OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[the phantom menace]

I have already found this information. If you had read and understood my post you would know that I'm looking for more than "proposed" changes and so much more than the extremely vague and highly ambiguous wording of the 3rd point of that proposition.

I did read your post. You asked "what the actual changes to our Constitution will be", and I showed you.

If you're looking for more detail, then you'd perhaps be surprised how little detail the Constitution holds on any topics really... here's the full thing: https://www.aph.gov.au/constitution

In terms of the rest of your post, it read like you know the importance of voting Yes to constitutional recognition of our first peoples and a Voice advisory body in this referendum opportunity.

 

[the phantom menace]

Huge show of support for Yes today! Nothing at all on the News Corp news.com.au site about it yet - unsurprisingly.

Thousands brave Sydney heat for Yes march on Voice referendum

The Walk for Yes kicked off with a rally at Redfern Park with the crowd breaking into John Farnham’s You’re the Voice as they marched through the city.

www.smh.com.au

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

What you showed me was the ambiguous language that I specifically requested to not be shown to me. Are you an Imbecile? If you are so in love with 1 side of politics that it clouds your basic comprehension of the English language then please do not respond to me.
You're post was disingenuous at best and highly politically motivated.
You have probably worked out how to look at yourself in your cars side view mirror.

 

[the phantom menace]

Yeah... nah. It was just trying to respond to the request in your post, because the first half of it read like you were genuine, and really wanted the Constitutional change information.

My mistake, as you were.

Oh, and the referendum and Voice isn't party political.

 

[Suitman]

Yes there is. It's 96 words, in a Constitution that is very high-level in the way it describes everything else (health, education etc). Here is the proposed constitutional change (addition) that the referendum is asking us to vote on accepting:

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Press conference - Parliament House, Canberra

ANTHONY ALBANESE, PRIME MINISTER: Good morning. Today, I’m very pleased to announce that Air Marshal Darren Goldie AM CSC will be Australia's inaugural National Cyber Security Coordinator. Air Marshal Goldie has served Australia with distinction for more than 30 years with the Royal Australian...

www.pm.gov.au

And there you go.
It is the part 3 of this constitutional change that is scaring people off and why those opposed are asking questions.

Why would those doubting this referendum vote yes when this section can be politically abused by either side of govt at any time, and furthermore, why leave this part of a constitutional change so vague, without any further detail? No wonder this is doomed to fail.
I hope it doesn't, and I have already chosen my decision. I also can however understand why those opposed to this, will vote No.

The way the Republic referendum was handled was a joke. Even those on the same side couldn't agree on the wording and process. No wonder that failed, and I am a massive supporter of Oz becoming a republic. Always have been and always will be. The Union Jack on our national flag is an embarrassment. It represents nothing good about our country's history besides colonization and furthermore, nothing good about our proud multi-cultural future. That is another referendum for another day.

 

[Eelogical]

Yeah... nah. It was just trying to respond to the request in your post, because the first half of it read like you were genuine, and really wanted the Constitutional change information.

My mistake, as you were.

Oh, and the referendum and Voice isn't party political.

He asked you the question ‘Are you an imbecile’? Stop cherry picking, merkin.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

I am genuinely seeking the constitutional change information. I thought I'd made that perfectly clear. In fact I went to great lengths to do so in a way that could not be misunderstood by any reasonably intelligent person or just your average halfwit. My bad.

Now you are misrepresenting me. I know I'm not the only one to have had these concerns about you recently. It seems like that is your schtick. As you were.

It shouldn't be party political and the main reason you can make that claim I.M.O. is because some of your political foes (not mine) agree with you.
By that I mean that it should pass without knowing the finer details of the consequences for voting YES.

 

[hineyrulz]

Where the hell you been Stoppa?? Good to see you back.

 

[Bandwagon]

What you showed me was the ambiguous language that I specifically requested to not be shown to me. Are you an Imbecile? If you are so in love with 1 side of politics that it clouds your basic comprehension of the English language then please do not respond to me.
You're post was disingenuous at best and highly politically motivated.
You have probably worked out how to look at yourself in your cars side view mirror.

What @the phantom menace posted is the actual wording that will become part of the constitution should the referendum pass. There is no other wording. From your initial post.......

Does anyone know what the actual changes to our constitution will be? I'm talking verbatim here. Is the wording to any amendments to our constitution set in stone somewhere that I can view?

........I take it that means what it says, and the only accurate answer is what was posted.

I have already found this information. If you had read and understood my post you would know that I'm looking for more than "proposed" changes and so much more than the extremely vague and highly ambiguous wording of the 3rd point of that proposition.

Now this here I've seen misrepresented as allowing the government to make laws in regards to indigenous folk, and thus presented as being divisive or creating "two types of Australians, it doesn't. Let's have a look at it.

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

The wording is not ambiguous, rather it is quite precise. It gives the parliament the power to make laws about the voice, nothing more, nothing less. That removes any ambiguity in regards to who or what sets out what the voice can do, and states that must be aligned with the constitution.

It's important to note that once adopted, the amendment itself forms part of the constitution, so regards part 3, it is subject to part 1, meaning whatever laws the parliament makes, the voice must exist, and part 2, meaning whatever powers the parliament legislate for the voice, they can't exceed the limitations of it being an advisory body to government on indigenous matters.

