Voice campaigner and prominent communist Thomas Mayo right at home at the Vicforum
By Senator Jacinta Price
In the lead up to the referendum I was adamant that many of the leaders of the Yes campaign were not being honest about their divisive agenda.
It was clear when you looked back at their words before the referendum became a prominent issue.
They were all separation, grievance, and a fundamental refusal to accept Australia as a legitimate nation.
That’s what drove their desire for a Voice.
And now, less than two weeks on from the comprehensive result, the masks are off again.
How else can you explain a statement on referendum night that called non-Indigenous Australians – including migrants – “newcomers” and themselves the “true owners of the land”.
And then, after their week of silence, a new statement appeared on Sunday night, just oozing grievance, anger at democracy, and hostility towards non-Indigenous Australians.
“Australia is our country,” they said.
“It is the legitimacy of the non-Indigenous occupation in this country that requires recognition, not the other way around. Our sovereignty has never been ceded.”
So much for the generous invitation that would unify Australians.
They went on to say that Australians who voted no committed “a shameful act whether knowingly or not, and there is nothing positive to be interpreted from it”.
This statement has made clear what myself and Warren Mundine and other No campaigners were saying all along: the idea that this was about unity was a lie.
The idea that this was just a simple generous invitation that would make no difference to our system of government was a lie.
It always was a lie.
Before the referendum campaign, the leaders of the Yes campaign were clear that division, separation, shared powers, reparations, and chipping away at the legitimacy of Australia as a country was always the end-goal.
Now they’ve lost, and the Australian people have seen through them, they’re right back at it.
And then to top it all off, they have said they’ll push forward with establishing an independent Voice outside the Constitution or even legislation.
Quite why they couldn’t do that in the first place is a question we should be asking.
But more importantly, do they expect taxpayers to foot the bill for it?
Because if they reckon this is their country, that Australians have acted shamefully, and they are not interested in being part of our nation, then I reckon it’s time to stop indulging their failures and they should pay for their Voice themselves.
Not only that, I trust those leaders in taxpayer funded universities, and who have sat on government boards and whose Indigenous organisations have been funded by the government will be surrendering those jobs immediately.
After all, surely they cannot in good conscience accept money from a nation they don’t believe is legitimate?
Or is this all just the narcissism of activism and they’re not really going to walk their talk.
I think you and I know the answer.
Voice campaigner Thomas Mayo, known for his communist beliefs, has found a comfortable place at the Vicforum. Senator Jacinta Price, in her post-referendum analysis, expresses concern about the lack of honesty in the Yes campaign’s agenda. She points out their focus on separation, grievances, and refusal to accept Australia as a legitimate nation. Mayo, a prominent figure in the movement, has consistently advocated for a Voice, which Price believes stems from the same divisive agenda.
After the comprehensive result of the referendum, the Yes campaign’s true intentions become apparent. On referendum night, they referred to non-Indigenous Australians, including migrants, as “newcomers” while claiming themselves as the “true owners of the land.” Following a week of silence, they released another statement expressing grievances, anger towards democracy, and hostility towards non-Indigenous Australians. This statement contradicts the idea of a generous invitation and unity for all Australians.
Furthermore, the Yes campaign deems Australians who voted no as committing a “shameful act,” with no positive interpretation possible. Price highlights that this statement confirms what she and other No campaigners have been saying all along: the Yes campaign’s agenda was not about unity but rather division and chipping away at Australia’s legitimacy.
The leaders of the Yes campaign had always planned for separation, shared powers, reparations, and undermining Australia’s legitimacy as a country. Despite their defeat in the referendum, they continue to pursue an independent Voice outside the Constitution or legislation. Price questions why they were unable to do so initially and whether taxpayers should be expected to fund it.
Price suggests that if the Yes campaign believes Australia is not their country, that Australians have acted shamefully, and they are not interested in being part of the nation, then they should pay for their Voice themselves. Additionally, she calls on leaders in taxpayer-funded universities and government boards, who have been supported by government funds, to surrender their positions if they do not consider the nation legitimate.
In conclusion, Price argues that the Yes campaign’s agenda was dishonest from the beginning. Their refusal to accept Australia as a legitimate nation and their pursuit of a Voice outside established channels reveal their true intentions. Price believes it is time to hold them accountable and question their actions in the face of their stated beliefs.