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

[doofdoof]

What do constitutional lawyers say about the Voice?

Good question. You've obviously read some opinions from constitutional lawyers that align with your view (bias?).

In reality, there are differing views from many constitutional lawyers from full support to partial support to somewhat concerned to very concerned.

Unfortunately, your question supports the points I have already made, so I'll just quote then for simplicity:

The impact of any constitutional changes is typically openly debated and well understood and agreed upon prior to the referendum being put to the population. Numerous constitutional lawyers will attest to that.

Historically, a rigorous process has been required to ensure bipartisan support, which has been crucial to the success of previous referendums.

Unfortunately, Albo has refused to be consultive by including a broad range of views in the process, refused to listen to feedback proposing changes that could lead to bi-partisan support, refused to engage is rigorous debate, refused to do the work to provide detail on the function or workings of the Voice and IMO sought to score political points early in the process when he thought he'd get 70% of the vote.

The result of only including like-minded people in the discussion means that the model put forward tended towards the most radical change, rather than a more balanced one.

If the Yes vote fails then this will be the reason that it does.

Furthermore, as Greg Craven (Yes supporter and constituional lawyer) says, and I quote:

The usual condescending response is that the plebs need to be “educated”, as in re-educated, so they agree with us. Of course, what actually is required is a decent civics education program, but that might turn up as many surprises for Mosman as Maroubra. Few superior Australians actually know anything about the Constitution, let alone have read it.

 

[gouki88]

Good question. You've obviously read some opinions from constitutional lawyers that align with your view (bias?).

In reality, there are differing views from many constitutional lawyers from full support to partial support to somewhat concerned to very concerned.

Unfortunately, your question supports the points I have already made, so I'll just quote then for simplicity:




The result of only including like-minded people in the discussion means that the model put forward tended towards the most radical change, rather than a more balanced one.

If the Yes vote fails then this will be the reason that it does.

Furthermore, as Greg Craven (Yes supporter and constituional lawyer) says, and I quote:

Sure, there are differing views - the consensus is pretty stark, however. Particularly from those most credible.

The Yes vote may fail for many reasons. Trying to attribute it to one is shallow. You seem very comfortable blaming the Government for the LNP using this as a wedge, rather than standing by its supposed principles.

I agree with Craven, a civics education program would be grand. As it would be if more people read the Constitution. It's very short!

 

[No SPIN]

Good question. You've obviously read some opinions from constitutional lawyers that align with your view (bias?).

In reality, there are differing views from many constitutional lawyers from full support to partial support to somewhat concerned to very concerned.

Unfortunately, your question supports the points I have already made, so I'll just quote then for simplicity:




The result of only including like-minded people in the discussion means that the model put forward tended towards the most radical change, rather than a more balanced one.

If the Yes vote fails then this will be the reason that it does.

Furthermore, as Greg Craven (Yes supporter and constituional lawyer) says, and I quote:

Until you offer Duttons explanation as too why the question is wrong and his alternate suggestion, then your narrative is just folly.
Holding on for dear life on “the process was flawed”, is a wholly transparent diversion. The question is simple - very simple, we are just voting on whether we want a PERMANENT Voice to represent the Indigenous population.
It’s not that hard mate.

 

[doofdoof]

The process ie detail is never included in a referendum because it then becomes immutable, and changes only possible with another referendum.
Eg Constitution says we need a Defence Force it does not describe the number of Troops, Planes or Ships, clearly because those needs change over time.
People using the process/detail excuse, are either disingenuous or uninformed.

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

I wish you had read my post and understood it.

Please explain what I have said that is patently false.

Your response is about formulating the question.
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.

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

 

[doofdoof]

Until you offer Duttons explanation as too why the question is wrong and his alternate suggestion, then your narrative is just folly.
Holding on for dear life on “the process was flawed”, is a wholly transparent diversion. The question is simple - very simple, we are just voting on whether we want a PERMANENT Voice to represent the Indigenous population.
It’s not that hard mate.

I'm sorry, but that is NOT how a referendum works.

It is simply a yes or no to the question put forward. The alternative is the status quo. That is indisputable fact that even Albo understands.

If Albo wanted the referendum to be successful, he should have gone down a different path.

Blaming Dutton for any potential failure is purely a political cop out.

 

[doofdoof]

Sure, there are differing views - the consensus is pretty stark, however. Particularly from those most credible.

The Yes vote may fail for many reasons. Trying to attribute it to one is shallow. You seem very comfortable blaming the Government for the LNP using this as a wedge, rather than standing by its supposed principles.

I agree with Craven, a civics education program would be grand. As it would be if more people read the Constitution. It's very short!

