The Voice

[Smurf1976]

Why recommence another straw man argument?
You need to make a case based on equivalence and you have not.
What on planet earth does your scenario have to do with a body whose only power is to offer advice?

It's an unfortunate reality in Australia that pretty much any movement, whether formal or informal, becomes a permanent fixture long after its logical end point has been reached.

As one example, well I'm not a smoker but it's a reasonable example of a simple, well known and somewhat informal movement, largely driven by government itself, to discourage smoking. A movement that in principle I fully support for the record.

However it's effectively redundant at this point and has been for some years now. Nobody can possibly say in 2023 they're unaware of the dangers of smoking, it's just not plausible given the overwhelming attention drawn to it over an extended period. Meanwhile it's been banned for years now in any public situation where others might reasonably be exposed.

Education is done. Protecting the innocent is done. Government's taxed the product heavily. That's the logical end point. What is there left to achieve?

And yet despite that, rather than seeing that as the end point we now have a push to ramp it up even further to the point of interfering with the product itself, the actual cigarettes, and in the case of vaping outright prohibition.

I'm not into sucking on fumes but wow, just wow. Prohibition in Australia in 2023..... That alone gives me concerns about current political thinking.

Now that isn't about the Voice that's true, but it's an example of what seems to be a common theme in Australia. Things starting out well, achieving much then outliving their purpose rather than wrapping up when the job's done.

Now back to the Voice and the concern I have is simply that in the form proposed it seems highly vulnerable to that same scenario of outliving its purpose.

The aim is to close the gap. Taking that at face value and assuming that is in fact the aim, it's a finite objective. Make steady progress until the gap's closed then that's it, it's done. There's a limit to how long it can reasonably take, it's not an indefinite process.

Once it is done, what purpose does the Voice then serve? Why would we need an ATSI Voice to Parliament once the gap between ATSI and the rest has been eliminated? Logically the answer is we don't unless the real aim of the Voice is more than simply closing the gap.

Maybe there's some ongoing point but government's failing to sell the message. It's failing to sell the message that this isn't going to turn into one of those perpetual things that, once the original purpose is achieved, seeks to justify its ongoing existence indefinitely by coming up with an endless agenda.

To be fair, I'll add that the basic concept isn't unique to government. I've seen engineers do it too - keep coming up with endless tests, modifications, revisions, upgrades and so on until finally someone in management says enough and pulls the pin on the project. It's the same basic scenario, seeking to create ongoing work for oneself beyond the natural end point. Anything where the results are intangible or otherwise not readily demonstrated is particularly prone for obvious reasons.

So my concern about the Voice is it falls into that trap of serving itself more than those it represents. The ambiguity surrounding it raises many red flags there, it appears to be something where measuring performance would be extremely difficult at best. A situation where those involved can forever argue they need to continue because there's more to be done, without anyone being able to prove or disprove the claim.

Finally there's government itself. When the salesman can't explain the features of the product that doesn't convince the customer to go ahead.

Personally well I do support closing the gap. Just as I support everyone being given equal opportunity so far as possible. Just don't turn them into perpetual victims and don't go down the condescending "government knows best" path.

 

[Smurf1976]

Even @Smurf1976 is now posting false equivalences to defend his views.

As I've previously stated, I'm undecided on the matter.

I do however see a number of "red flags" which warrant investigation hence my paying attention to it.

In short I fully agree with the "closing the gap" objective, it's the means of achieving it I have concerns about.

Among other issues, I don't know enough about Aboriginal culture to know whether or not these "Elders" will truly act in the long term best interests of younger ATSI people in particular. I do however know that in mainstream non-ATSI Australian culture someone in that position couldn't be trusted to do so.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's an unfortunate reality in Australia that pretty much any movement, whether formal or informal, becomes a permanent fixture long after its logical end point has been reached.

As one example, well I'm not a smoker but it's a reasonable example of a simple, well known and somewhat informal movement, largely driven by government itself, to discourage smoking. A movement that in principle I fully support for the record.

However it's effectively redundant at this point and has been for some years now. Nobody can possibly say in 2023 they're unaware of the dangers of smoking, it's just not plausible given the overwhelming attention drawn to it over an extended period. Meanwhile it's been banned for years now in any public situation where others might reasonably be exposed.

