The Voice

[Knobby22]

Victorian No rally provides reasons provided by those guys dressed in black.

 

[TimeISmoney]

Victorian No rally provides reasons provided by those guys dressed in black.
View attachment 162881

I believe this picture was taken at the Uluru convention.

 

[wayneL]

I suddenly am a fan of Kamahl. The best plot twist, evaaah!

 

[Smurf1976]

Just my observation driving around Adelaide today but the Yes campaign is orders of magnitude more visible.

If it's effective then I wouldn't count them out as a potential winner. Yes signs everywhere, not a No to be seen.

 

[sptrawler]

Just my observation driving around Adelaide today but the Yes campaign is orders of magnitude more visible.
.

I guess the Yes budget, is an order of magnitude bigger than the No budget also?

 

[farmerge]

AS one who is presently undecided on whether to vote yes or no, may I tell you where I'm at presently.

45% to vote YES, 55% inclined to vote NO

And to those who dismiss the power of advertising, some weeks ago before the YES vote commenced spending all their (our, I am a proponenet of non-crossdressing pronouns) it was 40% YES 60% NO. and I don't watch television much nor much television for that matter.

So there are times when I feel as many of my cosmopolitan cousins and friends do, that there is much needs "doing" for indigenous emancipation to be possible. Then I look at the waste, and the people least indigenous at the top of a wasteful money-pile, who will turn their voice in to a bigger money pile and then power as in an aristocracy.

Then I look at my grandchildren and think No. But atm. 45% is YES in me. I need good reasons to vote Yes, and so far Im haven't been given the most important one. The one on good governance.

Can someone reassure me that the consequence of a voice will not be a just big piss up and a boon for Audi, BMW and Tesla dealerships. ?

gg

gg got that right especially the last sentence.
And those sitting on top of thr ladder their wealth will increase in accordance with the cargo cult that will cometh.

 

[farmerge]

I think that Iwill instigate a new Welcome to Country. Farmer's Country and no lazy, layabouts allowed. to be followed by a Smoking Ceremony, by invitation only.

 

[SirRumpole]

I guess the Yes budget, is an order of magnitude bigger than the No budget also?

And yet the Yes vote continues to decline in the polls.

The Yes campaign seems all emotion, ignoring the practicalities and hiding the details.

I don't think the public likes the wool being pulled over their eyes.

 

[TimeISmoney]

And yet the Yes vote continues to decline in the polls.

The Yes campaign seems all emotion, ignoring the practicalities and hiding the details.

I don't think the public likes the wool being pulled over their eyes.

I don't think the no side has to do anything, all they have to do now is sit back and watch it all unfold. The secrecy and mudding of the waters from the yes side is going to punch the last bit home as hard as possible.

 

[JohnDe]

 

[IFocus]

Is it ethical that non-Indigenous people get to decide on the Voice? Is it OK for one group to have rights others don't? An ethicist explains​

And there is actually nothing unusual about citizens and their elected representatives making decisions about what rights and entitlements others have. This is the very nature of democracies.

But this raises a more fundamental tension within our liberal-democratic political system. The tension lies between the "liberal" element, which seeks to secure the rights and liberties of all individuals, and the "democratic" element, which seeks to enact self-rule by the people.

This tension generates a problem known as the "tyranny of the majority". This is where a democratic majority is able to violate the rights of a smaller minority.

In both the same-sex marriage and Voice votes, there is a large majority with the power to decide the rights of a minority.

Is it ethical that non-Indigenous people get to decide on the Voice? An ethicist explains

Two big ethical questions have emerged during the Voice to Parliament campaign: is it fair that non-Indigenous people will get the majority say? And is it fair if one group will get something others don't? Paul Formosa explains.

www.abc.net.au

 

[sptrawler]

Is it ethical that non-Indigenous people get to decide on the Voice? Is it OK for one group to have rights others don't? An ethicist explains​

And there is actually nothing unusual about citizens and their elected representatives making decisions about what rights and entitlements others have. This is the very nature of democracies.

But this raises a more fundamental tension within our liberal-democratic political system. The tension lies between the "liberal" element, which seeks to secure the rights and liberties of all individuals, and the "democratic" element, which seeks to enact self-rule by the people.

