Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
IFocus said:
Excellent Mick what advice have they provided and what advice has the government acted on?
Click to expand...
1694002582194.png

he Agency​

Listen

Our vision​

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered.

Our purpose​

The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) works in genuine partnership to enable the self-determination and aspirations of First Nations communities. We lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.

Our responsibilities​

The National Indigenous Australians Agency was established by an Executive Order signed by the Governor-General on 29 May 2019.
The Executive Order gives the NIAA a number of functions, including:
  • to lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
  • to provide advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians on whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
  • to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia’s Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians; and
  • to lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation.
You can read the full list of responsibilities in the Executive Order.

Our structure​

The NIAA structure is designed to better meet the Government’s priorities to effectively deliver on our Executive Order, strengthen our ability to deliver as one team and enhance our partnership with Indigenous Australians.
Key design underpinnings include creating a greater balance of strategic, social and economic policy including a dedicated focus on economic development in the north; enhancing relationships across jurisdictions as well as in place; and improving Agency wide performance.
The NIAA is led by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jody Broun, Deputy CEO for Policy and Programs, Julie-Ann Guivarra, Deputy CEO (A/g) Operations and Delivery, Kevin Brahim, and Chief Operating Officer (A/g), Rachael Jackson.

Organisational Chart​

Our values​

  • We respect multiple perspectives
  • We are authentic
  • We are professional and act with integrity
  • We invest in each other's success
  • We deliver with purpose

Our Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP)​

 
Go back a decade or two, and Australia’s large corporations were among the most trusted organisations in the land. But in the last six years, community trust in large corporations has plummeted and Australians have never been more distrusting of large corporate Australia.
Click to expand...
My observation is essentially all key institutions in society are at least somewhat tarnished at present.

Scientific organisations, business, unions, government, organised religion, even the entertainment industry all have one thing in common.

They're all greatly diminished in the eyes of the general public. They were all on a pedestal of sorts at some point within living memory and they've all fallen today.

We're in a world where science bends the truth, business outright lies, unions throw their own members under the bus, government's simply incompetent, mention religion and the first thought for many is crime, meanwhile the audience is being charged collectively $6 million to listen to a recording and watch someone lip syncing and badly at that.

This is a much greater problem than just business or the Voice. At this point pretty much all of society's key institutions are in a sad state.

That's a lot of the trouble with the Voice. People just don't trust government itself. :2twocents
 
farmerge said:
Sir R more so looking perhaps for political advantage I would think
Click to expand...
I wonder what fate awaits these companies whenever the Coalition is next in government?

Given all big 4 banks, both major supermarket chains and Transurban are backing the Voice, they'd seem very obvious targets for heavy regulation as a payback given they're either outright monopolies (eg Transurban) or it's a situation of all major players in an industry backing it.

Let's see..... banking regulation, price caps on toll roads and something about limiting the market power of retail chains might be on the cards?
 
It's the whole ESG garbage, gents. Like a corporate social credit score. They are basically forced into it by the likes of Blackrock etc.

Vote with your wallets.
 
TimeISmoney said:
View attachment 162103

he Agency​

Listen

Our vision​

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered.

Our purpose​

The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) works in genuine partnership to enable the self-determination and aspirations of First Nations communities. We lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.

Our responsibilities​

The National Indigenous Australians Agency was established by an Executive Order signed by the Governor-General on 29 May 2019.
The Executive Order gives the NIAA a number of functions, including:
  • to lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
  • to provide advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians on whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
  • to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia’s Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians; and
  • to lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation.
You can read the full list of responsibilities in the Executive Order.

Our structure​

The NIAA structure is designed to better meet the Government’s priorities to effectively deliver on our Executive Order, strengthen our ability to deliver as one team and enhance our partnership with Indigenous Australians.
Key design underpinnings include creating a greater balance of strategic, social and economic policy including a dedicated focus on economic development in the north; enhancing relationships across jurisdictions as well as in place; and improving Agency wide performance.
The NIAA is led by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jody Broun, Deputy CEO for Policy and Programs, Julie-Ann Guivarra, Deputy CEO (A/g) Operations and Delivery, Kevin Brahim, and Chief Operating Officer (A/g), Rachael Jackson.

