-based, ethnic minority will be given powers within the Constitution which are granted only to this race, powers which the rest of Australia’s citizens are denied because we were born with a certain characteristic over which we have no control, namely a lack of certain Aboriginal genetic codes or ancestry.
To our mind this really is a new form of Apartheid - in Afrikaans, meaning a separateness, or a state of being apart [literally ‘apart-hood’].
This new Apartheid will have the repugnant consequence that some Australians, through no agency of their own, will be defined within our Constitution as being part of a political power group by the mere fact of their having been born into a particular family - their race at birth will set them apart as forever being different politically and socially from the rest of us Australians.
It should be clearly understood that, unlike all the other power-brokers who have formalised positions within our Constitution - the Members of Parliament, Senators, the High Court judges, the Governor-General, the military and civil servants, who are all elected or appointed for set terms and can be removed by being voted out, sacked or retired, with no expectation that they can pass their position onto a family member or descendant - the Voice members will be different.
They will be ‘chosen’ [that is, appointed; free elections for the Group of 24 are not proposed] based on regional and family (tribal) connections. This will allow powerful Aboriginal families and clans to dominate the membership process and ensure that only their family members are ‘chosen’.
To further entrench these powerful families, there is a ‘Putin Clause’ within the Voice that provides a loop-hole for members to get around the member limit of two 4-year terms. The word ‘consecutive’ has been inserted - ‘There would be a limit of 2 consecutive terms per member’ [See page 108 here].
This means a powerful, family elder, who must resign after two, 4-year terms (8-years total), could have another family member ‘chosen’ to act as his proxy while he only has to sit out 2 or 4 years before the next cycle of members are ‘chosen’. His compliant family member then retires and he (and it will invariably be a he) can be ‘re-chosen’ for another two, 4-year terms. This can be repeated for as many times as required to keep control of the Voice within the hands of a few chosen families and clans.
This technique, which we have nicknamed the ‘Putin Clause’, was masterfully used by Russia’s President Putin to maintain power by circumventing the Russian Constitution’s three-consecutive-term limit for the Presidency. Putin simply installed his trusted ally, Medvedev, while he himself continued to rule Russia through Medvedev, waiting out Medvedev’s term, before returning for his next 3-term Presidency [See the Medvedev–Putin tandemocracy].
So Where is the Evidence For this Coup by ‘Aboriginal Aristocrats’?
We will continue to present our evidence over the coming months as the Voice Referendum process gets underway. At this stage we can offer the following:
Evidence of an Emerging Aboriginal Aristocracy and Nobility
We intend to use the word ‘aristocracy’ in its sense of ‘class’ (Wikipedia) where historically the word was associated with an ‘hereditary’ or ‘ruling’ social class.
We believe that an ‘Aboriginal Nobility’ will also develop over time in Australia. A nobility is a social class found in many societies that have an aristocracy. It is normally ranked immediately below royalty.
The opening paragraphs of our Constitution clearly indicate that we are constituted under the Crown [a royalty],
WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established … Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons…, This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act…extend to the Queen's successors…The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom…(Source)
Thus, the insertion of a new Voice Chapter within our Constitution confirms that this Voice is subservient to the Crown [Royalty]. This lends weight to our argument that the Voice can be viewed as an Aboriginal Aristocracy and Nobility that is being formed, as Noel Pearson has implored, in ‘its rightful place’, under our Constitutional Monarchy.
As Noel Pearson asked (told) us in his seminal 2014 Quarterly Essay,
‘The nation has unfinished business. After more than two centuries, can a rightful place be found for Australia’s original peoples?’
The answer it seems, is yes - and that place will be based on Apartheid - a race-based classification and separation of Australians to be ruled over by an hereditary Aboriginal Aristocracy and Nobility.
Aboriginal people themselves are now scrambling to secure their positions - there has been a massive increase in honorary titles befitting the new nobility. This takes the form of Aboriginal people self-nominating themselves as, ‘so-and-so is a ‘proud [insert tribal name here] (wo)man from [insert tribal region here] Country.’
