Malcolm Turnbull, when receiving the Uluru Statement put out a joint media statement which included the following;

Our democracy is built on the foundation of all Australian citizens having equal civic rights – all being able to vote for, stand for and serve in either of the two chambers of our national Parliament – the House of Representatives and the Senate.

A constitutionally enshrined additional representative assembly for which only Indigenous Australians could vote for or serve in is inconsistent with this fundamental principle.

It would inevitably become seen as a third chamber of Parliament. The Referendum Council noted the concerns that the proposed body would have insufficient power if its constitutional function was advisory only.

I want to draw your attention to the fact that Turnbull has reiterated concerns that the body would have insufficient power. This is in contrast to the propaganda machine that implies that Turnbull thinks there will be an indigenous-only body that will have too much power including a veto.

To draw attention to another thing Turnbull has said here. He said “It would inevitably become seen as a third chamber of Parliament“. He did not say it will be a third chamber.

This is a glitch in the Matrix. Breaking it down reveals an extremely sophisticated propaganda and misdirection campaign. One that must have been planned before the delegates even arrived at the Yulara convention.

What’s a Third Chamber?

The British Raj in India had a Third Chamber of parliament, which is not common. The planned decolonisation of Australia is partly using India as a template – Makaratta itself is based on Instruments of Accession. So the reference to the “Third Chamber” may be very relevant here.

During the British occupation of India the parliamentary system consisted of an upper house, lower house and a Chamber of Princes. The Chamber of Princes was alternatively referred to as the Third Chamber.

The Chamber of Princes was to represent the Princely States. The Princely States are pre-colonial kingdoms that were too powerful for the British and earlier colonisers to fully assimilate, so they were accommodated with special political structures. The Chamber of Princes didn’t have any constitutionally enshrined powers, it dealt with internal matters to do with the Princely States and with British-Princely State relations – or in other words – having a say in the making of laws that affect them (sound familiar?). These ‘matters’ eventually whittled down to nothing, as the Raj took over more and more power. As the ‘matters’ were not formally constitutionally protected, there was nothing the Princely States could do against it the erosion of their power in the face of the doctrine of British Supremacy. The Third Chamber does not exist anymore – it became redundant upon decolonisation of India.

Relate this to what Turnbull said… Turnbull reiterated the proposed body would have insufficient power if its constitutional function was advisory only. The lack of constitutional function is precisely what caused the eventual demise of the Chamber of Princes. Turnbull was not saying the Voice will be a Third Chamber. He was actually warning us that the proposal is a dud because it doesn’t have enough protected power. In a legal, technical contractual sense – he was speaking as Prime Minister on behalf of Australians in reception of the offer, and was “acting in good faith” by warning the proposal is flawed; albeit in an obscure way.

Sophisticated propaganda

A very sophisticated and pre-planned propaganda campaign further obscured Turnbull’s vague warning. The campaign was designed to make sure his real warnings were ignored.

Propaganda works best when it can set the first impression. The first impression many from the general Australian public had of the Uluru Statement was through Barnaby Joyce’s negative and incorrect comments; as they came out the same time as news of the Yulara convention.

This narrative campaign was pre-planned. The entire result of the convention was pre-planned as well. There’s proof if you look at the narrative chronologically, here’s how it panned out…

• Barnaby Joyce says the day after the Yulara convention that the Voice will literally be a Third Chamber.
• The Voice is a literal Third Chamber narrative is correctly shot down in flames from many sides
• Turnbull comes out saying it will look like a Third Chamber. This sounds like the same thing, but it is not.
• Turnbull also under fire due to lack of nuance.
• Conveniently timed leaks to the media build momentum at strategic times
• Turnbull plays part of arrogant mansplainer in staged QandA with Teela Reid
• Barnaby Joyce retracts his claims. Joyce doesn’t even remember how he came up with the idea in the first place!!
• Turnbull does not retract (because he doesn’t need to, as he has made a different argument that Joyce)
• Others take up Turnbull’s argument including Prime Ministers.

If you understand what the real Third Chamber reference means (India) – and you know that it is a legitimate warning dressed as an uninformed mansplain – you should be asking yourself this. How did Barnaby Joyce know to drop a Third Chamber reference THE DAY AFTER THE YULARA DIALOGS! Before any details were even out?

This is more proof that the dialog outcomes were pre-determined.

Of the hoards of lawyers and law firms who are behind this, they should have immediately recognised the Third Chamber reference. If you would study constitutional law – you would know about the modern Indian Constitution and how it was formed, you would also know about the historical Chamber of Princes as it is part of that story. But the lawyers feign ignorance.

We are being FAILED.