Can you actually believe this is Australia?

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

Ling31

God Like
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
593
Reaction score
1,764
Location
Australia
Two points:
Why are you focusing on "government revenue"? The scope of government, and therefore its revenue, should be miniscule. Much, much smaller than it is now, therefore much less of an issue.

You are missing the point. There are no "districts" or "zones"; therefore no gerrymandering and separation of people with similar interests to minimise their power. A person need only seek ~110,000 people from across the entire country whom they represent.
. Ok for more accuracy we have a 151 divisions at present which make up the entire geographical being of our country with our 151 representatives in what is commonly known as the house of the people. There used to many more I count another 72 divisions that have been abolished over time. Does it really have to be a 110.000 people that decides ye or nay for each of those 151 representatives. And you must remember with whatever is agreed upon by those 151 representatives must be accepted by the Queens representative the Governor General. Nether the less it is still the Australian people who decide. As to gerrymandering it has been a popular and accepted practice be that for good or bad. In Queensland it was introduced in the late 1940’s by ALP’s Ned Hanlon and used with deadly precision under the Bjelke Peterson government of the 70’s and 80’s. The beginnings of gerrymandering began in America where they are still popular today. As to the scope of the government and its revenue being miniscule or minuscule in such a matter. Yes you correct that much small. My apologies I was thinking more along the lines of commonwealth distribution amongst the states. Something entirely different.
 

andrewOz

Active Member
VIP Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
201
Reaction score
707
Location
Sydney, Oz
. Ok for more accuracy we have a 151 divisions at present which make up the entire geographical being of our country with our 151 representatives in what is commonly known as the house of the people. There used to many more I count another 72 divisions that have been abolished over time. Does it really have to be a 110.000 people that decides ye or nay for each of those 151 representatives. And you must remember with whatever is agreed upon by those 151 representatives must be accepted by the Queens representative the Governor General. Nether the less it is still the Australian people who decide. As to gerrymandering it has been a popular and accepted practice be that for good or bad. In Queensland it was introduced in the late 1940’s by ALP’s Ned Hanlon and used with deadly precision under the Bjelke Peterson government of the 70’s and 80’s. The beginnings of gerrymandering began in America where they are still popular today. As to the scope of the government and its revenue being miniscule or minuscule in such a matter. Yes you correct that much small. My apologies I was thinking more along the lines of commonwealth distribution amongst the states. Something entirely different.
The Australian people never decide anything.

Even the 1999 referendum was manipulated through biased wording.
(I agreed with the outcome. But not the fact that the outcome was accomplished through manipulation.)
 

andrewOz

Active Member
VIP Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
201
Reaction score
707
Location
Sydney, Oz
. Ok for more accuracy we have a 151 divisions at present which make up the entire geographical being of our country with our 151 representatives in what is commonly known as the house of the people. There used to many more I count another 72 divisions that have been abolished over time. Does it really have to be a 110.000 people that decides ye or nay for each of those 151 representatives. And you must remember with whatever is agreed upon by those 151 representatives must be accepted by the Queens representative the Governor General. Nether the less it is still the Australian people who decide. As to gerrymandering it has been a popular and accepted practice be that for good or bad. In Queensland it was introduced in the late 1940’s by ALP’s Ned Hanlon and used with deadly precision under the Bjelke Peterson government of the 70’s and 80’s. The beginnings of gerrymandering began in America where they are still popular today. As to the scope of the government and its revenue being miniscule or minuscule in such a matter. Yes you correct that much small. My apologies I was thinking more along the lines of commonwealth distribution amongst the states. Something entirely different.
As regards commonwealth distribution to the states: In my opinion, one of the flaws of the present commonwealth - states relationship (in accordance with the Australian constiution) is that the commonwealth has most of the taxing power, and therefore can easily violate the supposed constitutional independence and sovereignty of the states. That imbalance needs to be corrected.

It is not unlike the US federal govt buying off US states through financial rewards and penalties.
 

Ling31

God Like
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
593
Reaction score
1,764
Location
Australia
The Australian people never decide anything.