1. The consensus would suggest so, however credibility is subjective. This is why open transparent debate was required.
2. We can agree that it may fail for many reasons, but it is incumbent on the people who are putting a referendum forward to do everything possible to ensure success, even if that means working with political enemies and working towards a compromise position. That did not happen and blaming Dutton solely is disingeuous.
3. Agree again.

 

[No SPIN]

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

Do you seriously think your different view makes my points patently false.
I think your vehemence hides a true lack of substance.

Re the constitution - for example stating we need a Defence Force is all that’s needed. How many ships, tanks, planes is never specified because the numbers would be immutable and require another referendum to change.
The “detail” is up to the Govt of the day.
So all we’re doing with vote is deciding if we want a PERMANENT voice. What form that takes in 12 months maybe completely different in 5 years or 20 years, but the permanency can’t be scrapped.

 

[No SPIN]

I'm sorry, but that is NOT how a referendum works.

It is simply a yes or no to the question put forward. The alternative is the status quo. That is indisputable fact that even Albo understands.

If Albo wanted the referendum to be successful, he should have gone down a different path.

Blaming Dutton for any potential failure is purely a political cop out.

Not how a referendum works - are you serious?
The Uluru statement was convened with 250 delegates and the recommendation for a Voice came directly from them.

Now I ask you again.

Where is Duttons alternative language.

Why is he confusing people with “ we have no detail”, when he’s either ignorant of Constitional matters or being disingenuous.

If you are being completely partisan and think any excuse will do to vote No - then all good.

Because nothing you’ve offered justifies a No Vote - given you’ve offered no substance on the risks, but instead describe inconsequential diversions.

 

[No SPIN]

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

Actually I think you mean YOU agree with Brennan, unless of course you wrote his script.

Do you now want me to offer names of Theologians/Lawyers who’ll Vote YES.

 

[gerryg400]

Not how a referendum works - are you serious?
The Uluru statement was convened with 250 delegates and the recommendation for a Voice came directly from them.

Now I ask you again.

Where is Duttons alternative language.

Why is he confusing people with “ we have no detail”, when he’s either ignorant of Constitional matters or being disingenuous.

If you are being completely partisan and think any excuse will do to vote No - then all good.

Because nothing you’ve offered justifies a No Vote - given you’ve offered no substance on the risks, but instead describe inconsequential diversions.

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.

 

[No SPIN]

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.

The parliament ie both parties will have input into the detail and a bill prepared accordingly. We therefore all have the reassurance that negotiation and debate ensures an outcome both sides support.

You are completely misguided if you think the first version ( or any preagreed) version will be perfect.
The Voice will go through various interactions over time - but it will be PERMANENT and therefore indigenous issues can’t be marginalized or ignored.

And that’s the point of the referendum not the detail.

Do you agree a PERMANENT Voice is a good thing?

 

[gouki88]

1. The consensus would suggest so, however credibility is subjective. This is why open transparent debate was required.
2. We can agree that it may fail for many reasons, but it is incumbent on the people who are putting a referendum forward to do everything possible to ensure success, even if that means working with political enemies and working towards a compromise position. That did not happen and blaming Dutton solely is disingeuous.
3. Agree again.

1. Credibility is subjective, but at least credibility amongst their constitutional law peers.
2. I don’t think holding any party solely responsible for its potential failure is right. Many to blame.

 

[gerryg400]

The parliament ie both parties will have input into the detail and a bill prepared accordingly. We therefore all have the reassurance that negotiation and debate ensures an outcome both sides support.

You are completely misguided if you think the first version ( or any preagreed) version will be perfect.
The Voice will go through various interactions over time - but it will be PERMEANT and therefore indigenous issues can’t be marginalized or ignored.

And that’s the point of the referendum not the detail.

Do you agree a PERMANENT Voice is a good thing?

Yes I do. I have already voted. I know that the point of the referendum is not about detail but details matter to many people. Perhaps it would have been better to design and even implement the Voice prior to the referendum.

 

[Markfs]

I actually had a copy of the constitution as part of a uni course that i did years ago. What is detailed in the document hardly resembles what structures are currently used by gov't. The document was written in a NSW v Vic and free trade v protectionist era. The states didnt want to give any power but the basics to the new federal gov't. One of laughable outcomes is that the states didnt give themselves an ability to raise broadbased taxes and the fed gov't had no such limitations. Universities are constituted in state parliaments but the funding is totally federal. The fed gov't was given responsibility for indigenous people in 1967, but state govts still have massive indigenous affairs departments. In fact, my council even provides facilities to local indigenous for their exclusive use. Three levels of gov't....no wonder it's a mess.

What I am basically saying is that the constitution is a heap of crap and needs a complete rewrite and lawyers etc have no idea how the high court will interpret changes in the long term.

 

[No SPIN]

Yes I do. I have already voted. I know that the point of the referendum is not about detail but details matter to many people. Perhaps it would have been better to design and even implement the Voice prior to the referendum.

