Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
Peter Dutton has written an open letter to the PM released today asking some specific questions:

● Who will be eligible to serve on the body?
● What are the prerequisites for nomination?
● Will the Government clarify the definition of aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body?
● How will members be elected, chosen or appointed?
● How many people will make up the body?
● How much will it cost taxpayers annually?
● What are its functions and powers?
● Is it purely advisory, or will it have decision-making capabilities?
● Who will oversee the body and ensure it is accountable?
● If needed, can the body be dissolved and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances?
● How will the Government ensure that the body includes those who still need to get a platform in Australian public life?
● How will it interact with the Closing the Gap process?
● Will the Government rule out using the Voice to negotiate any national treaty?
● Will the Government commit to Local and Regional Voices, as recommended in the report on the co-design process led by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton?
● If not, how will it effectively address the real issues that impact people's lives daily on the ground in the community?
 
Sean K said:
I think she has formed the Nats position on this, not the other way round.
Click to expand...


Possible certainly would have had a voice but unlikely given Price is in her 1st term in the party room, it takes years to build influence in politics and the Nationals are pretty harden right in their ways as is Price.

Realistically the Nations position would have always been negative Price just gives them cover.

The Nationals coming out early with Price was / is a shocker.

Regarding Prices and the Nationals comments on the Voice Langton pulls them apart stating the obvious (read the article clearly no one else did) how its all politics no substance and straight out falsehoods quite shameful really Price is a politician.

In terms of who Price is speaking for I think it is possibly her own family / clan (maybe wrong) which is about 30 to 70 people which is generally the case where as the people involved with working on the Voice have consulted and speak for 1st nations across states, family's, clans and remote communities.

Remember Price is 2nd generation 1st nations middle to upper middle class and part of the political system of the hard Right and the Voice would likely exclude people like Price.
 
Sean K said:
Peter Dutton has written an open letter to the PM released today asking some specific questions:

● Who will be eligible to serve on the body?
● What are the prerequisites for nomination?
● Will the Government clarify the definition of aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body?
● How will members be elected, chosen or appointed?
● How many people will make up the body?
● How much will it cost taxpayers annually?
● What are its functions and powers?
● Is it purely advisory, or will it have decision-making capabilities?
● Who will oversee the body and ensure it is accountable?
● If needed, can the body be dissolved and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances?
● How will the Government ensure that the body includes those who still need to get a platform in Australian public life?
● How will it interact with the Closing the Gap process?
● Will the Government rule out using the Voice to negotiate any national treaty?
● Will the Government commit to Local and Regional Voices, as recommended in the report on the co-design process led by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton?
● If not, how will it effectively address the real issues that impact people's lives daily on the ground in the community?
Click to expand...


Sean, from Langtons article

"The key gripe of Peter Dutton and his shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Julian Leeser, is that “no detail” has been provided about the Voice – what it would do, who its members would be, how they would be appointed, how much they would be paid. What the opponents mean is that they will seek to deceive the public into believing that there is “no detail”, ignoring at least three reports on the matter running to hundreds of pages, including the 272-page “Indigenous Voice Co-design Process” final report, which Professor Tom Calma and I led; the 183-page “Final Report of the Referendum Council”; and the 264-page report from the joint select committee on constitutional recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, led by Senator Patrick Dodson and Leeser himself. It would be unfair, and probably un-Australian, to suggest that Dutton should have read these reports, and equally unfair, and probably un-Australian, to expect that Leeser could remember the detail of his own report to parliament."
 
IFocus said:
Sean, from Langtons article

"The key gripe of Peter Dutton and his shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Julian Leeser, is that “no detail” has been provided about the Voice – what it would do, who its members would be, how they would be appointed, how much they would be paid. What the opponents mean is that they will seek to deceive the public into believing that there is “no detail”, ignoring at least three reports on the matter running to hundreds of pages, including the 272-page “Indigenous Voice Co-design Process” final report, which Professor Tom Calma and I led; the 183-page “Final Report of the Referendum Council”; and the 264-page report from the joint select committee on constitutional recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, led by Senator Patrick Dodson and Leeser himself. It would be unfair, and probably un-Australian, to suggest that Dutton should have read these reports, and equally unfair, and probably un-Australian, to expect that Leeser could remember the detail of his own report to parliament."
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, I haven't read those reports, but will try to track them all down. Since she's raised them as the 'detail' I assume they answer those questions Dutton has asked. I doubt the one about what defines an Aboriginal will be in there though.
 
Sean K said:
Thanks for that, I haven't read those reports, but will try to track them all down. Since she's raised them as the 'detail' I assume they answer those questions Dutton has asked. I doubt the one about what defines an Aboriginal will be in there though.
Click to expand...

I think Dutton has a point in better definition's etc and yes not likely to address all the concerns but Langton also makes the point Parliament in the end will decide.

Again have to strip out the politics and Dutton needs red meat for the hardliners in his party I think he is incline to back it but his party room is unlikely to plus being in opposition using no is a very effective attack.
 
The thing is, in typical leftist fashion, Price, Mundine et al have their views discarded simply because of their political affiliation.

