The Voice

The Voice Roadshow Comes to Town

The small Victorian town of Woodend was truly blessed on Saturday, June 24, to have four Voice luminaries (above) descend from on high. It was never revealed why Woodend (population 4,500) was chosen to have the elect, in the form of Jon Faine, Marcia Langton, Rachel Perkins and Marcus Stewart, grace the rural locality with their presence and wisdom. The free-ticketed event was booked out within 48 hours of being advertised. The audience of some 350 people, many adorned with ‘Yes’ badges, seemed to have an average age of 60+, with nary a young person in sight.

On every seat was a brown showbag of Voice goodies, including a programme, a pocket edition of the Constitution, a copy of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, some notes about the Voice proposal and a ‘Yes’ voters resources list (but nothing for No voters). Faine welcomed everyone and noted his “respect for all the First Nation’s people here” but no respect worth mentioning for anyone else. The former ABC gabbler, advised us that no questions would be allowed from the floor, so this was to be a two-hour lecture. Despite later talk of Aboriginal dispossession, powerlessness and disadvantage, it seemed from the outset there was not a bit of disadvantage on that stage. Indeed, only privilege and wealth, and a great deal of reflected white privilege at that – or is that now ‘black privilege’?

Langton and Perkins were bedecked in RM Williams boots @ $650.00 a pair, along with puffer jackets, whilst Marcus Stewart sported his trademark Akubra and a pair of new white Nikes topped with white socks — Nike’s reputation for poor wages and exploitative employment practises in the Third World evidently not an issue.

At a glance, Stewart appears to all intents and purposes a ‘whitefella’. He’d have had no trouble leaning on a whites-only bar in a pre-1967 Aussie pub, or so it seemed to me. Yet he also strikes me as a clear example of the (deeply flawed) ‘one drop’ policy — that is, if a person has only a dash of Aboriginal blood, irrespective of how far back in history that might be, he or she can claim 100 per cent Aboriginality. To any rational person this must seem absurd. Most of the time Stewart looked bored, likewise Perkins, who also manifested what I took for odd flashes of impatience. Langton just appeared angry.

After the obligatory background introductions, Stewart was asked to say the ‘Welcome to Country’ which, in fact, he didn’t do, instead opting to talk of Woodend’s proximity to Hanging Rock and citing Taungurung ritual initiations into manhood held at the site. What he neglected to mention were penile subincisions, cicatrices, scarring, ritual cutting and burning and possibly even forced sex with underage girls. Stewart later noted his fight to “retain and preserve Aboriginal culture”, but obviously not that culture, only the palatable modern day inventions. Apart from wearing a possum cloak, painting your face and eating some bush tucker, there’s arguably little left of traditional pre-settlement Aboriginal culture in Victoria, and that’s likely a good thing. Stewart seems to me to be an example of cultural appropriation, which in anyone else we could expect him to roundly condemn.

Oh, and it’s worth noting that Stewart is married to Victorian Senator Jana Stewart, who replaced Kimberly Kitching in the Senate after the latter’s death. Very in-house Labor. Read more about Marcus Stewart’s curious heritage at Dark Emu Exposed1.

As moderator, Jon Faine was spruiking like an old time red-ragger from the 1970’s, so much so that Rachel Perkins had to keep him in line as he repeatedly attempted to turn the discussion into a lets-bash-the-Liberals pile on. Later, Tom Calma and Greg Craven were repeated butts of derision from the panel, and John Howard, Mal Brough, Peter Dutton, Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine all came in for verbal bashings as well.

Langton led the charge with a potted history of Aboriginal activism since the 1960’s, then moved to focus on more recent events like the NT Intervention, of which she was scathing (‘harming our people’), Black deaths in custody (‘institutionalised racism’), stolen generations (‘attempted genocide’), child abuse (that’s ‘the churches’) and the usual grab-bag of victimhood complaints. It’s remarkable just how much Faine and Langton hate John Howard. Langton argued that the Voice is needed to “limit the ability of the Parliament to cause us harm” – so just how precisely is that to occur? And, of course, what ‘harm’ – the annual $36 billion spent on Aboriginal affairs? Langton also trotted out the old ‘Terra Nullius’ furphy, and the ignorant audience drank it all in with rapturous applause.

She also spent some time drilling into us that there is “no biological evidence whatsoever for ‘race’ – it doesn’t exist”, which is highly disputed, plus the usual claims to 65,000+ years of history, also hotly contested. Langton seemed blithely ignorant of the inherent illogicality of her own argument. If ‘race’ does not exist, then why do we need a race-based ‘Voice’? She claimed indigenous ‘spirituality’ and connection to the land make Aborigines special, but there’s no biological evidence of intergenerational genetic or DNA transfer of ‘love of land’ to suggest that contemporary Aboriginal people have any greater feeling of attachment to the land than anybody else.

