The Voice

[rederob]

I guess you answered your own question.

Things that only can be decided by Parliament do not affect what the Voice proposes to do.
Parliament provides a framework for legislation that enables policies to be implemented within attendant budgets. This process does not change for ATSI issues, infrastructure, science, education or any other matter the federal government has an involvement.
Is there a reason you can't work that out and still believe there is some mystery to what is being put forward?

It again seems everyone against the Voice is making excuses for their vote rather than understanding how ATSI people can move from an ineffective policy environment to one where they have a practical VOICE.

 

[sptrawler]

At the end of the day, it was the Governments responsibility to sell the idea to the public, initially everyone was fine with the idea.
When people started asking logical questions, as to why does any of this require a change to the constitution, the Government has had trouble articulating it and the more times they stuff up while trying to explain it the more nervous the population gets, it isn't rocket science.
If they don't have a practical voice already, then a lot of people who are currently employed in Canberra should be sacked and if the voice does get up, one would assume a lot of people will be sacked, because one would have thought to actually look after their portfolio they would already be listening.
We already have a parliament, we already have the people who decide everything, the voice can't over rule parliament, the voice has no power you say.
So why have a referendum, just start another section of Government dedicated to aboriginal affairs and give them access to the elders simple and saves all the paperwork.

 

[IFocus]

What Thomas Mayo, one of the architects of the Voice referendum proposal and signatory of the Uluru Statement, thinks about what The Voice is going to be and it's powers:

– “We are sick of governments not listening to our voice. We’re going to use the rule book of the nation to force them. There is nothing more powerful than building a First Nations’ voice, a black institution – a black political force to be reckoned with”.

– We will “keep going until we change the system, until we tear down the institutions that harm our people”.

– “We also to pay respects to the elders of the Communist Party, who I think, without a doubt, have played a very important role in our activism”.

– “You know this is the first step. It’s a vital step. Pay the rent, for example. You know, how do we do that in a way that is transparent and that it actually sees reparations and compensation to aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”.

– “The power in the voice is that it creates the ability for First Nations to go forth with coherent positions on what legislation needs to be created; what legislation needs to be amended and punish politicians that ignore our advice”.

Sigh x 2 ....

 

[IFocus]

There have been many elders from remote communities coming forwards on this issue, none of these people promoting the voice have even been to their community let alone care about it to see the problems they have. There are already advisers on indigenous issues, you're going to make up another body where advisers that have spent the majority of their lives in cities voice their opinion on Australia wide indigenous affairs that politicians are still going to vet a decision from. I just see it as a waste of money, the voice isn't going to force the hand of politics to do anything it can't already do. How this body is established and the power it has to alter govt policy is still controlled by the Australian govt, you'll still have the same senators in cabinet voting 'for and against' policy change.

As an example of support the NT Central and Northern land councils support the voice all 200 delegates voted to support it,

Many elders who?

 

[IFocus]

At the end of the day, it was the Governments responsibility to sell the idea to the public, initially everyone was fine with the idea.

Yep but then the Coalition under who the voice was developed went political.... pretty much end game there nothing more nothing less.

 

[rederob]

At the end of the day, it was the Governments responsibility to sell the idea to the public, initially everyone was fine with the idea.

Incorrect.
The Voice was a bipartisan project going back over 10 years and the present federal government's position from the outset was to offer no funding for either votes. Instead it has funded information campaigns.

When people started asking logical questions, as to why does any of this require a change to the constitution, the Government has had trouble articulating it and the more times they stuff up while trying to explain it the more nervous the population gets, it isn't rocket science.

That's your opinion.
You cannot provide recognition in the Constitution without a referendum.
That's not rocket science.
Moreover, you cannot ensure a consistent contribution from ATSI peoples without the Voice as successive Parliaments keep moving the goalposts.
That's not rocket science.

If they don't have a practical voice already, then a lot of people who are currently employed in Canberra should be sacked and if the voice does get up, one would assume a lot of people will be sacked, because one would have thought to actually look after their portfolio they would already be listening.

If that were the case then ATSI peoples would not be proposing the Voice.
Is there any logic to your points?

We already have a parliament, we already have the people who decide everything, the voice can't over rule parliament, the voice has no power you say.

Correct.
It provides an opportunity for grass roots involvement in local problem solving.

So why have a referendum, just start another section of Government dedicated to aboriginal affairs and give them access to the elders simple and saves all the paperwork.

Why don't you read the background papers to the Voice and learn about what it proposes to achieve.
This has been many times covered here and you keep coming up with lame excuses that neglect the fact of systemic disadvantage that needs redress.

 

[sptrawler]

Yep but then the Coalition under who the voice was developed went political.... pretty much end game there nothing more nothing less.

