A congratulation to the Nats from a Liberal

Whilst I might be repeating myself I have texed a member of the National Party Parliamentary Team for declaring now that

COLLECTIVELY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR CONSTITUENCY THEY WILL PUBLICLY OPPOSE ANY REFERENDUM PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH (call it what you like) CONSTITUTIONALLY RELOCATES THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE PARLIAMENT TO A CONSTITUTIONARY BODY WHOSE SOLE ARBITER IS THE HIGH COURT.

As this matter progresses more and more evidence arises of Australia adopting the methods and rules of a command economy and the undermining of your right to home ownership

I have also suggested that they or some enlightened LIBERAL might question some Liberal MPs and Senators whom have legal qualifications yet "VOICE" leanings as follows.

JUST HOW DOES A COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT REWRITE OR MODIFY ANY WORDS THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE ENDORSED BY VOTING "YES" to a particular REFERENDUM QUESTION THAT SAYS FIRSTLY ---

"THERE SHALL BE A BODY TO BE CALLED THE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS VOICE.(AB&TSIV my abbreviation)" AND SECONDLY.

" THE AB&TSIV MAY MAKE (read will make) REPRESENTATIONS TO THE PARLIAMENT and executive government on matters RELATING TO ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLES ( as yet to be defined or delineated) THIRDLY.

The people are then asked to agree that there is an inherent right for the Parliament to make laws that govern the function of something that THE PEOPLE HAVE JUST VOTED INTO ITS OWN EXISTENCE, IN THE CONSTITUTION.

WHICH WHEN THE PARLIAMENT TURNS ITS MIND TO SUCH ACTIVITY WILL BE HOTLY CONTESTED IN THE HIGH COURT AS HAVING OVERIDDEN THE PEOPLES DECISION IN SAYIN YES TO Q 1&2 (above)

The federal Constitution, unlike those that apply in the State Parliaments (who vote their alterations in House) is the Operating Rules for the Parliament as decided by the people, BY REFERENDUM, by an answer YES OR NO to questions for change as promoted by the Parliament.

In 1967 we voters were asked to remove a clause and some words IN THE CONSTITUTION by a parliament that broke their own law which until today, requires the publication of a YES & NO Argument to be posted prior to a referendum VOTE.

The clause 127 that excluded "Aboriginals" from the CENSUS Count (only because of the difficulty of finding those still remote dwellers) was no longer needed or acceptable and was cancelled, by the people.

The second question was much more complex but made light of by the parliamentary LEADERSHIP by making false statements in the published YES Argument without a NO document which would have clearly exposed the lie THERIN that the proposal to remove the exemption of "the Aboriginal Race" from Sec.51(xxvi) ( The white Australia Power) of the Constitution "would not automatically cause the States to lose their existing powers", like issuing Land Title, when Sec 109 clearly said it did and 25 years later the High Court created Native Title across the entire Australian Land Mass WHILST ADJUDICATING (wait for it) a land ownership dispute of a few acres of farm land on a Torres Strait Island of a few square MILES in area.

Considering the black and white lie perpetrated by the Parliament in 1967 why can we BET OUR HOUSE OR PROPERTY on the guarantees of today's POLITICIANS (if they knew what they are talking about) and members of the legal profession, salivating on the fees to be earned ironing out IN THE HIGH COURT JUST WHAT EXACTLY THE PEOPLE AGREED TO. So let me speculate.

On the 8/06/2020 on p5 the Australian Newspaper reported on a press conference to launch the #PayTheRent campaign where a now Green Senator Lidia Thorpe was in attendance.

The #PayTheRent campaign proposes--

"for the residents of Victoria (Australia??) to commit at least 1 percent of their income to a fund for indigenous Victorians (Australians??) AS COMPENSATION FOR(their) LIVING ON STOLEN LAND" (my emphasis) The organizations web site states that the funds are (to be) administered by an (wait for it) an--

"ABORIGINAL SOVEREIGN BODY THAT MAKES DECISIONS ABOUT THE ALLOCATION OF PAY THE RENT FUNDS" but is not a registered charity.!!!

Ms Thorpe got a mention when she called the Journalists who raised queries about the funds financial governance as "racist". A word that she and others will trot out every time some person starts ---

SIMPLY ASKING QUESTIONS.

As there can be no question that the #PayTheRent proposal is " A MATTER RELATING TO ABORIGINALS AND TORRES STRAIT PEOPLES" it would be eligible for a REPRESENTATION TO PARLIAMENT WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE A POWER OF REJECTION AS IT GETS NO MENTION IN THE Albanese words. However as things stands and the Parliament rejected this representation THERE IS A CLEAR OPPORTUNITY FOR THE VOICE TO APPEAL THIS REJECTION TO THE HIGH COURT TO DECIDE THE RIGHTS OF Parliament to say NO.

But YOU AS A VOTER MUST WAIT FOR THAT OCCASION TO FIND OUT IF YOU HAVE MADE YOUR HOME FREEHOLD INTO LEASEHOLD SIMPLY BY VOTING YES.

The Teals Party has already started this " Command structure" persecution having tabled a private members Bill to prevent the "publication of misleading criticism" WHICH CONSIDERING THEIR ELECTION PLATFORM OF TRUTH IN POLITICS IS ACLEAR INDICATION THAT IT IS THEY WHOM WILL DECIDE WHAT IS "MISLEADING" . Clearly arrogance is not in their opinion a failing.

Considering the present accent on high moral standing.

THE PROCLAIMED PURPOSE OF THE REFERENDUM WHICH IS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS THAT TRULY EXIST PRIMARILY IN REMOTE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES HAS BEEN SIDELINED. WHEN IT IS THERE GEOGRAPHICALY THAT ACTION IS NEEDED.

But when identified individually in categories of HEALTH, EDUCATION AND LAW AND ORDER AND THE REST. ALL ARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILLITY OF STATE GOVERNMENTS AND CONSIDERING THAT THEIR CONSTITUTIONS CAN EASILY ACCOMMODATE ANY SUCH AGREEMENT (and which some favor) and change it at the will of the Parliament WHY NOT LET THEM GET ON WITH IT .

There is ample power for the Commonwealth to provide a share of funding to assist the States in their endeavors and the only certainty is that since 1967 The performance of the Commonwealth has been an expensive flop.

In all the above issues the safest and most functional decision IS TO VOTE NO.