Even the 1999 referendum was manipulated through biased wording.
(I agreed with the outcome. But not the fact that the outcome was accomplished through manipulation.)
I’m only familiar with the 2017 referendum. Where many stashes of Mail in votes were discovered in unusual locations. The 1999 referendum what was that all about
 

Ling31

God Like
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
593
Reaction score
1,764
Location
Australia
It would also be better if political parties were made illegal. Have the members (of Parliament) really answerable to the voters, instead of having to "Toe the Party Line".
Dugout that sound very much like a party line croak from 20 drunks at the pub : )
 

Ling31

God Like
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
593
Reaction score
1,764
Location
Australia
That was not a referendum. That was postal survey.
It was more than just a survey it was all things including a referendum survey and a postal vote on how the Australian people felt about same sex marriage. The only difference being that it was not compulsory to vote. But seems a majority of Australians did with over 12 million voting. 7,817,247 votes yes . 4,873,387 votes no. It was after that of,the same year 2017 that the Australian government legalised same sex marriage.
 
Last edited:

andrewOz

Active Member
VIP Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
201
Reaction score
707
Location
Sydney, Oz
It was more than just a survey it was all things including a referendum survey and a postal vote on how the Australian people felt about same sex marriage. The only difference being that it was not compulsory to vote. But seems a majority of Australians did with over 12 million voting. 7,817,247 votes yes . 4,873,387 votes no. It was after that of,the same year 2017 that the Australian government legalised same sex marriage.
That was not a referendum. That was a postal survey.

 

Ling31

God Like
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
593
Reaction score
1,764
Location
Australia
Ok my mistake . But how were they able to pass into law on a mere survey. Even if seems the will of the people. Over 10 million dollars were allotted to it. It just seems a whole lot more than a mere survey
 

andrewOz

Active Member
VIP Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
201
Reaction score
707
Location
Sydney, Oz
Ok my mistake . But how were they able to pass into law on a mere survey. Even if seems the will of the people. Over 10 million dollars were allotted to it. It just seems a whole lot more than a mere survey
The survey was not legally binding.

Opinion: The survey was a PR exercise.

[I did not participate in the survey, not because I do not think people should have the right to form familial bonds with whomever they wish, but because it is none of the govt's damned business. It should neither be "legal" nor "illegal" for two (or more people) of any gender to get married. "Same sex marriage" should not have been "legalised"; it should have been "delegalised" (which is not the same as being made "illegal"). There should be NO laws addressing familial relationships whatsoever.]

The govt should not even be recording marriages. Doing so implies the authority to decide what is a marriage and what is not.
The fact that marriage and divorce have so much impact on people's lives in a legal sense is entirely due to legal constructs created by the govt. A typical example of govt causing problems then pretending to solve the problems it created by taking on more authority, which then causes more problems, etc. etc. etc.
 

Ling31

God Like
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
593
Reaction score
1,764
Location
Australia
The survey was not legally binding.

Opinion: The survey was a PR exercise.

[I did not participate in the survey, not because I do not think people should have the right to form familial bonds with whomever they wish, but because it is none of the govt's damned business. It should neither be "legal" nor "illegal" for two (or more people) of any gender to get married. "Same sex marriage" should not have been "legalised"; it should have been "delegalised" (which is not the same as being made "illegal"). There should be NO laws addressing familial relationships whatsoever.]

The govt should not even be recording marriages. Doing so implies the authority to decide what is a marriage and what is not.
The fact that marriage and divorce have so much impact on people's lives in a legal sense is entirely due to legal constructs created by the govt. A typical example of govt causing problems then pretending to solve the problems it created by taking on more authority, which then causes more problems, etc. etc. etc.
You did not participate in the survey. Ok. You believe that people can decide and have the right to have familial bonds with whomever they wish. Familial meaning a spouse and a whole list of blood relatives including the adopted. Andrew I’m.not exactly sure what you mean in the context of familial there be a number of different meanings and expressions. You continue to write that it should neither be legal nor illegal for TWO ( or MORE people ) of any gender to get married. Than we now not only have a diversity of gender couples but also a plurality, and polygamy more than two people .. I do note that you have been quoting George Orwell’s 1984 book on one of your posts..Perhaps the sweet libertine Julia from the novel 1984 has beguiled your mind with her sweet enticing words and beckoning feminine beauty . You not be the first nor the last : ) . But yes all those all those different sexual orientations and different marriage customs you mention have come down to us in one form or another from ancient times. But were they all correct and beneficial to the well being of humanity. And what of our Christian Judaic era of which has given us so much stability and progress, and so much guidance on marriage . Are we to lay aside that Christian heritage and accept the whim of the mob who seeks only to do as they please. This not only be the elites motto but yes the mobs also. Their earthly motto be ( Might is right ) and also ( do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law ). That be the cry of fallen humanity. The government has every right to record every legal marriage from what I can see even the ones unacceptable to God
 
Last edited:

Digout

Active Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
212
Reaction score
540
Location
Melbourne Australia
Under "the Westminster system" of government, parliamentary members are only allowed to vote other than the party line in the event of "conscious vote". That happens rarely. That logically implies that Australian members of parliament are forbidden to follow their conscious. That does not make for very good lawmaking.

