[/quote]
Don’t know what happened here. I can’t get into it to edit it to a readable item. Will have another go.
Hello OFA. I can’t get into the article I posted to delete it. Are you able to get rid of It, it’s fairly well unreadable. Sorry and thanks!
Heard on the news about the Federal national party are currently not going to support the voice. Will be interesting to see how the pm handles the situation when parliament resumes in twenty 23.
So the debate goes on and Elbows refuses to tell us what is in the document. Now I hear that 2/3’s of West Aussies are going to vote yes. So does this mean 2/3’s of West Aussies are fkn idiots, or does it mean they know more about it than me? Can anyone explain to me how the Labour party (aka Loco Party) can alter the constitution without telling us why, how, costs and how it going to affect ALL Australians? This fkn idiot of a PM could cause some real havoc before we can get rid of him. Fkn spewing!!!
Anyone would have to be either mad or stupid to vote for a blank cheque on a huge Constitutional change like this at the moment.
The legislation should be drafted first.
Good on Dutton for sending the letter to Albo and Albos response has been piss weak, just trust me and vote yes…
When it loses, a it should,will the pm resign as Cameron did in the old dart following the lose of the brexit referendum?
In principle I would agree with the concept, but that’s a long way from voting yes for something that the PM and his party refuse to clarify and give us details on, it’s the bloody constitution after all!! What also annoys the crap outa me is this push by Labor and Pinko Albo and his woke ocelots to make any objection to the proposal or any seeking of additional details to be considered as racist.
I rarely agree with Mr potato head Dutton, but he’s right on the money with this one when he says Albo’s refusal to provide details will see the vote go no. Draft the legislation, let anyone who wants to see it have the opportunity, then put it to the vote.
What are they trying to hide?
My big problem with it is that they want to enshrine it in the Constitution. If all goes pear shaped or needs major structural changes so that it works properly, where do we go from there? Another referendum? Much easier to legislate it then it only takes a stroke of the pen to play around with the thing.
[quote=“ArkRoyal post=224503 userid=1915”]When it loses, a it should,will the pm resign as Cameron did in the old dart following the lose of the brexit referendum?
[/quote]
He should but he clearly won’t he is not that honorable, the fact he is now rushed it forward stinks of panic to me, he want to capture the so called moment and avoid scrutiny, the longer it goes and the more spot light it gets the more people will realise they are being sold a very dangerous dud.
More attention is going on it now, and you can feel the Yes vote starting to melt, they just cannot answer people questions on how this will work, and not a single word of the legislation has been incked, but they want us to give them a provision that forces our elected parliament to have to consult a race based lobby group on pretty much every piece of legislation it is wants to make law, can you imagine what a night mare this will become?
[quote=“BC post=224506 userid=892”]My big problem with it is that they want to enshrine it in the Constitution. If all goes pear shaped or needs major structural changes so that it works properly, where do we go from there? Another referendum? Much easier to legislate it then it only takes a stroke of the pen to play around with the thing.
[/quote]
BC I have also maintained you could achieve the same thing without the body being in the Constitution, the fact they want to lock it in the Constitution is the most alarming thing, Imagine the US Congress being told it was compelled to consult a Committe of anyone prior to passing a law?
Agreed Baz. My other concern is how the thing will work at a granular level. Any legislation referred to the panel for comment may impact indigenous folk differently depending on where they live and their individual circumstances.
For example, reforms to social services might be ok for a city dwelling person but detrimental to someone in a remote area who doesn’t have the same level of access. How is that going to work? I think it’s a divisive idea which is going to open a whole new can of worms just to make a few woke do-gooders feel better about themselves.
[quote=“58shark post=224496 userid=844”]So the debate goes on and Elbows refuses to tell us what is in the document. Now I hear that 2/3’s of West Aussies are going to vote yes. So does this mean 2/3’s of West Aussies are fkn idiots, or does it mean they know more about it than me? Can anyone explain to me how the Labour party (aka Loco Party) can alter the constitution without telling us why, how, costs and how it going to affect ALL Australians? This fkn idiot of a PM could cause some real havoc before we can get rid of him. Fkn spewing!!!
[/quote]
I wouldn’t be reading too much into any polling done by the Flogged Dog Polling Agency. Clearly they’re retained by state Labor here in WA even if it’s indirectly and they never publish the questions they use or where they did the polling. They can skew a poll question any way they like to get a predetermined outcome and/or ask them in Labor strongholds in the metro area knowing full well respondents will support whatever is the view of Dear Leader or Elbow.
He should drop the idea, noting that he has listened to the electorate; they may get him from within the ALP, a fact he does not realise; put pressure on the Liberals–the Nats should leave the coalition–that is how damaging for the country a ‘yes vote’ would be.
I wouldn’t be reading too much into any polling done by the Flogged Dog Polling Agency. Clearly they’re retained by state Labor here in WA even if it’s indirectly and they never publish the questions they use or where they did the polling. They can skew a poll question any way they like to get a predetermined outcome and/or ask them in Labor strongholds in the metro area knowing full well respondents will support whatever is the view of Dear Leader or Elbow.
[/quote]
Spoken to a few people, and in my workplace, don’t know a single person who is voting yes.
[quote=“BC post=224517 userid=892”]Agreed Baz. My other concern is how the thing will work at a granular level. Any legislation referred to the panel for comment may impact indigenous folk differently depending on where they live and their individual circumstances.
For example, reforms to social services might be ok for a city dwelling person but detrimental to someone in a remote area who doesn’t have the same level of access. How is that going to work? I think it’s a divisive idea which is going to open a whole new can of worms just to make a few woke do-gooders feel better about themselves.
[/quote]
Yes, takes me to my other argument is, this thing is really ATSIC on steroids, we all know what a shambles that turned into, dysfuctional infighting, millions wasted, achieved sfa, the Indigenous industry the archtects of the voice have never got over the abolution of the ATSIC gravy train, hence why they designed this as a lock into the Constitution, no PM will be able to just come up and abolish it if its a train wreck, we are stuck with it for good.
You would be lucky to get a handful of Aboriginal groups who agree with each other on a single issue, just look at the North West and the Burrup, firms spend millions going through the Indigenous Consultation process, get approval and then a tiny breakaway group starts a protest because they missed out on a payment. All ends up in court again. Absolute joke.
Albo should forget about something which is being done to placate less than 3% of the population and focus on something far more important being a referendum on becoming a republic now the Queen has gone and what is left behind is in total disarray. I for one, don’t want Chilla and Camilla as my heads of state and you can raffle the rest maybe with the exception of Bill and Kate. This Harry clown and his narcissistic missus along with Randy Andy can all piss off into oblivion.
BC: we have stability because of the monarchy, so that will not go through either. She is a yankie plant in the tradition of the Simpson woman back in the 1930s.
I’m not sure I agree with that AR. Maybe for the first 150 years after colonisation we relied on Britain for stability but I think it became very evident after the First World War that Australia could stand on it’s own two feet and move away from being a constitutional monarchy.
India is a good example where they’ve continued to grow and become a world power with little or no help from Britain after gaining independence in 1947.
Anyway, the republican debate is for another thread but thought I’d throw it out there.
BC: India has lost the McMahon line to China since 1947, has the caste system, and, in addition, continues to occupy Kashmir; in short, she is a shinning example of littlte.