Langton continued to bang the old well-worn drum of using the excuse of the ‘disadvantaged tribal Aboriginal people in Central Australia’ as justification of the need for the Voice. But these tribal people represent a tiny, minuscule fraction of the 3.4 per cent of Aborigines, and much of their own current situation is a direct result of their own choices. Tribal Aboriginal people have bad diets because that’s what they want to eat. White colonialists don’t make them have bad diets. The panel made reference to the high prevalence of diabetes within Aboriginal communities, again inferring it’s the whitefellas’ fault, without making any reference to tribal Aborigines’ lack of tolerance for sugar, which promotes the increased incidence of diabetes.

There was more of the same about the ‘housing shortage’. Tribal Aborigines homes get trashed because so many families and individuals live in them communally because of ‘humbugging’. But again, no mention was made of that, yet both Perkins and Langton would be well familiar with that problem. We don’t need a ‘Voice’ to sort out those problems, which have been around for over five decades. We need to admit that much so-called ‘Aboriginal culture’ is very damaging to Aboriginal people and that only by greater integration into our modern Western society will these problems be solved.

The form of ‘intergenerational trauma’ experienced by Aborigines has nothing to do with colonisation or alleged inherited ‘genetic or DNA trauma’, as the panel asserted. It has everything to do with intergenerational lifestyles of poverty and violence. As has often been said, self determination is the problem, not the solution.

Langton insisted that the Voice would only “advise on things that specifically and directly affect Aboriginal people”. However, that’s not what the Voice wording says, so such an assurance is worthless. Langton is peddling a bill of goods here, the latest attempt to con referendum voters. Further, she poo-hooed the idea that the Voice would result in Australians having to pay rent on their land or homes, but that’s not what Voice advocate Thomas Mayo has clearly said. Mayo has indicated that’s exactly what the Voice would be advocating, along with “reparations and compensation” from all us nasty colonialist whitefellas.

Almost laughably, the panel members agreed the Voice would be “cost neutral” as the “efficiencies and reduced duplication would save what the Voice would cost”! Haven’t we all heard that one before! The panel also claimed that “research shows” 86 per cent of Aboriginal people support the proposed Voice, but provided no real evidence for that claim.

To her credit, Rachel Perkins resisted Faine’s every effort to drag her into his repeated attempts at a political belting of the Liberals, but she refused those invitations – well done, Rachel, you showed some integrity. Unfortunately, Perkins claimed towards the end that “This (the Voice) won’t affect most Australians at all, but we will all feel better”, and that it’s a “modest invitation of great unity.” These are the big lies. A successful Voice referendum will affect all of us, we won’t ‘feel better’, it’s not ‘modest’ and it’s clearly already divisive.

Despite Langton’s disavowal of the existence of ‘race’, Marcus Stewart, who is in touch with his true Aboriginal self, is now somehow special — more special than fellow Australians because of his ‘race’. Langton seems to have developed a real hatred of what was supposedly done to ‘my people’ by the white colonialists, and in believing her own propaganda. This bitterness seeps out every time she speaks.

In summary, Jon Faine’s agenda was clearly to bash the Liberals and extol socialist Labor, his love of Gough Whitlam being not even barely disguised. At least from Rachel Perkins there was a sense of integrity, even if misguided; however, from Marcus Stewart there seemed nothing more than a display of conspicuous virtue. And from Marcia Langton, nothing more than a tired bitterness and anger.

What was really astounding was the level of acclamation from the floor. After the event, I chatted briefly to the old chap seated beside me, but didn’t dare ask him if he were a Yes or No voter.

You see, we’re already divided.





16 thoughts on “The Voice Roadshow Comes to Town


    “You see, we’re already divided”. And what good has that done? The Voice putsch, not happy with the amount of apartheid with which we’re already burdened want more. Us and Them, our ‘traditional’ land and their ‘stolen’ land. Our entitlements, your sorry guilt reparations. Separate entities, but no unity and no national pride. The flag dichotomy we all see tell the truth about the extent of apartheid that’s destroying Australia.

    • mrsfarley2001 says:

      And anyone who votes yes for this most undemocratic, truly appalling & totally divisive proposition is either a fool or a scoundrel.

  • Daffy says:

    I guess Langton’s Aboriginal side is really cross at her Scots side. I wonder how she reconciles that? Is she self-reconciled, and if so which side to which side? All questions that might be asked in Parliament. Ah the absurdity of it all, and captured in just one person’s clear multi-ethnic heritage. At least she can pay herself ‘rent’, which should ease her conscience while she buys herself a coffee and pleases Mayo.

    • ianl says:

      My readings of Langton’s crabwalks is that there is to be only appointment of Voice members, not elections, as elections raise the destructive issue (from her viewpoint) of how to determine indigineity from the standpoint of localised communities. That is, the outback Aboriginal populations are isolated from the inner city activists and will never agree with them.

      What Langton has been deliberately unforthcoming about, not even crabwalking on this one, is *who* exactly is to do the appointing. And of course, who exactly appoints the appointers …

  • Lonsdale says:

    What events are the NO case planning?

  • Peter OBrien says:

    Great article, David, and good on you for having the fortitude to sit through it all.