A real-life example that supports our argument that an Aboriginal aristocracy is on the rise in Australia, is that of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre run by a well established, Aboriginal noble family, the House of Mansell. In a previous post, we have described the successful operation of this Tasmanian Aboriginal Aristocratic family.
In later posts we will provide more evidence as to why Australians should look upon the Voice as an hereditary Aboriginal Aristocracy with its own class of Nobles.
The Voice as a Coup
It is our contention that it is important for Australians to look at the Voice proposal through the lens that it is in fact a ‘coup’. You may not agree with us, but in our view it is incumbent upon a responsible citizenry to keep a watchful eye on those who would seek to destroy our system of government.
No one wants a war, but we need to be willing to think that one day the country may have to go to war against enemies who want to destroy us. Similarly, no one wants, or would support a coup, but we need to be vigilant against proposals that threaten to overthrow, radically change or infiltrate our system of governance without the citizenry being fully informed and involved in the process.
That is why the Founders of our Constitution made changes to our governance so difficult to achieve. An expensive, drawn-out and high-bar referendum process was devised for those times when the citizenry had to be forced to focus on, and think deeply about, a proposed change to the way we are governed. Now, with the Voice Proposal, is one of those times again.
In our opinion it is instructional to consider the views of the very experienced political commentator, Paul Kelly, who wrote in The Australian of 26 March 2023,
‘This referendum is a profound risk for Australia. It has been a long process but with extremely limited consultation with the public – no constitutional convention, no parliamentary committee collaborating on the model, no meaningful effort to strike bipartisanship, incredibly not even the release of legal advice from the Solicitor-General and then, on Thursday, the Prime Minister doubling down in a rejection of efforts to modify or temper the model whose flaws have been documented.’
Kelly’s observations suggest that the Voice is being progressed behind closed doors by a clique of conspiritors.
When other politicians or commentators publicly raise legitimate concerns or questions, they are ‘punched down on’ by members of the ‘coup’. For example, consider the following outbursts by one member of the ‘coup’ membership.
Marcus Stewart, a First Nations [Voice] Referendum Working Group member, responded to Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s attempt to elicit more information on the mechanisms of how the Voice will work in practice, and how the Referendum will actually be conducted.
Marcus Stewart - A Voice referendum working group member. See Further Reading Section below on the claims of Aboriginality made by Marcus Stewart himself - are these claims really true? We shall see.
Marcus Stewart’s response to this attempt by Dutton to shed some light on the ‘coups’ inner workings, was that he,
‘… accused Peter Dutton of “pissing in our pockets” and being “extremely disingenuous” in his dealings on the Indigenous voice to parliament. “Australians woke up to the worst kept secret in politics – the opposition will be voting No,” Mr Stewart said in response to the Coalition’s opposition on the referendum machinery provisions.
“For two meetings now, Peter has looked us in the eye while pissing in our pockets and telling us it’s raining. This is extremely disingenuous.”
One week later it was reported that,
‘Marcus Stewart, a key adviser to the Albanese government on the voice, said questioning over whether the advisory body would make representations to parliament and the executive government on policies like the safeguard mechanism were “dangerous” and favoured the No campaign.
“Let me be very clear. It’s dangerous to be running questions such as these. It will only feed the confusion and misinformation out there and favour the NO campaign,” Mr Stewart told The Australian.
“Such lines of questioning will only undermine the voice and its objective to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People.
“The voice will provide advice based on the issues it hears from the community it serves. The only question that matters right now is the question we will put to the Australian people come referendum day.”
- The Australian, 29 March 2023
And finally, echoing the words of successful ‘coup leaders’ in other parts of the world, Marcus Stewart assures us we need not be concerned, nothing to see here, all will be OK with a smooth transition to a new form of governance in Australia once the ‘Voice Coup’ has succeeded,
‘First Nations people have a unique connection to this country and our care and knowledge of it run deep. The voice is about having a taste of that inserted into the heart of Australia’s democratic system. By voting Yes you will lose absolutely nothing, but everyone stands to gain so much’.
