The Voice

[DaveTrade]

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?

The Voice will give these issues a higher profile and that is what I would like to understand, what are the actual extra powers that increase the clout for this group of Australians.

I'm struggling to fully understand the Voice.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well, the SG advice has been released apparently. About time.

 

[basilio]

Well, the SG advice has been released apparently. About time.

Yep. He says there will not be any issues with The Voice legislation. Don't know if it will make any difference to the No campaigners.

Voice to Parliament would be an 'enhancement' to constitution, according to solicitor-general​

By political reporter Matthew Doran
Posted 1h ago1 hours ago, updated 7m ago7 minutes ago

Solicitor-general Stephen Donaghue says the Voice to Parliament would enhance Australia's democracy.(ABC News: Luis Ascui)
Help keep family & friends informed by sharing this article

Link copied
The government’s top lawyer insists the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament would "enhance" Australia's system of government, arguing he does not believe it would "pose any threat" to the nation's parliamentary democracy.

Key points:​

• The federal government has released the solictor-general's legal opinion on the Voice
• The government's legal counsel says the Voice proposal is sound and would enhance responsible government
• Australians will vote on the Voice to Parliament referendum later this year

Solicitor-general Stephen Donaghue KC has also dismissed suggestions the creation of the advisory body, enshrined in the constitution, would lead to a deluge of legal challenges.

Dr Donaghue's legal opinion was released as part of federal parliament's inquiry into the proposed wording of the referendum question and proposed constitutional amendment.

It is dated April 19, 2023, almost one month after the prime minister revealed the government’s final position on the Voice referendum proposal.

Voice to Parliament constitutionally sound, according to solicitor-general's legal opinion

The federal government releases opinion from the solicitor-general on the Voice to Parliament, which deems the proposed amendment legally sound and an "enhancement" to the constitution.

www.abc.net.au

 

[rederob]

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?

No. Departments are determining policy input with scant attention to cultural appropriateness in many instances.

Something doesn't seem right with this thinking, why would parliament not listen to their minister?

It does not work like that.
Ministers have departments, and those departments prepare and execute policy in accordance with the Minister's or governing Party's wishes. What Ministers don't get involved in is the nitty gritty. Grass roots input is that nitty gritty.

 

[wayneL]

Was just with a client, husband who is a barrister came out for a chat. He is of the view that if passed, it will create a logjam in the high court and considers that a no-brainer.

FWIW

 

[DrBourse]

INTERESTING EMAIL BEING SENT AROUND THE TRAPS.

QUOTE:

A letter from a constituent.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Now the Opposition has stated it will oppose the Voice, I request the Government and ALL media to allow an open and frank debate on the merits of the proposed Voice. I believe most Australians wish to see an improvement in the lives of our indigenous citizens but please, do not attempt to embarrass or intimidate the electorate into voting yes before we are aware of all the facts.

For decades Federal and State Governments have allocated billions of dollars to improving the lives of our indigenous peoples. In 2021/2022 approximately $25 billion was allocated to the Indigenous peoples. This year the NIAA has been allocated $4.5 billion and more recently our PM allocated a further $400 million dollars (over $1 million per day) but little changes. Why? It has been squandered or misappropriated. Before another layer of indigenous bureaucracy is imposed on the taxpayers it is time the government ministers, bureaucrats and CEOs of the existing corporations are held accountable.

Currently Australia has:

1. 11 Aboriginal elected members in Federal Parliament
2. At least one Aboriginal elected member in each State and Territory Parliament
3. Every Government has a Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs AND a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs
4. In 2016 there were a total of 2781 Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander corporations/associations registered.

The Aboriginal community has thousands of voices. What is required from the existing “voices” is responsibility and accountability for the monies allocated to them every year. Numerous local indigenous leaders have spoken out saying the money is not getting through to them. So where is it going?

Our PM was quoted recently as saying “the Voice will improve the lives of First Nations Australians” How? He did not listen to the women who pleaded with him not to remove the welfare cards. He did not even talk to the 22 Aboriginal leaders who accompanied Jacinta Price to Parliament a few weeks ago, yet he wants us to agree to spending millions more tax payer’s money on a new level of “consultation” without any detail.

PLEASE PM be clear with the electorate. What happens to the billions of dollars spent every year and why do we need ANOTHER voice in addition to the thousands which already exist?

Yours sincerely

JW Pritchard

154 Weaponess Road

WEMBLEY DOWNS WA 6019

0413 092 147

UNQUOTE.

Note - The above email may NOT BE LEGIT - Dunno

 

[rederob]

Was just with a client, husband who is a barrister came out for a chat. He is of the view that if passed, it will create a logjam in the high court and considers that a no-brainer.

FWIW

Not worth a cracker and the SG dispelled that view in no uncertain terms.
People that say those types of things need to actually stump up with reasons, and not baseless opinions.
More scaremongering from people who think they know something but cannot show they really do.

 

[rederob]

INTERESTING EMAIL BEING SENT AROUND THE TRAPS.