Education is done. Protecting the innocent is done. Government's taxed the product heavily. That's the logical end point. What is there left to achieve?

And yet despite that, rather than seeing that as the end point we now have a push to ramp it up even further to the point of interfering with the product itself, the actual cigarettes, and in the case of vaping outright prohibition.

I'm not into sucking on fumes but wow, just wow. Prohibition in Australia in 2023..... That alone gives me concerns about current political thinking.

Now that isn't about the Voice that's true, but it's an example of what seems to be a common theme in Australia. Things starting out well, achieving much then outliving their purpose rather than wrapping up when the job's done.

Now back to the Voice and the concern I have is simply that in the form proposed it seems highly vulnerable to that same scenario of outliving its purpose.

The aim is to close the gap. Taking that at face value and assuming that is in fact the aim, it's a finite objective. Make steady progress until the gap's closed then that's it, it's done. There's a limit to how long it can reasonably take, it's not an indefinite process.

Once it is done, what purpose does the Voice then serve? Why would we need an ATSI Voice to Parliament once the gap between ATSI and the rest has been eliminated? Logically the answer is we don't unless the real aim of the Voice is more than simply closing the gap.

Maybe there's some ongoing point but government's failing to sell the message. It's failing to sell the message that this isn't going to turn into one of those perpetual things that, once the original purpose is achieved, seeks to justify its ongoing existence indefinitely by coming up with an endless agenda.

To be fair, I'll add that the basic concept isn't unique to government. I've seen engineers do it too - keep coming up with endless tests, modifications, revisions, upgrades and so on until finally someone in management says enough and pulls the pin on the project. It's the same basic scenario, seeking to create ongoing work for oneself beyond the natural end point. Anything where the results are intangible or otherwise not readily demonstrated is particularly prone for obvious reasons.

So my concern about the Voice is it falls into that trap of serving itself more than those it represents. The ambiguity surrounding it raises many red flags there, it appears to be something where measuring performance would be extremely difficult at best. A situation where those involved can forever argue they need to continue because there's more to be done, without anyone being able to prove or disprove the claim.

Finally there's government itself. When the salesman can't explain the features of the product that doesn't convince the customer to go ahead.

Personally well I do support closing the gap. Just as I support everyone being given equal opportunity so far as possible. Just don't turn them into perpetual victims and don't go down the condescending "government knows best" path.

Hence the best model is a legislated not Constitutional body that can be abolished if and when it achieves its goals or becomes self serving.

That's the issue that many of us have it seems about this version the voice. Once it's there it's there forever. It's a pity some people can't see the problems we are getting into by mucking around with the Constitution.

 

[rederob]

Among other issues, I don't know enough about Aboriginal culture to know whether or not these "Elders" will truly act in the long term best interests of younger ATSI people in particular. I do however know that in mainstream non-ATSI Australian culture someone in that position couldn't be trusted to do so.

Your point has nothing to do with what the Voice proposes.
The Voice is about input into policies for betterment.

In terms of culture, the fact we are dealing with the longest living culture on the planet suggests Elders have always put their people first.

The other point I continue to make is that this referendum is not about you and what you think or believe, it's about empowering ATSI peoples to have greater control of their collective destinies through an opportunity to always be heard in relation to matters affecting them. As you point out, the problem has been that "in mainstream non-ATSI Australian culture someone in that position couldn't be trusted to do so."

 

[rederob]

Hence the best model is a legislated not Constitutional body that can be abolished if and when it achieves its goals or becomes self serving.

Had you bothered to read or understand anything about this topic you would be aware that the Voice is a response to your very point. When the former coalition minister for indigenous affairs noted this and then resigned because his party chose to backtrack on political grounds, it was through a recognition that changes in government bred uncertainty instead of stability.

That's the issue that many of us have it seems about this version the voice.

The issue seems to be about matters that do not exist given your nonsensical commentary to date. The Voice has absolutely no powers beyond providing advice. You and I can provide advice. I have in the past, and these led to changes that saved government millions of dollars by closing loopholes that enabled fraud.

It's a pity some people can't see the problems we are getting into by mucking around with the Constitution.

