As support for The Voice plummets around the nation, Anthony Albanese is becoming so desperate. Speaking to 2GB’s Ben Fordham, the Australian Prime Minister said:

‘This is not about a treaty. This is the issue here, we’ve had a debate about things that aren’t happening rather than about things that are.

‘Read the question, which you’re going to be asked about. It isn’t about anything else. It’s not about treaty, it’s not about compensation, it’s simply about listening in order to get better outcomes.’

Unfortunately, even religious leaders are making the same assertion. The Anglican rector at St Mark’s, Darling Point, Rev. Dr. Michael Jensen has likewise written in The Gospel Coalition Australia:

Some have expressed concerns that the Voice would be the first a step in the process toward leading to a treaty and the payment of reparations, which they consider this to be a negative outcome. However, there is no sense in which these following steps are an automatic outcome of the Voice. This argument represents something of a classic ‘slippery slope’: the debate about the Voice is about the Voice, not about these further potential steps.

I’m sorry, but it can be argued that both of these statements are patently wrong. While the referendum itself does not address the issue of treaty, The Uluru Statement from the Heart has always been about a three-step process of establishing a) parliamentary advisory body b) Makarrata commission to form a treaty, and c) the Orwellian creation of Indigenous ‘truth-telling’. As the website for The Uluru Statement from the Heart explicitly states:

The Uluru statement from the Heart is an invitation to the Australian people from First Nations Australians. It asks Australians to walk together to build a better future by establishing a First Nations Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution, and the establishment of a Makarrata Commission for the purpose of treaty-making and truth-telling.

Thus, a treaty – and subsequent reparations – is not an example of fear-mongering or the proverbial ‘slippery slope’, but precisely what the movers behind The Uluru Statement from the Heart have said is their goal from the very beginning. And as such, it is disingenuous to argue otherwise.

What’s more, the very first thing Mr Albanese said after winning the election was that he was committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. What’s more, according to the Australian:

In May, Mr Albanese said treaty and truth-telling would be ‘part of the next phase’ if the referendum succeeded, with the voice able to talk about Makarrata. The Uluru statement called for a voice followed by a Makarrata Commission – to supervise treaties – and truth-telling.

Maybe this also explains why Mr Albanese has also refused to hold a constitutional convention, especially on something as controversial and far-reaching as The Voice. Because the people of Australia are being treated as mugs.

We’re being berated into voting ‘Yes’ with not only no detail as to what that will look like, but also what that will mean going on into the future. Thankfully though, more and more people are starting to think with their heads and not just following the emotion of their hearts.