Like everyone else, politicians have to accept the consequences of their acts. They know, for example, that even if they stopped all CO2 emissions, it would have absolutely no effect on the climate even if electricity becomes more expensive and unreliable.

They also know that unless they take back the control of education from the Marxists (gentle pseudonym for communists), the next generation will suffer increasingly from illiteracy, innumeracy, ignorance and indoctrination.

They know that allowing biological men, claiming to be women, to play women’s sports and enter women’s spaces is both destructive and dangerous for women.

They know too that encouraging children to change their so-called ‘gender’, with medical assistance, constitutes serious child abuse.

They know that their gross mismanagement of welfare has made work optional, just as they know that they are incapable of administering anything efficiently and without massive waste.

They know that without dams there can be no national development, with immigrants rarely able to settle beyond the bloated eastern capitals.

And they know that inserting the Voice into the constitution will have absolutely no effect in ‘closing the gap’ between those in the remote communities and those from the Aboriginal establishment who will reign in some Canberra palace.

Rather, they know that, as any competent lawyer must realise, the Voice will make the country increasingly ungovernable.

They know that it will be a serious barrier if ever a true reform government takes office with a mandate to save this country from being doomed to be, if not a Venezuela, an impoverished Argentina of the South Seas.

Indeed, there is a fear among some immigrants with experience of the rise of communism, that this is the beginning of some similar development, a fear discussed by the Epoch Times’ Daniel Teng in a recent ADH TV interview.

Whatever the Voice portends, the politicians know one thing. Whatever happens, they are assured that their financial well-being and safety are secure.

In the meantime, never before in Australia has a referendum been run by a government determined to avoid a fair and level playing field and with such serious contempt for the Australian people.

The government seems to think that it can shame and trick the people into voting Yes if it constantly relies on very tired lies and myths. These include old furphies such as the one that Aborigines were classified as ‘flora and fauna’, as well as myths, such as the recurrence of non-existent frontier wars or Aborigines being banned from voting at Federation. (They weren’t.)

While the government is under no obligation to directly fund either case, 1999 being an exception, it is a reasonable corollary from the current public funding of elections. The government’s delay in allowing gifts to the No case to be deductible, while rushing through approval for the Yes case, was scandalous, as is its pretence that blatant taxpayer-funded Yes case advertisements are ‘information’.

In addition, as a result of the long march through the institutions, key elites are arranging substantial funding for the Yes case from Big Business and Big Sport.

Meanwhile, the vague yet broad proposed change has been grandiosely packaged as the first new chapter in our constitution since Federation. The reason is either to cover up its lack of detail, or to signal to judicial activists its importance, or, more likely, both.

With a mere 109 words, the chapter pales in comparison with Chapter 1-The Parliament’s 5,754 words. So lacking in detail, it is half the size of the smallest existing chapter, Chapter 7-Miscellaneous. If adopted it would be a tiny part of a document which,   with the preamble and opening clauses, consists of 12,573 words.

And to correct another untruth, our constitution was not, as Paul Keating claims, written in the Foreign Office and imposed on Australia. With minor changes in London, it was written by Australians in Australia and was approved by Australians.

The actual question which will be put to the people in this referendum asks for their approval for the proposed law to alter the constitution to ‘recognise’ the ‘First Peoples’ of Australia by ‘establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice’.

Note that. ‘Recognition’ is to be achieved by establishing race-based machinery which will, prominent lawyers say, significantly change the governance of Australia.

This deviously implies that the Aboriginal people are not already recognised in the constitution.

They are, as discussed in ADH TV interviews with expert authors on the issue, Keith Windschuttle and Peter O’Brien. Along with everybody else, the Aboriginal people are already recognised 24 times as an integral part of the ‘people’ of the states who agreed to unite in this commonwealth. And unlike everyone else, they scored two additional specific mentions. (A third specific reference was attempted but overwhelmingly rejected in the 1999 preamble referendum).

The first excluded them from the race power in section 51(xxvi),  designed to end the abuse of imported ‘coolie labour’.

The second specific mention was in section 127. As clearly confirmed in the 1897 convention debate, this was not to detract from their right to vote. Because of the practical difficulty of ascertaining accurately the size of a still widely nomadic population, it directed that as a mathematical exercise, the estimated total size of the Aboriginal population not be used in allocating seats, finances and debts between states. With the ending of nomadism, this was deleted in the 1967 referendum.

So why is there a reference to the furphy of recognition in this referendum? It is clearly a distraction and possibly a cover from the real role and purpose of the Voice.

What other purpose can there then be for the Voice either to block some future reform government, or as some immigrants fear, to slide Australia into authoritarianism similar to the communist government they escaped from?

Whatever it is, a Yes vote will please Beijing as well as  the West’s new communists.

More reason, then, to follow Alan Jones’ sage 1999 advice: ‘If you don’t know, Vote No.’