How about you tell us what these problems are instead of banging on with sheer ignorance.

 

[SirRumpole]

How about you tell us what these problems are instead of banging on with sheer ignorance.

How about you read and understand previous posts on this thread.

 

[JohnDe]

Your question has nothing to do with the referendum question, apart from raising issues that again are irrelevant and nonsensical.
You continue to show total ignorance of this topic.

From the outset Andersons claims are BS as the Voice would sit outside Parliament.
His next point about what powers the Voice would have is the same as mine. That is, it has no more power than you or I.
His point that the Voice might be detrimental only became the case when Dutton turned a bipartisan stance into a political ploy for his bolted on racist supporters - the ones who are happy to see systemic disadvantage continue.
Anderson's claims that the Uluru Statement from the Heart "are actually misleading and highly detrimental" is further BS as the constitutional change is spelled out clearly:

"We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution."​

I won't go further as Anderson's mob in the previous Parliament proved how useless they were in Closing the Gap. The likes of Anderson have been the problem... white men who think they know what to do because they are elected to govern, but remain oblivious to the cultural diversity of first nations peoples and used broad brush policies to try to effect change, rather than seek local solutions.

What did Anderson not say?
Did he, for example, mention how his LNP colleagues in government and then opposition proposed to improve the Voice? No, because their silence has been deafening.
Did he forget that the Coalition's previous Minister for indigenous Affairs resigned in disgust?
Did he show how a continuation of the previous approach was the right path?
Did he offer anything substantive at all, putting aside his lies and blatantly misleading claims about the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

What he did was what every "no" proponent has done. Find excuses, lie and mislead, when otherwise not making nonsensical and irrelevant claims.

And the theme continues.

 

[TimeISmoney]

Your point has nothing to do with what the Voice proposes.
The Voice is about input into policies for betterment.

In terms of culture, the fact we are dealing with the longest living culture on the planet suggests Elders have always put their people first.

The other point I continue to make is that this referendum is not about you and what you think or believe, it's about empowering ATSI peoples to have greater control of their collective destinies through an opportunity to always be heard in relation to matters affecting them. As you point out, the problem has been that "in mainstream non-ATSI Australian culture someone in that position couldn't be trusted to do so."

The young don't want to listen to their elders anymore, tradition is going out the window as it is with many cultures. 2500 people went to the Uluru statement convention (hand picked reps) and only 250 people signed, what does that tell you? The videos of the founder that are floating around that show the other side of the mild mannered Mayo are alarming, with words of tearing down the institutions and punishing politicians that don't listen to them, how does he propose to do this?

 

[rederob]

It's an unfortunate reality in Australia that pretty much any movement, whether formal or informal, becomes a permanent fixture long after its logical end point has been reached.

The Voice is not a movement. It's a body that is proposed to represent first nations peoples. Maybe when there are none left in thousands of years time there can be another Constitutional change.

Your further points fail basic logic as you are again using a false equivalence.

So my concern about the Voice is it falls into that trap of serving itself more than those it represents.

What is your explanation for "advice" - the only power of the Voice - being the problems you describe? You and others keep drawing irrelevant inferences based on non-existent features.

Finally there's government itself. When the salesman can't explain the features of the product that doesn't convince the customer to go ahead.

The government has explained the features of the Voice which are being proposed to make it effective. The government cannot guarantee what can only be left to Parliament decide in terms its ultimate operational mechanics.
Put simply, the Voice is given an opportunity to present advice to government and, quite separately, Parliament will always decide on the machinery that can give it effect. Thus, in simple terms any government can choose to neuter the Voice's effectiveness for whatever reason they choose by removing the machinery it formerly provided. Concerns about the Voice being self serving are baseless.

 

[rederob]

And the theme continues.

You and @SirRumpole should stop sleeping together.
Why are you posting lies from idiots?

