The Voice

[IFocus]

Numerous examples can be given of policies that affect Atsi people that also affect non Atsi people. In which case Atsi people get consulted and others don't. Why can't you see that ?

Rum, Haynes actually explains why that wont be the case in one of the articles I posted.

Re activists, god bless their soul, what they want (ambient claim's) and what can happen are not the same never has been never will be as long as courts and politicians are involved.

But their actions do allow commentators to create fear much seen here from some of the comments.

 

[Sean K]

Numerous examples can be given of policies that affect Atsi people that also affect non Atsi people. In which case Atsi people get consulted and others don't. Why can't you see that ?

Policy areas that they want to make representations to and be consulted on so far include:

Public Servants
The Reserve Bank
Centrelink
The Ombudsman
Climate
Laws
Conduct of elections
Criminal matters

But what else?

Defence?
Taxes - including property?
Education system?
Immigration?

Confirmed by Davis:

The voice will be able to speak to all parts of the government, including the cabinet, ministers, public servants, and independent statutory offices and agencies – such as the Reserve Bank, as well as a wide array of other agencies including, to name a few, Centrelink, the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority and the Ombudsman – on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This isn’t to be feared: as the Explanatory Memorandum says, the parliament will be able to set the procedure through which the voice’s representations are received, with the important caveat that the parliament won’t be able to stop the voice making those representations. It can’t shut the voice up.

It’s important that the voice speaks not just on matters that directly, or explicitly, affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but on matters that have an indirect but significant effect on them, so as to bring about the necessary connection.

This would include environmental and climate policies and laws, which, given First Nations’ connection to land and waters, have a particular significance for them. It would include matters relating to the conduct of elections, given the under-enrolment of First Nations people in our electoral system. It would include criminal matters, given the over-representation of First Nations in our criminal justice system.

This is not a 'modest' change to our legislation.

 

[rederob]

Numerous examples can be given of policies that affect Atsi people that also affect non Atsi people. In which case Atsi people get consulted and others don't. Why can't you see that ?

It is you who has it back to front and don't seem to have much of an idea about the Voice despite what is available to learn more.
And that's probably because you keep writing what you think rather than what is actually being proposed.
So unless you are talking about Acts that are specific to ATSI such as the NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993, then their inherent policies are generally broad brush and affect all citizens.

Your idea that "Atsi people get consulted and others don't" is a sad reflection of your lack of knowledge of policy making in Australia.
Then you have equally ill informed people such as @Sean K totally confusing how the Voice will operate, no doubt based on inept reporting from MSM. I repeat that the Voice is to be an independent advisory body that would be empowered to make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This does not include:

Public Servants​

The Reserve Bank​

Centrelink, or​

The Ombudsman.​

​

The crap being written about the Voice, aka "disinformation," and spread into social media is astonishing to read about.

 

[SirRumpole]

It is you who has it back to front and don't seem to have much of an idea about the Voice despite what is available to learn more.
And that's probably because you keep writing what you think rather than what is actually being proposed.
So unless you are talking about Acts that are specific to ATSI such as the NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993, then their inherent policies are generally broad brush and affect all citizens.

Your idea that "Atsi people get consulted and others don't" is a sad reflection of your lack of knowledge of policy making in Australia.
Then you have equally ill informed people such as @Sean K totally confusing how the Voice will operate, no doubt based on inept reporting from MSM. I repeat that the Voice is to be an independent advisory body that would be empowered to make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This does not include:

Public Servants​

The Reserve Bank​

Centrelink, or​

The Ombudsman.​

​

The crap being written about the Voice, aka "disinformation," and spread into social media is astonishing to read about.

Your views are out of step with people like Megan Davis, who I suggest is more likely to end up on The Voice than you are.

She reckons it should be able to talk about and be consulted on anything the Voice wants to be consulted on, backed with Constitutional Right to be consulted that no other lobby group has.

Ignore facts if you want to. You say you worked for ATSIC and that ended in a complete fiasco, I have no confidence that any replacement body would fare any better.

 

[rederob]

Your views are out of step with people like Megan Davis....

Completely untrue. I have read and listened to most of her commentary over the past year so I don't think you know what you are talking about.

She reckons it should be able to talk about and be consulted on anything the Voice wants to be consulted on, backed with Constitutional Right to be consulted that no other lobby group has.

Also untrue. You simply have failed to understand what the Voice allows - including what I have outlined by referenced links - and appear to have been sucked in by false social media attributions and poor MSM reporting.
For a start, it's Parliament who decides on how the Voice operates, and not the Constitution. It seems this fact has not sunk in!
Second, the Voice will be an elected body enshrined in the Constitution and not a lobby group.
Third, unlike promoting self-interests like lobby groups do, the Voice will be a body that advises on how policies can be tweaked to accommodate the specific needs of disparate ATSI groups.