The central question remains: How will this, just like every other scheme over the decades, not end up being a gravy train train for the elites such as Langdon, with no real benefit for the people.

...because that's how it's shaping up.
 
wayneL said:
The thing is, in typical leftist fashion, Price, Mundine et al have their views discarded simply because of their political affiliation.

The central question remains: How will this, just like every other scheme over the decades, not end up being a gravy train train for the elites such as Langdon, with no real benefit for the people.

...because that's how it's shaping up.
Click to expand...

Nothing to with leftard views blah blah Price is just straight out wrong and political, as for gravy train Price and her family have long been on board.

"Joining Craven is Nationals leader David Littleproud and Celtic–Warlpiri Senator Jacinta Price. Price falsely claims the Voice is a “new governance structure” that will be “placed with some sort of priority over our current Westminster system”. This is nonsense and as a new senator she might wish to be briefed on the committee system already established, to which a Voice would likely make reports."
 
IFocus said:
Nothing to with leftard views blah blah Price is just straight out wrong and political, as for gravy train Price and her family have long been on board.

"Joining Craven is Nationals leader David Littleproud and Celtic–Warlpiri Senator Jacinta Price. Price falsely claims the Voice is a “new governance structure” that will be “placed with some sort of priority over our current Westminster system”. This is nonsense and as a new senator she might wish to be briefed on the committee system already established, to which a Voice would likely make reports."
Click to expand...

I think you're underestimating Price. I think I've mentioned this before but I've followed her for years and her extended family have been exposed to and suffered all the same problems remote community Indigenous have. She's no Nationals shill. She was probably strongly influenced by her mum's politics but she herself rose up from living under a tree to politics. She's conservative, but it's a long bow to associate her with 'hard right' though.
 
I am still to be given a cogent reason why we need to alter the constitution before the proposed legislation.
There is absolutely nothing stopping all the people in Parliament who want The Voice from tabling legislation and having it passed or failed in the parliament. It does NOT need constitutional change.
Then, having seen what it does, then put up the amendments to the constitution as a referendum after people have seen it in action.
It will immediately take away the argument that we don't know enough about the details of the legislation before we agree to it.
Or is that just a bit to sensible for the idealogues?
Mick
 
IFocus said:
Sean, from Langtons article

the 272-page “Indigenous Voice Co-design Process” final report, which Professor Tom Calma and I led;
Click to expand...

I've been reading through this and there is a lot of background information and detail to wade through. I'm only up to about page 30, but one thing I've noticed so far is that the report provides a lot of ideas, guidance and options, but it's not really THE plan. It seems like we are just required to vote on something that might look like X but it could end up being Y. For eg, who the regional voices are, how many are voted into the national voice by the regions, how they are chosen, is all very loose and could end up being anything. I haven't got to the bit about how it all is finally put together in concrete yet, but I'm guessing that occurs in Parliament after we approve the Voice in principal but not the actual detail. Anyway, 240 pages to go....
 
mullokintyre said:
I am still to be given a cogent reason why we need to alter the constitution before the proposed legislation.
There is absolutely nothing stopping all the people in Parliament who want The Voice from tabling legislation and having it passed or failed in the parliament. It does NOT need constitutional change.
Then, having seen what it does, then put up the amendments to the constitution as a referendum after people have seen it in action.
It will immediately take away the argument that we don't know enough about the details of the legislation before we agree to it.
Or is that just a bit to sensible for the idealogues?
Mick
Click to expand...
Ah mullokintyre It is with great sadness that I have to once again announce that the formidable chap/lady Common Sense is again on a unpaid leave of absence. It is a real pity he/she does not hold a seat in parliament !!!!!!!!!!
 
IFocus said:
Sean, from Langtons article

"The key gripe of Peter Dutton and his shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Julian Leeser, is that “no detail” has been provided about the Voice – what it would do, who its members would be, how they would be appointed, how much they would be paid. What the opponents mean is that they will seek to deceive the public into believing that there is “no detail”, ignoring at least three reports on the matter running to hundreds of pages, including the 272-page “Indigenous Voice Co-design Process” final report, which Professor Tom Calma and I led; the 183-page “Final Report of the Referendum Council”; and the 264-page report from the joint select committee on constitutional recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, led by Senator Patrick Dodson and Leeser himself. It would be unfair, and probably un-Australian, to suggest that Dutton should have read these reports, and equally unfair, and probably un-Australian, to expect that Leeser could remember the detail of his own report to parliament."
Click to expand...
Not wanting to seem pedantic, as I'm not bothered either way about the 'voice', but as can be seen by articles written in publications that are very pro left, they seem to concur on the lack of detail.
I find it bemusing that you say the information is already out there, when political journalists appear to contradict that statement. :2twocents

www.smh.com.au

Don’t underestimate the people advising Albanese on the Voice

While some criticism about a “lack of detail” about the Voice is valid, we should be looking at who are the loudest critics of the proposal.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
From the introduction:
There has been much made of the Albanese government for its failure to provide enough detail about its proposed Voice to Parliament, but the strategy is clear.