QUOTE:

A letter from a constituent.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Now the Opposition has stated it will oppose the Voice, I request the Government and ALL media to allow an open and frank debate on the merits of the proposed Voice. I believe most Australians wish to see an improvement in the lives of our indigenous citizens but please, do not attempt to embarrass or intimidate the electorate into voting yes before we are aware of all the facts.

For decades Federal and State Governments have allocated billions of dollars to improving the lives of our indigenous peoples. In 2021/2022 approximately $25 billion was allocated to the Indigenous peoples. This year the NIAA has been allocated $4.5 billion and more recently our PM allocated a further $400 million dollars (over $1 million per day) but little changes. Why? It has been squandered or misappropriated. Before another layer of indigenous bureaucracy is imposed on the taxpayers it is time the government ministers, bureaucrats and CEOs of the existing corporations are held accountable.

Currently Australia has:

1. 11 Aboriginal elected members in Federal Parliament
2. At least one Aboriginal elected member in each State and Territory Parliament
3. Every Government has a Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs AND a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs
4. In 2016 there were a total of 2781 Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander corporations/associations registered.

The Aboriginal community has thousands of voices. What is required from the existing “voices” is responsibility and accountability for the monies allocated to them every year. Numerous local indigenous leaders have spoken out saying the money is not getting through to them. So where is it going?

Our PM was quoted recently as saying “the Voice will improve the lives of First Nations Australians” How? He did not listen to the women who pleaded with him not to remove the welfare cards. He did not even talk to the 22 Aboriginal leaders who accompanied Jacinta Price to Parliament a few weeks ago, yet he wants us to agree to spending millions more tax payer’s money on a new level of “consultation” without any detail.

PLEASE PM be clear with the electorate. What happens to the billions of dollars spent every year and why do we need ANOTHER voice in addition to the thousands which already exist?

Yours sincerely

JW Pritchard

154 Weaponess Road

WEMBLEY DOWNS WA 6019

0413 092 147

UNQUOTE.

Note - The above email may NOT BE LEGIT - Dunno

More scaremongering.

Whoever wrote it has no idea about ATSI disadvantage as these are the facts that were totally overlooked!
He/she somehow thinks that accounting for expenditure is an answer! If that were the case, then why hasn't the "gap" closed after so many decades of apparent largesse.
The obvious answer is that policies and programs are not as well targeted as they need to be.

I think the worst thing about the alleged email is that there is a massive amount of information available to anyone who wants to know more, but Pritchard is too ignorant or too stupid to work this out.

 

[SirRumpole]

More scaremongering.

Whoever wrote it has no idea about ATSI disadvantage as these are the facts that were totally overlooked!
He/she somehow thinks that accounting for expenditure is an answer! If that were the case, then why hasn't the "gap" closed after so many decades of apparent largesse.
The obvious answer is that policies and programs are not as well targeted as they need to be.

I think the worst thing about the alleged email is that there is a massive amount of information available to anyone who wants to know more, but Pritchard is too ignorant or too stupid to work this out.

Accounting for expenditure is should be compulsory if spending large amounts of money has no effect .

 

[DaveTrade]

No. Departments are determining policy input with scant attention to cultural appropriateness in many instances.

It does not work like that.
Ministers have departments, and those departments prepare and execute policy in accordance with the Minister's or governing Party's wishes. What Ministers don't get involved in is the nitty gritty. Grass roots input is that nitty gritty.

Thanks for clarifying that, so the change will allow solutions have a better chance to work be the solutions that get recommended to the minister.

 

[Knobby22]

Solicitor's advice. Normally it is only released to the cabinet but if it is in the advantage of the Government it is sometimes released. Peter Dutton pushed for it but it seems a mistake now. he has really pushed himself into a corner.

Solicitor-general's Voice to Parliament advice released, contradicts Peter Dutton's claims

Peter Dutton has been demanding Labor release the solicitor-general's advice on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Advice released today appears to contradict his claims.

www.sbs.com.au

 

[wayneL]

Solicitor's advice. Normally it is only released to the cabinet but if it is in the advantage of the Government it is sometimes released. Peter Dutton pushed for it but it seems a mistake now. he has really pushed himself into a corner.

Solicitor-general's Voice to Parliament advice released, contradicts Peter Dutton's claims

Peter Dutton has been demanding Labor release the solicitor-general's advice on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Advice released today appears to contradict his claims.

www.sbs.com.au

SG advice serves only to beg the question, why do we need to amend the constitution?

What will it do that isn't already in place now?

Answer: nothing, except enrich the elites (and the legal profession), as has been my consistent arguement.

 

[DaveTrade]

The whole thing still brings me back to the idea that in Australia aren't we all supposed to have equal representation. I guess that all groups are equal but some are more equal than others. Didn't someone write a book about this.

 

[Knobby22]

Well to answer both of you - 3 good reasons:

1. Every Australian doesn't have equal representation, there are many lobby groups and powerful people with an ear to government.
e.g. latest Lindsay Fox do this weekend to be attended by Daniel Andrews, Albanese and Dutton. This is a way for the groups in the bush to have a chance to have a say in government. Sure, you say, they have this already, but the truth is that the consultative bodies keep getting shut down and decisions are still being made without any consultation.