Ignore facts if you want to. You say you worked for ATSIC and that ended in a complete fiasco, I have no confidence that any replacement body would fare any better.

You need to present facts. So far all you have done is present ill-informed opinions.
Again you, like many others, seem intent on voting "no" based on a poor understanding of the Voice and personal bias. And the thing here is that the Voice is what the ATSI people have put together themselves through a comprehensive consultative process, believing it provides them a better chance of achieving necessary changes to their circumstances that have consistently failed in the past. Little wonder first nations people remain in the poor predicament they are today!

 

[SirRumpole]

P

Completely untrue. I have read and listened to most of her commentary over the past year so I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Also untrue. You simply have failed to understand what the Voice allows - including what I have outlined by referenced links - and appear to have been sucked in by false social media attributions and poor MSM reporting.
For a start, it's Parliament who decides on how the Voice operates, and not the Constitution. It seems this fact has not sunk in!
Second, the Voice will be an elected body enshrined in the Constitution and not a lobby group.
Third, unlike promoting self-interests like lobby groups do, the Voice will be a body that advises on how policies can be tweaked to accommodate the specific needs of disparate ATSI groups.

You need to present facts. So far all you have done is present ill-informed opinions.
Again you, like many others, seem intent on voting "no" based on a poor understanding of the Voice and personal bias. And the thing here is that the Voice is what the ATSI people have put together themselves through a comprehensive consultative process, believing it provides them a better chance of achieving necessary changes to their circumstances that have consistently failed in the past. Little wonder first nations people remain in the poor predicament they are today!

The Voice can put submissions to government in the same way as any other representative body can, they don't need to be Constitutionally enshrined.

 

[Knobby22]

I learnt something today about how the High court works (Insiders).
When assessing a case they don't only look at the words, they also include the transcripts in Parliament of when the bill is introduced to get an understanding of what was intended.

So these words by Michael Dreyfus are very important:
There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

“The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

“The parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

The attorney-general said the provision would not impact the ordinary functioning of Australia’s democratic system but would enhance democracy.

THIS IS THE PARAGRAPH THAT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT


It will be a matter for the parliament to determine whether the executive government is under any obligation in relation to representations made by the voice,” he said

If you watch Insiders they talk about how the wording was chosen and just how important it is to get it right in a legal sense.

 

[SirRumpole]

“The parliament shall, subject to this constitution,

That is the fly in the ointment, the Constitution has the final say, and the High Court decides what the Constitution wants, not the politicians.

 

[rederob]

The Voice can put submissions to government in the same way as any other representative body can, they don't need to be Constitutionally enshrined.

That is a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the Voice and overlooks the many other aspects of what is being proposed.

That is the fly in the ointment, the Constitution has the final say, and the High Court decides what the Constitution wants, not the politicians.

The Constitution only outlines what there will be.
The Parliament will decide how the Voice operates, which in fact means politicians (as noted above by @Knobby22) are the arbiters of the powers of the Voice, which is the opposite of your claim.
You don't have a track record of understanding much about the Voice even after being informed, and appear to remain critical of it based on wilful ignorance. That seems to be a common theme here.

 

[SirRumpole]

That is a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the Voice and overlooks the many other aspects of what is being proposed.

The Constitution only outlines what there will be.
The Parliament will decide how the Voice operates, which in fact means politicians (as noted above by @Knobby22) are the arbiters of the powers of the Voice, which is the opposite of your claim.
You don't have a track record of understanding much about the Voice even after being informed, and appear to remain critical of it based on wilful ignorance. That seems to be a common theme here.

What do the words "subject to this Constitution" mean to you ?

 

[rederob]

What do the words "subject to this Constitution" mean to you ?

I think you need to learn what it means as I know and it has nothing to do with anything you have claimed to date.
If you have a point then make it clearly, rather than hide it in a sense that you do not understand.

 

[SirRumpole]

I think you need to learn what it means as I know and it has nothing to do with anything you have claimed to date.
If you have a point then make it clearly, rather than hide it in a sense that you do not understand.

huh, simple question that you cannot answer.

Your bad.

 

[Knobby22]

That is the fly in the ointment, the Constitution has the final say, and the High Court decides what the Constitution wants, not the politicians.

"It will be a matter for the parliament to determine whether the executive government is under any obligation in relation to representations made by the voice,” he said.

This is what the High Court has to follow. The High Court has to follow the intent of the people making the Constitutional change. which is what the High Court does now. If you watch Insiders you will get a better understanding as I am probably not making it clear. there are other sentences also that also make the intent clear and the wording is carefully chosen by top constitutional lawyers.

That doesn't mean you should support it, what it does mean though that some of the arguments are clearly just white anting.

Sky News is doing this as usual, Dutton is forced to go along with it to keep party solidarity but if I could have a bet, I think this is what is going to happen Federally.