- Marcus Stewart, Commentary piece in The Australian 29 March 2023, here
As Paul Kelly continues in his article, he provides thoughts that we believe further support our argument that the Voice is a ‘coup in motion’ (although Kelly himself might not describe it in those terms - or maybe he does think like us but he understandably doesn’t want to use such a confronting description as ‘coup’?)
Kelly writes,
’For Albanese, it is a personal mission. “I’m here to change the country,” he said. He wants to change the Constitution “to recognise the fullness of our history”. Magnificent vision. But beware prime ministers when they get emotional; it usually means a lurch into unreality.
Do cabinet ministers understand what they signed off on Thursday morning? This is constitutionally empowered group rights tied to constitutionally empowered unlimited representations. It is unprecedented in a dual sense. If carried, it will change our governance and society. There is no way the Coalition could support this model and retain its integrity. It is a sad conclusion from Albanese’s latest remarks that he seeks to carry this referendum on a tactic of deception – relying on goodwill, emotions and the injustice Indigenous people have faced for so long.
This is an intellectual and moral deception. And that needs to be said now because if this referendum is defeated its origins will lie with the decisions Albanese announced on Thursday and the defeat will be his responsibility as the prime decision-maker.
To our mind, this is a description of a classic coup in a ‘banana republic’ - the Prime Minister/President announces he ‘wants/needs to change the country’; as the tears flow at the thought of such a momentus change in his nation’s history, his timid ministers fall in behind his crazy idea as the supporting crowds gather in the streets; deception and bullying are used to marginalise any opposition.
All we need now is Prime Minister Albanese to change Australia’s name to a format that suits a ‘post-coup banana republic’ and our coup analogy will be vindicated. His Indigenous minister, Linda Burney, is already trying out versions in her own electorate. In the introduction at the start of this video clip, she calls her own electorate, "the Inner-West Socialist Republic of Marrickville." That is probably news to the majority of residents in Marrickville.
Perhaps the Prime Minister will start to refer to our country, formerly known as Australia, after the Voice Coup as the, ‘First Nations Socialist State of the South Pacific’? (Anyway, this is a topic for a latter post).
Further evidence to support our argument that the Voice process is actually a coup designed to gain power for an Aboriginal hereditary aristocracy in Australia, is Paul Kelly’s observation of, and quote from, academic lawyer, Megan Davis, one of the prime ‘coup’ leaders.
Kelly writes,
‘Law professor Megan Davis, a member of the working group, told ABC radio the Prime Minister had listened to the working group.
She said the voice “will have an extraordinary impact in terms of the government of the day and the parliament”. It would be proactive; it wouldn’t wait to be consulted. It is “a very, very powerful mechanism”. We should believe her.’
- Paul Kelly in the Australian here
Kelly continues,
‘The referendum is about power. The voice will make representations not just to parliament but the executive government including cabinet, ministers and public servants as decision-makers. The idea the voice has limited influence because it is advisory is disingenuous. It will function as a powerful political entity exerting enormous influence. That’s the entire purpose. It’s what the whole idea is about.
The constitutional amendment is open-ended and unlimited, such that the voice can make representations on virtually anything – from the conditions of Indigenous people to tax, social, economic, resources, cultural, defence and foreign policy.’
Additionally, Megan Davis is quite open about her support for the Voice to ‘redistribute public power via the Constitution’, as she admitted in her co-authored submission in 2022 to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs,
Excerpt from a submission in 2022 to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Source - Page 17 of Submission
The above arguments and evidence we believe support our notion that the Voice is not simply a 'feel-good’ idea to help disadvantaged Aboriginal people.
