Is Your Local State or Federal MP A Total Joke? Here's the best test at the moment.

The Indigenous Voice to Parliament

Don't take my word for it, look into it properly. And before you start on that journey may I say...

GOOD LUCK FINDING DETAIL (apparently some people need only a bland concept)
Disclaimer - 15th of December 2022 as this is typed. As much detail as possible has been gathered, see if you can find any more specific detail whatever date it is when you read this.

So far the PM & other Labor MPs that dare speak on it are either full of vague motherhood statements rich & over flowing with emotional sentiment, with lashings of guilt for anyone not getting on board.
The Devil is in the lack of detail & if you're supporting a constitutional change of huge signifigance with little chance of repeal or amendment once in...well you're a fool buying poison or a person who should not be in parliament.

The aim has been clearly made. Pass the Referendum THEN and only then, sort out the detail of what the changes to the constitution shall be...via the parliament.
In others we the people are expected to pass a refendum on a constitional amendment with no detail at all & gift that role away from us the people, to a ruling political party.

THAT IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS IS MEANT TO ALLOW. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT.

The process is very clear a referendum is required to Amend the Constitution. A bill containing the Amendment must be presented to Federal Parliament & passed. Once passed writs are obtained and the process rolls on & eventually the enrolled voters amongst the people vote on whether to pass the amendment or not.

THAT is not what the Federal Labor Government wants or is pushing. Instead they want you to pass a referendum to change the constitution that the Parliament will decide on AFTER the referendum.

Now read this slowly & read it a few times. If that's truly their aim, they want a ruling political party to change the constitution not the people. Labor, the Greens, the Teals, Andrew Gee & whoever else want the constitution to be changed to a model we don't know about, that we cannot assess will be effective nor how it will work, what is powers, structure, costs, reporting nor compliance to what rules are.

ARE YOU READY FOR THAT? IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (a legislator, a law maker on our behalf) AND YOU SUPPORT THAT, PLEASE RESIGN FROM POLICTICAL LIFE NOW

Now if you want to know what the Voice might look like, you're going to have to read the 272 page Report (link below. Go read it. Many of your parliamentarians haven't) that was handed down middle of last year. I read it as soon as it was available to the public. Some political players, MPs & parties had already formed set & passed policies to support the Voice BEFORE the report was even finished. Some 2 years before when no options or details had even beem discussed.

As they say in the classics, "HOW YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?"
Chances are they're pineapples and you're about to have those pineapples inserted in you sideways. Brace yourself.

Here's some of the thing that may or may not be coming because its just some of the things in the 272 page report - 

1) Its a Voice to Parliament AND Government. Meaning it's potentially having say & influence over Bills that are being presented to Parliament AND also having a say and/or influence with Bureaucrats over Acts that are already in place & how they are to be enacted & played out in the community. Again, we have no idea if there's any veto involved & who holds it. Its another devil in the lack of detail.
In any case that's 2 Voices not one. And you need to see this for what it really is. This is potentially TWO SEPERATE LOBBY GROUPS FULLY PAID FOR BY ALL AUSTRALIAN TAXPAYERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS. WHOSE MEMBERSHIP IS CENTRED PURELY & SOLELY ON RACE. Or as the report vaguely determines, membership is restricted solely to "Indigenous Identity" that is by virtue of a person's race.
It's TWO SEPERATE LOBBY GROUPS that are fully funded by the Australian Taxpayer to influence the Parliament & the Government department. Until we're given a full & proper model to consider, it is very reasonable to assess the Pro Voice commentary & consider that is the aim & therefore we should oppose it.

2) Those Political Parties who are supporting it have done so without knowing or considering any FINAL MODEL because, lets be frank, there is no final model. Today it's December 24th. There is still no model at all but there are plenty of suggestions in the 272 page "expert report" (Link Below) of what it "might look like.

This is something to consider & not forget. Emboldened text for extra emphasis...

Some MPs & some political parties decided to support this when it was first raised, some later in 2018, some in 2019 and yet that report wasn't finished until JULY 2021. 

Yes that's right, no final report with options until July 2021, its now mid December 2022 and there's still NO FINALISED MODEL.
And yet some political parties, some MPs have chosen to support a constitutional change they cannot define. Who even does this???
Andrew Gee even resigned from his party over this. Of all the issues he could have resigned over, he chose the stance on a constitutional change with no solid final model with actual detail. I think he's broken ranks for other reasons and this one provides him good cover to do so whilst gathering support from anyone not happy with the Nats. I gift no real reasoned decision to do with the Voice and smell the strong whiff of rank political opportunity. 

