Play Nice Derailed, (The Place to Continue Off-Topic Discussion)

[doofdoof]

1. The above statement "The process ie detail is never included in a referendum" is patently false. Happy for you to provide evidence to the contrary

2. The above statement "People using the process/detail excuse, are either disingenuous or uninformed." is patently false. Even ardent Yes supporters have admitted it was an error to not engage in a more rigorous process/debate



3. I can now add that the statement "Mine is about the disingenuous narrative about “ no detail”, that Dutton has used to derail the vote, and dupe people into believing it’s a legitimate issue." is also patently false.

Dutton hasn't duped anyone. There has been no process. There is no detail. There has been no rigorous debate. There have been no conventions which included all voices. There has been no discussion.

Father Brennan agrees with me - ‘Hell of a mess’: Voice supporter Father Frank Brennan

I can give you an example on your first point.
When the constitition was written, it stated that people of Australia will basically pay tax. There was no detail about the tax. What is was, how much it will be.

Thanks Vinnie. I appreciate the additional information. Without wanting to be a pedant, the original drafting of the constitution took about ten years and involved numerous bi-partisan conventions. This referendum process has not included any bi-partisan discussion.

Irrespective, NoSPIN's statement is still false. He said "the detail is NEVER included in the referendum".

I simply need to point out that the following referendum questions were proposed which included all necessary detail:

1974 (Simultaneous elections, Mode of Altering the Constitution, Democratic Elections)
1977 (Simultaneous elections)
1984 (Terms of Senators)
1988 (Parliamentary terms) referendum questions were proposed which included all necessary detail.

There will be others, but that is sufficient.

As such, stating that detail is never included is patently false.

Regardless, my main point is that it notoriously difficult to get a referendum proposal up and it was incumbent on Albo to do everything possible to ensure success, even if that meant working with political enemies and working towards a compromise position of the wording that could have received bi-partisan support.

In many people's minds he didn't do that. Even those who are strong Yes advocates.

I've made my points. I'll leave the conversation here. Others have a right to disagree. That's fine.

 

[VinnieB]

Thanks Vinnie. I appreciate the additional information. Without wanting to be a pedant, the original drafting of the constitution took about ten years and involved numerous bi-partisan conventions. This referendum process has not included any bi-partisan discussion.

Irrespective, NoSPIN's statement is still false. He said "the detail is NEVER included in the referendum".

I simply need to point out that the following referendum questions were proposed which included all necessary detail:

1974 (Simultaneous elections, Mode of Altering the Constitution, Democratic Elections)
1977 (Simultaneous elections)
1984 (Terms of Senators)
1988 (Parliamentary terms) referendum questions were proposed which included all necessary detail.

There will be others, but that is sufficient.

As such, stating that detail is never included is patently false.

Regardless, my main point is that it notoriously difficult to get a referendum proposal up and it was incumbent on Albo to do everything possible to ensure success, even if that meant working with political enemies and working towards a compromise position of the wording that could have received bi-partisan support.

In many people's minds he didn't do that. Even those who are strong Yes advocates.

I've made my points. I'll leave the conversation here. Others have a right to disagree. That's fine.

Totally agree.

 

[manicpie]

There seems to be a lot of division when it comes to the Voish, am I allowed to vote "maybe"

 

[NMBB]

There seems to be a lot of division when it comes to the Voish, am I allowed to vote "maybe"

Give it a go - you might rate a mention on Antony Green's commentary

 

[Chameleon75]

The 1902 referendum, it’s the same template.

 

[RobJD]

Totally agree.

There's good reason to not include the detail in the proposed changes to the Constitution - look at the mess that the Amendment 2 of the US constitution has presented. The right to bear arms may have made sense 230 years ago - it's clearly out of time now and has led to so much pain and suffering; yet it's highly unlikely to be altered.

If you want detail then it's in the GG's explanatory notes that accompany the referendum wording when presented to Parliament. High Court Judges will take far more notice of the explanatory notes than they will the wording of the constitution.

The constitution is simply an agreement in-principle - allow the details to follow through as laws supporting the agreement - that way, our decision makers can much more easily shape and adjust the intention of the agreement over time - A really good example of a simple agreement in principle is the 10 commandments - cast in stone with very little detail.

Funny thing I heard on the radio last night - one commentator mentioned that he was confused about whether this was a vote for a voice or a vote for a treaty: clearly this commentator hasn't read the fewer than 200 words in the proposed change - it mentions Voice around four times and there is no mention of a treaty.

 

[RobJD]

I think it's reasonable to ask for detail even if that detail won't be written into the Constitution.

The detail I want is simply a description of how the Voice will actually work. Why have I not seen this? Surely it's not that hard.

Have you read the notes that accompany the wording of the proposed change to the Constitution?

 

[Maggie5]

There seems to be a lot of division when it comes to the Voish, am I allowed to vote "maybe"

You can write anything you like however if you do, it will be invalid (unless 'yes' or 'no').

Anyhow to me it isn't that complicated, I voted 'yes'.

 

[RobJD]

You can write anything you like however if you do, it will be invalid (unless 'yes' or 'no').

Anyhow to me it isn't that complicated, I voted 'yes'.

Agree, manicpie, at the risk of telling you something that you already know, an invalid (or informal) vote is not counted - so it's not included in the determination about whether we will, or won't get a voice. The saying that we must vote isn't quite true, we must get our names ticked of the list of voters, what we do after that is a personal decision.

