Australia’s Prime Minister is refusing to declare a policy on “climate change”

She is proposing instead a plan to create a 150-member “Citizens’ Assembly” of rank-and-file Australians to decide . . . .

Well not exactly to decide . . . .

Didn’t she also say, “The role of this Citizens’ Assembly will not be to become the final arbiter or judge of consensus, but to provide an indication to the nation of the progress of community consensus etc. etc. ”?

So apart from “assembling” what is this “assembly” supposed to do?

In fact, their role in the government’s plans won’t even include a necessity for them to assemble.

Their function is to be something democratic-sounding to “respectable-ise” the governing party’s determination to perch on the fence about this issue until the election is over.

* * *

The Assembly is to consist of volunteers selected through census data and electoral rolls by “an independent authority”.

Sounds democratic?

Only if you say it fast and don’t think about it.

Especially don’t think back to Mr Rudd’s “2020 Summit”. How democratic was that?

Out of 1000 Summit delegates, just one voted against Australia becoming a Republic.

Nobody could even pretend that only 0.1 percent of ordinary Australians were at that time anti-republic.

That Summit was a scam and a sham – far from democratic.

* * *

Is democracy so important to strive after, anyway?

Doesn’t democracy mean putting the nation’s leader-selection into the hands of a population of TV-watchers – whose decisions merelyreflect what the owners of the media tell them is best.

The media don’t address issues on a rational basis. Their every decision is a commercial decision.

* * *

The Church, on the other hand, could and should think things out on a rational, God-related basis.

Every Sunday, priests address millions of Australians in churches. 

Do they speak on moral issues with a unified voice, based on the Faith, un-influenced by popularity with the media or anybody else?

If they did, the nation would change in a big way and in a hurry.

But at present there is too much division, desire to be “relevant” etc.

So the media is able to pick out a “liberal” priest here and a “conservative” priest there — and to represent the Church’s position as being whatever they choose.