Yes it did. I didn’t say it didn’t.
So bipartisan support from the major parties (albeit with a conscience vote on the floor) is no indication of how vocal fringe groups will comduct themselves. It will be awful, truly awful the way they conduct themselves.
1 Like
No again I didn’t say they wouldn’t be vocal. However, what you do have to remember is if we have bipartisan support you won’t have the likes of Abbot, in politics, supporting the No campaign. There will be a lot more supporting the yes from both sides of politics. So it should be less nasty than the Same Sex Marriage campaign.
It’s not so much elected politicians I’m concerned about. Abbott wil be more vocal than if he were still in parliament. Google “Tony Abbott voice to parliament” and see how much press he’s getting.
I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I fear those behind the culture wars will be pushing very hard on the no case.
The devil will be in the detail - constitutional change has never come particularly easy
I am aware of what he is saying. It is all completely inaccurate. But he will get less attention than he did with the same sex marriage vote.
Are you sure about that? I think that’s very naive.
Even the wording on the fromtheheart website suggests it’s broader than that. It’s about “policies and projects” that affect first nations people. That could be just about any piece of legislation that is proposed. Because doesn’t every piece of legislation affect every Australian by definition?
Why do we have to label this as culture wars?
Probably because people like you are making it culture wars.
That is not the purpose of it… it’s simply to make suggestions on indigenous matters. You probably need to go and see what Canada has done and see it’s not all that scary.
Sadly that’s what it will become courtesy of Hanson and the perpetually outraged conservative commentators creating more noise over those who may have legitimate concerns.
1 Like
You might need to read the website. That’s exactly what it says…verbatim.
1 Like
What website are you referring to?
3 Likes
Haha the net is closing in on Scumo 
1 Like
It should have closed in years and years ago.
1 Like
Not a bad summary from a Professor of Constitutional Law.
While there are some huge issues with this story, one of the biggest is the secrecy. If it was all so necessary and above board, why hide it from the public, cabinet, Parliament and even the ministers affected.
Is it appropriate for ministers to be secretly appointed to exercise statutory powers?
No, such matters should be notified to parliament and formally published so members of the public can know who is entitled to exercise particular powers. That is why we have Administrative Arrangements Orders and notifications of changes in ministerial responsibility that are recorded on the Federal Register of Legislation.
It is inappropriate for such matters to be kept secret – especially if it is kept secret from the Cabinet and from the minister who was formally allocated responsibility for a portfolio by the governor-general.
Such a lack of transparency is indicative of a lack of respect for the institutions of government and for the general public who have a right to know how power is allocated.
5 Likes
It’s still shonky.
1 Like
“Its not my job” 
3 Likes
Revealed at the PM’s news conference a total of 5 portfolios.
Department of Health - 14/3/2020
Department of Finance - 30/3/2020
Department of Home Affairs - 6/5/2021
Department of the Treasury - 6/5/2021
Department of Industry, Science Energy and Resources - 15/04/2021