Organisational Chart​

Our values​

  • We respect multiple perspectives
  • We are authentic
  • We are professional and act with integrity
  • We invest in each other's success
  • We deliver with purpose

Our Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP)​

Click to expand...


Again what advice have they provided and as a result what advice has the government acted on
 
Smurf1976 said:
I wonder what fate awaits these companies whenever the Coalition is next in government?

Given all big 4 banks, both major supermarket chains and Transurban are backing the Voice, they'd seem very obvious targets for heavy regulation as a payback given they're either outright monopolies (eg Transurban) or it's a situation of all major players in an industry backing it.

Let's see..... banking regulation, price caps on toll roads and something about limiting the market power of retail chains might be on the cards?
Click to expand...


Back to front Smurf corporates' run the Coalition while they providing funding, Dutton's position on the Voice is politics he needs a win wont be a problem win or lose for businesses they would also expect Dutton never to be PM locking up the Biloela family probably preludes him from that role.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I wonder what fate awaits these companies whenever the Coalition is next in government?

Given all big 4 banks, both major supermarket chains and Transurban are backing the Voice, they'd seem very obvious targets for heavy regulation as a payback given they're either outright monopolies (eg Transurban) or it's a situation of all major players in an industry backing it.

Let's see..... banking regulation, price caps on toll roads and something about limiting the market power of retail chains might be on the cards?
Click to expand...
A few free dinners and some charity donations soon fixes that.
 
It’s good that Pearson now admits that the way the Yes case has been prosecuted is wrong. He now wants to engage with the opponents and the sceptics, instead of abusing them as closet racists or worse. Unfortunately for him, he can’t take back his disgraceful bullying of senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price for supposedly “punching down on black fellas” and allegedly being “caught up in a redneck celebrity vortex”. And he can’t retrospectively rewrite the Uluru statement for which he was one of the moving spirits.​

We need a Mandela, not a tribal chieftain

In a calculated pitch to The Australian’s readership and in a sharp change of tactics, the main Yes campaigner, Noel Pearson, now says it’s important to answer people’s questions about the voice.

If only he could. No one can say how the voice will be chosen, what powers it will have and exactly who can stand for it because all this would have to be decided after the referendum by the parliament; and then, most likely, further adjudicated by the High Court when a government’s decision-making displeases some or all of the voice’s members and arguably contravenes an expansively worded new chapter in our Constitution.

This referendum, should it pass, would be a blank cheque for change, and all that can be answered with certainty about a blank cheque is that it’s full of risk.

Pearson also says the voice is about Aboriginal people taking responsibility for their own lives. Again, if only. As the Prime Minister has said from the beginning, the voice will have no program-delivery responsibilities whatsoever and it won’t replace any of the myriad existing entities representing Aboriginal people or providing advice on their behalf. Because it would be entrenched in the Constitution, and because it would be an attempt to restore a measure of the sovereignty that Aboriginal people lost after 1788, it would take – in the PM’s own words – a very brave government to ignore it.

What the voice would have, in fact, is the opposite of Pearson’s claim – power without responsibility, the power to make endless demands without ever having to take responsibility for anything. Indeed, every failure and disappointment would be someone else’s fault; in the first instance the government’s for failing to spend enough to meet the voice’s demands, but ultimately the Australian people’s for the original sin of British settlement.

The Prime Minister may not have bothered to read it, but the full Uluru Statement is a lengthy tirade against Australia, as the activists’ mantra – Voice, Treaty, Truth – reveals. Its Our Story segment is a denunciation of Australia’s history as a story of shame, characterised by official violence, even genocide, and ongoing oppression.

Even though this generation of Aboriginal people are not victims and this generation of non-Aboriginal Australians are not oppressors, the voice would mean that all of us and our descendants would have to live forever with institutional arrangements enshrining compensation for the crimes of some Australians’ ancestors against other Australians’ ancestors.

