As Robert Gottliebsen wrote in a recent article in The Australian newspaper relating to corporate funding of the ‘Yes’ case at the referendum: “Few, if any, chief executives realized that what they were doing was setting up a body (The Voice) with the power to make the public service unworkable and slash government productivity.”
He went on to say, “But most now understand the dangers involved in what they are doing, but their decision is made and CEOs hate admitting mistakes.”
Whilst buttering up to the ALP government might have seemed like a good idea in the early days when ‘Yes’ supporters were in the majority, it certainly doesn’t look so smart now. Their decisions will undoubtedly come back to bite them in their collective bums!
The virtue-signalling so-called business ‘elites’ seem to have completely overlooked the probability that Albanese and his reckless and incompetent government will be turfed out of office at the next election.
That being the case, the LNP would come back into power and probably stay for many years because far left socialist governments always create massive problems that voters don’t easily forgive or forget. Many of you will remember Whitlam and his attempt at destroying our economy as a good example.
Right now, the Boards and CEOs of top 20 ASX corporates like Qantas, BHP, Rio Tinto, Wesfarmers, QBE, Visy Industries, Transurban and Newcrest together with Coles, Woolworths and the Big Banks must be experiencing a great deal of remorse over their rushed and bizarre decision to only support the ‘Yes’ case.
Added to that are the Business Council of Australia and the Minerals Council who have also thrown their support behind the race-based and divisive Voice ‘Yes’ campaign.
Should the Voice be approved, any future LNP Coalition government would be perfectly entitled to impose additional taxes on these elitist companies to pay for the Voice activists’ required reparations and ‘rent’. Ordinary taxpayers certainly shouldn’t have to pay for them.
Companies like Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Agriculture together with Kennards Self Storage, Blackmores and many others have indicated that they either believe corporates should stay neutral or have openly spoken out against the Voice.
As shareholders (mainly through our superannuation funds) and customers we should all take note of those companies who have voted for and who have voted against the proposal that Australia should have a third chamber of Parliament.
Because, in practical terms, that is what the Voice would become, as former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (pictured below) pointed out a few years ago when he was clearly a much wiser man than he is today.
He stated, “To have a national representative assembly – which is what we are talking about here – and which would be in the Constitution and to which only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders can be elected, this is contrary to principles of equality and of citizenship.”
Since then, of course, he has denied what he said was how he really felt about the proposal at the time and said that his comments were misconstrued.
As a result, he now joins the other ‘Yes’ non-truth-tellers Marcia Langton and Megan Davis.
In Langton’s case, she clearly said several times that many non-indigenous people are either racist and/or stupid and Davis claimed the Uluru Statement from the Heart “….is much more than just one page”. Now they both claim the exact opposite.
Hopefully, customers and shareholders of the ‘Yes’ corporate support club will be demanding to know why so much money was wasted in what will hopefully be a failed attempt to hijack the Constitution by incorporating the Voice as a third chamber.
Customers should demand to know why that money wasn’t instead spent on reducing the price of their products and services, especially in the case of Qantas and major retail stores.
Shareholders should demand to know what value was added as a result of this action by their Boards and CEOs in supporting what will hopefully be a failure of this outrageous attempt by the Albanese government to con Australians into voting ‘Yes’.
Albanese even has the temerity to claim it is a “modest proposal” when in fact it represents a hugely expensive and radical departure from our system of representative government. And it is, by its very nature, an entirely racist proposal.