While some criticism is valid, we should look at those who are the loudest critics of this “lack of detail”. They are either opponents of the Voice or people who would benefit politically from its demise.
There is a reason why the ‘No’ side wants more detail released now, and the ‘Yes’ side is holding fire. Both sides are acutely aware of the lessons of the 1999 republic referendum.
In that debate, the ‘No’ side benefited each time more detail was released. It succeeded in turning the debate from a yes or no about a republic to a debate about the best model for a republic. Many Australians who were supportive of a republic eventually voted against the proposed model and the ‘No’ vote won.

This is why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney and the working group will leave many of the details around the Voice model for parliament to decide after the public vote.
 
sptrawler said:
Not wanting to seem pedantic, as I'm not bothered either way about the 'voice', but as can be seen by articles written in publications that are very pro left, they seem to concur on the lack of detail.
I find it bemusing that you say the information is already out there, when political journalists appear to contradict that statement. :2twocents

www.smh.com.au

Don’t underestimate the people advising Albanese on the Voice

While some criticism about a “lack of detail” about the Voice is valid, we should be looking at who are the loudest critics of the proposal.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
From the introduction:
There has been much made of the Albanese government for its failure to provide enough detail about its proposed Voice to Parliament, but the strategy is clear.

While some criticism is valid, we should look at those who are the loudest critics of this “lack of detail”. They are either opponents of the Voice or people who would benefit politically from its demise.
There is a reason why the ‘No’ side wants more detail released now, and the ‘Yes’ side is holding fire. Both sides are acutely aware of the lessons of the 1999 republic referendum.
In that debate, the ‘No’ side benefited each time more detail was released. It succeeded in turning the debate from a yes or no about a republic to a debate about the best model for a republic. Many Australians who were supportive of a republic eventually voted against the proposed model and the ‘No’ vote won.

This is why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney and the working group will leave many of the details around the Voice model for parliament to decide after the public vote.
Click to expand...
As a wise man once said "if you don't understand it, don't vote for it".
 
Sean K said:
I've been reading through this and there is a lot of background information and detail to wade through. I'm only up to about page 30, but one thing I've noticed so far is that the report provides a lot of ideas, guidance and options, but it's not really THE plan. It seems like we are just required to vote on something that might look like X but it could end up being Y. For eg, who the regional voices are, how many are voted into the national voice by the regions, how they are chosen, is all very loose and could end up being anything. I haven't got to the bit about how it all is finally put together in concrete yet, but I'm guessing that occurs in Parliament after we approve the Voice in principal but not the actual detail. Anyway, 240 pages to go....
Click to expand...


Yeah nah as for me wading through that, respect for your persistence I think your summary will be the same after you finish and correct about parliament having the last say on who and how details which is typical of how most of government works / functions.

Note Ken Wyatt took all of what you are reading with specific pages noted for reading to make it easier to Cabinet, clearly no one did.

Ironically it wont have any affect on the people who will vote against it which I note on this site any way is largely cultural indifference / ignorance.

But that's Australia always has been.
 
Well here you go no doubt everyone was aware of this ...eh


"A leading Indigenous voice to parliament advocate has lashed the “tired political games” marring discussion around the proposed advisory body.

Responding to Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s renewed call for more detail before a referendum, one of the Uluru Statement’s principal authors Megan Davis insisted Australians wouldn’t head to the ballot box without knowing what they were voting for.

Professor Davis, a constitutional lawyer, said the process the government was following was standard practice.

“Constitutions are for principle. The machinery is for parliament,” she said in a statement.

“The High Court of Australia was recognised in 1901 and set up via legislation several years later … it’s a normal constitutional approach.”

Prof Davis said three different referendum working groups were finalising the appropriate amount of detail required for an informed vote.

She said the Uluru Dialogue would keep working with Liberal MPs “who want to work constructively as community leaders”.


michaelwest.com.au

Voice leaders 'tired of political games' - Michael West

A leading Indigenous voice to parliament advocate has lashed the “tired political games” marring discussion around the proposed advisory body. Responding to Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s renewed call for more detail before a referendum, one of the Uluru Statement’s principal authors Megan...
michaelwest.com.au michaelwest.com.au
 
Zzzzz....zzzz....zzzz

And you accuse others of political games @IFocus ?

Only certain indigenous voices count hey? Interestingly only those that agree with a certain view. No discussion, no debate. Dissenters are disregarded and accused of "politics".

What an @55.
 
mullokintyre said:
I am still to be given a cogent reason why we need to alter the constitution before the proposed legislation.
There is absolutely nothing stopping all the people in Parliament who want The Voice from tabling legislation and having it passed or failed in the parliament. It does NOT need constitutional change.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The essential principle is that ALL groups affected by proposed legislation should be consulted before that legislation is passed.

Consultation should be a normal step in the law making process, one group should not have priority over all the others.
 
IFocus said:
Ironically it wont have any affect on the people who will vote against it which I note on this site any way is largely cultural indifference / ignorance.
Click to expand...
Yep, thats the way to prove a point.Anyone who disagrees is cuturally indifferent or ignorant.
Standard elitist arrogance.
Mick
 

Similar threads

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