Voice referendum

[Hacky McAxe]

Exactly … so why not just legislate it as a first step, see how it goes and then have a referendum once we have all seen how it operates, etc etc?

I wouldn't mind that idea if we had longer terms. Anything beyond 3 years isn't viable in Australian politics. If anything works or doesn't work, if it's not fully implemented in 3 years then it won't be fully implemented.

If we had a trial run and it worked well, and Liberals won the next election, it wouldn't go ahead.

 

[Doogie]

I’ll vote NO if you continue! (Or if you dont continue)

by the way @Doogie @wendog33 , I voted this morning so your propaganda efforts to fool people were unsuccessful.

At the polling booth there was 100 yes signs everywhere and one NO sign and yet the NO side will get up in a landslide.. LOL

Thought u voted? And we have lie number 27.

#BullshitPittie

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I didn't put words in your mouth, I quoted your sentence verbatim. Are you now saying that that wasn't your view and that you were just informing the Kennel of the views of unspecified YES voters? If that is so, then clearly it is not you scraping the bottom of the barrel, but these anonymous YES voters, and I apologize without reservation for any distress I might have caused you..

Dude. That's literally what the conversation was about. Read the conversation before butting in.

Bullpit made a claim of misinformation by the Yes side. Doogie pointed out that there was issues with his post but didn't point out what the issues were. Rather than them taking up pages of "no tell me", "no figure it out", I instead told Bullpit what the issue was.

Then you jumped in and changed the topic because you didn't read it in context and didn't know what we were talking about.

Read before butting in.

 

[Doogie]

I am not claiming misinformation - I am discussing a fundamental point in this debate.

What I’m saying is this -
1) subsequent governments can, in substance through whatever form they want, make the Voice ineffective (by amending its scope, representation, etc).
2) a primary Yes argument is that entrenching the Voice in our Constitution ensures it exists forever and no future government can get rid of it.
3) if (1) is true, which it is, then the effectiveness of the Voice can be completely diluted by any future government, rendering it to be completely ineffective. And it might as well not exist.

The point is - it’s the same practical result under both within Legislation vs within the Constitution in terms of longevity and effectiveness of the Voice. So, the Yes argument that entrenching the Voice in our Constitution ensures it exists forever and no future government can get rid of it is not convincing to me.

Within Legislation - No Voice
IS THE SAME AS
Within Constitution - a very ineffective, but existent, Voice
OR
Within Legislation - an effective Voice
IS THE SAME AS
Within Constitution - an effective Voice

So, why not legislate it as a first step?

So the idea of the Voice is to listen right?

Uluru statement - we want a voice enshrined in the constitution. It's black and white.

So the first thing we do is not listen and put it in legislation? Doesn't that defeat the purpose.

Now you can make whatever arguments you want around the rest. We've heard it all. The above is as simple as it gets.

 

[Blue_boost]

Thought u voted? And we have lie number 27.

#BullshitPittie

it’s actually mandatory to vote so yes I have voted NO. I must be a liar that I voted???

Sunday my friend … Sunday.

 

[Blue_boost]

Uluru statement - we want a voice enshrined in the constitution. It's black and white.

well if the Uluṟu statement says something that’s it isn’t it?

Whatever it says we can be gullible puppets and do… even if it’s not in the best interests of ALL people

Vote No

 

[Flanagun]

Exactly … so why not just legislate it as a first step, see how it goes and then have a referendum once we have all seen how it operates, etc etc?

You can't give everyone what they want, so give nobody what they want.... sounds like a winning strategy.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I am not claiming misinformation - I am discussing a fundamental point in this debate.

What I’m saying is this -
1) subsequent governments can, in substance through whatever form they want, make the Voice ineffective (by amending its scope, representation, etc).
2) a primary Yes argument is that entrenching the Voice in our Constitution ensures it exists forever and no future government can get rid of it.
3) if (1) is true, which it is, then the effectiveness of the Voice can be completely diluted by any future government, rendering it to be completely ineffective. And it might as well not exist.

The point is - it’s the same practical result under both within Legislation vs within the Constitution in terms of longevity and effectiveness of the Voice. So, the Yes argument that entrenching the Voice in our Constitution ensures it exists forever and no future government can get rid of it is not convincing to me.

Within Legislation - No Voice
IS THE SAME AS
Within Constitution - a very ineffective, but existent, Voice
OR
Within Legislation - an effective Voice
IS THE SAME AS
Within Constitution - an effective Voice

So, why not legislate it as a first step?

Again. Because it would be scrapped. If the Voice becomes ineffective, it still exists. And as long as it still exists, subsequent governments can make it more effective. Because it still exists.

 

[Bullpit]

Again. Because it would be scrapped. If the Voice becomes ineffective, it still exists. And as long as it still exists, subsequent governments can make it more effective. Because it still exists.

Subsequent governments can also reassemble an effective Voice without a referendum if legislated. So, again, same thing in substance.

 

[Doogie]

it’s actually mandatory to vote so yes I have voted NO. I must be a liar that I voted???