But that shouldn't be the case, I posted a clip of Albo talking to the host of 'The Project' you can't get much more pro Labor than that, the host could be seen struggling to get Albo to articulate and address the problem that he himself and the public is having.
To say it has gone political is a bit of an easy out, in reality it hasn't been explained in a manner that the public can follow, the fact that it had huge support initially says the public like the idea.
That its popularity is sliding in a linear fashion, says exactly what the host of the 'Project' was saying, people can't understand it, which is a selling problem not a political problem.
Even the way Rob, who is extremely articulate explains it, just adds to the feeling of why do we need it.
I think they should have had the reason for the Voice and the hierachy in detail of how it fits in the political system, with reasoning for it fitting there and what departments are going to be made redundant because of it.

That then gives it a reason and shows the areas currently operational, that aren't filling the hole that the Voice intends to.
Then they should have had a critical path of how the voice representatives will be selected and why.
There should already be a prioritised agenda of current systems that have failed and need rectifying to underpin the recognition of where what is currently in place has failed and requires replacing and steps that could be taken.

It's the basic planning if you are proposing a change to any system, be it in the workplace, a corporate body, a footy club any organisation, that Labor didn't do any of it begs the question were they serious or just filling the optics? With any change especially one to the constitution, people will ask questions they would be stupid not to, not having clear concise answers is the issue.

If it fails Albo says it was Duttons fault, if it gets up Albo takes the kudos and then it is sorted out.

That they haven't done the planning isn't very clever and I don't believe Abo isn't clever, he just really hasn't given it much of a chance IMO.
You make of it as you will.

 

[sptrawler]

Incorrect.
The Voice was a bipartisan project going back over 10 years and the present federal government's position from the outset was to offer no funding for either votes. Instead it has funded information campaigns.

Well it has been sold poorly.

That's your opinion.
You cannot provide recognition in the Constitution without a referendum.
That's not rocket science.
Moreover, you cannot ensure a consistent contribution from ATSI peoples without the Voice as successive Parliaments keep moving the goalposts.
That's not rocket science.

So what does that have to do with the point I made? Which was the Government is having trouble articulating it, as even the host of the 'Project' pointed out.

If that were the case then ATSI peoples would not be proposing the Voice.
Is there any logic to your points?

If ATSI people aren't or can't do their job, they should be investigated or sacked, adding another section to bypass them supports that.
More to the point is there any logic in your points.

Correct.
It provides an opportunity for grass roots involvement in local problem solving.

So would ATSIC, if they actually left Canberra and visited the elders that they are supposed to be representing already.

Why don't you read the background papers to the Voice and learn about what it proposes to achieve.
This has been many times covered here and you keep coming up with lame excuses that neglect the fact of systemic disadvantage that needs redress.

I shouldn't have to, the Government should be able to give the population the confidence and background information required for the population to make an informed decision, there is no way everyone in Australia is going to read the background.
That's the Governments job, as I said.

 

[moXJO]

Well even the left wing channel 10 project couldn't help Albo explain the voice, maybe some of the ASF members who have a better handle on it could send in an explanation, obviously the project compere has trouble understanding it also, otherwise he would give Albo leading questions.

Anthony Albanese struggles to answer questions about the Voice

Anthony Albanese has struggled to directly answer a series of simple questions about the Voice to Parliament during an appearance on The Project.

www.dailymail.co.uk

If they can't explain it then it looks like they are hiding something.

 

[moXJO]

I'll explain it in plain terms for everyone. The Voice is the first step to get to treaty.
Forget all this "won't affect the general population" bullsht.
This is the long game for treaty (that in itself will take decades likely).
But that's where things like "pay the rent" and all the other demands get fought over.

At the very least they should be explaining this point. But obviously this is the bit they don't really want out. They can go for treaty first but it would be harder imo without a Voice already installed.

 

[StockyGuy]

I'll explain it in plain terms for everyone. The Voice is the first step to get to treaty.
Forget all this "won't affect the general population" bullsht.
This is the long game for treaty (that in itself will take decades likely).
But that's where things like "pay the rent" and all the other demands get fought over.

At the very least they should be explaining this point. But obviously this is the bit they don't really want out. They can go for treaty first but it would be harder imo without a Voice already installed.

Correct. I literally wonder at the intelligence level of any adult who doesn't accept that as pure common sense.

 

[Smurf1976]

Why people should be wary - as you say - of a body that suggests betterment smacks of racism.

Or it suggests that we already have examples of such things going horribly wrong.

It wouldn't be the first time something, whether formal or informal, supposedly established in order to help some identified group ended up hanging around too long and in doing so ended up doing more harm than good.

A classic example is workplace disputes involving unions. Starts out OK but once it's resolved the union rep doesn't want to go back to doing their actual job and keeps trying to find new "issues" requiring their attention and thus avoidance of their real job. I've seen that one play out and it ends with the management and workers both on the same side wanting to be rid of that individual. They've gone from representing the workers to being loathed by the very same workers because they didn't stop when they should have.

There's quite a few examples of that in politics and government, especially toward the activist end of the spectrum. People who started out progressive, kept going too long and ended up at best conservative, at worst regressive, as a result.