This tension generates a problem known as the "tyranny of the majority". This is where a democratic majority is able to violate the rights of a smaller minority.

In both the same-sex marriage and Voice votes, there is a large majority with the power to decide the rights of a minority.

Is it ethical that non-Indigenous people get to decide on the Voice? An ethicist explains

Two big ethical questions have emerged during the Voice to Parliament campaign: is it fair that non-Indigenous people will get the majority say? And is it fair if one group will get something others don't? Paul Formosa explains.

www.abc.net.au

Unfortunately that's how a democracy works, or there is the other option where the minority has the say over the majority as in some other countries, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The issue doesn't only affect the minority, the collective has to pay for any outcome that eventuates, if you don't give those who have to pay the cost the right to speak. Well that isn't good either, it only works when you are in the sector that benefits, which usually then ends with majority unrest.
The second point which raises the issue of disadvantage, where services are available aboriginals have the same access to them as every other member of society, where they chose to live in extremely remote areas, they do receive services but obviously they are difficult and expensive to maintain. If a group of non indigenous chose to start a commune in a remote area of Australia, no services at all would be provided, so from that perspective the majority are facilitating a lifestyle choice that wouldn't be available to the majority.
As I have said, the only way I can see all this being resolved is by paying restitution and moving on.
From your article:
There are at least two obvious bases.

First, as a rectification of past injustices. For example, if someone steals a painting from you, then you are entitled to have your property back or to receive restitution. This can apply cross-generationally.

If the Nazis stole your great-grandfather's painting, then you are entitled to have it returned to you or receive compensation if the painting emerges many years later, even if your great-grandfather is long deceased.

First Nations people of Australia have suffered specific and significant injustices that other groups have not, such as the loss of sovereignty over their traditional lands, and they are therefore entitled to redress, which could (in part) take the form of a Voice.

The second basis is to rectify a specific disadvantage. As Canadian political philosopher Will Kymlicka puts it:

"We match the rights to the kinds of disadvantage being compensated for."

For example, Australians with a disability are entitled to certain rights, such as disability support, that members of other groups are not.

On a range of measures, from health to education and wealth, Australia's First Nations people face significant disadvantages, and it's therefore reasonable that members of that group receive specific rights to counteract the specific forms of disadvantage they experience.

 

[SirRumpole]

This is where a democratic majority is able to violate the rights of a smaller minority.

Not really.

Aboriginals are citizens of this country like anyone else. The principle foundation of democracy is that all citizens have the same rights under the Constitution. "Violation of rights" occurs when some want more rights than others.

 

[JohnDe]

THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP
The Preamble to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) makes three broad claims about Australian statutory citizenship: that it signifies ‘full and formal membership of the Australian community’; that it is characterised by the possession of ‘reciprocal rights and obligations’; and that it is a ‘bond’ that ‘unites all Australians’.

Australian Citizenship, Your Right, Your Responsibility
As citizens, Australians have the right to vote, to seek election to Parliament, to apply to work within government and the defence force, to apply for an Australian passport and re-enter Australia freely, to register children born overseas as Australian citizens by descent, to sponsor family members for migration and ...

The privileges, freedoms and benefits of living in Australia are balanced by responsibilities. All Australians are responsible for respecting and protecting our country and ensuring that our commitment to a decent society embraces all Australians.
Core Australian values include:

• constitutional government;
• respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual;
• freedom of speech and religion;
• commitment to the rule of law and allegiance to Australia;
• parliamentary democracy;
• a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play, compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good; and
• equal rights before the law and equality of opportunity for all. Australian citizens have an obligation to:
• obey the law;
• defend Australia should the need arise; and
• vote in federal and state or territory elections, and in referenda.

 

[sptrawler]

There are a myriad of opinions:

The Tyranny of the Minority—and How to Prevent It - Areo

When the internet first became part of mainstream public life, one of the great hopes it seemed to hold up was that of an expansion of democracy. From now on,…View Post

areomagazine.com

The number of complainants can often be quite small. For centuries, theorists have worried about the potential of unrestrained democracy to lead to a tyranny of the majority, in which majority groups ride roughshod over the rights of minorities. What we often see today is instead a kind of tyranny of the minority: a system in which a particularly extreme and motivated fraction of the populace can wield outsized power in the face of a majority which is either too indifferent or too scared to oppose it.