2. It's a step on the way to reconciliation. you look at Canada and NZ and they have been reconciled. We need to provide an olive branch that achieves something even if it is minor. We need to be seen to be helping not hindering them.

3. It will piss off Lydia Thorpe.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well to answer both of you - 3 good reasons:

1. Every Australian doesn't have equal representation, there are many lobby groups and powerful people with an ear to government.
e.g. latest Lindsay Fox do this weekend to be attended by Daniel Andrews, Albanese and Dutton. This is a way for the groups in the bush to have a chance to have a say in government. Sure, you say, they have this already, but the truth is that the consultative bodies keep getting shut down and decisions are still being made without any consultation.

2. It's a step on the way to reconciliation. you look at Canada and NZ and they have been reconciled. We need to provide an olive branch that achieves something even if it is minor. We need to be seen to be helping not hindering them.

3. It will piss off Lydia Thorpe.

The main problem as I see it is that there are so many tribes that's it's impossible for one body to represent them all.

An example...

The government wants to put in a hydro power station at Point A.

The tribe that once roamed Point A says the land is culturally significant to them and they don't want a hydro power station on "their" land.

The government then proposes Point B.

The tribe that once roamed Point B says the land is culturally significant to them and they don't want a hydro power station on "their" land.

Rinse, repeat. How long can these projects be delayed ? As long as there is some tribe that objects to them.

 

[Knobby22]

The main problem as I see it is that there are so many tribes that's it's impossible for one body to represent them all.

An example...

The government wants to put in a hydro power station at Point A.

The tribe that once roamed Point A says the land is culturally significant to them and they don't want a hydro power station on "their" land.

The government then proposes Point B.

The tribe that once roamed Point B says the land is culturally significant to them and they don't want a hydro power station on "their" land.

Rinse, repeat. How long can these projects be delayed ? As long as there is some tribe that objects to them.

So are you saying we shouldn't consult with them at all? Does the voice change anything with regard to infrastructure projects realistically? They objected to Dan Andrews running the new freeway over some of their old trees near Stawell. We still did it.

 

[wayneL]

Well to answer both of you - 3 good reasons:

1. Every Australian doesn't have equal representation, there are many lobby groups and powerful people with an ear to government.
e.g. latest Lindsay Fox do this weekend to be attended by Daniel Andrews, Albanese and Dutton. This is a way for the groups in the bush to have a chance to have a say in government. Sure, you say, they have this already, but the truth is that the consultative bodies keep getting shut down and decisions are still being made without any consultation.

2. It's a step on the way to reconciliation. you look at Canada and NZ and they have been reconciled. We need to provide an olive branch that achieves something even if it is minor. We need to be seen to be helping not hindering them.

3. It will piss off Lydia Thorpe.

"Laugh" is at the Lidia comment.

*But, there are lots of people born in this country have underwhelming representation.

*Reconciliation is not an act of parliament but rather an understanding between people at the grassroots level.

If I meet and indigenous person and we can shake hands and speak on equal terms, we are reconciled.

If I ever every some sort of official reconciliation and there are still indigenous kids throwing rocks at cars and stealing ****, we are not reconciled at all.

This is why people like Dillon, Price, and Mundine are the way forward with reconciliation. It's about a meeting of minds, understanding each other and forging a mutual way forward.

Without that you will never get any sort of harmony whatsoever.

Yes it is incumbent on us to foster that but equally it is also incumbent upon the indigenous to foster that as well.

This is why people like Price are a force for good and people like Lidia are a force for division in perpetuity.

 

[Knobby22]

"Laugh" is at the Lidia comment.

*But, there are lots of people born in this country have underwhelming representation.

*Reconciliation is not an act of parliament but rather an understanding between people at the grassroots level.

If I meet and indigenous person and we can shake hands and speak on equal terms, we are reconciled.

If I ever every some sort of official reconciliation and there are still indigenous kids throwing rocks at cars and stealing ****, we are not reconciled at all.

This is why people like Dillon, Price, and Mundine are the way forward with reconciliation. It's about a meeting of minds, understanding each other and forging a mutual way forward.

Without that you will never get any sort of harmony whatsoever.

Yes it is incumbent on us to foster that but equally it is also incumbent upon the indigenous to foster that as well.

This is why people like Price are a force for good and people like Lidia are a force for division in perpetuity.

Well i agree with you, but with the meeting of minds how do you do it if you don't do this?
This was the big agreement from all the tribes together and if we ignore it then where do we go next? It seems pretty low end to me.
Price has done well but who does she really speak for? (Give you a hint, her sponsor is Gina Reinhardt.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/gin...ervative-senator-s-debut-20220728-p5b5gm.html)

 

[SirRumpole]

So are you saying we shouldn't consult with them at all? Does the voice change anything with regard to infrastructure projects realistically? They objected to Dan Andrews running the new freeway over some of their old trees near Stawell. We still did it.

Of course they are welcome to put their views as is anyone else.

But if you try and please everyone, time passes, nothing gets done and it costs a lot more in the end.

 

[Knobby22]

Of course they are welcome to put their views as is anyone else.

But if you try and please everyone, time passes, nothing gets done and it costs a lot more in the end.

So back to the question, how does passing the Voice change anything in this case?