  • RobyH says:

    “no questions would be allowed from the floor,”
    This is the case for every one of the yes events. There is no interaction or intelligent debate – only lectures – when the questions are asked the truth comes out – historical vengeance, land, reparations and the claim for co-sovereignty – nothing about closing an intractable gap.

    • STD says:

      I guess it’s essentially an Authoritarian voice- an unelected voice-an unanswerable voice.
      Looking at the bottom of John Faine’s cross legged shoes it’s not hard to imagine, and see what lies at the heart of all this socialising.

  • sabena says:

    Let me cheer everyone up by reminding them of this statistic.
    The ALP have proposed 25 referendum questions since the Constitution was enacted(this will be the 26th).
    Only 1 has been successful-the Social Services referendum in 1946 which allowed payment of benefits for things like unemployment,widows,child endowment and medical benefits.Even then it garnered only 54.69% support.
    The least popular referendum question was the rights and freedoms question of 1988 which garnered 30.79%

  • Michael says:

    Thanks David for this reporting.

  • john.singer says:

    When you plough through the ever-expanding list of wrongs you get to the nub of the Yes case. In essence – You, the British, invaded our country on the 26th January 1788 and we want reparation.

    Two of the major chroniclers of this “wrong” are Marcia Langton and Rachael Perkins and they spread it to nearly every schoolchild with their epic video series and book “First Australians”. Langton’s commentary on the first DVD states:

    “….it is a summer’s night on the 25th of January 1788, eleven giant ships enter the harbour, on board are over 1300 people more than half are convicts the rest are soldiers. The people on board ordered to remain there until dawn, they traveled for nearly eight months from England to this unknown land. Around the harbor the first Australians light fires and they yelled from their canoes for these apparitions to go. They thought they was devil when they landed first, they did not know what to make of them when they saw them going up the mast they thought they were possums [muffled speaker identified]. At first light the order was given for the convict men and women to disembark…”

    In fact only one ship the HMS Supply entered Port Jackson Harbour on the 25th the other ten ships of the First fleet where still in Botany Bay where they had been at anchor since the 19th and 20th of January 1788. They did set sail for Port Jackson on the 26th making little headway in bad weather and arrived and anchored in the evening of the 26th.
    There were no women convicts on board the Supply and no mass landing on the 26th.

    What they always fail to mention is that on the 26th two large French ships L’Astrolabe and La Boussole, did land at Botany Bay, believed to be under the orders from their King to beat the British to taking possession.

    Is that the great invasion? By the French not the British?

  • Stephen Ireland says:

    Langton, the vocal supporter of The Intervention, according to the ABC:

    Different day, different tune.

    • DougD says:

      The Intervention was Howard’s response to the ‘Little Children are Sacred Report’ abut widespread sexual abuse of aboriginal children in Aboriginal settlements. The Report author was Pat Anderson. Not the Pat Anderson who co-authored the Uluru Statement and the Voice Report? Yes – one and the same. But the Left only vilify Howard.

  • glenda ellis says:

    Poor fella, my country. How times have changed since we learnt of the privations and huge difficulties overcome by settlers in a land half a world away from home. We have allowed the wokeness into our society; I despair for my grandchildren.

  • maryse.usher says:

    People in their 60s were the first generation to be entirely immersed in the great social tsunami of the Sexual Revolution aka the New Age of Barking Madness. They have no memory of a society which generally observed the Maker’s Instructions aka the Ten Commandments, and which was idyllic compared to the intensifying horrors of our anti-culture. I’m sure after The Voice is enshrined we will hear its sepulchral tone exhorting us to add to our own white list of depravities those of our native inhabitants. How exciting for our elite enthusiasts for abortion, child corruption, pornography, sex changing etc. Everything foul and wicked; indigenous and immigrant, will be mandated. That’s the kind of unity you can look forward to. How much worse can we get…

  • Paul.Harrison says:

    At the rare gatherings I attend, such as the Saturday arvo BBQ and beer bash, I love dropping into the hysterical arguments about footy the comment that, “You all know of course that a country can’t have two national anthems, but we can have a National Anthem and a national song”. Suddenly the footy argument stops and they all glance sideways at me as if I’ve suddenly thrown on a possum skin, started banging two sticks together and chanting meaningless drivel. Think about what I’ve said. Think critically about what our National Anthem means and how we have been lied to over so many years about it. Yes, I mean our National Anthem is, of course, God Save the King, and our national song is, of course, Advance Australia Fair. Or do we collectively live together in that lovely little nook in the woods where everything is bright and beautiful and logical and safe? Again, think about it. We are a nation divided and we have been thus for a very long time. The children would burn me alive if they somehow came to know what I’m saying. Or do we really think that the glitterati of this lovely idea called Australian would be so crass as to provide Advance Australia Fair when our Monarch visits. I think they will, as they are so arrogant in their many pursuits. Advance Australia Fair is a cheap and infantile piece of jingle which cannot but fail to generate a patriotic feeling, but God Save the King will still do so. What say you all? God Save the King, for nothing will save the……… black bastards who are attempting to take our country from us.

Leave a Reply