The claims of the activist minority often draw much of their strength from a tacit assumption that they represent a far larger body of opinion. Complaints about cultural appropriation, for example, rely on the usually unchallenged idea that one representative of a group can speak for all or most of that group.
But the question of how many people the complainants actually have on their side is even more fundamental than that. That’s because numbers are the only thing that can ultimately adjudicate one of the key principles of liberalism: the harm principle, formulated by J. S. Mill. Put simply, the harm principle states that we should all be able to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. As generations of Mill’s critics have pointed out, what counts as harm is often a matter of interpretation.

What other things might help us get a better sense of what people are really thinking? One crucial issue for pollsters is sampling: that is, making sure that they get information from as broad and representative a cross-section of society as possible. They need to do that to get a sense of what the average person is thinking, not just the small sub-set of people who are particularly motivated to speak up on a particular issue. Self-selected polls, which rely on people coming forward, are widely seen as junk for precisely this reason. The people who step forward voluntarily may well have a heartfelt view to express, but they may also make up only a tiny fraction of the population.

There are very good reasons why we make decisions based purely on how many people like a certain option, not on how strongly its supporters feel about it. With one person one vote, there’s no possibility that anyone will be able to get more power than anybody else (at least as far as the vote is concerned)..

 

[sptrawler]

Not really.

Aboriginals are citizens of this country like anyone else. The principle foundation of democracy is that all citizens have the same rights under the Constitution. "Violation of rights" occurs when some want more rights than others.

Which was the very premise for the same sex marriage argument( they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples) and now those most vocal to uphold that principle, are those most vocal to argue against it.
Funny that.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I may have to think about this.

Kamal has switched again.




It does my brain in when one of Australia's foremost intellectuals says he will vote No one week, then Yes the next and this week switches again back

gg

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I may have to think about this.

Kamal has switched again.

View attachment 162903


It does my brain in when one of Australia's foremost intellectuals says he will vote No one week, then Yes the next and this week switches again back

gg

At least Albo is inconsistent .



Albo is going to lose more than skin over the voice. I have directed my cousins within the Federal ALP to be prepared.

gg

oh dear, what will Albo do now. Kamal says No.

gg

 

[IFocus]

