Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
Dutton with Price turns up in The Alice talking about child abuse (they learnt the facts from business owners and shop keepers) after doing the below...


https://www.snaicc.org.au/media-release-statement-from-snaicc-ceo-cather... “Mr Dutton was a member of the Abbott Cabinet that cut more than $500 million in funding to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services, and another nearly $80 million to Aboriginal and Child Family Centres that supported our vulnerable children and families.
 
IFocus said:
Dutton with Price turns up in The Alice talking about child abuse (they learnt the facts from business owners and shop keepers) after doing the below...


https://www.snaicc.org.au/media-release-statement-from-snaicc-ceo-cather... “Mr Dutton was a member of the Abbott Cabinet that cut more than $500 million in funding to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services, and another nearly $80 million to Aboriginal and Child Family Centres that supported our vulnerable children and families.
Click to expand...
Semantics and bulldust. I have/have had indigenous clients that work in this area of indigenous affairs and concur with Price et al
 
SirRumpole said:
Maybe because they commit more crimes ?
Click to expand...
I have yet to see you make a point that holds water.
Your lack of use of data, minimal knowledge of law, negligible understanding of the Voice, and ignorance of ATSI culture seem to contribute.

So let's just rebut your above point quickly:

As to incarceration, @DaveTrade got it right:
"... the role of the criminal justice system cannot be disentangled from the complex dynamics that sustain and compound high levels of disadvantage and in turn contribute directly to high levels of victimisation in many ATSI communities."​
SirRumpole said:
Rederob : "You clearly haven't read The Stolen Generations Report"
Click to expand...
I read it a long time ago, and it was actually titled "Bringing Them Home".
Many non-ATSI think that separation did a fair bit of good. But there is zero evidence that was the case:
"A national random survey of Indigenous people conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1994 allows us to compare further the life circumstances of the people who had been separated as children against those of the people raised by their families and communities. It shows no significant difference between the two groups with respect to their educational achievement."​
and:
"Similarly, the group removed from their families in childhood was no more likely to be employed. In fact there is a slight and non-significant tendency for this group to be less likely to be employed than people who were not removed."​
​
They were also less healthy:
1681627415152.png

And suffered significant sexual abuse from non-ATSI peoples:
1681627616434.png
​
A notable factor contributing to poor outcomes across the board was lack of ATSI involvement in almost every issue.
 
Sounds reasonable -

The parliamentary committee should require that the Solicitor-General provide advice on whether the voice could delay decisions of the public service. The committee should insist that the government publish the Solicitor-General’s advice. His advice should address questions such as:
  • Would the proposed amendment provide the voice with a constitutional entitlement to receive notice that a public servant was considering making an administrative decision relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples?
  • Would the voice then have a constitutional entitlement to receive sufficient information from the public servant about the proposed decision so as to make an informed representation?
  • What would constitute due consideration of any representation received?
  • Would the public service have a constitutional duty to inform the voice that they were about to consider some policy options for submission to their minister when those options could relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples? And how early in the development of policy options would the constitutional duty to inform come into play?
  • To what extent, if any, could any constitutional duty on the public service be modified or negated by parliament enacting a law under the proposed amendment which is specified to be “subject to this Constitution”?
  • Which Commonwealth agencies would be required to receive representations from the voice?
  • What limits might parliament set on representations from the voice to “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” (the Davis/Appleby list)?
Don’t let bureaucracy dismantle voice to parliament recognition of First Australians

The government has finally set up a Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum to receive public submissions on the proposed constitutional amendment on the voice.
As a non-Indigenous Australian with a long-time commitment to Indigenous rights, I am a passionate advocate for recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution.

There is no point in seeking constitutional recognition except in a form sought, desired and approved by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples themselves. That’s why I am a strong supporter of a constitutionally entrenched voice, that being the only mode of recognition acceptable to most of those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens who participated in the Uluru dialogues.