Back to the misrepresentation, that part three gives the government the power to make special laws for ATSIC peoples, giving them some form of privilege or special treatment that they never had, the parliament already has this power in the constitution, and it was the 1967 referendum that changed the race law provision to no longer exclude ATSIC peoples.

Section 51, part 26

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51.​

Legislative powers of the Parliament.

(xxvi.) The people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament.

classic.austlii.edu.au

 

[Bandwagon]

Why would those doubting this referendum vote yes when this section can be politically abused by either side of govt at any time, and furthermore, why leave this part of a constitutional change so vague, without any further detail? No wonder this is doomed to fail.
I hope it doesn't, and I have already chosen my decision. I also can however understand why those opposed to this, will vote No.

See my post above, it is not vague, and the only way it can be abused by government is to change legislation to the point where the voice is impeded from being at all effective, that is it.

But with or without that clause, that would be the case, future governments could simply budget it out the back door if they so choose

The reality is that for the voice to be an effective body, and to remain, so it will need the political good will of the people of this country to support it. If it loses that, it'll simply become ineffective, because people will stop listening.

 

[the phantom menace]

And there you go.
It is the part 3 of this constitutional change that is scaring people off and why those opposed are asking questions.

I exactly get what you're saying... and it's a shame if some people are put off by not having "certainty" at the time of the referendum. But that's just how the Constitution works on any issue or government responsibility, if you look at any of the existing chapters.

You have to change the Constitution to allow a government to make laws about something, before the government can draft a law about that thing, otherwise the draft law would be... unconstitutional.

The Constitution exists as the tool under which governments are given powers to do things (i.e. make laws) about health, education, etc etc - without containing the detail of what form those things and laws take. Otherwise why bother with elections and changes in governments at all?

 

[the phantom menace]

The way the Republic referendum was handled was a joke. Even those on the same side couldn't agree on the wording and process. No wonder that failed, and I am a massive supporter of Oz becoming a republic. Always have been and always will be. The Union Jack on our national flag is an embarrassment. It represents nothing good about our country's history besides colonization and furthermore, nothing good about our proud multi-cultural future. That is another referendum for another day.

Agree with you there. Monarchist PM Johnny Howard played a classic wedge move, and had the republican side arguing with each other about it... much like has happened with people who would otherwise vote Yes being concerned about statement 3 in this referendum, sadly. Well played Dutton, News Corp and Sky News I guess?

 

[the phantom menace]

I am genuinely seeking the constitutional change information. I thought I'd made that perfectly clear. In fact I went to great lengths to do so in a way that could not be misunderstood by any reasonably intelligent person or just your average halfwit. My bad.

And you were given the Constitutional change information. What you're (now) looking for appears to be something different... which you're conflating with the Constitutional wording question you had asked.

He asked you the question ‘Are you an imbecile’? Stop cherry picking, merkin.

Yeah... I think the answer to that is also covered above...

 

[hindy111]

It's funny how people who want to vote yes seem to be able to say it freely. But if someone was to vote NO they kind of get shamed and frowned on. I honestly haven't put much thought into the whole thing but it's the impression I've gotten from the whole thing.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

Where have I been? I've been up to London to look at the Queen. What did I there? I frightened a little mouse, under her chair.
Yeah I got a bit jaded and disinterested about continuing to participate here about 3 yrs ago for various reasons. I have been lurking but decided to post in the hope that the resident brains trust might have some answers I'm looking for but alas, not to be by the looks of it.
Cheers mate, love your work.

 

[the phantom menace]

It's funny how people who want to vote yes seem to be able to say it freely. But if someone was to vote NO they kind of get shamed and frowned on. I honestly haven't put much thought into the whole thing but it's the impression I've gotten from the whole thing.

It's kind of like when some people still clung onto their old belief that the world was flat, once some other people freely (post-Gallileo) began to say that maybe the world could be round...

 

[Bandwagon]

Where have I been? I've been up to London to look at the Queen. What did I there? I frightened a little mouse, under her chair.
Yeah I got a bit jaded and disinterested about continuing to participate here about 3 yrs ago for various reasons. I have been lurking but decided to post in the hope that the resident brains trust might have some answers I'm looking for but alas, not to be by the looks of it.
Cheers mate, love your work.

You got the answer your question sought, if that's not enough, maybe rephrase your question?

 

[hindy111]

It's kind of like when some people still clung onto their old belief that the world was flat, once some other people freely (post-Gallileo) began to say that maybe the world could be round...

It's nothing like that at all.
Peanut

 

[Bandwagon]

The way the Republic referendum was handled was a joke. Even those on the same side couldn't agree on the wording and process. No wonder that failed, and I am a massive supporter of Oz becoming a republic. Always have been and always will be. The Union Jack on our national flag is an embarrassment. It represents nothing good about our country's history besides colonization and furthermore, nothing good about our proud multi-cultural future. That is another referendum for another day.

Yeah, the whole model thing.

If they are to go again, the referendum should be in two parts, the first being become a republic, yes or no.

The second being the model.

 

[Suitman]

It's funny how people who want to vote yes seem to be able to say it freely. But if someone was to vote NO they kind of get shamed and frowned on. I honestly haven't put much thought into the whole thing but it's the impression I've gotten from the whole thing.

That is sort of true on here, which is why I still ask questions of both sides.
What I have found though is that the people who choose to oppose the Yes vote still need to substantiate that with valid reasons why they have chosen this path, not just post links to ludicrous websites or conspiracy theories.
That is where this debate gets derailed.