The Voice

[rederob]

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.

You will never understand the issues as you are so full of excuses and misdirections it's comical.
Where is the data to show your points have merit?

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

Clearly you don't know what an own goal is!
Please explain how receiving "welfare" is some form of "advantage".
You don't appear aware of the contradiction!

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.

Who said they blame "someone else"?
People with addictions don't care about others!
And what has this got to do with the Voice?

 

[IFocus]

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.

Come on Rump the Gap Report is damming in regards to disadvantage as to cost maybe the Voice could help direct the money to where its needed eh instead of the top down approach now..

 

[SirRumpole]

Come on Rump the Gap Report is damming in regards to disadvantage as to cost maybe the Voice could help direct the money to where its needed eh instead of the top down approach now..

Yes it is, but you have to get down to the nitty gritty of personal responsibility as well.

That's why alcohol bans and cashless cards have to be introduced to protect people from themselves.

Maybe I'm coming around to McQuack's view that if they get a Voice there won't be any excuses any more.

 

[DaveTrade]

@rederob and @SirRumpole , you guys are debating about how these communities should be helped not if 'the voice' is or is not the best way to do it. You both make some good points about the problems and what could be done but it all comes down to the fact that yes there are problems in these communities but which approach would be the best way to address them. The labour approach of the Canberra Voice or the Liberal approach of local and regional bodies, I'm not 100% sure which is best so I'm hoping to hear what others think about it. I'm strongly in favour of helping Australians that are living in social situations that are having a negative impact on their way of life and I acknowledge that some Aboriginal communities have unique circumstances that may require special solutions to their problems, so lets help them. I am struggling with the yes option because I've always been strongly opposed to any form racism but maybe in some situations racism is ok? The other thing that I want to know more about before voting yes is what the impact, if any, will a yes vote have on constitutional law. The law courts always over-power politics and no matter what race we are, us humans are always corrupted by too much power. It would make it easier for a lot of people if they just took this bit out of yes vote, not as many people would worry about the racism aspect.

 

[rederob]

@rederob and @SirRumpole , you guys are debating about how these communities should be helped not if 'the voice' is or is not the best way to do it.

With respect, I have consistently said the Voice is an ATSI initiative that allows them an opportunity to solve issues which are often culturally unique.
There is really no such thing as an ATSI person as most mobs are different, and that's why a grass roots approach to solving issues is essential. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price expressed this best on Insiders yesterday.

I am struggling with the yes option because I've always been strongly opposed to any form racism but maybe in some situations racism is ok?

Can you please explain this.
The proposed change has no racial connotations as it merely recognises first inhabitants.

The other thing that I want to know more about before voting yes is what the impact, if any, will a yes vote have on constitutional law.

The answer is none. Laws are always interpreted and adjudicated.
Parliament will make it clear what the Voice is to do, and how it goes about its business. In fact, the proposed changes spell this role out for Parliament. Any High Court challenge will need to introduce something novel... something that has not been raised to date ... that has been overlooked. And even then it would be difficult to conceive how the intent could be different.

 

[DaveTrade]

And even then it would be difficult to conceive how the intent could be different.

Yes I know that the work 'intent' has power in the law, I still would like to hear what you just said coming from a lawyer.

 

[SirRumpole]

@rederob and @SirRumpole , you guys are debating about how these communities should be helped not if 'the voice' is or is not the best way to do it. You both make some good points about the problems and what could be done but it all comes down to the fact that yes there are problems in these communities but which approach would be the best way to address them. The labour approach of the Canberra Voice or the Liberal approach of local and regional bodies, I'm not 100% sure which is best so I'm hoping to hear what others think about it. I'm strongly in favour of helping Australians that are living in social situations that are having a negative impact on their way of life and I acknowledge that some Aboriginal communities have unique circumstances that may require special solutions to their problems, so lets help them. I am struggling with the yes option because I've always been strongly opposed to any form racism but maybe in some situations racism is ok? The other thing that I want to know more about before voting yes is what the impact, if any, will a yes vote have on constitutional law. The law courts always over-power politics and no matter what race we are, us humans are always corrupted by too much power. It would make it easier for a lot of people if they just took this bit out of yes vote, not as many people would worry about the racism aspect.

Hi Dave, thanks for your thoughtful response.

Yes, the best way to help is the issue. I have absolutely no objection to anyone having representative bodies, there are already bodies representing ATSI people, including Land Councils and the National Congress of Australian First People's. If these have made no difference, why will The Voice ?