A successful referendum on this topic would be one that not only wins the necessary super majority of voters but one that also unites the country with an overwhelming and joyful vote for the recognition of the First Australians.

Process and wording matter if we are to get to Yes as resoundingly as possible. Given the lack of bipartisanship in the parliament, it is all the more necessary that the wording of the proposed constitutional change, in the words of the late Robert Ellicott KC, “contain no element of possible substantial confusion on legal or other grounds”.

Ever since the Uluru Statement from the Heart, it has been clear that there has been no point in pursuing any form of constitutional recognition unless it includes a voice to parliament. This was recommended in the final report of the Referendum Council in 2017. It might be noted that the council’s final report never mentioned “executive government”.

In my last article for Inquirer (25-6/2) I said, “The proposed change to the Constitution should be an accurate reflection of the recommendation made by the Referendum Council and as interpreted by Murray Gleeson – a member of that council and retired High Court chief justice, who spoke of a voice to parliament and not of a voice to parliament and executive government. Failing that condition, if the proposed change is to go beyond that, it should be approved by the parliament after consideration of a published legal opinion provided by the Solicitor-General.”

There is no doubt that the words proposed go well beyond the recommendation of the Referendum Council and as interpreted by Murray Gleeson in his 2019 speech. What’s proposed is a constitutionally entrenched voice with a constitutional entitlement to make representations to ministers and public servants as well as to parliament.

The voice will know what parliament is up to, and thus will be able to make representations. And the voice will know who the ministers are and will have a fair idea of what the ministers are up to within their portfolios.

But if the voice is kept in the dark about what thousands of public servants are up to in making administrative decisions impacting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons every day, then of course the voice will be able rightly to claim that it has been muffled or muted to the point of silence.

No one is seriously suggesting that it would be good enough just to leave it to the voice to discover if a public servant was about to make a decision, and that the voice’s ignorance of same would be a matter of supreme indifference to the courts.

If the voice has a constitutional entitlement to make representations to public servants, it will not be good enough to leave the voice in the dark, allowing them simply to make post facto complaints about administrative decisions that would be legally valid. The voice would need to know, ahead of time, what is going on in public service offices.

Representations to parliament considering new laws are one thing. Representations to ministers considering policies or practices, another. Representations to public servants making routine administrative decisions are an altogether different matter.

If the voice were simply a creation of statute, parliament could provide a statutory entitlement to make representations to public servants on administrative decisions relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons.

Such a wide-sweeping administrative law reform would be subject to legislative amendment should there be any unforeseen consequences or inordinate cost burdens bearing little substantive change to the quality of administrative decision making.

Executive government includes ministers and “other officers”, namely public servants. If parliament is wanting to maintain as much as possible of the proposed wording, I suggest the joint select committee consider using the familiar language of the Constitution and recommend that “the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Ministers of State of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

If there is a desire to include representations to commonwealth officers other than ministers, the parliamentary committee should seek advice from the Department of Social Services, the Department of Health and Aged Care, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the Department of Education and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

A comprehensive constitutional change to the system of public administration should be proposed to the Australian people only once competent advice has been provided to the parliamentary committee.

What is currently proposed is the creation of a constitutional entity (the voice) with a constitutional entitlement to make representations to public servants. The unresolved issue is determining the extent of the constitutional duty of public servants to ensure that the voice is adequately apprised of information to know that a decision is contemplated and of information sufficient to allow the voice to make a reasoned representation.

Professor Megan Davis (one of the drafters of the pre-Garma formula put to the 2018 joint committee) and her colleague Professor Gabrielle Appleby have outlined the scope of representations which might be made by the voice under the government’s proposed amendment:

“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.”

Downplaying the reach of the voice, some government members and sympathetic lawyers have suggested that the proposed amendment ensures that the parliament has full control over the voice.