3) Some of the porponents have varying ideas of what will happen. This graphic was on the Uluru Statement website but since removed. It may be because the website has been totally revamped & its yet to be re-posted but it was on the previous website.

Two sovereign nations...based on race. The report mentions the 2 delegates per state will need to meet certain criteria, including "indigenous identity" which whilst that is mentioned it's not defined at all.
And to think some political parties & some MPs decided to support this anyway. Not their fault is it? They decided without any facts or reports...just went with their gut feeling instead of waiting for facts. Well its facts now & take close note of who amongst them has not changed their view to an even fair middle ground of "Look there's much confusion and we as a party will be revisiting it in its entirity to get a better understanding to make a better informed decision."
I think some will stupidly dig in & hold fast to their intellectually bankrupt decision that was made without any detail nor understanding because they might be seen as fools. Well so be it to their political demise

4) The Big One - Labor MPs have already said there will be no detail until after the referrendum is passed. One MP famously said they didn't want it getting bogged down in detail, that it needed to be passed & the government can sort the final model & Voice's foundations & make up afterwards.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PROCESS TO CHANGE THE CONSITUTION IS SET UP TO SPECIFICALLY AVOID. GOVERNMENTS AND/OR RULING PARTIES ARE EXPRESSLY PREVENTED FROM CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION FOR VERY GOOD REASON. ITS BLOODY DANERGOUS AND ITS COMPLETELY WRONG. ONLY THE PEOPLE VIS REFERENDUM CHANGE IT- NEVER THE GOVERNMENT. NEVER, REPEAT NEVER.

What the federal Labor Government is doing & what other MPs from Labor & other parties are doing is approving the wrongful alteration of the Australian Constitution which the Legal Framework is specifically designed to prevent. You cannot sign a document and sign away the rights of protection of a child...rightly so. And you cannot possibly allow a political party to have permission to change the constitution instead of the people.

I cannot understand how some from a supposedly Conservative Party or those with a Law Degree in the Labor Party are happy to allow this to happen.

5) I can come up with quite a number of equally concerning issues this "Voice" will or might cause. This is probably enough, should have been enough to call for a finalised model up front.
Silence though.
Even those in favour of whatever they think the Voice is should be voting no until there is a fully finalalised model BEFORE the referendum.
If you MP or the party you support or are financial member of actually support the Voice despite these concerns...you're probably being sold very short by grifter theatre props who don't know the issue, don't know anymore than a profoundly vague concept and if so...they're exactly the people we do not need in Parliament. You have your Australian version of left wing lunancy that is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Yes, if they'd be every bit as bad as her. No reasoned & informed decision. Just emotive sentiment.

We're in troubling times & very much seems like the people we really need in parliament aren't and have no desire to go anywhere near it ever. A very well known, very well connected senior jouranlist told me a view which is probably based on far more knowledge than me.

I said I thought around 10% of every party were good, honest, well meaning MPs...that the others were people of previously floundering or stagnating careers or went into parliament as a means to be restructuring their significant personal debt. Or for the attention and hopefully best corporate box seats at the AFL/Cricket/Tennis or lots of free stuff & get credit for grants they didn't (hopefully) decide on.

He said my calculations more likely suggested I'm far too kind, that the percentage was much lower and "that parliament was a humidicrib for mediocity"

Pin them down on these matters & you will get profoundly vague motherhood statements...deflections, not concessions, no changes of heart or mind.

This is the mess we will contend with.
There is much more BAD legislation on the way

Here, click the link & read the 272 page report that didn't even exist when some MPs & some Political Parties made their decision on the Voice to Parliament. Not much point having a Race Based Tax Payer Funded Lobby Group to Parliament & Government when many of the MPs are not fit for purpose as law makers & cannot even attain embarassing mediocrity.

https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf

Facepalm Alert - Proper Vetting & Testing of Apsiring Lawmakers, Candidates for Parliament

You don't have to work on a minesite to know to use a forklift in a workplace, you have to be trained, you have to have a ticket to use that machine. You wouldn't need to be experienced in working with light or heavy machinery to know there's a wide spread ZERO tolerance for drugs & alcohol in the worker's system.

You don't have to be a genius to know its a good idea for prison guards, professional fire fighters and many other careers to have not only random drug & alcohol tests in the work place but they also have to have very serious psychological testing when applying for the job.

