The Voice

[JohnDe]

I understand what Mark Dreyfus is saying, in that it is not normal for governments to reveal the Solicitor-General's advice. However, surely something so important as the coming referendum requires that the Australian public have all the information if front of them.

After all, the Solicitor-General's advice on this is not a national security issue, and there is precedent of governments releasing information when the information suites their agenda.

This sets of alarm bells. Trust us, we know what we are doing, and it is good for you, but I can't tell you all the details.

I reckon that the government will release the Solicitor-General's report, or part of, before the referendum.

 

[rederob]

I understand what Mark Dreyfus is saying, in that it is not normal for governments to reveal the Solicitor-General's advice. However, surely something so important as the coming referendum requires that the Australian public have all the information if front of them.

We have the words and they are the best that legal authorities can present at this point in time. But as Dreyfus said, the ongoing process has led to minor changes, and the process has not yet ended.

This sets of alarm bells. Trust us, we know what we are doing, and it is good for you, but I can't tell you all the details.

Actually you would be trusting the best legal minds in Australia.
And in any case, you would only be receiving an input into the drafting process which, as noted by Dreyfus, is not over yet.

I reckon that the government will release the Solicitor-General's report, or part of, before the referendum.

Is there a report? The SG's opinion is usually just a memorandum in confidence to the AG.

In the case of Morrison's deceit, a formal inquiry into his actions and the Solicitor General's opinions were necessary for a report to Government. The intention from the outset was to make this public.

 

[SirRumpole]

In the case of Morrison's deceit, a formal inquiry into his actions and the Solicitor General's opinions were necessary for a report to Government. The intention from the outset was to make this public.

Morrison's deceit more important than changing the Constitution ?

I think not.

 

[sptrawler]

In the case of Morrison's deceit, a formal inquiry into his actions and the Solicitor General's opinions were necessary for a report to Government. The intention from the outset was to make this public.

Morrison's deceit more important than changing the Constitution ?

I think not.

Absolutely, if someone can adopt an objective perspective, how much difference is there between the way Morrison ran his Government and the way Daniel Andrews runs his, not much IMO. They do what is required due to lack of talent beneath them, as has been shown since Morrison stood down from the leadership.
Andrews obviously runs a similar ship, it is just that the media and the Victorian public are fine with it, so be it that is their right.
But neither Daniel Andrews or Scott Morrison's opinions are enshrined in our constitution, they are decided by the public at an election, then life moves on.
What if anything, is a voice to Parliament going to do for the aboriginals, that isn't already or hasn't already been done? Therefore why is it necessary.
It may be nice and it may give some political people mileage, but why is it required, when we are demanding inclusiveness, acceptance and unity.
It actually portrays a divide IMO, but that is only my opinion, why does the aboriginal sector require a constitutional voice to Parliament more so than the gay and homosexual community, or the deaf and blind community or refugee community, they also have social, cultural and economic issues that leave them disadvantaged.

It really sounds to me like we are telling the aboriginal community that they are special needs and I don't think that is the way forward into the 21st century, IMO we would be far better employed working out how to integrate into one nation the U.K seems to be managing it.

I mean really what are we saying that aboriginals need a special voice, because they can't cope and need special dispensation? From what I've heard and I haven't heard her much, but Jacinta Price, Mundine and Thorpe don't seem to have any trouble with speaking their minds.

Maybe we just need to be a bit more proactive and stop treating aboriginals as victims and start and address their unique problems, which is jobs and education in remote areas, but then again that would require us to be less Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra focused wouldn't it? Far easier to just give them a nice recognition, priceless. ?

 

[rederob]

In the case of Morrison's deceit, a formal inquiry into his actions and the Solicitor General's opinions were necessary for a report to Government. The intention from the outset was to make this public.

Morrison's deceit more important than changing the Constitution ?

I think not.

That's called a straw man argument.

Morrison secretly gave himself ministries, without his corresponding ministers knowing it was carried out. And he kept this information from all his ministers throughout his term as PM and was not even contrite when it all came out. I cannot recall a greater abuse of executive authority since Whitlam's sacking.

 

[rederob]

What if anything, is a voice to Parliament going to do for the aboriginals, that isn't already or hasn't already been done?

If you mean not much has been done, given that was the motivation for the Voice, then there is a large gap to be closed!

It may be nice and it may give some political people mileage, but why is it required, when we are demanding inclusiveness, acceptance and unity.

Given the Voice does not affect those aspects of society your bark is on the wrong tree.

It actually portrays a divide IMO, but that is only my opinion,

How can the divide of ATSI disadvantage be worse with a Voice. Have you thought your ideas through?

why does the aboriginal sector require a constitutional voice to Parliament more so than the gay and homosexual community, or the deaf and blind community or refugee community, they also have social, cultural and economic issues that leave them disadvantaged.

