Questions on the Voice referendum

 We have asked the Prime Minister and the Attorney General for some answers on the referendum over a ‘Voice to Parliament" our request was “There seems to be a general lack of understanding surrounding the benefits of a YES vote in the referendum to add ‘A Voice to Parliament’ to the constitution.

Can you please clarify what actions will follow such a change?” We also referred the question to Noel Pearson’s Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. It will be interesting to see their responses because we haven't seen anything to explain any direct benefit which will flow from a constitutional change. From everything which has been revealed to date 'the Voice' will just be another bureaucracy designed to exploit taxpayers.


Comments

  1. freerangerMarch 18, 2023 at 9:07 PM

    So far, there has been response, that means the answer has to be 'NO'

    ReplyDelete
  2. freerangerJune 18, 2023 at 11:28 PM

    lidia Thorpe and Jacinta Price say that The Voice is pointless - and we agree with them vote NO

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Protection from Government propaganda?

  Attempts to prevent the spread of false information are long overdue. However the Australian Government’s Bill should only be supported if if it covers all the deceptive propaganda spewed out by Government. We all remember the nonsense peddled by Ministers and bureaucrats over Covid 19 and The Voice referendum – all designed to panic the community and force compliance with the official line. The Government says that its Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024  aims  to reduce the spread of seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms. However, it is unclear if the Bill will operate in a manner compatible with Australia’s international human rights obligations related to freedom of expression. The definitions of misinformation and disinformation are not clear and create uncertainty. The Bill introduces transparency requirements for certain digital...
Read more

Bass Coast Councillors should be personally liable for their mistaken decision

  Bass Coast Shire councillors should be held personally liable for any costs resulting from their decision to reject an application by Heidelberg Materials to widen Stanley Road, Grantville, It seem likely that ratepayers will face a huge bill to defend Councillors’ decision at VCAT. The road widening has long been a requirement of the planning permit previously issued by the Shire and was approved by Shire planning staff as well as DEECA. Rather than make ratepayers foot the bill, councillors who refused the planning application should be personally liable. All councillors other than Jan Thompson, who had the sense to vote for the application should pay every cent.
Read more

God Save the King

 With King Charles III and Queen Camilla in Australia, it's time for some to take a reality check.It is tiresome of the ratbags in the Republican movement to persevere with their flawed campain.   In 1999, Australians went to the polls to decide in a referendum whether to become a republic or to retain the monarchy. The result was clear, On the question of being a republic Australia said NO. Here's a post I put on this blog onSeptember 28 2022 Rabid members of the Australian Rupublic Movement and some politicians keep trying to revive the flawed concept of dumping the monarchy and turning Australia into a republic. The Australian Government talks about holding a referendum to gauge popular support, but before that happens, proponents need to explain what type of republic and how this country will benefit – will it cut the waste of taxpayers dollars? Will it be more democratic? Unless the answer to both those questions in “YES” why spend money on a system that offers no be...
Read more