That today’s Indigenous disadvantage is the result of intergenerational trauma arising from British colonialism is a neo-Marxist fiction, yet it permeates the full Uluru statement. Even the one-page cover version refers to the goal of a Makarrata commission. Far from being a peaceful coming together, makarrata is a Yolngu word for a retribution ritual, a disabling spearing in the thigh to atone for a wrong. In this sense, what the statement’s authors want is payback for the past 240 years of nation-building as if there have been no compensating benefits for the original inhabitants.

In times past, Pearson’s public advocacy has been of great service to our country. In denouncing welfare dependency as the “poison that’s killing our people”, he was telling a profound truth transcending race. In demanding back-to-basics education, including rote learning of facts, he hit on the roots of so many modern Australian problems. In calling for a kind of “cultural interoperability” where Aboriginal people were immersed in their own high culture, as well as the best that has been thought and said, Pearson was expressing an ideal to which we all should aspire.

In articulating the concept of orbits that might begin in remote Australia but then lead anywhere in the world, he was trying to liberate Aboriginal people from being tied to a particular patch of land without losing a spiritual affinity for it. He was also right to point to the three pillars on which modern Australia has been based: an Indigenous heritage, a British foundation and an immigrant character. If only he’d been ready to enshrine this in the Constitution as a gracious acknowledgment of everyone and everything that has made us, rather than try to retrofit an ancestry-based fourth arm of government into our nation’s foundational document.

If only the Mandela side to his character hadn’t been subsumed these past few years by that of a tribal chief waging a guerrilla campaign against an oppression that is long since past and that has been replaced by the “tyranny of low expectations” that a grievance and entitlement-obsessed voice would just reinforce.

From 1788, the land mass that became known as Australia has been on a decisively different and better path. It’s no disrespect to the First Australians, or their achievements in surviving so long in what was then a very challenging environment, to say that they too have been the beneficiaries of British settlement. “The world’s oldest continuing culture” now has the advantage of equality before the law, respect for women and other minorities, and previously unimaginable technical advance. For all the mistakes of the past, this should no longer be a matter of grievance or guilt to anyone.

Instead, whatever our ancestry (which is invariably mixed anyway) we should feel immense pride in Australia’s achievement in becoming the least racist and most colourblind country in earth. The last thing we should do is jeopardise this by intruding into our Constitution this latest manifestation of identity politics. Pearson still hasn’t apologised to Price, perhaps because her warm embrace of the Indigenous, the Australian and the more broadly Western elements in her character shows a magnanimity that Pearson has lost and is only now belatedly trying to regain.

Voting No to this divisive voice should mean a reset to the Indigenous separatism that has bedevilled us these past five decades and allow all Australians to go forward again as one united people.
Click to expand...
 
In this interview, Prof. Nicholas Aroney discusses the divisive outcomes of constitutional changes proposed by the Voice. He explains the ways this change will undermine universal citizenship, eroding the equality and unity innate to the constitution's initial design. ​
​
Nicholas Aroney is Professor of Constitutional Law at The University of Queensland and an External Fellow of the Centre for Law and Religion at Emory University. He has held visiting positions at Oxford, Cambridge, Paris II, Edinburgh, Durham, Sydney, Emory and Tilburg universities.​
​
Professor Aroney has published over 150 journal articles, book chapters and books in the fields of constitutional law, comparative constitutional law and legal theory. He has led several international research projects in comparative federalism, bicameralism, legal pluralism, and law & religion, and he speaks frequently at international conferences on these topics. ​
​
Professor Aroney is a former editor of The University of Queensland Law Journal (2003-2005) and International Trade and Business Law Annual (1996-1998), and a past secretary of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy. He is a past member of the Governing Council and the current Co-Convenor of the Queensland Chapter of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law. He is also a member of the editorial advisory board of the American Journal of Jurisprudence, Public Law Review, Australian Journal of Law and Religion and International Trade and Business Law Review. He has made numerous influential submissions to government and parliamentary inquiries and in 2013 undertook a review of the Crime and Misconduct Act for the Queensland Government with the Hon Ian Callinan AC QC, a former Justice of the High Court of Australia. In 2017 he was appointed by the Australian Prime Minister to an Expert Panel to advise on whether Australian law adequately protects the human right to freedom of religion.​

 
Smurf1976 said:
I wonder what fate awaits these companies whenever the Coalition is next in government?