You seem to have missed the part where those other sector's concerns have been addressed.

It really sounds to me like we are telling the aboriginal community that they are special needs and I don't think that is the way forward into the 21st century,

You should get acquainted with the levels of ATSI disadvantage that already places them in a special category of need. There is not a single socio-economic metric where ATSI people get close to the non-indigenous average.

I mean really what are we saying that aboriginals need a special voice, because they can't cope and need special dispensation? From what I've heard and I haven't heard her much, but Jacinta Price, Mundine and Thorpe don't seem to have any trouble with speaking their minds.

Have you read the rationale for the Voice and how it is intended to operate?
It's about grass roots input into ATSI policy in the main, with a mechanism that coordinates, researches, costs and prioritises issues of concern. Price and Mundine cannot explain how my points are carried out if a no vote succeeds. In fact, they seem unaware they are needed in the policy making process.

Maybe we just need to be a bit more proactive and stop treating aboriginals as victims and start and address their unique problems, which is jobs and education in remote areas, but then again that would require us to be less Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra focused wouldn't it? Far easier to just give them a nice recognition, priceless. ?

That sentence sums up exactly why the Voice is needed. We think we know better!

 

[SirRumpole]

That's called a straw man argument.

Morrison secretly gave himself ministries, without his corresponding ministers knowing it was carried out. And he kept this information from all his ministers throughout his term as PM and was not even contrite when it all came out. I cannot recall a greater abuse of executive authority since Whitlam's sacking.

If you really think the SG's advice backs your side why are you so keen for it to remain secret ?

You should be on the phone to Albo begging him to release it !

 

[sptrawler]

If you mean not much has been done, given that was the motivation for the Voice, then there is a large gap to be closed!

So reinvent the wheel and go through the same process again? whether it is in the constitution or in a comic the actual assistance initiatives have been done endlessly, or will a new obligation change the options available? I don't think so.

Given the Voice does not affect those aspects of society your bark is on the wrong tree.

I would have thought it would have to include those aspects, or it wouldn't be acceptable.

How can the divide of ATSI disadvantage be worse with a Voice. Have you thought your ideas through?

More the question is, how can it be better, that seems to be the main issue. Have you thought how it will improve the existing modus operandi.

You seem to have missed the part where those other sector's concerns have been addressed.

As have the aboriginal issues been identified, adding a token gesture and another level of nonesense wont change the issues, it isn't a magic wand telling them that they can say what's wrong, when it has been obvious for long time.

You should get acquainted with the levels of ATSI disadvantage that already places them in a special category of need. There is not a single socio-economic metric where ATSI people get close to the non-indigenous average.

Which has been noted and as I said above everyone has been aware of for a long time, so saying it again in someway makes it better?

Have you read the rationale for the Voice and how it is intended to operate?
It's about grass roots input into ATSI policy in the main, with a mechanism that coordinates, researches, costs and prioritises issues of concern. Price and Mundine cannot explain how my points are carried out if a no vote succeeds. In fact, they seem unaware they are needed in the policy making process.

You make it sound as though no one has been aware of the issue, before the latest fanfare, I've only been in Australia for nearly 60 years and I've been aware of the issues since I came here.
To say that we have all of a sudden become enlightened and we need to hear the issue is a bit naive IMO.

That sentence sums up exactly why the Voice is needed. We think we know better!

We don't know better and telling them that they haven't been heard is nonsense, trying to say that a token gesture will change their fortunes is condescending IMO and believing it will change their fortunes borders on cult mentality. ?

 

[rederob]

If you really think the SG's advice backs your side why are you so keen for it to remain secret ?

I don't have a "side", and nor have I said I am keen for the advice to be secret, so stop your nonsense.
Dreyfus explained the nature of an SG's opinions and that it's a policy of government's of any persuasion not to make such info public.
Your inability to mount a case with anything but excuses keeps shining here.

You should be on the phone to Albo begging him to release it !

Most people who understand the proposed wording have moved well beyond your baseless concerns.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't have a "side", and nor have I said I am keen for the advice to be secret, so stop your nonsense.

That wasn't my understanding.

Anyone reading your previous posts would come to the conclusion that you didn't want the advice released, a 'distraction' you called it.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't have a "side",

Pull the other one.

 

[rederob]

So reinvent the wheel and go through the same process again? whether it is in the constitution or in a comic the actual assistance initiatives have been done endlessly, or will a new obligation change the options available? I don't think so.

You missed the part about grass roots solutions not being fed into policy in the past, so your point fails that test.

I would have thought it would have to include those aspects, or it wouldn't be acceptable.

I can't comment when people read into things that don't exist.

More the question is, how can it be better, that seems to be the main issue. Have you thought how it will improve the existing modus operandi.

see my first point, above.