Dutton will white ant to the last weeks.
He will then say Libs will vote according to conscience.
He will then vote for the Voice and desperately hope he doesn't get blamed for it failing (and lower the Lib vote even more).

 

[rederob]

huh, simple question that you cannot answer.

Your bad.

It's a question that should not be asked given the info in this thread, and publically available.
You keep demonstrating a wilful ignorance of the purpose and intent of the Voice and the Amendment that is proposed.
Also, if you had a clue about laws - or the English language for that matter - then you would know that "subject to" means that other laws have powers that cannot be overridden as in this case the Constitution outlines various powers that Parliament cannot change as they are already enshrined.

 

[Macquack]

I intend to vote yes, but I was not to enthused about the South Australian government jumping the gun and introducing a state based First Nation's Voice. First thing I thought is, that will potentially damage the "Yes" Voice campaign. If I was Joe Average living in South Australia, I am thinking why are we having a referendum for the Voice when we just got a state Voice without a vote. Drawing a long bow, will there need to be a Voice at the local government level as well? Just saying, the South Australian government may have unintentionally muddied the waters and sabotaged the Yes vote.

 

[mullokintyre]

"It will be a matter for the parliament to determine whether the executive government is under any obligation in relation to representations made by the voice,” he said.

This is what the High Court has to follow. The High Court has to follow the intent of the people making the Constitutional change. which is what the High Court does now. If you watch Insiders you will get a better understanding as I am probably not making it clear. there are other sentences also that also make the intent clear and the wording is carefully chosen by top constitutional lawyers.

The problem is, the high court does not always follow the intent, unless one reinvents the intent.
The Sykes V Cleary argument that determined that dual citizens could not sit in the house of reps or the senate.
The 1999 case Sue Vs Hill , the high court reaffirmed the earlier decisions, but added the specific condition that dual citizens of Britain were included in the ban.

In 1999, the High Court decided the case of Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462, a case which involved a Senator who held both Australian and British citizenship at the time of her nomination. In handing down its decision, the High Court not only affirmed the decision of Sykes v Cleary, it also extended the definition of “foreign power” to include Britain. This was a significant development, because by extending the definition of “foreign power” in this way, the High Court effectively set a precedent declaring the whole of the United Kingdom to be a “foreign power” for the purposes of Section 44(i) of the Constitution.

At the time of the enactment of the constitution, the concept of Britain being a "foreign Power", would have been laughable. The majority of its inhabitants would have been of British descent, and the fact that conte,mporary inhabitants referred to britain as 'mother England' shows a level of deference to the old country. There were final appeals to the Privvy council , royal ascent for bills, etc etc.
So the concept of Britain being a foreign power was a significant departure from the previous norms for the High Court.
Its not to say that the high may or may not have been wrong, I think most citizens at that stage would have agreed with the courts decision, which would have been considered heresy or worse in 1900.
In the case of Rex Vs Love, the high court determined that there was some sort metaphysical Aboriginality.
Two menwho were horn other countries, one in New zealand and one in PNG, were deported under the then fed laws that says if you are born in another country and comitted a certain level of crime, you could be deported, as many were. The legislation did not distinguish between any countries or ethnic groups.
The high court found that despite both men having permanent residency visas issued to them as a result of being both born in Foreign Countries, the aboriginality of their case overode the parliamentary decision making. This was note adhering to original intent of the law, nor was it trying to follow the intent of orignal founders of the constitution.
In this case, the high court clearly made a decision that did not go with the prevailing governments intentions, as the government of the day refused to cancel the deportation of one of them.
Whether these cases are morally right is not the issue, its the occasional departure from previous practice that gives some people (including me), a level of concern.
It is the reason why I have asked on many occasions why the whole voice concept could not have been already instituted under the law, without any recourse to the constitution.
I have yet to receive any cogent answer apart from commie Rob who accuses anyone who questions his elitist knowitall attitude as not understanding.
Society needs to, and will evolve.
Not sure this is the best way to go about it.
mick

 

[SirRumpole]

It is the reason why I have asked on many occasions why the whole voice concept could not have been already instituted under the law, without any recourse to the constitution.

That is my view too.

 

[wayneL]

Ideology vs reality

 

[Knobby22]

Ideology vs reality

I agree, it won't. That's why he has been pushing a treaty since 2014.

Mundine calls for Indigenous treaties

The PM's key adviser on Indigenous affairs wants the federal government to negotiate a series of treaties with Indigenous groups.

www.sbs.com.au

 

[wayneL]

I agree, it won't. That's why he has been pushing a treaty since 2014.

Mundine calls for Indigenous treaties

The PM's key adviser on Indigenous affairs wants the federal government to negotiate a series of treaties with Indigenous groups.

www.sbs.com.au

And how will a treaty fix that problem?