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.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?
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.Well, the SG advice has been released apparently. About time.
No. Departments are determining policy input with scant attention to cultural appropriateness in many instances.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?
It does not work like that.Something doesn't seem right with this thinking, why would parliament not listen to their minister?
Not worth a cracker and the SG dispelled that view in no uncertain terms.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
More scaremongering.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:
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?
- 11 Aboriginal elected members in Federal Parliament
- At least one Aboriginal elected member in each State and Territory Parliament
- Every Government has a Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs AND a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs
- In 2016 there were a total of 2781 Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander corporations/associations registered.
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
Accounting for expenditure is should be compulsory if spending large amounts of money has no effect .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.
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.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.
SG advice serves only to beg the question, why do we need to amend the constitution?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
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.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.
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.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.
"Laugh" is at the Lidia comment.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.
Well i agree with you, but with the meeting of minds how do you do it if you don't do this?"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.
Of course they are welcome to put their views as is anyone else.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.
So back to the question, how does passing the Voice change anything in this case?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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?