As have the aboriginal issues been identified, adding a token gesture and another level of nonesense wont change the issues, it isn't a magic wand telling them that they can say what's wrong, when it has been obvious for long time.

You keep shooting blanks. Closing the Gap has identified the key disadvantages of ATSI people, and institutional responses - not "token gestures" - to date have not been especially effective. So ATSI people have said they have a way they think will work and it is different.

To say that we have all of a sudden become enlightened and we need to hear the issue is a bit naive IMO.

Given nobody promoting the Voice thinks that way, one needs to question where naivety lies.

We don't know better and telling them that they haven't been heard is nonsense,

You only need to look at what Dutton did when he visited Alice Springs recently if you believe that. I challenge you to name the ATSI bodies he visited and the outcomes of those visits. If your comment is credible then this will be easy for you.

trying to say that a token gesture will change their fortunes is condescending IMO and believing it will change their fortunes borders on cult mentality. ?

If ATSI people are proposing their own solutions, then policy ideas from the Voice cannot be "token gestures". You have to stop thinking like a white fella and give back to ATSI people a capacity to help themselves. The cult mentality you mention is actually the institutionalised failures of the past that need to be wiped away.

 

[rederob]

That wasn't my understanding.

I have consistently dispelled the lies, deceit and misinformation about the Voice coming from various quarters. Your contributions have been so off the mark it's amazing you are able to form a position on the Voice that it relevant to what the Voice is about.

Anyone reading your previous posts would come to the conclusion that you didn't want the advice released, a 'distraction' you called it.

That's another straw man. I just explained what happens with SG's opinions and you have completely misconstrued that reality.
You refuse to accept the obvious position that what the SG has provided is part of the iterative process of drafting the wording of the proposed change and is a matter of history.
Instead, you believe you need the SG's advice to make a decision.
The average person will look at what is now on the table to make a decision.

 

[SirRumpole]

You refuse to accept the obvious position that what the SG has provided is part of the iterative process of drafting the wording of the proposed change and is a matter of history.

Entirely your opinion.

The SG may have provided conflicting advice to the wording of the proposal and the government chose to ignore.

Just release the advice and be done with it instead of promoting a continual intrigue about what he may or may not have said.

You have nothing to worry about if you think it would support your opinion.

 

[rederob]

Entirely your opinion.

Actually it's what the AG stated so again you are wrong.

The SG may have provided conflicting advice to the wording of the proposal and the government chose to ignore.

The SG may have said the moon was made from Cheese. But how is that relevant to what we are going to vote on?

Just release the advice and be done with it instead of promoting a continual intrigue about what he may or may not have said.

The AG has stated this is not government practice, but you want to make it a condition of your voting intention.
Again, the average person will be looking at how the Voice can be a change for the better when they cast their vote.

You have nothing to worry about if you think it would support your opinion.

What makes it relevant?
You can't grasp that point, can you!

Brennan wanted "executive government" changed in the wording. That's because it's defined in the Constitution and could have broad application. However, the standing practice of representations is that they are forwarded to relevant Minister's officers for response, so it makes no difference who someone writes to. So if Megan Davis wants to make a representation to GBRMPA it gets forwarded to the Minister for Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water for reply. The Voice will not change this standing arrangement.

 

[SirRumpole]

What makes it relevant?
You can't grasp that point, can you!

Then why get the flaming advice in the first place if it's not relevant !!!!

You keep digging a bigger hole for yourself.

 

[DaveTrade]

@sptrawler has raised the question of 'what will change' and I think that this should be described to the voters. We will be be voting for change, a big one, so the government should tell us how the minister for Aboriginal Affairs is unable to gather the information required to inform parliament about problems and recommended solutions. The Voice is supposed to be a better way to do this and I'm not saying that it won't be, but I think that we all should know what we are voting for.

 

[rederob]

Then why get the flaming advice in the first place if it's not relevant !!!!

It's part of the process.
You have proven to be totally clueless!

 

[rederob]

@sptrawler has raised the question of 'what will change' and I think that this should be described to the voters.

It has been, and has been repeated here dozens of times.
ATSI people at grass roots feed into policies that affect them so they are better targeted.

We will be be voting for change, a big one, so the government should tell us how the minister for Aboriginal Affairs is unable to gather the information required to inform parliament about problems and recommended solutions.

It's a small change to recognise out first people and does not affect anything. The Voice itself is a body with the resources and clout to ensure Ministers pay attention to what is being proposed, rather than be swept aside by ideas that might be good intentioned but not culturally appropriate.

 

[DaveTrade]

The Voice itself is a body with the resources and clout to ensure Ministers pay attention to what is being proposed, rather than be swept aside by ideas that might be good intentioned but not culturally appropriate.

So are you saying that parliament currently will decide not to listen to their minister but the change will mean that they have to listen? Something doesn't seem right with this thinking, why would parliament not listen to their minister?