Referendum 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
earl said:
Show me and I'll respond to those ones. I use the term cooker because it enables me to see extremist views and just ignore them.
Click to expand...
Please show the data and sources that back up your statement that many indigenous people are incarcerated for trivial offences.
 
It's all a bit divisive and unnecessary.

The current constitution states ....( republic vs constitutional monarchy another issue altogether...)

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

Now in 1967 the referendum repealed Section 127 which previously read :
"127. In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted."

The Australian Constitution is the founding document of our nation and pre-eminent source of law in the country. The Constitution sets down the powers of each of our three branches of governance – the Parliament, the Executive and the Courts, for the people. Technically (and belatedly) aboriginal people have been recognised by the constitution, as people of Australia, since then. There isn't any legal requirement to delineate "people" even further as Aboriginal people etc etc. Only political.

No need for any more mucking around with this instrument. The Govt, as elected by the people, for the people, should enact/proclaim laws and legislation for all of the people, regardless of race, creed, religion, orientation or place of birth.
 
dazza65 said:
It's all a bit divisive and unnecessary.

The current constitution states ....( republic vs constitutional monarchy another issue altogether...)

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

Now in 1967 the referendum repealed Section 127 which previously read :
"127. In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted."

The Australian Constitution is the founding document of our nation and pre-eminent source of law in the country. The Constitution sets down the powers of each of our three branches of governance – the Parliament, the Executive and the Courts, for the people. Technically (and belatedly) aboriginal people have been recognised by the constitution, as people of Australia, since then. There isn't any legal requirement to delineate "people" even further as Aboriginal people etc etc. Only political.

No need for any more mucking around with this instrument. The Govt, as elected by the people, for the people, should enact/proclaim laws and legislation for all of the people, regardless of race, creed, religion, orientation or place of birth.
Click to expand...
Why do I feel like im in 1864?
 
dazza65 said:
It's all a bit divisive and unnecessary.

The current constitution states ....( republic vs constitutional monarchy another issue altogether...)

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

Now in 1967 the referendum repealed Section 127 which previously read :
"127. In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted."

The Australian Constitution is the founding document of our nation and pre-eminent source of law in the country. The Constitution sets down the powers of each of our three branches of governance – the Parliament, the Executive and the Courts, for the people. Technically (and belatedly) aboriginal people have been recognised by the constitution, as people of Australia, since then. There isn't any legal requirement to delineate "people" even further as Aboriginal people etc etc. Only political.

No need for any more mucking around with this instrument. The Govt, as elected by the people, for the people, should enact/proclaim laws and legislation for all of the people, regardless of race, creed, religion, orientation or place of birth.
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I'd have no problem (and I thought that the original purpose) with a symbolic recognition of indigenous people in the Constitution. I think that would be a good thing. I have a problem with the mechanism involving separate representation under the Constitution.
 
Tucker said:
Stop talking shit and I’ll stop having a crack at you.
Talk about the topic without cheering for one side to lose.
I’ll let you in on a little secret…it doesn’t matter who wins or loses this referendum.
Those that it concerns the most will lose either way.
Click to expand...

I'm not cheering for one side to lose, I want the
yes vote to get up, obviously, but I don't get off
by shitting on the no campaign I'm not that petty.
I find it disheartening that your so pessimistic
 
dazza65 said:
It's all a bit divisive and unnecessary.

The current constitution states ....( republic vs constitutional monarchy another issue altogether...)

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

Now in 1967 the referendum repealed Section 127 which previously read :
"127. In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted."

The Australian Constitution is the founding document of our nation and pre-eminent source of law in the country. The Constitution sets down the powers of each of our three branches of governance – the Parliament, the Executive and the Courts, for the people. Technically (and belatedly) aboriginal people have been recognised by the constitution, as people of Australia, since then. There isn't any legal requirement to delineate "people" even further as Aboriginal people etc etc. Only political.

No need for any more mucking around with this instrument. The Govt, as elected by the people, for the people, should enact/proclaim laws and legislation for all of the people, regardless of race, creed, religion, orientation or place of birth.
Click to expand...

Bravo.

Firstly I don't agree with the point about being divisive. I think it's only divisive because we (not me) make it that way. I think the people stating it is divisive are making it that way.

Secondly this is the one point that I've stated I don't understand and you are the only person who has actually provided this level of detail. It's great.

I have to actually think on this point but it's a good point.
 
Kaito said:
I'm not cheering for one side to lose, I want the
yes vote to get up, obviously, but I don't get off
by shitting on the no campaign I'm not that petty.
I find it disheartening that your so pessimistic
Click to expand...

You all have good points. Ego wants its own way. Maybe Ego is a dirty word.
 
Kaito said:
I find it disheartening that your so pessimistic
Click to expand...
When you divide people by race, no one wins.
If the Yes campaign wins, they will muck around for a few years doing the minimum to support their mandate, whilst leveraging the decision into achieving the more lofty goals.
If the No campaign wins, it will re-animate the incorrect narrative that Australia is racist…probably at an international level.
Neither result will help the people who need it.
 
Tucker said:
When you divide people by race, no one wins.
If the Yes campaign wins, they will muck around for a few years doing the minimum to support their mandate, whilst leveraging the decision into achieving the more lofty goals.
If the No campaign wins, it will re-animate the incorrect narrative that Australia is racist…probably at an international level.
Neither result will help the people who need it.
Click to expand...

Yeah man. I'm still a bit conflicted with the whole
thing to be honest. Want what's best but also
have a healthy dose of scepticism the longer
the conversation goes. It appears clear cut
and dry from face value but there's a lot of
moving parts to all of this as you've mentioned
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 770 (members: 5, guests: 765)
Back
Top