Some have even suggested that parliament could restrict the class of representations or exclude certain public servants, departments or agencies from being required to receive representations or from being required to make any disclosure of intention to make a decision which might warrant a representation from the voice.

They have not refuted the Davis-Appleby position that “the parliament won’t be able to stop the voice making those representations”.

In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General said: “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 … The constitutional amendment confers no power on the voice to prevent, delay or veto decisions of the parliament or the executive government.”

We need to ensure that the bill as amended complies with those statements.

The parliamentary committee should require that the Solicitor-General provide advice on whether the voice could delay decisions of the public service. The committee should insist that the government publish the Solicitor-General’s advice. His advice should address questions such as:

● Would the proposed amendment provide the voice with a constitutional entitlement to receive notice that a public servant was considering making an administrative decision relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples?

● Would the voice then have a constitutional entitlement to receive sufficient information from the public servant about the proposed decision so as to make an informed representation?

● What would constitute due consideration of any representation received?

● Would the public service have a constitutional duty to inform the voice that they were about to consider some policy options for submission to their minister when those options could relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples? And how early in the development of policy options would the constitutional duty to inform come into play?

● To what extent, if any, could any constitutional duty on the public service be modified or negated by parliament enacting a law under the proposed amendment which is specified to be “subject to this Constitution”?

● Which Commonwealth agencies would be required to receive representations from the voice?

● What limits might parliament set on representations from the voice to “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” (the Davis/Appleby list)?

Having heard from the Solicitor-General and departmental heads, the parliamentary committee might think it sensible to recommend that voice representations be confined to parliament and ministers of state.

The two political questions for the government and the referendum working group are: why not establish the voice in the Constitution with a constitutional entitlement to make representations only to parliament and ministers?

And, given the bureaucratic difficulties, why die in a ditch over a constitutional entitlement to make representations to public servants?

Frank Brennan’s latest book is An Indigenous Voice to Parliament: Considering a Constitutional Bridge (Garratt Publishing, 2023).
Click to expand...
 
"A notable factor contributing to poor outcomes across the board was lack of ATSI involvement in almost every issue."

I was undecided but am for it now for this reason.
The Aboriginals don't get a day and lack trust.
People say why should they be treated specially, but other groups are treated specially e.g. the mining lobby, Gina Rhienhardt (I could tell you some stories) , the Pharmacy Guild and many more.

So I think its not a bad thing that Indigenous people, living in the bush, far away from the powers get the right to have a say on actions directly affecting them.
 
Knobby22 said:
"A notable factor contributing to poor outcomes across the board was lack of ATSI involvement in almost every issue."

I was undecided but am for it now for this reason.
The Aboriginals don't get a day and lack trust.
People say why should they be treated specially, but other groups are treated specially e.g. the mining lobby, Gina Rhienhardt (I could tell you some stories) , the Pharmacy Guild and many more.

So I think its not a bad thing that Indigenous people, living in the bush, far away from the powers get the right to have a say on actions directly affecting them.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it is about being "treated specially", the current discussion is more about whether there is unforeseen consequences caused by poor wording; "What is currently proposed is the creation of a constitutional entity (the voice) with a constitutional entitlement to make representations to public servants. The unresolved issue is determining the extent of the constitutional duty of public servants to ensure that the voice is adequately apprised of information to know that a decision is contemplated and of information sufficient to allow the voice to make a reasoned representation."
 
JohnDe said:
I don't think that it is about being "treated specially", the current discussion is more about whether there is unforeseen consequences caused by poor wording; "What is currently proposed is the creation of a constitutional entity (the voice) with a constitutional entitlement to make representations to public servants. The unresolved issue is determining the extent of the constitutional duty of public servants to ensure that the voice is adequately apprised of information to know that a decision is contemplated and of information sufficient to allow the voice to make a reasoned representation."
Click to expand...
Yes, which is why I made the post earlier. The High Court will act on the intention of the Referendum which is why, when it was introduced to Parliament a number of QCs wrote the words the minister said to make it crystal clear. The Government only has to listen, not act and is allowed to set up the Voice through Parliament in any format they wish.