Under the Westminster system, a member is allowed to vote against the party line. Members have often "Crossed the floor" and voted against the party line.
 

andrewOz

Active Member
VIP Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
201
Reaction score
707
Location
Sydney, Oz
Under the Westminster system, a member is allowed to vote against the party line. Members have often "Crossed the floor" and voted against the party line.
Bollocks.
I can not provide you a definitive reference on the subject, but suggest you look at reality.

Though I do not consider Wikipedia a legitimate "source of truth", I can not find any other reference online which summarises the subject:

This is also helpful:
"The term free vote or conscience vote is defined as the rare vote in parliament, in which members are not obliged by the parties to follow a party line, but vote according to their own moral, political, religious or social beliefs."
 

andrewOz

Active Member
VIP Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
201
Reaction score
707
Location
Sydney, Oz
Update:
Lest anyone think that prejudicial treatment has ceased in Australia toward those of us who refused to get jabbed to "flatten the curve" of the covid scamdemic, here is a couple of up-to-date facts:
- The NSW Rural Fire Service still does not permit volunteers to participate, and
- I am encountering prejudice in "redeployment" behaviour of my employer and hiring practices of potential employers.
 

Marjie

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2021
Messages
31
Reaction score
133
Location
Tas
I just returned to Australia after 12 months in Europe. I came back for family reasons but can’t wait to leave again. It is unbelievable how many people are totally brainwashed! They refuse to believe the facts I saw, as opposed to the government narrative! When I try to tell them they have been lied to they trot out what they saw on tv and wont believe it was not true!
 

andrewOz

Active Member
VIP Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
201
Reaction score
707
Location
Sydney, Oz
I just returned to Australia after 12 months in Europe. I came back for family reasons but can’t wait to leave again. It is unbelievable how many people are totally brainwashed! They refuse to believe the facts I saw, as opposed to the government narrative! When I try to tell them they have been lied to they trot out what they saw on tv and wont believe it was not true!
True for many, but it depends upon the area.
For instance, southwest and western Sydney are known for their "non-compliance" to NSW govt "health orders".
Interestingly, those areas have much higher populations of immigrants, and therefore are less likely to look upon any govt as their "saviour".

Example: There was an incident where the NSW Police intimidated a function centre near the city to cancel an anti-covid lockdown "Freedom Ball", despite the fact that the function centre had other functions within days of the "Function Ball". So, the organisers moved the event further west; the function centre owner was intimidated by the NSW Gestapo (whoops, Police), and told them to piss off; the event went ahead. (I am not certain of his ethnic background, but it certainly was not anglo-saxon.)

The NSW thugs (I mean Police) also concentrated their covid lockdown forces in western Sydney because of the higher non-compliance there.

In Tassie, there are probably fewer immigrants, so probably a lot higher rate of blind obedience to govt, regardless of whether or not its mandates are reasonable.

(PS: I respected the NSW Police Force. After their behaviour related to covid lockdowns, I no longer do, and consider them the aggressors until proven otherwise. Their behaviour when Nigel Farange was scheduled to speak in Sydney was unconscionable. They engaged in intimidation, threats and blackmail in order to extract a payment of thousands of dollars from the venue.)
 

ban1985

Demi-God
Joined
Oct 24, 2020
Messages
1,181
Reaction score
4,500
Location
CH
I just returned to Australia after 12 months in Europe. I came back for family reasons but can’t wait to leave again. It is unbelievable how many people are totally brainwashed! They refuse to believe the facts I saw, as opposed to the government narrative! When I try to tell them they have been lied to they trot out what they saw on tv and wont believe it was not true!

If you visit a few European countries on your way back, most people (or sheep) here will also tell you that what you say is not true and that the government is 100% telling the truth.

The government here confirms that there is an excess mortality, but in the first sentence it says that it is guaranteed that it has nothing to do with vaccination, but they still do not know why that is so.
Government also says that there is a decline in births due to mass vaccination, but that one is not yet sure why, but pregnant women should be vaccinated necessarily.
Government here said two years ago that children of Corona are not at risk, but now children should be vaccinated. All those who die at a young age or no longer awake are trgische deaths but normal ...

What always remains the same, all sheep still believe that and sheep who are damaged after the 3 or 4 vaccination say it is not from the vaccination but coincidence, they had no choice but to be in solidarity.... 🤮
 

Latest posts

Top