Will the Voice Referendum muzzle the ‘voices’ of 96.8% of voters is a core question that supporters of this improperly conducted referendum do not want discussed?
SHORT LINK: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3dL
Below is an extract from what will be my final submission to the Robodebt Royal Commission, which has worked very hard to censor about 20 submissions from me, and possible submissions from many other people who want answers to questions that no politician wants asked.
PONDER THESE ISSUES – NOW
Following text is from a submission to the Robodebt Royal Commission, the Defence & Veteran Suicide Royal Commission, the Human Rights Law Commission, and 3 mass media organizations with a track record of giving us the Mushroom Tunnel treatment.
WHAT’s IN A WORD: “FOR”
Members of the Federal Parliament also appear to have little understanding of the legal implications in the word “for”, as in Member for Spence, or Senator for South Australia.
The word “for” makes it very clear that these people are agents for their respective electorates, which means that they owe a duty of agency to their respective Principals, i.e., the Electors on whose behalf they act as representatives in the Federal Parliament.
The Duty of Agency includes an obligation to consult with their Electors and to give appropriate consideration to the views expressed by these Electors/Principals, who are also the people who pay their parliamentary stipends.
The proposed “Voice” referendum will place a constitutional obligation upon Senators and Members of the House of Representatives to listen to the opinions of Australia’s indigenous population, which I believe is about 3.2% of the population.
However, there will be no constitutional obligation to listen to the other 96.8% of the population, i.e., 96.8% of the population will be disenfranchised constitutionally when it comes to having their voice heard by their appointed representatives.
THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE: This referendum has unintended consequences for the entire nation that should have been discussed at community meetings that have not been held in each electorate.
WHY HOLD A REFERENDM?
If it is to pass laws that the Parliament must obey, that obligation is already in paragraph 5 of the Overview of the Constitution:
This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the
courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State;
Why say that in a different way, at a cost of $100 million?
POLITICIANS DO NOT OBEY THE CONSTITUTION NOW:
In 1946, a referendum changed the Constitution and added something that many political parties, including all of those currently represented in the Parliament totally ignore.
Section 51: (xxiii) BEFORE THE 1946 REFERENDUM:
Section 51(xxiii) AFTER THE 1946 REFERENDUM:
Section 51(xxiii) AFTER THE REFERENDUM ADDED WELFARE ALLOWANCES
In the 1946 Referendum, voters added Section 51(xxiiiA) which gave people the constitutional right to welfare allowances that could not be linked to what is today called “Work for the Dole“
EXPLAIN THIS:
THIS WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and A MAJOR CRIME
How could 100,000 people have their constitutional right to a welfare allowance cut off?
Paragraph 51 – “THE FORTIORI”
In March 2002, the High Court made the following ruling about decisions that violate constitutional constraints, e.g., not linking ‘civil conscription’ to welfare payments:
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS ARE NO DECISION AT ALL
Laws that have deprived millions of people of the Dole are in fact “no law at all”, i.e., they are criminal violations of civil rights.
However, as we have seen in the last few days, if the government violates yourt rights, politicians who know the truth will simply stay silent:
Cabinet solidarity is more important than the constitutional rights of millions of voters, which explains why we are not told that the only benefit from the “VOICE” referendum is that we will effectively lose our voice in the same way that welfare recipients have unlawfully “lost” the dole.
2,696,196 cases of inciting genocide
In 2018, the Turnbull Government and then the Morrison Government deprived welfare allowances of the dole a staggering 2,696.196 times!
THINK ABOUT THAT – There were 2,696,196 deliberate violations of the constitutional rights of welfare recipients.
Whatever else the VOICE referendum may be, it is odds on that most of us will not be winners in the long run.
Image going into a politician’s electorate office to make a complaint and being told, “Sorry, you are not an aboriginal person, so we don’t have to listen to your complaint – please leave the office now.”
UNREAL – BUT A REAL POSSIBILITY.
Know your constitutional rights and what you gain and what you may lose before you make any decision.
ALSO UNREAL – ROBODEBT WHISTLE BLOWER FACING JAIL
As unreal as it may sound, a Robodebt whistle blower, Richard Boyle is facing trial in October for blowing the whistle on this deadly fraud.
Check out the URL below for details of this Senate driven travesty of justice:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-31/richard-boyle-lawyers-appeal-whistleblower-immunity-defence/102171220.
Ronald Medlicott. Citizen, teacher, and Christian volunteer lay-advocate.
CCC .
Ronald's space 