Sunday my friend … Sunday.

I think you are lying about voting. Don't think you are old enough.

 

[Doogie]

well if the Uluṟu statement says something that’s it isn’t it?

Whatever it says we can be gullible puppets and do… even if it’s not in the best interests of ALL people

Vote No

You rave on about i30s. You should know quite a bit about gullible puppets.

 

[Bullpit]

I wouldn't mind that idea if we had longer terms. Anything beyond 3 years isn't viable in Australian politics. If anything works or doesn't work, if it's not fully implemented in 3 years then it won't be fully implemented.

If we had a trial run and it worked well, and Liberals won the next election, it wouldn't go ahead.

Can you really imagine any government getting rid of something, especially something with such visibility, following, emotion and political sensitivity, if it is working well? That would be political suicide and won’t happen.

 

[Bullpit]

You can't give everyone what they want, so give nobody what they want.... sounds like a winning strategy.

I’m not sure how you can interpret me saying anything close to “give nobody what they want” from my post???

 

[Bullpit]

So the idea of the Voice is to listen right?

Uluru statement - we want a voice enshrined in the constitution. It's black and white.

So the first thing we do is not listen and put it in legislation? Doesn't that defeat the purpose.

Now you can make whatever arguments you want around the rest. We've heard it all. The above is as simple as it gets.

There is a mighty lot of grey between black and white. In this case, it would be irresponsible to the wider Australian community to ignore all that grey.
You can seldom get a win-win staying at the black or white extreme and not considering alternate views. Usually, the answer is somewhere in the grey.

 

[The DoggFather]

Now that the ME terrorists thread is nuked and this voice crap ends on Saturday, what's the next thing everyone is going to punch on about?

 

[Flanagun]

I’m not sure how you can interpret me saying anything close to “give nobody what they want” from my post???

It has been explained to you so many times, man. Not just in the past, but in the past hour or two. Unlike a few of the resident No guys on here, you are far from stupid, so I can only conclude you're being deliberately obtuse.

Indigenous people don't want it legislated. They don't want some legislation to be passed so it can be "tested" under the watchful eyes of people who are never going to approve of it, anyway. Especially when there's a good chance the government might not be in power to call a referendum by the time a "satisfactory" testing period has passed.

They want a Voice and they want constitutional acknowledgment and protection of the Voice within the constitution, that is stated very clearly in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

A legislated Voice is literally something nobody wants, which is the main reason the No camp keep harping on about it. They are only interested in playing spoiler in this debate. They aren't interested in forwarding constructive solutions.

And don't say we should find middle ground, because this is the middle ground. It's certainly not all they are asking for and you are saying the government should dilute their wishes further and expect it to please anyone? Come, on.... you must know that would not be the reality.

 

[Doogie]

There is a mighty lot of grey between black and white. In this case, it would be irresponsible to the wider Australian community to ignore all that grey.
You can seldom get a win-win staying at the black or white extreme and not considering alternate views. Usually, the answer is somewhere in the grey.

What part of we want a voice enshrined in constitution is grey?

 

[TwinTurbo]

I wouldn't mind that idea if we had longer terms. Anything beyond 3 years isn't viable in Australian politics. If anything works or doesn't work, if it's not fully implemented in 3 years then it won't be fully implemented.

I like the concept that NSW has fixed 4 year terms.

If we had a trial run and it worked well, and Liberals won the next election, it wouldn't go ahead.

I'm not convinced of that, there is plenty of history of one party opposing something when they were in opposition only to support it when in Government, because it ended up being a good idea. Labor and the boat turnback policy is just one, HECS is another, so is Medibank/Medicare.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Bullpit]

It has been explained to you so many times, man. Not just in the past, but in the past hour or two. Unlike a few of the resident No guys on here, you are far from stupid, so I can only conclude you're being deliberately obtuse.

Indigenous people don't want it legislated. They don't want some legislation to be passed so it can be "tested" under the watchful eyes of people who are never going to approve of it, anyway. Especially when there's a good chance the government might not be in power to call a referendum by the time a "satisfactory" testing period has passed.

They want a Voice and they want constitutional acknowledgment and protection of the Voice within the constitution, that is stated very clearly in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

A legislated Voice is literally something nobody wants, which is the main reason the No camp keep harping on about it. They are only interested in playing spoiler in this debate. They aren't interested in forwarding constructive solutions.

And don't say we should find middle ground, because this is the middle ground. It's certainly not all they are asking for and you are saying the government should dilute their wishes further and expect it to please anyone? Come, on.... you must know that would not be the reality.

Thanks for clarifying. But there are many assumptions in your post which are not fact. In any case, now I understand what your reply was referring to. I wasn’t being deliberately obtuse, just trying to clarify. We, again on this topic, have to agree to disagree.

 

[Bullpit]

What part of we want a voice enshrined in constitution is grey?

No no … it’s very clear what they want. It’s what comes after that in terms of implementation, the views of other Australians, etc etc which is grey and not so simple.