 

[moXJO]

The truth probably is that albo can legislate "the voice" into existence. The reason you put it in the constitution is so it's kind of a perpetual thing. (Advisory/governing bodies have happened before but didn't end well.)

But the real risk is if there is an election then liberals can change it.

However if Labor can ram it through now then it should all go through before 2025 election. So do Labor and the greens get to choose what will be written or is the lower house sufficient?
I'm not really up on constitutional changes.
This is where details matter.
Is it the usual horse trading that goes on?

 

[SirRumpole]

Or it suggests that we already have examples of such things going horribly wrong.

It wouldn't be the first time something, whether formal or informal, supposedly established in order to help some identified group ended up hanging around too long and in doing so ended up doing more harm than good.

A classic example is workplace disputes involving unions. Starts out OK but once it's resolved the union rep doesn't want to go back to doing their actual job and keeps trying to find new "issues" requiring their attention and thus avoidance of their real job. I've seen that one play out and it ends with the management and workers both on the same side wanting to be rid of that individual. They've gone from representing the workers to being loathed by the very same workers because they didn't stop when they should have.

There's quite a few examples of that in politics and government, especially toward the activist end of the spectrum. People who started out progressive, kept going too long and ended up at best conservative, at worst regressive, as a result.

Exactly.

Its called "justifying one's existence". I saw it in the public service with "Affimative Action" officers coming up with silly rules and methods of speech to show people that they were "one the job"..

They achieved little but were a nuisance to people trying to do real work.

 

[SirRumpole]

Exactly.

Its called "justifying one's existence". I saw it in the public service with "Affimative Action" officers coming up with silly rules and methods of speech to show people that they were "one the job"..

They achieved little but were a nuisance to people trying to do real work.

That's "on the job" of course.

I can see The Voice going the same way.

 

[IFocus]

The truth probably is that albo can legislate "the voice" into existence. The reason you put it in the constitution is so it's kind of a perpetual thing. (Advisory/governing bodies have happened before but didn't end well.)

But the real risk is if there is an election then liberals can change it.

However if Labor can ram it through now then it should all go through before 2025 election. So do Labor and the greens get to choose what will be written or is the lower house sufficient?
I'm not really up on constitutional changes.
This is where details matter.
Is it the usual horse trading that goes on?

On the treaty there would be some thinking the Voice is a starting point but reality is a treaty has no hope in Australia, seeing the colonial racism around (here) and any migrant including yourself against the Voice plus the utter and total BS posted here treaty...nah never.

On the constitutional changes the wording was done with all sides of the political spectrum involved (horse trading) the only disagreement was wording concerning advice to the executive level of government.

Note all the conservatives involved will vote yes note just how nasty the Coalition is running the No vote such is politics

Thats where divisions exist typically Pauline Hanson scub bag territory

 

[rederob]

Or it suggests that we already have examples of such things going horribly wrong.

The referendum question is simple and if you think there are ways it can go "horribly wrong" then outline how.

It wouldn't be the first time something, whether formal or informal, supposedly established in order to help some identified group ended up hanging around too long and in doing so ended up doing more harm than good.

Hollow words that you cannot support in the context of what the Voice proposes.

A classic example is workplace disputes involving unions.

Really!!!
This has absolutely no relevance to the Voice.

There's quite a few examples of that in politics and government, especially toward the activist end of the spectrum. People who started out progressive, kept going too long and ended up at best conservative, at worst regressive, as a result.

An irrelevance.
You have created several straw men and cannot show any relevant context to your points.

The referendum question intends to recognises first Australians, so how does this negatively affect anything?

 

[SirRumpole]

The referendum question intends to recognises first Australians, so how does this negatively affect anything?

It goes a lot further than that, and you know it, so don't try to whitewash (or blackwash) the issue.

 

[IFocus]

It goes a lot further than that, and you know it, so don't try to whitewash (or blackwash) the issue.

Afraid it doesn't Rump its design is actually to limit its reach ensured by the conservatives that help draw it

 

[TimeISmoney]

As an example of support the NT Central and Northern land councils support the voice all 200 delegates voted to support it,

Many elders who?

There were quite a few others that I've seen and have been removed also, but it's pretty sad when you have to make a monetary offer to underprivileged people to vote against their will. And BTW there's no such thing as racism in Australia, what race are Australians? Maybe the word you're after is 'discrimination'.


Community groups supportive of the Voice to Parliament will be eligible for grants of thousands of dollars from the Yes campaign.
Yes23, the campaign pushing for the constitutional change, will donate one-off payments of between $1000 and $15,000 to facilitate local events around the continent.

The Yes campaign is keen to leave Canberra behind, as the No vote pulls ahead for the first time​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Elders from Qld, Far North Qld, SA, NSW, WA, Vic and regional Vic share their perspectives on the Voice. None of them were consulted and they all say NO to the Voice. This video was blocked by govt within hours of publishing so share it far and wide from this platform."