You may or may not know that a growing number of Company Boards are not only considering "Psyche testing" as a part of vetting potential directors but some are already installing proper clinical style Personality Tests like the "OCEAN" tests.

But strangely, if you're looking at candidates for Parliament none of these apply. No they're not using heavy machinery. Its more serious than that, they're law makers & many of them are selected due to what some consider "appealing demographic traits" rather than life experience, involvement with small business, big business but the central aspect they are targeted for is "local prominence" and hopefully they're easy enough to teach some debating skills for the press. Not to answer questions but to not answer questions. Once elected they need to be able to deliver a tactical reply instead of an actual answer to a serious question.
Its the deflect/derail technique. Fill the air with somment that is profoundly vague but still loosely connected then pivot and point to another journalist for another question. If a journalist routinely applies too much heat, don't take their questions. Its referred to by some as the "freeze out". This is regularly coupled with the one on one pot shot or complaint to their line manager & then not long after take questions from them again as they'll generally get softened up & not make life difficult for the MP.

And this is why Cabinet members are very selective in how they speak to people. Many will avoid interviews on take back radio, its laden with traps & torchlight to truth. You might if you're in opposition try to get an interview but because a minister is not on first, TV & Radio are less likely to ge the opposition speksperson on. It would cause another freeze out.

Play the game, be happy with crumbs.

In opposition your best chance is to pick up the phone & ring into talk back radio. Only seen or heard of 4 MPs who've done it unannounced and guess what...they get patched through to the on air journo every single time. A lot of the lesser MPs won't do this of course & they maybe hope they will be forgotten for their absence or be mistaken for the few very good MPs who also rarely go on air.

With the level of Candidates routinely being so low, we have little to choose from. We can all list a number of dud MPs in every party. Its slim pickings on a good day.

In the end, we as a state or a nation suffer.

As a result we get people elected and the only contact with voters is one on one door knocking during campaigns & rarely ever any public gatherings where the public can ask questions. Like a TV interview, it cannot be controlled & manipulated by the MP. They're fully accountable & its in front of many people.

Time to bring back Politics in the Pub or every MP being required to hire a local hall for a Q&A sesssion with their electors to actually say what they themselves have actually done. My local memeber said they would be out voice in the McGowan Government. No word on what they have said on our behalf or why they voted on any given matter...nor what actual voice they actually put forward to the McGowan Government.
Lots of cutesy selfies at schools, civic groups, fun runs, life saving clubs maybe handing a giant cheque out to a group which is actually grant money, not a gift from any effort of the MP at all. It would be a serious breach of protocol and a borderline red flag for a parliamentary inquiry if the MP did arrange the money. Kinda sounds like over reach Burke Era style.

It is little wonder that MPs are not held in high regard, that mediocrity is either a hallmark or required job skill. That some appear to be people from stagnant go no where careers, they need some sort of public attention with an improved retirement plan or they need to restructure business or personal debt that their party's pre=selection committee didn't detect because they too are well below "fit for purpose" and didn't even look.

So yes, vetting needs to be a little more forensic, not just looking for electable traits on the facade level.

Until then actual Progressive or Conservative values are not required in a Progressive or Conservative party let alone any helpful skills as a legislator or life skills as a MP. You just need to be of a certain look in the respective electorate & hopefully half well known in sporting clubs.
Other than that you can be as smart as a bucket of fishbait with significantly less uses and you'll be snapped up as a Election Candidate. Compliance to up the chain of command whilst pushing money up the chain to have it drip fed back is not uncommon. Except I know one party candidate said he would meet all his costs himself & no money went up the chain. That party was happy with that when they thought they would have a candidate with deep pockets...which they did. They later were unhappy as they realised there was no pot to skim.

And that is just part of what we're up against as a society with faux legislators, theatre props. Some of whom do not read any bills put before parliament unless they're on a committee putting it together & just wait until they get the memo on which way to vote. You bet they do not want to stand accountable in their electorate. Then there are those party "lay members" who join to get either pre-selected & hopefully win a seat or get deeply involved in a party to work in a MPs office somewhere. To endear themselves they will get on lots of Party Organisation committees and positions that will give them some sort of vote or sway to get a job. Then once employed stay in those organisation positions, voting without ever putting it on a Conflict of Interest register. Yes, working for an MP or the government whilst sitting on what a judge would consider is the political party's board. And they think its 100% legit & ok...yeah, like a $3 note.

Corporate Governance in most parties is appalling & neck deep in non compliance or very poor process.
If you can't properly govern within a Not-For-Profit organisation how can you govern within a parliament?
They can't but they sure can pull off the acting.

