Jacinta Allan, the new premier of Victoria, has come under criticism from members of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC) for not supporting their proposal to send indigenous bureaucrats onto private properties to police “indigenous cultural values.” The VAHC, representing 11 Aboriginal corporations in Victoria, believes that these special “heritage protection” officers should have the authority to enter properties and determine if any activities on the land are offensive to indigenous culture.
The VAHC’s push for this measure is part of a larger campaign to exert control over the wider population of Victoria, aided by the substantial funding they receive from state and federal sources through land rights agreements. This campaign is fueled by their belief that they are already doing what the Voice to Parliament referendum would have endorsed, even without its passing.
While the proposed infringement on private property rights would likely face legal challenges, various state heritage protection acts are gradually eroding these rights. The common law right to use and enjoy private property could be undermined by the VAHC’s proposal, but the true extent of such encroachments on property rights is yet to be determined.
In response to this proposal, freedom fighter Joel Jammal has been using social media platforms to raise awareness about the potential consequences and urging people to voice their opposition to state politicians. He has provided an email list on his website for concerned individuals to contact their Members of Parliament and express their concerns.
The theme of “culture” takes center stage in this indigenist operation, drawing parallels to China’s Maoist Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. However, the tactics employed by modern neo-Marxists are more subtle, focusing on influencing policy and utilizing the judiciary to achieve their political goals. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adds symbolic weight to this campaign, aligning it with Klaus Schwab’s “great reset” agenda.
Similar campaigns advocating for indigenous co-governance, regardless of historical treaties and agreements, are occurring in New Zealand and across Australia. These efforts often undermine private property rights and could be seen as a distraction from the true subversion happening at the state level.
Despite the recent defeat of the Voice referendum, the VAHC’s campaign continues to gain momentum, driven by the belief that they have a right to dictate the use of private property in the name of indigenous culture. As public opposition grows, it remains to be seen how far the government will go in endorsing and implementing these proposals.