Dear John,

DEBATE SHOWS LITTLE SUPPORT FOR VOICE PROPOSAL

By One Nation Leader Senator Pauline Hanson

The debate over the proposed indigenous voice to Parliament continues to gather pace thanks in part to One Nation taking a firm stance early and leading the campaign for the ‘no’ vote.

Predictably we’re already seeing the main tactic of the pro-voice brigade in this debate: they’ll try to silence people speaking against it by dismissing them as racists.

This way they can avoid the tough questions about the profound changes they are proposing and the wide-ranging implications they will have for the future of Australia.

Want more details? Concerned about enshrining race-based powers in our otherwise colour-blind Constitution? Want to know how much this entire exercise will cost taxpayers? Want to know how this will address real disadvantage in indigenous communities? These are the questions that will get you labelled racist, yet these are the questions that must be asked – and satisfactorily answered – before we go to a referendum.

I’ve been encouraged by the response from Australians who have had it with being told what to think. Many who have not agreed with me on other issues have been happy to say they support our campaign against the voice to Parliament. I’m confident most Australians won’t support racial exceptionalism and separatism being enshrined in the Constitution.

It’s important to remember that while the pro-voice crowd will attempt to silence dissenting voices in public debate, they can’t silence dissenting voices in the referendum itself. The focus of our campaign is to unite all Australians as one people in one nation under one flag, while voice proponents would create a separate nation within a nation and give more power to a minority based on race. It’s nothing less than Australian apartheid, and will set us back decades.

One Nation wants an end to the useless gestures and symbolism, and wants real action that closes the gaps and empowers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to prosper. The proposed voice does nothing to achieve this. It will just be more money for a privileged few, another blank cheque for the Aboriginal industry’s gravy train while the violence, poverty and failure of service delivery in indigenous communities continues indefinitely.

That’s something One Nation does not accept. We’re drawing a line in the sand, and we invite you to stand with us.

Watch Pauline Hanson’s Latest Interview on the Voice

TIME FOR THE GREAT RESIST

By One Nation Senator for Queensland Malcolm Roberts

Politicians need to work together for our country instead of pushing Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset. The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset plan comes with the tagline, “you will own nothing and be happy”.

Under the Great Reset, billionaire globalist corporations will own everything, homes, factories, farms, cars, furniture and everyday citizens will rent what they need… if their social credit score allows.

Instead, One Nation supports the Great Resist, opposing these international, globalist influences that don’t have Australia’s best interests at heart. Under the Great Resist you will own your home, your car and your farm, and you will be happy.

Individual freedom, privacy and dignity are essential building blocks for an Australia worth living in. Globalists try to convince governments to remove these human rights to achieve the “greater good”.

We must push the Great Resist in all areas of our lives. The future of our country, our children and ourselves depend on it.

We stand for a world where individuals and communities have primacy over predatory globalist billionaires and their quisling bureaucrats, politicians, and mouthpiece media. One Nation accepts the challenge to provide a better future for everyday Australians.

We have one flag, we are one community, and we are One Nation.

Watch Senator Roberts's Viral Great Resist Video

QLD'S NEW SHIELD LAWS PROTECT NO ONE... LEAST OF ALL JOURNALISTS

By Stephen Andrew One Nation MP for Mirani, QLD

In May, Queensland Parliament passed the state’s new “shield laws”, which the Government said would protect journalists from being forced to divulge their sources.

Contained in the Evidence and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, however, are a number of ‘get out’ clauses, which render its so-called “protections” as tokenistic at best.

One of the biggest loopholes is that it is left to the courts to decide whether a journalist’s ‘right to privilege’, is outweighed by a ‘public interest’ right for an informant’s identity to be made known. If it is, then the judge can overrule the “shield laws”.

No criteria or rules are given to explain how the “public interest” is determined.
It is just left up to the discretion of the judge to decide.

Another problem is that the “shield laws” don’t apply to the secretive ‘star chamber’ powers of Queensland’s Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC).

Given the CCC star chamber has been the main instigator of attacks and threats against journalists in Queensland over the past decade, its exemption from the laws is a massive oversight.

All of which makes it surprising that no journalist or media organisation raised any objection to the “shield laws” at the time - or has criticised them since.

Surely they realise that any journalist or whistle-blower relying on these laws when exposing the wrong doings of power, would be taking an enormous risk.

The fact is, without strong and effective shield laws, informants and whistle-blowers simply won’t be prepared to divulge vital information that the public needs to know.

Even if they did, what journalist or editor in Queensland would be game enough to publish the details?

Just how secretive Queensland has become was exposed by an ABC report in February, which began:

“There is a politician we can't name, using a non-publication order we can't get, in a case to suppress a report by a corruption watchdog which won't talk about it, in a court hearing that was held with no names.”

“Welcome to Queensland.”

Says it all really.

As Julian Assange once said:

“The overwhelming majority of information is classified to protect POLITICAL security, NOT national security”.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation
http://www.onenation.org.au/