The Albanese regime made an enormous error last week when someone inside Labor’s PR team decided to carefully edit the Prime Minister’s 2GB interview regarding the Voice to Parliament.

Correctly dubbed ‘Orwellian’, the action altered the public record.

The original transcript read as follows:

Anthony Albanese: The Solicitor-General is the person, which you are confusing … who gives legal advice to the government. The Attorney-General is a political officer who’s the first law officer of the land.’

Ben Fordham: ‘So, have you got legal advice from the Solicitor-General?’

Anthony Albanese: ‘No. No… We got advice from a range of High Court judges, former High Court judges are on the record, such as Justice French and others.’

Ben Fordham: ‘No?!’

It was this ‘no’ that was omitted by the Prime Minister’s office when the transcript was released. Later, there was a rather pathetic explanation of ‘E & OE – errors and omissions excepted’.

That’s it. That’s the only explanation the Australian people are going to get out of the ‘Ministry of Truth’.

No one minds if the Prime Minister’s office adds a few helpful notes scrawled into the margin to make his embarrassing interviews more accurate. ‘Ablo mumbled through this part, no idea what it says.’ Or even, ‘That’s not what we told him in the briefing – totally wrong.’ Maybe they could shorten it to, ‘What a muppet…’ But erasing answers?

Fordham said on Thursday:

‘Someone in the Prime Minister’s office has tampered with the truth by erasing an important fact that was unearthed yesterday. That ‘no’ has been deleted from the official transcript of the interview released by the Prime Minister’s office. It’s gone. It’s nowhere to be seen. The question that I asked is on the transcript. The rest of the answer is on the transcript. But the word ‘no’ does not appear.

‘What happened yesterday in the Prime Minister’s office with the transcript is unjustifiable. Particularly considering that our conversation was largely about the importance of words. The words you want to bake into our Constitution, and whether those words stack up legally. They have tried to erase it from history.’

People are particularly upset by this incident because it took place in a climate absent of detail.

Australians are being asked to insert a statement into the Constitution that effectively creates another chamber of Parliament based on the idea of racial supremacy – that is, a person’s skin colour will qualify them for a special position of privilege above the democratic process and the rights of other Australians. It opens up the concept of race-based leadership and requires a mechanism to enforce it that will no doubt involve genetic testing to weed out race-appropriators.

The Voice to Parliament cannot be argued for without invoking race – and that is a very big concern for Australians who were led to believe that they are all Australian and equal within the Parliamentary system.

Others believe the Prime Minister should be made to explain where tens of billions of dollars in state and federal public money dedicated to Indigenous causes every year is actually going and why, despite being the most heavily funded group of Australians, the situation is getting worse.

If the government does not know this and cannot answer the most basic of questions, how can Albanese declare that his race-based solution will work? Judging by his comments in the Fordham interview, it sounds more like the Voice was a vote-buying election promise that Labor is going to push through.

The gap of knowledge regarding the failure of remote Indigenous communities is not closing – it is widening thanks to Albanese and the inner-city activist class who hide their failures beneath deceitful slogans about colonialism.

Labor has a bigger problem.

Admitting that race-based bureaucracies have been absorbing public money in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis is angering the working class, who are also pretty unhappy about the vanished price cut to their power bills. This could go a long way to explaining why popularity for the Voice is sitting at about 95 per cent against.

Albanese betrayed this sense of failure when he hinted that if the referendum failed, he’d find a way to violate Parliament with a legislated version against the wishes of the people – a topic he fumbled around on during the Fordham interview.

Looking at this mess, there has been enough fodder from Albanese this week for the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, to sink both Albanese and the Voice to Parliament – were it in the hands of a ruthless and principled politician.

Dutton needs to sit himself down in front of this pile of bones, chew all the click-bait off, snap them in half, and make a broth out of Albanese’s delicious failures.

Part of the reason Dutton cannot do this is that he hasn’t decided whether or not he supports a race-based glass ceiling being installed over the nation. In his eternal quest ‘for detail’ he has lost sight of his job as a conservative Liberal leader – to protect the nation from racial revenge-style Marxist attacks on the most important legal document in Australia, the Constitution.

If Dutton is going to pick a hill to die on, this is it.

So far, Dutton has softly accused Albanese of being ‘very tricky’ during his ‘train wreck’ interview.

‘The Prime Minister on 2GB … had a train wreck of an interview with Ben. It was just a shocker.’

Later adding: 

‘So, I’d just say to the Australian public, if Anthony Albanese can’t explain the Voice and Anthony Albanese doesn’t understand how the Voice will operate, how can Australians be expected to understand how the Voice will operate without the detail?’

It was a confused ‘squeak’ rather than a roar. His follow-up wasn’t much better.

‘And frankly, it’s pretty tacky from the Prime Minister to try and conflate the two issues [Constitutional recognition and the Voice] and try and trick and deceive the Australian public.’

Or maybe readers think this was stronger:

‘It’s obvious the Prime Minister has made a political decisions based on the advice of his strategists not to provide the detail to the Australian public, and by doing that, I really think he’s treating people like mugs. […] Many Australians do not understand the scope and operation of the Voice and expect comprehensive information before being asked to vote.’

Anyone else feel like they’re trapped in the last head office finance meeting at 5pm on Friday?

Dutton needs to go out there and protect the Australian people from the possibility of endless reparations, land acquisition, and all manner of race-based legislation that is likely to follow in New Zealand’s disastrous footsteps.

Or has Dutton forgotten that the people marching behind the ‘Voice’ are carrying signs reading ‘Stolen Land’, ‘No Peace, No Justice’, ‘Australia has a Black Future’, and the Marxist ‘Black Power’ fist?

This discussion doesn’t end with the erasure of Australia Day, removal of our flag, replacement of the anthem, re-naming of Australia and its places, and an activist authority obstructing democracy – it’ll erode the very definition of ‘Australia’ and forge a future where some Australians are ‘more equal than others’ based on the colour of their skin.

Dutton has one job – to defend the Constitution and the Australian people. Moaning about Albanese’s ‘cheap culture war stunts’ isn’t going to get the Liberal Leader anywhere.

Civilisation is a culture war. Those who refuse to fight, lose.