Instead, we believe that there is a hidden agenda by the architects of the Voice to gain power for a select ‘Group of 24’ by a ‘soft-coup’, not with guns and hard violence, but with rhetoric, bullying and a low-information referendum. This is a modern ‘coup’, Australian style.
The Exile of the Dissenters
Another feature of many coups in history is the inevitable falling-out between the coup’s co-conspirators. Internal conflicts between the coup leaders over tactics, strategy, or ultimate goals, often leads to some member’s assassinations, defections or exile.
In our Australian Voice Coup, we believe we are now seeing divisions opening up in the ranks of the original supporters of The Voice and, in true coup fashion, these dissenters are being sent into ‘exile.’
Stalin had his Trotsky, Noel Pearson and the ‘coup’ team have their Greg Craven, Father Frank Brennan and Julian Leeser, and the Greens have their Lidia Thorpe.
One of the prime-advisors for the legal framework for the original Voice is Emeritus Professor Greg Craven, a constitutional lawyer. Over many years he was a supporter of the Voice as he understood what it would be. But now he believes that, ‘Leftist activists have hijacked a conservative brainchild’, which was originally set-up more simply as just an ‘Indigenous voice to parliament.’ (see here)
Father Frank Brennan, who toured the country proselytising the Voice Report of Marcia Langton and Tom Calma was damning in this video clip in his assessment of the way in which his understanding of what the Voice was meant be has gone off the rails.
Federal Liberal MP Julian Leeser has been a long-time supporter of the Voice and deeply involved in much of its development from the conservative side of politics. Up until a month or so ago (February 2023), Leeser was a supporter of the concept of The Voice, despite criticism from other conservative commentators such as Andrew Bolt (see here).
But now at the end of March 2023, Julian Leeser has become a dissenter as well. His concerns are based around the lack of detail and the secrecy of the deliberations of the Voice Working Group, deliberations which are all being conducted behind closed doors.
It has been reported that,
‘Shadow Attorney-General Julian Leeser said on Sunday that “at a quarter to midnight” it had emerged the solicitor general told the Referendum Working Group there were problems with the government’s wording of proposed constitutional change, and suggested an alteration.
“If Australians are going to vote on these matters, we need to see the solicitor general’s advice,” Mr Leeser said on Sky News.
He said he had written to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus on Friday requesting the advice, however was yet to receive a reply.’ (Source)
Another ‘exile’ is Senator Lidia Thorpe, who sensationally quit the Greens Party last month after continued division within the Greens over the Voice to Parliament proposal.
Ex-Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe in defiant mode in the Senate on being sworn in (2023)
Senator Thorpe said ‘she would resign from the party to sit on the Senate crossbench as she argued her move would allow her to fully represent a "strong grassroots black sovereign movement".
"It has become clear to me, that I can't do that from within the Greens. Now, I will be able to speak freely, on all issues, from a sovereign perspective, without being constrained by portfolios and agreed party positions," she said.
She added the Greens' position on the Voice was "at odds" with Indigenous community leaders and activists who have called for a treaty with First Nations peoples before the body. - Source
Denunciations of the Dissenters
Taking a leaf out the international coup playbook, the Voice coup co-conspirators are hitting back.
Noel Pearson, echoing Stalin’s attack against formerly faithful Bolsheviks, has ‘denounced’ his former colleagues, Greg Craven and Julian Leeser, by claiming that he is,
‘ …“heartbroken” by the behaviour of opposition legal affairs spokesman Julian Leeser and his criticism of the voice. Mr Leeser has been publicly calling on the government to provide more detail on how the voice will operate with executive government.
“The idea we’ve ended up with is an idea we struck with Julian … We hammered it out at the Australian Catholic University on the north shore, in (constitutional expert) Greg Craven’s office, and I’m absolutely heartbroken over Julian Leeser’s behaviour in recent days and weeks. He’s disowning an idea that was very much a product of my engagement with constitutional conservatives, such as himself,” Mr Pearson told Sky News on Tuesday. “I think after all this, it’s going to be a great regret for him and for conservatives generally and for the Liberal and National parties.” (Source)
Prime Minister Albanese is also attacking former supporters of the Voice as they come to realise the dangers that this ‘coup’ represents for Australia’s governance. As reported in the SMH,
‘Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has demanded the opposition’s Indigenous Affairs spokesman [Julian Leeser] show the moral courage to back his long-held support for a Voice to parliament.