Wrong Decisions By Australian Political Parties & Their Inability To Change

Lets glance at two big issues are glaring examples of Australian MPs & Australian Political Parties failing. And by failing we mean embarassing themselves & falling short VERY BADLY. Just 2 for now although this might turn into a long running thing.
Row vs Wade and the current "Indigenous Voice to Parliament".

I'd expect some of the harder left amongst the left parties & the Greens to get these badly wrong but to see some supposedly Conservative MPs get these woefully wrong was shocking & disappointing. Not at all inspiring in the general, genuine hope of a return to WISE Progressives vs REAL Conservatives in all our Australian legislatures.

If you're supporting a party that made supportive claims about with or these 2 issues, by all means take them to task & ask them to explain "their why". I suspect you're going to get more points that miss the mark, you are not going to get someone seeing the penny drop nor change their stance. Actually I'd expect you're going to be facing a virtue laden theatre prop giving you profoundly vague motherhood statements drenched in emotional generalities & completely void of fact, data or fit for purpose relevence. Because that is them to a tee.

Roe vs Wade.
This was a stunning failure by some MPs both State & Federal in Australia. The fact they commented on a foreign country's domestic matter is one thing, the fact they commented on the over turning of a court ruling in a foreign country is another. Yes the Australian media did but I have no problem with them reporting the news (albeit it generally reported badly by the more commentator types. It's here where the politicians should have takent he chance to shine AND GOT IT RIGHT. They did not.
They should have silently parked their virtue signalling and avoided looking like complete idiots. Some couldn't help it because they are complete idiots & virtue signallers,
Here's why there's even more reason to shake your head at their absurd comments and stances. Here's why we need to be very concerned they're really not fit for purpose in any Parliament at all.
Now remember this highly paid individuals are our LAW MAKERS. You should be very worried, very concerned on these 2 examples alone.

In a legal sense & every other, the original case was not actually about abortion. Read the original court readings & the review/legal reasoning that actually caused it to be over turned recently. Yes...the actual facts not whipped up feelings.

Their federal government can only rule on matters of a federal nature. Matters set out in the constitution. It cannot commit over reach and veto state law. The judges comments were clear, it was time to heed their own constitution properly, to read the constitution & follow it & where it is wrong or failing amend the constitution not avoid or side step it. The legal grounding was very clear, the original Roe vs Wade was Constitutionally flawed & the over turning now hands back State Laws to the States. Abortion was not banned at all. That is a media & social media lie. Abortion is now controlled by the states & the states are controlled by members of state legislature who are elected by the people. If significant people in a state want or don't want abortion the elected legislature makes laws to reflect the people of their state.
Under federal governance, laws can be passed that some states (by some majority) might agree with & others (by some majority) do not agree with. You have the Federal Government Over Reach that their Constitution clearly sets out to prevent.
The effect of Roe vs Wade being passed in 1973 meant for nearly 50 years the Federal Government was over ruling the will of electors in many states. That was over reach of State Sovreignty.

To put it in Australian political speak...thanks to our federation we have some matters managed by the federal government & other matters managed by each state government. There are matters that no state or the federal government on the other. A state government doesn't oevr rule National Defence or International Diplomacy. We might have state based trade offices, but WA does not have its own foreign diplomats etc.

Those political parties & MPs in Australia that cried out about Roe Vs Wade were deeply embarassing in their senseless mistake. It was not about abortion or the rights to have one nor ability to outlaw abortion. It was returning a matter to state legislatures where the people can alter the law...NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

If a US state wants to allow/ban abortion, it can. Just has to be passed in that state. Make it enough of an issue in whichever state, laws to allow/ban it can now happen. 

Why did some Australian political parties & MPs crank up about it?
Because...
a) they're idiots and didn't think
b) they approve of a federal government wrongly over ruling state law which undemocratic, politically foul.
c) they just went with what was "feel good" and appealing to people they hope are soft in the head & not interested in actual facts
d) they're all of the above.

Apart from the legal reasons on US Constitutional grounds, it was in the US. Its not Australian, its not a matter for the Australian Federal Parliament nor any Australian State Parliament. They should have stayed in the lane. I think they went for the soft headed, dim grab for support via daft virtue signalling.
Just plain grotesquely political wind sniffing.
  