Though this was an interesting take on the equality thing

Van Badham
22h ·
Let me tell you a story about two Australian families, and a house. One of the families is mine.
Get comfortable, it’s a twisty tale - and I’ll tell it as truthfully as I know it, as all the people I talk about in my own story are dead and, alas, can’t interrupt to correct me.
My mother’s side of the family originates from County Kerry, and the west coast of Ireland. They were Catholic, they were poor, they spoke Irish, not English - and because of centuries of British colonialism that had at one point stripped Irish Catholics of the right to own land, they had no property.
With so few prospects in the old country, my mother’s grandfather sought opportunity in a new one; he emigrated to Australia in 1908.
He got work as a sheep-shearer, which was hard and dirty and brutal. His young wife travelled with him, and my grandmother and her four siblings were all born in different places as the family travelled with him from sheep station to sheep station.
It was an unsustainable life, and the family of seven eventually moved back to Sydney, where there was an established Irish community in the inner city suburbs of Surry Hills, Newtown and Erskineville. These places are fancy now, but they used to be poor and rough. As far as I know, my grandmother and all her siblings were out of school and all working by the age of 14.
My grandmother found work as a retail assistant in a department store in Newtown, which is where she met my grandfather - another Irish Catholic boy from the community (and reputedly great fun at a party) who was also a retail assistant there.
The Depression hit, and retail work was suddenly unstable. My grandmother’s brothers went “on the wallaby” (although my family never used that term), going out to the Riverina to live as cheaply as possible off the land and take whatever work was on offer. My grandfather did whatever he had to do and took whatever work he could.
Australia hadn’t quite recovered from the Depression when World War II broke out. My grandfather deployed in the infantry and was gone for years. He never talked to the family about what he saw in active service, but late in life he did one day make a pile in the backyard of his old uniform, medals and war stuff, set it on fire and burn it to ash, which says much.
But what my grandfather and family did receive from his war service was a life-changing act of government policy.
The “War Service Homes” scheme provided veterans with the opportunity of low-cost government home loans with low insurance costs - which enabled my scrappy little working-class Catholic family to finally - finally - own property.
The house they built was barely more than a fibro shack on the grey sand of what was then an outer suburb of Sydney, but it transformed our fortunes. The whole family worked to pay off that loan - my mother left school at 15 - but the permanence of that house meant there was now always a roof over people’s heads whether they were in work or out of it, a place for them to go if their relationships went bad and they needed to get out of them, somewhere to rest if they got sick. Somewhere to be cared for and die when they got old.
All of this took financial strains off our family and enabled other opportunities. As my cousins and I got older, we pursued further education. One of my cousins moved in with our Nanna and studied, from that house, for her university degree.
With the help of that single housing asset, our family went from immigrant, itinerant shearers to University educated in three generations.
Many immigrant Australian families have similar stories of opportunity and transformation…
… But many Aboriginal Australian families don’t.
I told the story of the little fibro house and its role in our family’s class transition on a panel a few years ago. One of the other panellists was a Murri woman from Queensland.
Her family were also working class, and had also weathered the Depression at the rough end. Her grandfather had also served in WW2, and was a veteran like my own, bearing the same, unspoken witness to those unimaginable events.
But her grandfather wasn’t offered a loan for a “War Service Home” - because he was Aboriginal Australian, and Aboriginal Australian veterans were excluded from the scheme. And from the 1940s on - while my family were slowly building some intergenerational wealth with a cheap house subsidised by the government - her family couldn’t even get access to a commercial bank loan. Many families were not even able to open bank accounts, merely because they were Aboriginal Australians.
Remember - the referendum to confer Australian citizenship rights on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians may have passed in 1967… but it took until 1975 for the Racial Discrimination Act to make discrimination illegal.
It’s mind-boggling: in 1974, the year I was born, racial discrimination was still LEGAL in Australia.
So, consider - before you even take in the dispossession of Aboriginal Australians from their land, the stealing of children, the racism, violence and abuse - at the key point in the economic and social trajectory of two Australian families, one single policy decision to discriminate against her family and benefit mine structuralised an ongoing inequality.
Yep, this woman and I sit on the same panels in a society that finally acknowledges our equality through the law… but her family has not had equal opportunities to mine. Her parents died far younger than mine did. Her entire community lives in the legacy of chaos and trauma and hardship provoked by those unequal conditions. She has had a harder fight than I did to get to the same place. And Aboriginal Australian children born today still have that harder fight ahead of them because those old, structural inequalities still - still - have not been redressed.
Material reality doesn’t go away just because our social attitudes change.
No one should be obliged to live life on a higher difficulty setting because they are born an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Australian. It is morally nonsensical and it actively weakens us as a nation. We should ALL be thriving.
It’s been really hard this week seeing the amount of “no” comments from people who insist that they are opposed to the “Voice” claiming they believe in “equality”.
Politely, if you decide to ignore the existence of unequal experiences, unequal opportunities and unequal material realities in front of you, you are helping to perpetuate all of them.
All that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are asking for is the capacity to “make representations” to government, so that we as a whole Australia can have a meaningful conversation about how our shared trajectories as a people can finally be made fair.
That is what the Voice to parliament is, and that is why I am voting for it.
If you believe that Australia should be a nation of opportunity for all its citizens, I hope that you do, too.
Vote YES
https://www.facebook.com/ThatVanBadham

 

[JohnDe]