 

[rederob]

Yes, the best way to help is the issue. I have absolutely no objection to anyone having representative bodies, there are already bodies representing ATSI people, including Land Councils and the National Congress of Australian First People's. If these have made no difference, why will The Voice ?

First, ATSI Land Councils have no role in representation.
Second, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples disappeared in 2019.
Third, had you read the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report you would have known the reasons for wanting a Voice.
The bottom line is that nearly every point you have raised has been addressed, often in great detail.

You must have run out of feet to shoot by now.

 

[IFocus]

Yes I know that the work 'intent' has power in the law, I still would like to hear what you just said coming from a lawyer.

Previous high court Justice Kenneth Hayne has stated the wording is fine also note his wife is also a high court justice would suggest better than a lawyer.

Also note those involved from the conservative side not happy with the wording (not all agree with this position) will still vote yes.

As for local representation that already exists through various structures but those local voices either don't get a say where it counts or are ignored by the governments of the day usually with no public explanation.

With the voice that will be much harder as the advice will be made public and have a higher level of scrutiny.

The Voice proposal isn't supported by a lot of activists noting it doesn't go anywhere near enough to address reconciliation and previous injustices by any standard its a very modest proposal.

 

[JohnDe]

Yes I know that the work 'intent' has power in the law, I still would like to hear what you just said coming from a lawyer.

It would be nice to hear from the Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General is the second law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia.​

​

The functions of the Solicitor-General under s 12 of the Law Officer's Act 1964 (Cth) are to act as counsel for the Commonwealth and its emanations, to furnish opinions on questions of law referred to him by the Attorney-General and to perform such other functions ordinarily performed by counsel as the Attorney requests.​

​

The Solicitor-General appears in most matters in the High Court of Australia involving the Commonwealth and its emanations and in select matters of importance in the intermediate appellate courts of Australia. The Solicitor-General has a wide practice, appearing in matters involving constitutional law, extradition, migration, native title, trade practices, taxation, corporations, customs, international arbitration and criminal law.​

​

The Solicitor-General will ordinarily appear as one of the counsel representing the Commonwealth in all matters before international judicial and arbitral tribunals.​

​

The Solicitor-General also provides a substantial number of legal opinions each year in Commonwealth matters.​

​

The Solicitor-General is assisted by two counsel assisting and also works in close collaboration with senior officers of the Attorney-General's Department, Australian Government Solicitor, other key departments and agencies and with leading counsel from the private bar.​

 

[SirRumpole]

Second, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples disappeared in 2019.

So it lasted 10 years , why ?

ATSIC was abolished because it was corrupt.

Why entrench forever bodies that are so incompetent ?

If there are going to be representative bodies they should have to justify their own existence by their performance not be guaranteed a gravy train by the Constitution.

 

[rederob]

So it lasted 10 years , why ?

Another excuse?
This has nothing to do with the Voice.

ATSIC was abolished because it was corrupt.

Another excuse?
This has nothing to do with the Voice.

Why entrench forever bodies that are so incompetent ?

You mean why do we have a Parliament!

If there are going to be representative bodies they should have to justify their own existence by their performance not be guaranteed a gravy train by the Constitution.

That's what Parliament will decide.
You still do not understand this topic.

Medic....

 

[greggles]

Why do we need to amend the Australian Constitution to have an indigenous voice in parliament? We can't we just introduce legislation that can later be modified if necessary or scrapped altogether if it doesn't work as intended?

I don't think there are many who would object to indigenous Australians having a voice about issues that affect them but amending the constitution seems to me to be unnecessary. This all seems like another tokenistic gesture to win votes.

 

[SirRumpole]

Another excuse?
This has nothing to do with the Voice.

Another excuse?
This has nothing to do with the Voice.

You mean why do we have a Parliament!

That's what Parliament will decide.
You still do not understand this topic.

Medic....

That's right don't answer direct questions.

Not worth listening to.

 

[DaveTrade]

Previous high court Justice Kenneth Hayne has stated the wording is fine also note his wife is also a high court justice would suggest better than a lawyer.

Also note those involved from the conservative side not happy with the wording (not all agree with this position) will still vote yes.

As for local representation that already exists through various structures but those local voices either don't get a say where it counts or are ignored by the governments of the day usually with no public explanation.

With the voice that will be much harder as the advice will be made public and have a higher level of scrutiny.

