OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[JohnStoppafarty]

Section 128 of the constitution sets out the process, it's not negotiable. A bill containing the actual amendments must be passed before a referendum can proceed.

Here is the bill for the voice referendum as passed

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7019_aspassed%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7019_aspassed%2F0000%22

"the details" as you put it are not the changes to the constitution, but rather the legislation enabled by the change to the constitution. You, clearly like many fell prey to the misleading tactic of "show us the detail" of the opposition

That is not how shit works.

The whole point is the change to the constitution creates the something that can only change by referendum, the following legislation the change enables can be changed by the parliament at any point in time as the government so choose ( providing of course they can pass it )

For example, the 1967 referendum on counting Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders in the population, and to enable the federal government to make legislation about the same neither specified the details on how or what would happen in the counting, nor did it specify the details on what that legislation might be, or how it might change over the years.

Because there was no real opposition, and no fear mongering about the fact the change didn't "show us the detail" it passed at over 90%.

Would you have voted no, because you don't have the details back in '67?

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:

(i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

(ii) 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;

(iii) 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.

Is that the former or proposed change?
I fail to see how constitutional change was required for this at all. Actually, no, I fully understand why and hence my point.

I wasn't alive in 67 let alone old enough to vote. I also don't like to play "I know what I would've done) in scenarios that I have not been in before.

 

[Bandwagon]

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:

(i) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

(ii) 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;

(iii) 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.

Is that the former or proposed change?

Yes that is the change. That is what you voted upon, nothing more, nothing less.

I fail to see how constitutional change was required for this at all. Actually, no, I fully understand why and hence my point.

The point of including it in the constitution is to ensure it can only be abolished by referendum. else-wise it must exist in whatever form the parliament of the day sees fit.

The structure etc. etc. can not be practically placed within the amendment because it then locks in a model that can only be changed by referendum. The same as most every other body or power the constitution allows

Again, another example is the constitution allows the states and feds to impose taxes, duties, and levies, but it does not contain the actual tax law that imposes said taxes. It's just how this shit works.

I'm not going to attempt to re-prosecute the entire voice argument here, that in and of itself is kinda pointless, how ever if we are going to discuss such things as a republic, which requires a change to the constitution through referendum, it would be better to understand how these things work, which requires pointing out the misinformation that was peddled during that debate.

If we ever get around to another shot at a republic, what you'll get as far as "the detail" will be what is required to be changed in the constitution. You won't get all the myriad of legislative change that would entail, nor the future changes that may be required, because all you are voting on is the changes to the constitution itself.

Although given those changes will be numerous, there will be a lot to read should you choose to.

Here's the previous bill...

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr841_ems_5e4e9f32-7f5d-453b-82f6-3dd2fcee11b6%22

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

Yes that is the change. That is what you voted upon, nothing more, nothing less.



The point of including it in the constitution is to ensure it can only be abolished by referendum. else-wise it must exist in whatever form the parliament of the day sees fit.

The structure etc. etc. can not be practically placed within the amendment because it then locks in a model that can only be changed by referendum. The same as most every other body or power the constitution allows

Again, another example is the constitution allows the states and feds to impose taxes, duties, and levies, but it does not contain the actual tax law that imposes said taxes. It's just how this shit works.

I'm not going to attempt to re-prosecute the entire voice argument here, that in and of itself is kinda pointless, how ever if we are going to discuss such things as a republic, which requires a change to the constitution through referendum, it would be better to understand how these things work, which requires pointing out the misinformation that was peddled during that debate.

If we ever get around to another shot at a republic, what you'll get as far as "the detail" will be what is required to be changed in the constitution. You won't get all the myriad of legislative change that would entail, nor the future changes that may be required, because all you are voting on is the changes to the constitution itself.

Although given those changes will be numerous, there will be a lot to read should you choose to.

Here's the previous bill...

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr841_ems_5e4e9f32-7f5d-453b-82f6-3dd2fcee11b6%22

I'm still yet to see where constitutional change was required for the Voice.

I will never vote for constitutional change without knowing in full detail what those changes are. It's as simple as that. That also is no reflection on how I feel about any given topic.
Why?
Because I remember what the global gang and many western pollies were saying during covid. I understand we are getting the NWO by stealth, whether we like it or not, but they can never go full NWO without the changes they seek (whatever they may be).