Though this was an interesting take on the equality thing

Van Badham
22h ·
Let me tell you a story about two Australian families, and a house. One of the families is mine.
Get comfortable, it’s a twisty tale - and I’ll tell it as truthfully as I know it, as all the people I talk about in my own story are dead and, alas, can’t interrupt to correct me.
My mother’s side of the family originates from County Kerry, and the west coast of Ireland. They were Catholic, they were poor, they spoke Irish, not English - and because of centuries of British colonialism that had at one point stripped Irish Catholics of the right to own land, they had no property.
With so few prospects in the old country, my mother’s grandfather sought opportunity in a new one; he emigrated to Australia in 1908.
He got work as a sheep-shearer, which was hard and dirty and brutal. His young wife travelled with him, and my grandmother and her four siblings were all born in different places as the family travelled with him from sheep station to sheep station.
It was an unsustainable life, and the family of seven eventually moved back to Sydney, where there was an established Irish community in the inner city suburbs of Surry Hills, Newtown and Erskineville. These places are fancy now, but they used to be poor and rough. As far as I know, my grandmother and all her siblings were out of school and all working by the age of 14.
My grandmother found work as a retail assistant in a department store in Newtown, which is where she met my grandfather - another Irish Catholic boy from the community (and reputedly great fun at a party) who was also a retail assistant there.
The Depression hit, and retail work was suddenly unstable. My grandmother’s brothers went “on the wallaby” (although my family never used that term), going out to the Riverina to live as cheaply as possible off the land and take whatever work was on offer. My grandfather did whatever he had to do and took whatever work he could.
Australia hadn’t quite recovered from the Depression when World War II broke out. My grandfather deployed in the infantry and was gone for years. He never talked to the family about what he saw in active service, but late in life he did one day make a pile in the backyard of his old uniform, medals and war stuff, set it on fire and burn it to ash, which says much.
But what my grandfather and family did receive from his war service was a life-changing act of government policy.
The “War Service Homes” scheme provided veterans with the opportunity of low-cost government home loans with low insurance costs - which enabled my scrappy little working-class Catholic family to finally - finally - own property.
The house they built was barely more than a fibro shack on the grey sand of what was then an outer suburb of Sydney, but it transformed our fortunes. The whole family worked to pay off that loan - my mother left school at 15 - but the permanence of that house meant there was now always a roof over people’s heads whether they were in work or out of it, a place for them to go if their relationships went bad and they needed to get out of them, somewhere to rest if they got sick. Somewhere to be cared for and die when they got old.
All of this took financial strains off our family and enabled other opportunities. As my cousins and I got older, we pursued further education. One of my cousins moved in with our Nanna and studied, from that house, for her university degree.
With the help of that single housing asset, our family went from immigrant, itinerant shearers to University educated in three generations.
Many immigrant Australian families have similar stories of opportunity and transformation…
… But many Aboriginal Australian families don’t.
I told the story of the little fibro house and its role in our family’s class transition on a panel a few years ago. One of the other panellists was a Murri woman from Queensland.
Her family were also working class, and had also weathered the Depression at the rough end. Her grandfather had also served in WW2, and was a veteran like my own, bearing the same, unspoken witness to those unimaginable events.
But her grandfather wasn’t offered a loan for a “War Service Home” - because he was Aboriginal Australian, and Aboriginal Australian veterans were excluded from the scheme. And from the 1940s on - while my family were slowly building some intergenerational wealth with a cheap house subsidised by the government - her family couldn’t even get access to a commercial bank loan. Many families were not even able to open bank accounts, merely because they were Aboriginal Australians.
Remember - the referendum to confer Australian citizenship rights on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians may have passed in 1967… but it took until 1975 for the Racial Discrimination Act to make discrimination illegal.
It’s mind-boggling: in 1974, the year I was born, racial discrimination was still LEGAL in Australia.
So, consider - before you even take in the dispossession of Aboriginal Australians from their land, the stealing of children, the racism, violence and abuse - at the key point in the economic and social trajectory of two Australian families, one single policy decision to discriminate against her family and benefit mine structuralised an ongoing inequality.
Yep, this woman and I sit on the same panels in a society that finally acknowledges our equality through the law… but her family has not had equal opportunities to mine. Her parents died far younger than mine did. Her entire community lives in the legacy of chaos and trauma and hardship provoked by those unequal conditions. She has had a harder fight than I did to get to the same place. And Aboriginal Australian children born today still have that harder fight ahead of them because those old, structural inequalities still - still - have not been redressed.
Material reality doesn’t go away just because our social attitudes change.
No one should be obliged to live life on a higher difficulty setting because they are born an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Australian. It is morally nonsensical and it actively weakens us as a nation. We should ALL be thriving.
It’s been really hard this week seeing the amount of “no” comments from people who insist that they are opposed to the “Voice” claiming they believe in “equality”.
Politely, if you decide to ignore the existence of unequal experiences, unequal opportunities and unequal material realities in front of you, you are helping to perpetuate all of them.
All that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are asking for is the capacity to “make representations” to government, so that we as a whole Australia can have a meaningful conversation about how our shared trajectories as a people can finally be made fair.
That is what the Voice to parliament is, and that is why I am voting for it.
If you believe that Australia should be a nation of opportunity for all its citizens, I hope that you do, too.
Vote YES
https://www.facebook.com/ThatVanBadham

