Two solid articles have recently appeared in The Australian, delivering a thump to the Voice, and an affirmation of the NO case, but warning of the dangers posed by the might assembled for the YES campaign. Robert Gottliebsen, “Modern CEOs have more money than sense when it comes to the Voice,”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/modern-ceos-have-more-money-than-sense-when-it-comes-to-the-voice/news-story/81fed615baf2ea68310efc21acd85857#:~:text=They%20conclude%20is%20that%20the,aims%20to%20achieve%20that%20agenda

addresses the issue of how the corporates will be tossing tens of millions of dollars to convince Australians to vote YES. Very few corporates, if any, are daring backing the No side, even though many have much to lose. He says; “Given the unprecedented sums being raised from the big corporations plus the unions, and combining with the pro-yes media and voting method decisions from the Electoral Commission, the ALP’s “yes” drive is in a wonderful position to win.” And, here is what is behind the voice as  Gottliebsen observes:

“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders do not -- repeat not -- want their historical role simply recognised in the Constitution. They want the Voice body to deliver much more:

• Any Voice to parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process.
• A treaty will be the vehicle to achieve self-determination, autonomy and self-government.
• A treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
• The Voice body must also be supported by a sufficient and guaranteed budget, with access to its own independent secretariat, experts and lawyers. It was also suggested that the body could represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples internationally.

In summary Australia would be two nations with their own legal systems and international relations perhaps including defence.

The agenda document, minus “the heart”, is not a document of mutual respect but rather is full of hatred and vitriol towards non-Indigenous people both past and present.

Alleged ongoing “injustices and discrimination” are combined with descriptions of past “genocides, massacres, and wars”.

The chief executives who have seen this agenda say that there is no way non-Indigenous Australians would ever agree to such an agenda and the Voice referendum terms will not deliver that agenda.

But the constitutional amendments were brilliantly drafted to fool top executives and others whose mind is on other the things.

Many CEOs point out that the Voice is subject to parliament and it can only make representations to parliament. It is not a decision maker. And of course that it is true.

But the powers of the parliament over the Voice are subservient to what is in the constitution. And the key power of the Voice is not over the parliament but over the public service.

The proposed wording of the constitution gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the right to make representations to the public service. And in the wording, all that power does not limit the representations to matters that solely impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Unless the High Court decides otherwise the representations to the public service can cover almost any issue.

It is reasonable to speculate that the High Court is likely to decide that those representations will need to be considered by the public service.

Public servants may therefore need to inform indigenous people of pending decisions and receive their views or, alternatively, public servants may make a decision and then refer it to the Voice body for review.”

This will have a massive impact upon corporate Australia and all businesses, but the agenda grinds on, in a suicidal fashion. Dealing with the corporate funding is a major problem now for the NO side, one that is not discussed much. Still, whatever the odds, they must be defeated.

In another article, Greg Sheridan, “Successful No vote against the Indigenous Voice to parliament would be a victory for democracy,”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/successful-no-vote-against-the-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-would-be-a-victory-for-democracy/news-story/905e21e1e0594a5fad0e674f7d61d59f

makes the point that if the No side succeeds it will be a great victory against the assembled might of the corporates, the universities, the New Class and all the forces of woke:

“If Australians vote No in the voice referendum it will constitute the most magnificent, heartfelt, courageous and supremely democratic act of independence and national pride in our modern political history. Voting No in the 2023 referendum is exactly the same as voting Yes was in the 1967 referendum. It’s a vote for a common and universal vision of humanity in which all Australians enjoy exactly the same civic status, regardless of their race or background.

This is because never before has so much institutional power – big government, big corporations, universities, taxpayer-funded lobby and advocacy groups of all descriptions – been so determined to force its corporate will on an unwilling electorate and to make sure if possible that the electorate doesn’t get to hear all sides of the argument.

There is no sense at all that the voice is a grassroots movement. It’s an ideological attempt by the activist class to grab power and re-engineer elements of our civic identity and governance structures in accord with the dismal, and almost universally failing, ideological obsessions of our moment.

As this column has observed before, all over the West, but nowhere else in the world, identity politics is tearing societies apart, deepening existing conflicts and creating new conflicts. Identity politics undermines and denies the magnificence and transcendence of human nature by trying to trap human beings in allegedly essentialist identities, and forever divide them on the basis of those identities.”

It is an epic battle, perhaps the greatest in Australia’s history, since the costs are as high as a foreign invasion, which in a sense, the Voice actually is. It is about the globalists finally finishing off traditional Australia. Fight as if everything dear depends upon it, because it surely does. The date of the referendum, October 14, approaches and the fate of Australia hangs in the balance.