That is why the high esteemed highly trained ex Liberal Shadow Attorney General Julian Leesor resigned from his position to actively support the Voice to his career detriment.

I think people have to have some faith that the Government and its advisers know what they are doing and question the counter campaign from what I see is generally poorly argued by non legal people based on the need to oppose change.
 
Knobby22 said:
Yes, which is why I made the post earlier. The High Court will act on the intention of the Referendum which is why, when it was introduced to Parliament a number of QCs wrote the words the minister said to make it crystal clear. The Government only has to listen, not act and is allowed to set up the Voice through Parliament in any format they wish.

That is why the high esteemed highly trained ex Liberal Shadow Attorney General Julian Leesor resigned from his position to actively support the Voice to his career detriment.

I think people have to have some faith that the Government and its advisers know what they are doing and question the counter campaign from what I see is generally poorly argued by non legal people based on the need to oppose change.
Click to expand...

Why won’t the government publish the Solicitor-General’s advice?
 
JohnDe said:
Why won’t the government publish the Solicitor-General’s advice?
Click to expand...
This post is from Sky News so there will be some trust from the fringe dwellers(not that you are) Worth a read.
www.google.com.au

Solicitor-general’s advice to be made public – PM

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says he expects the legal advice behind the proposed amendment to the constitution for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament will be made public.
www.google.com.au www.google.com.au
 
Knobby22 said:
This post is from Sky News so there will be some trust from the fringe dwellers(not that you are) Worth a read.
www.google.com.au

Solicitor-general’s advice to be made public – PM

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says he expects the legal advice behind the proposed amendment to the constitution for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament will be made public.
www.google.com.au www.google.com.au
Click to expand...
He "expects" the advice will be made public.

He can do it himself tomorrow if he wants, and release it ALL, unedited and unredacted.
 
Knobby22 said:
This post is from Sky News so there will be some trust from the fringe dwellers(not that you are) Worth a read.
www.google.com.au

Solicitor-general’s advice to be made public – PM

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says he expects the legal advice behind the proposed amendment to the constitution for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament will be made public.
www.google.com.au www.google.com.au
Click to expand...

“Expects”? Well when the information is released we can all make an informed decision, rather than using the opinions of others that suit our preconceptions.
 
SirRumpole said:
He "expects" the advice will be made public.

He can do it himself tomorrow if he wants, and release it ALL, unedited and unredacted.
Click to expand...

They potentially have a problem here, don't they. And why is he leaving it to the AG, if at all?

Also, in that piece from Sky he doesn't actually say he 'expects' it to be released. He says "make that position clear", which doesn't mean what he precisely advised in writing, but leaves it open.

“The solicitor-general’s views are very clear of support for this change – that it’s legally sound,” Mr Albanese said.

“And through the process we will be … he will, I’m sure, take the opportunity through the attorney general to make that position clear.”
Click to expand...
 
rederob said:
"... the role of the criminal justice system cannot be disentangled from the complex dynamics that sustain and compound high levels of disadvantage and in turn contribute directly to high levels of victimisation in many ATSI communities."
Click to expand...

Twice as much is spent on Aboriginal welfare per person than for the rest of society so the term 'disadvantage" is debatable.
 
rederob said:
Defn: disadvantaged
Not having the standard of living conditions, education, health, etc. that most people have.

That's two own goals in a row.
Click to expand...
Disadvantage is not unique to Aboriginal people. Charities like Salvos and Smith family are overwhelmed these days and most of their clients are not Aboriginal.

As you did not deny my previous claim about welfare payments I have to assume you cannot disprove it.

That's an own goal to you.

If people of any race take their welfare payments and use it for alcohol, drugs or gambling then blame someone else, then that's a problem for them to solve.
 

Similar threads

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