 

[VinnieB]

There's good reason to not include the detail in the proposed changes to the Constitution - look at the mess that the Amendment 2 of the US constitution has presented. The right to bear arms may have made sense 230 years ago - it's clearly out of time now and has led to so much pain and suffering; yet it's highly unlikely to be altered.

If you want detail then it's in the GG's explanatory notes that accompany the referendum wording when presented to Parliament. High Court Judges will take far more notice of the explanatory notes than they will the wording of the constitution.

The constitution is simply an agreement in-principle - allow the details to follow through as laws supporting the agreement - that way, our decision makers can much more easily shape and adjust the intention of the agreement over time - A really good example of a simple agreement in principle is the 10 commandments - cast in stone with very little detail.

Funny thing I heard on the radio last night - one commentator mentioned that he was confused about whether this was a vote for a voice or a vote for a treaty: clearly this commentator hasn't read the fewer than 200 words in the proposed change - it mentions Voice around four times and there is no mention of a treaty.

No excuse for that. Very poor.

 

[VinnieB]

There seems to be a lot of division when it comes to the Voish, am I allowed to vote "maybe"

Whose idea was it to call it The Voice? I think it was a poor choice.

 

[gouki88]

Whose idea was it to call it The Voice? I think it was a poor choice.

The Uluru Dialogue?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The 1902 referendum, it’s the same template. View attachment 1830194

You gotta watch out for that evil…

 

[Chameleon75]

You gotta watch out for that evil…

I know right, how long do we have to pay for one stolen apple

 

[NMBB]

Agree, manicpie, at the risk of telling you something that you already know, an invalid (or informal) vote is not counted - so it's not included in the determination about whether we will, or won't get a voice. The saying that we must vote isn't quite true, we must get our names ticked of the list of voters, what we do after that is a personal decision.

Andrew Denton used to say "I love elections - every three years I get the chance to steal a pencil"

 

[manicpie]

Whose idea was it to call it The Voice? I think it was a poor choice.

Albo calls it the Voish

 

[Fat Jesus]

Also calls it the Voish

 

[Maggie5]

I think we should have a referendum on no more:

Farmers Federation voice
Mining Interests voice
Environmentalist voice
GP's or Pharmacy groups voice
Banking voice
Labour Unions voice, or other 'special interest groups'
as they are too divisive.
In fact bar all lobby groups.

Am I doing it right?

 

[RobJD]

I think we should have a referendum on no more:

Farmers Federation voice
Mining Interests voice
Environmentalist voice
GP's or Pharmacy groups voice
Banking voice
Labour Unions voice, or other 'special interest groups'
as they are too divisive.
In fact bar all lobby groups.

Am I doing it right?

Couldn't agree more, get rid of the lobbyists or at least legislate that all meetings with lobbyists are documented and are open for scrutiny, ideally including publishing parliamentarian's diaries so it's clear who they are meeting with and what they're talking about.

 

[Occidental]

I think we should have a referendum on no more:

Farmers Federation voice
Mining Interests voice
Environmentalist voice
GP's or Pharmacy groups voice
Banking voice
Labour Unions voice, or other 'special interest groups'
as they are too divisive.
In fact bar all lobby groups.

Am I doing it right?

If they attempt to influence Government policy we have a right to know. Have your voice …. but have those meetings independently minuted and minutes published.

 

[gerryg400]

Have you read the notes that accompany the wording of the proposed change to the Constitution?

Yes I have. I don’t know a single other person who has though.

Edit: i don’t know many people. 15 or so.

 

[No SPIN]

I can give you an example on your first point.
When the constitition was written, it stated that people of Australia will basically pay tax. There was no detail about the tax. What is was, how much it will be.

Taxes, both type and amount, are then legislated. There is a reason why we don't pay a 90% tax rate. It won't be passed or would be political suicide, and/or removed.

Went to vote and my discussion with the NO group, confirmed my concerns when they started rolling out the “ not enough detail” excuse.
Of course I corrected them, and they were a little stunned, with no come back.

Albo has really failed to understand how easily a significant number of NO voters could have been turned with some facts, simply explaining the irrelevance of “ no detail”.

 

[gerryg400]

Went to vote and my discussion with the NO group, confirmed my concerns when they started rolling out the “ not enough detail” excuse.
Of course I corrected them, and they were a little stunned, with no come back.

Albo has really failed to understand how easily a significant number of NO voters could have been turned with some facts, simply explaining the irrelevance of “ no detail”.

No spin. Did you correct them by giving the detail or by explaining that detail is not required?

I think you’re right about the no voters. The ones I know don’t seem overly strong on it.

 

[manicpie]

I think we should have a referendum on no more:

Farmers Federation voice
Mining Interests voice
Environmentalist voice
GP's or Pharmacy groups voice
Banking voice
Labour Unions voice, or other 'special interest groups'
as they are too divisive.
In fact bar all lobby groups.

Am I doing it right?

I'm voting no to albo's Voish and yes to the Voice

 

[sr36]

I think it's reasonable to ask for detail even if that detail won't be written into the Constitution.

The detail I want is simply a description of how the Voice will actually work. Why have I not seen this? Surely it's not that hard.

Because you're voting on a long term change to the constitution - not a short term whatever the people in power decide it to be.