The Indigenous Voice to Parliament

1) Its a Voice to Parliament AND Government. Meaning it's potentially having say & influence over Bills that are being presented to Parliament AND also having a say & influence with Bureaucrats over Acts that are already in place & how they are to be enacted & palyed out in the community. So that's 2 Voices which are really TWO SEPERATE LOBBY GROUPS who's membership is restricted solely to "Indigenous Identity" that is by virtue of a person's race.
It's TWO SEPERATE LOBBY GROUPS that are fully funded by the Australian Taxpayer to influence the Parliament & the Government departments.
There's enough there to oppose it on the "by virtue of race" and the taxpayer funded lobby group.

2) Those Political Parties who are supporting it have done so without any FINAL MODEL. Today it's December 15th. There is still no model at all but there are plenty of suggestions in the 272 page "expert report" (Link Below)

This is something to consider & not forget. Emboldened text for extra emphasis...

Some MPs & some political parties decided to support this when it was first raised, some later in 2018, some in 2019 and yet that report wasn't finished until JULY 2021. 

Yes that's right, no final report with options until July 2021, its now December 2022 and there's still NO FINALISED MODEL.
And yet some political parties, some MPs have chosen to support a constitutional change they cannot define. Who even does this???

3) Some of the porponents have varying ideas of what will happen. This graphic was on the Uluru Statement website but since removed. It may be because the website has been totally revamped & its yet to be re-posted but it was on the previous website.

Two sovereign nations...based on race. The report mentions the 2 delegates per state will need to meet certain criteria, including "indigenous identity" which whilst that is mentioned it's not defined at all.
And to think some political parties & some MPs decided to support this anyway. Not their fault is it? They decided without any facts or reports...just went with their gut feeling instead of waiting for facts. Well its facts now & take close note of who amongst them has not changed their view to an even fair middle ground of "Look there's much confusion and we as a party will be revisiting it in its entirity to get a better understanding to make a better informed decision."
I think some will stupidly dig in & hold fast to their intellectually bankrupt decision that was made without any detail nor understanding because they might be seen as fools. Well so be it to their political demise

4) The Big One - Labor MPs have already said there will be no detail until after the referrendum is passed. One MP famously said they didn't want it getting bogged down in detail, that it needed to be passed & the government can sort the final model & make up afterwards.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PROCESS TO CHANGE THE CONSITUTION IS SET UP TO SPECIFICALLY AVOID. GOVERNMENTS AND/OR RULING PARTIES ARE EXPRESSLY PREVENTED FROM CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION FOR VERY GOOD REASON. ITS BLOODY DANERGOUS AND ITS COMPLETELY WRONG. ONLY THE PEOPLE VIS REFERENDUM CHANGE IT- NEVER THE GOVERNMENT. NEVER, REPEAT NEVER.

What the federal Labor Government is doing & what other MPs from Labor & other parties are doing is approving the wrongful alteration of the Australian Constitution which the Legal Framework is specifically designed to prevent. You cannot sign a document and sign away the rights of protection of a child...rightly so. And you cannot possibly allow a political party to have permission to change the constitution instead of the people.

I cannot understand how some from a supposedly Conservative Party or those with a Law Degree in the Labor Party are happy to allow this to happen.

5) I can come up with quite a number of equally concerning issues this "Voice" will or might cause. This is probably enough, should have been enough to call for a finalised model up front.
Silence though.
Even those in favour of whatever they think the Voice is should be voting no until there is a fully finalalised model BEFORE the referendum.

We're in troubling times & very much seems like the people we really need in parliament aren't and have no desire to go anywhere near it ever. A very well known, very well connected senior jouranlist told me a view which is probably based on far more knowledge than me.

I said I thought around 10% of every party were good, honest, well meaning MPs...that the others were people of previously floundering or stagnating careers or went into parliament as a means to be restructuring their significant personal debt. Or for the attention and hopefully best corporate box seats at the AFL/Cricket/Tennis or lots of free stuff & get credit for grants they didn't (hopefully) decide on.

He said my calculations more likely suggested I'm far too kind, that the percentage was much lower and "that parliament was a humidicrib for mediocity"

Pin them down on these matters & you will get profoundly vague motherhood statements...deflections, not concessions, no changes of heart or mind.

This is the mess we will contend with.
There is much more BAD legislation on the way

Here, click the link & read the 272 page report that didn't even exist when some MPs & some Political Parties made their decision on the Voice to Parliament. Not much point having a Race Based Tax Payer Funded Lobby Group to Parliament & Government when many of the MPs are not fit for purpose as law makers & cannot even attain embarassing mediocrity.

https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf