[Deleted for abuse.]

Down at the markets today, overheard two old farts, one tosser telling the other how terrible it was that the Poms had an "Indian" for Prime Minister, dreadful it seems, what's the world coming to. He was shocked how 60 million Poms couldn't come up with "one of their own" as PM. I may not agree substantially with Rishi Sunak conservative politics, but to label him a "foreigner" in his own country because he's not of the right colour in the way this clown did, is despicable, nothing less.

I made the point earlier that some racists, can't see the racism within themselves, this guy would be a classic. On the wife's insistence I didn't wade in with my 2 cents worth.

p/s Rishi Sunak Born: 12 May 1980 (age 42 years), Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.

The nation of Pomgolia is one of contrasts and conflicts.

Brexit was successful mainly because of the notion of ridding the country of foreigners yet a Russian oligarch can buy himself a Peerage, in a country that practically worships an aristocratic class system based on the privilege of birthright. Money speaks loudly there too.

The alleged racist element of the Harry and Meghan circus probably has some basis of truth.

Why can't we take people as we find them?
It's probably a stupid question - but why do
we judge others so harshly - when there's
awful people in all cultures, creeds, and colours?
People travel to other places on holidays and
enjoy their stays - yet when it comes to making
derogatory statements about the very people they
visit - what's going on there? Pigs will be pigs -
no matter where they reside.

As for Meghan and Harry? The media has given them
a hard time - but some of the responsibility also
has to be accepted by them as well. A grin and
bear it attitude would have been preferable. In their
case I think that money is involved from their side
which is unfortunate - They could have had better
success had they not chosen to burn their bridges.

Foxy,

Firstly, Labor has form on this issue, under Juliar, the voice transformed from an advisory body to close to a 3rd chamber.

Secondly, If this is a purely advisory body to which parliament has no obligation to listen what is its purpose?

Thirdly, why does this unelected body need to be entrenched in the constitution?

shadowminister,

You need to read the report that was presented to parliament
by the co-design team. It explains things quite clearly. They
are to be an advisory body to parliament on laws and programs
that affect them. The legislation will be passed by parliament.
The reason to have this enshrined in the constitution is so that
successive governments can't get rid of this advisory body.
To ensure that laws and programs that will affect our Indigenous
people - will be made with their consultation. This is something
that has not been tried in the past. This is worth doing - because
what's been done in the past has not worked.

It's worth giving this a chance. At least that's my opinion.