JUST SAY NO TO CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE!

 

[Bandwagon]

****slowly backs out of the room****

 

[Bandwagon]

I will never vote for constitutional change without knowing in full detail what those changes are.

.....and I repeat, you always know exactly what they are. It is there for you to read in black and white.

What you really want to know is what they will mean, and of course that is on you to understand and decide. But then you likely, like most everyone, myself included, know and understand f**k all about the constitution and how it works, and if you are like most folk, most of what you think you know is wrong at any rate.

Yet for some reason you need a whole heap of detail and understanding about any change to a document you literally know f**k all about anyway.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

.....and I repeat, you always know exactly what they are. It is there for you to read in black and white.

What you really want to know is what they will mean, and of course that is on you to understand and decide. But then you likely, like most everyone, myself included, know and understand f**k all about the constitution and how it works, and if you are like most folk, most of what you think you know is wrong at any rate.

Yet for some reason you need a whole heap of detail and understanding about any change to a document you literally know f**k all about anyway.

That's all true but I need to know how it potentially (if misused) will effect me.
There will be someone who does know all about it, who I trust, that can advise.
Someone like.. oh I dunno, maybe a whistleblower who is prepared to end their whole career and become cancelled and ridiculed to do the right thing.
Dr Mike Yeadon comes to mind as an example.

 

[Bandwagon]

Someone like.. oh I dunno, maybe a whistleblower who is prepared to end their whole career and become cancelled and ridiculed to do the right thing.
Dr Mike Yeadon comes to mind as an example.

Lolz.

A sixty year old semi retired dude who sold his biotech company for hundreds of millions is "a whistleblower who is prepared to end their whole career and become cancelled".

Not to mention his major calls, first - that the MNRA vaccines would cause sterility in women - just flat out wrong.

And second - the pandemic is over in the UK, there will be no second wave - nek minute the second wave exploding and killing tens of thousands more than the first wave did

I hope you don't ask him for advice on constitutional matters.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

Lolz.

A sixty year old semi retired dude who sold his biotech company for hundreds of millions is "a whistleblower who is prepared to end their whole career and become cancelled".

Nice, now do the same for Dr David Martin.

Not to mention his major calls, first - that the MNRA vaccines would cause sterility in women - just flat out wrong.

I wonder how the miscarriage rate is going?

And second - the pandemic is over in the UK, there will be no second wave - nek minute the second wave exploding and killing tens of thousands more than the first wave did

A lot of jabbing back then. Second wave indeed.

I hope you don't ask him for advice on constitutional matters.

If you want a recipe for spaghetti, you ask an Italian.

 

[Bandwagon]

Nice, now do the same for Dr David Martin.

A pair of boots? why?

I wonder how the miscarriage rate is going?

I wonder how the incidence of genital warts is going, I don't know, but hey irrelevant, Infertility and miscarriage are not the same thing, any doctor as highly qualified as your mate here would understand this, and if he meant a drug or treatment would cause an increased incidence of miscarriage, then that is what he'd say.

A lot of jabbing back then. Second wave indeed.

Just Lolz at this mate, you're gonna deny a second wave happened in the UK because your guy was wrong in predicting it not happening? Really?

I mean f**king really really?

 

[Gronk]

f**k

 

[the phantom menace]

That's not how I remember it. I remember Albo saying (about the last one) that we'd figure out the details later, AND after much prompting, no one here could direct me to a verbatim wording of the proposed changes to it.
Only vague talking points.
I'm happy to be be corrected if you can source that material with a pre vote day date on it.

Oh dear, you still don't get it...

 

[hindy111]

13 interest rate rises under ALBO the great.
Can he reach 20?
Go Albo you can do it.

 

[crocodile]

They are definitely entitled. Kind of comes with the job.
Harry at least has some idea of how the real world works as he spent many years in the military, even on missions in war zones. Of course he lives a life of luxury, but at least he’s experienced some of the real world and spent time around normal people, unlike his father and grandmother.

William I’m not too sure about. He seems ok, but who the f**k knows what he’s really like.