Given all big 4 banks, both major supermarket chains and Transurban are backing the Voice, they'd seem very obvious targets for heavy regulation as a payback given they're either outright monopolies (eg Transurban) or it's a situation of all major players in an industry backing it.

Let's see..... banking regulation, price caps on toll roads and something about limiting the market power of retail chains might be on the cards?
Click to expand...
It is always contentious as to how much major companies should involve themselves in social issues. I myself only found out today that WES has donated $2m. to the YES campaign although I probably should have read more posts in this thread. It is mentioned above.

Perhaps legislation may be better banning corporates from social donations.

I myself believe this is not a black and white issue, there are grey areas. I tend to fall back on what is best for the company. The Voice issue is now so toxic that anyone intending voting either way needs to be careful about disclosure.

I myself remain undecided.

gg
 
TimeISmoney said:
View attachment 162103

he Agency​

Listen

Our vision​

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered.

Our purpose​

The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) works in genuine partnership to enable the self-determination and aspirations of First Nations communities. We lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.

Our responsibilities​

The National Indigenous Australians Agency was established by an Executive Order signed by the Governor-General on 29 May 2019.
The Executive Order gives the NIAA a number of functions, including:
  • to lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
  • to provide advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians on whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
  • to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia’s Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians; and
  • to lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation.
You can read the full list of responsibilities in the Executive Order.

Our structure​

The NIAA structure is designed to better meet the Government’s priorities to effectively deliver on our Executive Order, strengthen our ability to deliver as one team and enhance our partnership with Indigenous Australians.
Key design underpinnings include creating a greater balance of strategic, social and economic policy including a dedicated focus on economic development in the north; enhancing relationships across jurisdictions as well as in place; and improving Agency wide performance.
The NIAA is led by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jody Broun, Deputy CEO for Policy and Programs, Julie-Ann Guivarra, Deputy CEO (A/g) Operations and Delivery, Kevin Brahim, and Chief Operating Officer (A/g), Rachael Jackson.

Organisational Chart​

Our values​

  • We respect multiple perspectives
  • We are authentic
  • We are professional and act with integrity
  • We invest in each other's success
  • We deliver with purpose

Our Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP)​

Click to expand...

What has this organisation done to warrant a $2.5b budget?

Total expenditure by the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) in 2023–24 falls by $49.8 million, from $2,645 million to $2,595 million.
 
IFocus said:
Excellent Mick what advice have they provided and what advice has the government acted on?
Click to expand...

We don't know because it has not been publicised, perhaps they haven't done anything or perhaps as has been shown repeatedly, action needs to happen on the ground NOT in Canberra.

I admire your staunch defence of the Voice but as we both know, there has been thousands of people working to assist them for quite some time and it really has (for some) developed into a cargo cult mentality.

I know that this attitude happens in all races and all localities, it is just that if passed, the Voice will not be able to be altered, whereas for others it can change anytime the Govt wishes.

Ain't no way the Voice advisors will ever allow themselves to be treated as equals with rest of OZ
 
IFocus said:
Back to front Smurf corporates' run the Coalition while they providing funding, Dutton's position on the Voice is politics he needs a win wont be a problem win or lose for businesses they would also expect Dutton never to be PM locking up the Biloela family probably preludes him from that role.
Click to expand...
The coalition used to, you just have to look at the voting demographic to realise there has been a complete 180 degree change, Labor support base is now the elites and the coalition support base is now the blue collar sector.
It has been happening over the last 3 elections.
Third stage tax cuts, Qantas issues, in W.A, Stokes/McGowan, housing affordability, immigration, the whole political landscape has changed.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
It is always contentious as to how much major companies should involve themselves in social issues.
Click to expand...
How is it looking after the best interests of the business and shareholders to be taking sides in a highly polarising issue?

It's not like, say, supporting a legitimate charity such as guide dogs or surf life saving or something like disaster relief. Pretty much nobody's going to object to that.

Taking sides in an issue like this however, where's the upside? For every person who's happy about it, there's someone else who's unhappy. :2twocents
 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top