If we put the detail in the referendum it would be immutable, and permanent, only to be altered via another referendum.
So there would be no flexibility.
This way, there’s flexibility to adapt and change the details as and when deemed necessary.

The first step is a permanent Voice - then the politicians are forced to negotiate a bill that’s acceptable to all sides. They can’t ignore the Voice like so many other past inquiries, commissions and reports about indigenous affairs.

 

[No SPIN]

I actually had a copy of the constitution as part of a uni course that i did years ago. What is detailed in the document hardly resembles what structures are currently used by gov't. The document was written in a NSW v Vic and free trade v protectionist era. The states didnt want to give any power but the basics to the new federal gov't. One of laughable outcomes is that the states didnt give themselves an ability to raise broadbased taxes and the fed gov't had no such limitations. Universities are constituted in state parliaments but the funding is totally federal. The fed gov't was given responsibility for indigenous people in 1967, but state govts still have massive indigenous affairs departments. In fact, my council even provides facilities to local indigenous for their exclusive use. Three levels of gov't....no wonder it's a mess.

What I am basically saying is that the constitution is a heap of crap and needs a complete rewrite and lawyers etc have no idea how the high court will interpret changes in the long term.

That’s why the question is so simple - there’s nothing in that would justify a challenge to be heard by the high court.

 

[sideswipe]

I actually had a copy of the constitution as part of a uni course that i did years ago. What is detailed in the document hardly resembles what structures are currently used by gov't. The document was written in a NSW v Vic and free trade v protectionist era. The states didnt want to give any power but the basics to the new federal gov't. One of laughable outcomes is that the states didnt give themselves an ability to raise broadbased taxes and the fed gov't had no such limitations. Universities are constituted in state parliaments but the funding is totally federal. The fed gov't was given responsibility for indigenous people in 1967, but state govts still have massive indigenous affairs departments. In fact, my council even provides facilities to local indigenous for their exclusive use. Three levels of gov't....no wonder it's a mess.

What I am basically saying is that the constitution is a heap of crap and needs a complete rewrite and lawyers etc have no idea how the high court will interpret changes in the long term.

All in all, our Constitution works pretty well in a practical sense. A "re-write" is an impossibility.

Disclaimer: all I remember about studying Constitutional Law was that I agreed with every judgement I(attempted to) read. Both majority and dissenting.

 

[doofdoof]

Actually I think you mean YOU agree with Brennan, unless of course you wrote his script.

Do you now want me to offer names of Theologians/Lawyers who’ll Vote YES.

Brennan IS VOTING YES.

Sigh.

 

[No SPIN]

Brennan IS VOTING YES.

Sigh.

Brennan had been saying we should Vote Yes on principle.
So he’s basically confirming concerns are immaterial and irrelevant to justify a NO Vote!!!

I hope you’re taking notice, and Voting YES.

 

[doofdoof]

Brennan had been saying we should Vote Yes on principle.
So he’s basically confirming concerns are immaterial and irrelevant to justify a NO Vote!!!

I hope you’re taking notice, and Voting YES.

He is also saying Albo has made a mess out of the process.

He just isn't seemingly blinded by political bias and blaming Dutton for everything.

 

[Markfs]

All in all, our Constitution works pretty well in a practical sense. A "re-write" is an impossibility.

Disclaimer: all I remember about studying Constitutional Law was that I agreed with every judgement I(attempted to) read. Both majority and dissenting.

i dont disagree. An impossibility. My point is that the effects of putting a voice in the constitution can only be judged in 20 years.

 

[No SPIN]

He is also saying Albo has made a mess out of the process.

He just isn't seemingly blinded by political bias and blaming Dutton for everything.

He’s just proving that Duttons ( and by extension all the No Voters) objections are vacuous and irrelevant diversions, which is what I’ve been emphatically stating.

So are you buying Dutton’s misleading narrative, or taking Brendan’s more principled and reasoned view?

 

[gerryg400]

If we put the detail in the referendum it would be immutable, and permanent, only to be altered via another referendum.
So there would be no flexibility.
This way, there’s flexibility to adapt and change the details as and when deemed necessary.

The first step is a permanent Voice - then the politician are forced to negotiate a bill that’s acceptable to all sides. They can’t ignore the Voice like so many other past inquiries, commissions and reports about indigenous affairs.

Yes. I know that. Why haven’t you and Albo been able to convince the voters? I reckon this should have been an easy win for your side.

 

[No SPIN]

Yes. I know that. Why haven’t you and Albo been able to convince the voters? I reckon this should have been an easy win for your side.

So true and I made this exact point on another thread.
The Add campaigns should definitely have clarified the misinformation about this issue.

 

[VinnieB]

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.

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.