How to be cancelled twice

Lightning doesn’t strike twice … but the culture police do. The Australian’s senior arts writer Rosemary Neill has been cancelled twice in a matter of weeks, partly because she dared to contribute to her colleague Greg Bearup’s long-running investigation of claims of white interference in Indigenous art at the APY Art Centre Collective.
In July, The Weekend Australian’s culture section, Review, was invited to send a journalist on a press trip to Desert Mob, an important showcase for remote Indigenous art centres held annually in Alice Springs. Before the trip, Neill asked why the APYACC was not taking part in Desert Mob, while art centres closely associated with the controversial collective, were.

Desart boss Philip Watkins, which presents Desert Mob, responded: “Art centre members of Desart are eligible to enter Desert Mob. APYACC is not a member of Desart.’’ Watkins previously said he was “very concerned” about the allegations raised by The Australian’s “white hands on black art” investigation.

Then on August 15, publicist Kate Atkinson from the high-profile PR firm Articulate, emailed Neill, saying the offer for her to join Desert Mob press trip had been withdrawn, due to “resourcing issues’’. Atkinson said she was “not happy to be the messenger on this one’’. Neill asked whether other journalists joining the press trip had their invitations cancelled. Desert Mob has refused to answer this question.

On August 28, Neill, a Walkley Award winner who has reported on arts and Indigenous issues for three decades, was invited by Sydney’s Yavuz Gallery and Archibald Prize-winning Indigenous artist, Vincent Namatjira, to a media lunch to preview Namatjira’s new exhibition, Desert Songs.

Two weeks later, that invitation was also withdrawn, due to pressure from the Iwantja Arts centre in the remote APY Lands, which is affiliated with APYACC. Once again it fell to publicist Atkinson to deliver the awkward news. Atkinson wrote: “I have just received an email from Iwantja Arts centre, and I am sharing as following (sic) …

“Vincent and Iwantja will not work with Rosemary Neill or anybody from The Australian under any circumstances, sorry but she will have to be removed from the guest list. Rosemary Neill’s colleague Greg Bearup has written a number of articles that are (we believe wilfully) inaccurate and implicate Iwantja Arts in unethical practices and Rosemary Neill has co-written articles on this topic with Greg Bearup.’’

Atkinson added: “I want to express my hugest apologies here and hope you know that we are sorry for being the messenger in this unfortunate situation, and I realise twice, no less.’’

Neither Bearup nor Neill has mentioned Iwantja in their reports.

Namatjira, the great grandson of Albert Namatjira, father of the Aboriginal art movement, lives in the APY Lands community Indulkana, where the Iwantja Arts centre is located, and his works appear on Iwantja’s website. Other Iwantja artists mounted group exhibitions at APYACC galleries in Melbourne this month and in Sydney in 2022.

Alongside campaigning arts company Big hART, Neill drove a successful media campaign for the return of Albert Namatjira’s copyright to his descendants in 2017, after it had been held for decades by the non-Indigenous company Legend Press. The hand back of the historic copyright in 2017, and a subsequent compensation deal the Namatjira family won from the NT government, were described as “incredible” and “momentous’’.

Neill was nominated for another Walkley Award for her investigation into how the Namatjira family had been denied control of their famous ancestor’s legacy, while Bearup’s APYACC investigation has led to inquiries by the National Gallery of Australia and the South Australian government and to the APYACC being expelled from the regulatory Indigenous Art Code.

The NGA investigation cleared 28 APYACC paintings chosen for a major exhibition of improper interference. The APYACC has denied all allegations of wrongdoing, and its manager Skye O’Meara has refused to stand aside for the duration of the SA inquiry, despite calls from government ministers for her to do so.