The prime minister, who has staked his political authority on the contentious referendum’s success, underscored the growing partisan gulf over the reconciliation push when he pointed at Coalition frontbencher Julian Leeser during question time and urged him to support the proposed Indigenous advisory body, as Leeser advised on the design of the Voice as a lawyer before entering parliament.’
- SMH, 27 March 2023
We will continue to follow the developments in the Voice Referendum’s progress and report on any further evidence that we find that supports (or refutes) our thesis that it represents a ‘coup in motion.’
So stay tuned.
Further Reading
Prime Minister Albanese’s Voice proposal, at the behest of the Aboriginal Aristocrats, will put Australia on the same path as a number of the world’s ‘banana republics’, where undemocratic ‘coups’ are the norm for the powerful to get their way in changing their country’s Constitutions.
In Niger,
‘In 2009, President Mamadou Tandja of Niger decided to change the country’s constitution in order to stay in power. Holding a popular referendum of dubious legitimacy allowed him to make his amendments’. Source
In Venezuela,
‘The Brazilian government on Tuesday called the plan for a constituent assembly announced by the president of neighbouring Venezuela a “coup” to change the country’s political rules to his liking.
“President Nicholas Maduro’s proposal for a constituent assembly is a coup d’état. It is another break with democracy, violating the country’s constitution,” Brazilian Foreign Minister Aloysio Nunes said in a statement posted on Facebook.
Nunes said social organizations controlled by Maduro would elect the constituents and draw up a constitution “as he wants it.” (BRASILIA (Reuters)’ -Source)
In Israel.
‘Benjamin Netanyahu has started his sixth term as prime minister by forming a coalition of right-wing religious extremists who intend to change the country's judicial rules.
Opponents of the government, who believe that the process will lead their country to a religious dictatorship, call the changes in the judiciary a "government coup" and warn against the "collapse" of democratic foundations in Israel. (Source)
The protestors displayed a copy of Israel’s Declaration of Independence and waved Israeli flags and flags of the Paratroopers Brigade. “They have no shame. They want something softer, just ‘in a small way,’ to appoint the judges. This is what they really want – one branch of government,” said Royi Elcabets, a member of the Yesh Atid party. “It’s a dictatorship that wants to change the country. It is what it is, and it’s a shame and disgrace. We are in the midst of a crisis.” (Source)
The Claims of Marcus Stewart
One of the consequences of a race-based Constitution is that members of that race, in Australia’s case the ethnic minority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, will, over time, assume an hereditary status within the Constitution.
For example, our research at Dark Emu Exposed into the family history of claimed Aboriginal man, Marcus Stewart is rolling on and beginning to illustrate how Marcus Stewart himself has emphasised the ancestry and hereditary nature of his life.
‘As a proud Nira illim bulluk man of the Taungurung nation, I want to see the Yes vote get up because I desperately want First Nations peoples to have the ability to shape the policies that affect our communities, our culture and our lands.
For too long Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have had policies made about us or for us, but never by us.
Every aspect of our lives has been controlled at different times since invasion: where we could live, who we could marry, where we could shop, what we could buy. We were forced off our ancestral lands, where we had gathered natural wealth for countless generations. Our children were stolen, our families torn apart'.’
Marcus Stewart in The Australian 29 March 2023, here
Marcus Stewart is frequently drawing on his own hereditary and ancestral links back through his ‘Aboriginal Aristocratic’ family.
But as our research will show, there are legitimate reasons to pose the question, “are the ancestral claims of Marcus Stewart really true?”
Over the coming weeks, we will attempt to answer this question.
