OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[hindy111]

I think a lot of people will vote NO because they feel a lot of people are taking advantage of the system in regards to benefits people do get if are 1/4 or 1/8 Aboriginal. Which has nothing to do with what we are voting on at all. Just the reason why many people out there will vote NO. Like I said I no little about any of this. But just the general feel I get from when I hear people talk about it at work

 

[hindy111]

I also no nothing about benefits they get. I just hear lots of people whinge about it.

 

[Suitman]

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.

And that is exactly what should have happened. The republicans screwed themselves unfortunately.
I'm just an average voter and even I could see that at the time. It made me furious that they were arguing against each other. It should have been quite simple and the support was there.
If only the wording and intent was formulated correctly.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Jeez keep dancing mate, the other idiots might think your Michael Jackson.

I’ll pay that one and will probably also use it at some stage.

 

[Suitman]

I think a lot of people will vote NO because they feel a lot of people are taking advantage of the system in regards to benefits people do get if are 1/4 or 1/8 Aboriginal. Which has nothing to do with what we are voting on at all. Just the reason why many people out there will vote NO. Like I said I no little about any of this. But just the general feel I get from when I hear people talk about it at work

You are right. I hear the same things and that argument disgusts me and just proves that the people saying these things are completely ignorant about this referendum.
One of my brothers has this view. I completely refuse to discuss this referendum with him due to his f**king ignorance.

 

[the phantom menace]

It's nothing like that at all.
Peanut

It kind of is... some people realise things sooner than others, and the others eventually/belatedly catch up.

Except for that bunch of people out there who still think the Earth is flat... they're still out there! I think Covid sent a few people down some strange youtube tunnels .

 

[hindy111]

It kind of is... some people realise things sooner than others, and the others eventually/belatedly catch up.

Except for that bunch of people out there who still think the Earth is flat... they're still out there! I think Covid sent a few people down some strange youtube tunnels .

Covid was exaggerated by pharmaceutical companies but to make money. No conspiracy at all. Common sense. They played the fear card which is the best seller. Governments aren't any smarter then any of us. They took the bait. We got diddled.

 

[hindy111]

You are right. I hear the same things and that argument disgusts me and just proves that the people saying these things are completely ignorant about this referendum.
One of my brothers has this view. I completely refuse to discuss this referendum with him due to his f**king ignorance.

Yes and majority are more interested in their sports team or how many kms they get out of a tank on a long drive.

 

[Suitman]

Well guys like and Stagger where right all along tbh.

No they weren't, and it wasn't Stagger. It was another poster who's name started with S.

 

[Bandwagon]

I also no nothing about benefits they get. I just hear lots of people whinge about it.

I'd hazard a guess those people winging about it know no more than you.

 

[Bandwagon]

Covid was exaggerated by pharmaceutical companies but to make money. No conspiracy at all. Common sense. They played the fear card which is the best seller. Governments aren't any smarter then any of us. They took the bait. We got diddled.

Well guys like IALB and Stagger where right all along tbh.

Nah, it's just moved on. Thankfully the worst of it appears behind us.

As an aside, have you ever stopped to think that maybe the response to covid saved a shit ton of lives, and that's why you can look back and think meh, not so bad?

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

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.......



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



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

Sorry about the format of this post but i can't figure how to fix it.

Thanks for the clarification as that wording is just not good enough for me

If It's your position that the quote in italics does not create division or at the very least the perception to some that there will not be 2 types of Australians should it pass then I think you have a narrow view of the world you live in. and just to clarify, I'm not as invested in the laws they might make for indigenous people as i am invested in the laws they might make for ME. I'm not talking about land rights either as I don't own any.

You might have enough faith in your government to find those words unambiguous but I've seen it all before mate.

As a slight parting shot to you Bandy, I read the other day what you wrote about (and I paraphrase here as I cbf'd opening another browser that I'm not signed into to use the search function) not pretending to be a political expert (you) and I dead set chocked on my beer. Nostrils, lungs and everything. Yeah I've always thought that about you. Definitely NOT TRYING to be political expert I've heard it all now.

 

[hindy111]

No they weren't, and it wasn't Stagger. It was another poster who's name started with S.

Strider.

I don't feel like arguing. We'd go around in circles

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

No need to rephrase my carefully thought out question. As you say I have my answer and that's ok with me. Silly me for thinking I might have missed something.

 

[Suitman]

Strider.

I don't feel like arguing. We'd go around in circles

I have no intention of arguing. Just pointing out that it wasn't Stagger.

 

[the phantom menace]

No need to rephrase my carefully thought out question. As you say I have my answer and that's ok with me. Silly me for thinking I might have missed something.

Carefully thought out, but still not reflecting what info you were actually after?

Silly me

Yeah, I think you had that part pretty accurate

 

[the phantom menace]

If It's your position that the quote in italics does not create division or at the very least the perception to some that there will not be 2 types of Australians should it pass then I think you have a narrow view of the world you live in.

Wow... I guess people find whatever it is they're looking for in the end.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

Eratosthenes proved the earth is a globe. Not Galileo.

 

[Bandwagon]

If It's your position that the quote in italics does not create division or at the very least the perception to some that there will not be 2 types of Australians should it pass then I think you have a narrow view of the world you live in.

It means what I said it means, I have no control over peoples lack of understanding as to what it means, hence I make no claim as to how they might perceive it. It does not create division on its own, that requires ignorance around the fact that the constitution already gives the parliament the power to make laws specifically for ATSIC peoples, a fact I referenced for you in that post.

You might have enough faith in your government to find those words unambiguous but I've seen it all before mate.

Well no, it has nothing to do with faith, it's about fact. If you actually have an argument that challenges the interpretation, go at it, else wise, walk on dude.

As a slight parting shot to you Bandy, I read the other day what you wrote about (and I paraphrase here as I cbf'd opening another browser that I'm not signed into to use the search function) not pretending to be a political expert (you) and I dead set chocked on my beer. Nostrils, lungs and everything. Yeah I've always thought that about you. Definitely NOT TRYING to be political expert I've heard it all now.

You seem upset.

 

[the phantom menace]

Eratosthenes proved the earth is a globe. Not Galileo.

True (thanks Wiki). But still no-one listened, ffs!!