Randy Andy spent time a war zone too. Hasn't helped him.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

Oh dear, you still don't get it...

merkin, I get it. I just don't agree with it.

 

[the phantom menace]

merkin, I get it. I just don't agree with it.

So you don't agree with how a Constitution (and hence any Referendum) actually works - being a summary of principles and functions and areas of laws for a (level of) government, rather than somehow containing all infinite details of all said possible laws...?

 

[King-Gutho94]

I guess when the facts come out and all those willing to shitcan the cops at the time for there supposed brutality either need to have a good hard look at themselves or have egg on there faces.

Here is the dickhead that was getting pinned down in that video.

Rocks up to court looking like this today below.

And the judge rightly so told him this not the place for political statements.

As what was was reported 2 weeks the reason for the aggressive physicality towards this peanut was the fact he was biting a cops finger.

And here is the kicker the bloke was already on bail for 2 common assault charges including domestic violence charges.

So a genuine POS.

But hey lets get outraged by the Cops for trying to do there job

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/alleged-propalestine-protest-fingerbiter-jace-turner-was-on-bail-a-court-heard/news-story/b2a6152e22a19964ff8b7f32094c1c0e

 

[T-Boon]

I guess when the facts come out and all those willing to shitcan the cops at the time for there supposed brutality either need to have a good hard look at themselves or have egg on there faces.

Here is the dickhead that was getting pinned down in that video.

Rocks up to court looking like this today below.

And the judge rightly so told him this not the place for political statements.

As what was was reported 2 weeks the reason for the aggressive physicality towards this peanut was the fact he was biting a cops finger.

And here is the kicker the bloke was already on bail for 2 common assault charges including domestic violence charges.

So a genuine POS.

But hey lets get outraged by the Cops for trying to do there job

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/alleged-propalestine-protest-fingerbiter-jace-turner-was-on-bail-a-court-heard/news-story/b2a6152e22a19964ff8b7f32094c1c0e

View attachment 109938

That is a good outfit (is that a pocket watch chain?). What was the judges problem with it? Most kids turn up in shorts and thongs.
The hair style is ridiculous.

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

So you don't agree with how a Constitution (and hence any Referendum) actually works - being a summary of principles and functions and areas of laws for a (level of) government, rather than somehow containing all infinite details of all said possible laws...?

Please don't put words in my mouth.
If you would rather vote for a change to the head of state of this country (I would) without knowing who and how is entitled to be in the future, and what powers they might hold (I wouldn't), then I can't help you.
Secondly, that you think it's so hilarious, eye watering so, is an indictment upon you. Not me.
So f**k off.

Edit: Don't mention the Governor General . LMFAO.

 

[Bandwagon]

Please don't put words in my mouth.
If you would rather vote for a change to the head of state of this country (I would) without knowing who and how is entitled to be in the future, and what powers they might hold (I wouldn't), then I can't help you.
Secondly, that you think it's so hilarious, eye watering so, is an indictment upon you. Not me.
So f**k off.

Edit: Don't mention the Governor General . LMFAO.

All of that was contained in the enabling bill for the previous referendum, as it is the constitution that dictates such things, except of course the who, that couldn't be for obvious reasons.

 

[Bandwagon]

I guess when the facts come out and all those willing to shitcan the cops at the time for there supposed brutality either need to have a good hard look at themselves or have egg on there faces.

Here is the dickhead that was getting pinned down in that video.

Rocks up to court looking like this today below.

And the judge rightly so told him this not the place for political statements.

As what was was reported 2 weeks the reason for the aggressive physicality towards this peanut was the fact he was biting a cops finger.

And here is the kicker the bloke was already on bail for 2 common assault charges including domestic violence charges.

So a genuine POS.

But hey lets get outraged by the Cops for trying to do there job

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/alleged-propalestine-protest-fingerbiter-jace-turner-was-on-bail-a-court-heard/news-story/b2a6152e22a19964ff8b7f32094c1c0e

View attachment 109938

merkins were laying into him on the ground, I don't give a f**k if he'd prior killed the f**king queen. The police actions were deplorable, and trying to excuse those actions because the guy may or may not be a shit merkin is a dogshit argument