The Voice proposal isn't supported by a lot of activists noting it doesn't go anywhere near enough to address reconciliation and previous injustices by any standard its a very modest proposal.

You've made some good points, thank you.

It would be nice to hear from the Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General is the second law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia.​

​

The functions of the Solicitor-General under s 12 of the Law Officer's Act 1964 (Cth) are to act as counsel for the Commonwealth and its emanations, to furnish opinions on questions of law referred to him by the Attorney-General and to perform such other functions ordinarily performed by counsel as the Attorney requests.​

​

The Solicitor-General appears in most matters in the High Court of Australia involving the Commonwealth and its emanations and in select matters of importance in the intermediate appellate courts of Australia. The Solicitor-General has a wide practice, appearing in matters involving constitutional law, extradition, migration, native title, trade practices, taxation, corporations, customs, international arbitration and criminal law.​

​

The Solicitor-General will ordinarily appear as one of the counsel representing the Commonwealth in all matters before international judicial and arbitral tribunals.​

​

The Solicitor-General also provides a substantial number of legal opinions each year in Commonwealth matters.​

​

The Solicitor-General is assisted by two counsel assisting and also works in close collaboration with senior officers of the Attorney-General's Department, Australian Government Solicitor, other key departments and agencies and with leading counsel from the private bar.​

Yes it would put many people at ease about this issue.

Why do we need to amend the Australian Constitution to have an indigenous voice in parliament? We can't we just introduce legislation that can later be modified if necessary or scrapped altogether if it doesn't work as intended?

I don't think there are many who would object to indigenous Australians having a voice about issues that affect them but amending the constitution seems to me to be unnecessary. This all seems like another tokenistic gesture to win votes.

Yes I've wondered why have they done it this way, why haven't they done it such a way that no one would have any doubts about what was happening.

Thanks for all your input, I'm feeling a little bit clearer about which way to vote but I would still like to hear more in the media from qualified people. When I hear people in the media making comments like 'you're a mug if you don't vote this way', it just makes me think that I don't want be like that person so maybe the right choose is the opposite to what they are saying.

 

[SirRumpole]

Warren Mundine eloquently presents the No case.

'No' campaign launches advertising campaign

Read the latest news headlines and in-depth analysis from an independent and trusted source. Check the latest news on business, sports, weather, and more.

www.abc.net.au

 

[DaveTrade]

Warren Mundine eloquently presents the No case.

'No' campaign launches advertising campaign

Read the latest news headlines and in-depth analysis from an independent and trusted source. Check the latest news on business, sports, weather, and more.

www.abc.net.au

He comes across as a genuine good bloke. He reminds me of my late uncle.

 

[rederob]

Why do we need to amend the Australian Constitution to have an indigenous voice in parliament?

Because it will otherwise go the way of those bodies that @SirRumpole mentioned, and he does not seem to know why.
Also, there was bipartisan support prior to Dutton, as it was recognised by all parties as the best way forward.

We can't we just introduce legislation that can later be modified if necessary or scrapped altogether if it doesn't work as intended?

Because that's repeating the failures of the past.
We need ongoing advice about ATSI issues that cannot be dumped at the whim of a Parliament on party political grounds.

I don't think there are many who would object to indigenous Australians having a voice about issues that affect them but amending the constitution seems to me to be unnecessary. This all seems like another tokenistic gesture to win votes.

Given that the Coalition was onboard until Dutton got in, it actually appears that he's hoping to win over bolted on conservative voters who don't give a toss about ATSI people. The issue of tokenism and every other point you raised was covered in the Report I linked and that few have read.

 

[SirRumpole]

Because it will otherwise go the way of those bodies that @SirRumpole mentioned, and he does not seem to know why.

Why don't you tell us ?

 

[rederob]

He comes across as a genuine good bloke. He reminds me of my late uncle.

Mundine says "the Voice is a step too far". Then much later (@3:30) he reiterated his point, but simply does not realise the Voice is nothing like he thinks.
He does not even know there is no overarching bureaucracy (@ 0:35) and that local voices will otherwise need to rely on the failed representation of the past. Furthermore, there is no "layer" over the top (@1:50 and afterwards) as he claims, and that's apart from exaggerated ideas about its cost.
His claims at 3:50 are outright lies.
His Twiggy Forrest example of a "voice" is based on existing legislation and actually has nothing to with what a Voice will set out to achieve.
Simply put, the interview showed Mundine to be ill informed and prone to dishonesty.