Let me point some out:
@ 1:47 this idiot refers to "labor's model for a Voice." There is no such thing. The background to the Voice has been explained in this thread.
@ 2:27 this idiot has not worked out the difference between Labor's support for the yes vote and the Albanese government's commitment to put the vote to a referendum. They are different things. Albanese's Government is not funding either campaign.
@ 2:30 this idiot makes the false claim that it's "a referendum that changes the basis of law in Australia." Strange how he cannot say how!
@ 3:15 this idiot has not worked out that the Voice is not yet in play, but makes claims about what it has already done! Whoever wrote his notes gets a fail.
For the next minute or so this fool cherrypicks debunked claims about equality, but forgets that if there was equality then ATSI peoples would not suffer as they have and as they continue.
@ 5:00 this idiot falsely claims the model means we would no longer have "equal right under the law". Nobody has shown how this can be true as the referendum has no provisions that affect rights.

The rest is more dribbling on about matters that I have regularly debunked here.
We could go back to the beginning of this liar's speech where @ 0:25 he says he cares and then acknowledges the many things the Voice has targeted for change, but then begins to disparage in his diatribe.

It's always a shame when posters have to rely on the lies of others for their opinions. Seems we are becoming more like America every day.

 

[JohnDe]

A must watch -

Referendum 2023 | The Voice to Parliament Debate | Listen to both sides!

CIS hosted and broadcasted an Oxford-style debate on the motion “The Voice to Parliament is needed to address Indigenous matters.”​

​

This year Australia will hold a referendum on whether to change the constitution and ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ views are better represented in Parliament. Is the Voice about giving Indigenous Australians a right to express their views on policy through representatives elected by their communities? Or would the Voice provide cover for an activist government to legislate radical policy with no genuine democratic consent?​

​

On the affirmative side were Australia’s first Indigenous Senior Counsel, Anthony McAvoy, and constitutional lawyer Shireen Morris. Against the proposition were Northern Territory Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and head of CIS Indigenous Forum Nyunggai Warren Mundine.​

​

Referendum question: The question to be put to the Australian people at the 2023 referendum will be: “A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”​

​

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is a Country Liberal Senator for The Northern Territory and former Deputy-Mayor of Alice Springs.​

​

Dr Shireen Morris is a constitutional lawyer and teaches constitutional law, constitutional reform and Indigenous constitutional recognition at Macquarie University. She is co-author of the book A Rightful Place: A Road Map to Recognition (Black Inc.).​

​

Nyunggai Warren Mundine is director of the Indigenous Forum at CIS. He is an author of several books including Warren Mundine in Black and White: Race, Politics and Changing Australia (Pantera Press) and editor of Beyond Belief – Rethinking the Voice to Parliament (Connor Court).​

​

Anthony McAvoy is Australia’s first Indigenous Senior Counsel and between 2011 and 2013, Tony was an Acting Part-Time Commissioner of the NSW Land and Environment Court. He was also Acting Northern Territory Treaty Commissioner from the period of Dec 2021 to June 2022.​

 

[SirRumpole]

You and @SirRumpole should stop sleeping together.
Why are you posting lies from idiots?

Let me point some out:
@ 1:47 this idiot refers to "labor's model for a Voice." There is no such thing. The background to the Voice has been explained in this thread.
@ 2:27 this idiot has not worked out the difference between Labor's support for the yes vote and the Albanese government's commitment to put the vote to a referendum. They are different things. Albanese's Government is not funding either campaign.
@ 2:30 this idiot makes the false claim that it's "a referendum that changes the basis of law in Australia." Strange how he cannot say how!
@ 3:15 this idiot has not worked out that the Voice is not yet in play, but makes claims about what it has already done! Whoever wrote his notes gets a fail.
For the next minute or so this fool cherrypicks debunked claims about equality, but forgets that if there was equality then ATSI peoples would not suffer as they have and as they continue.
@ 5:00 this idiot falsely claims the model means we would no longer have "equal right under the law". Nobody has shown how this can be true as the referendum has no provisions that affect rights.

The rest is more dribbling on about matters that I have regularly debunked here.
We could go back to the beginning of this liar's speech where @ 0:25 he says he cares and then acknowledges the many things the Voice has targeted for change, but then begins to disparage in his diatribe.

It's always a shame when posters have to rely on the lies of others for their opinions. Seems we are becoming more like America every day.

A lot of organisations start with good intentions but get taken over by powerbrokers and radicals. Quite a few unions for example. They increase their own power or incomes at the expense of the national interest.

Why would we want to Constitutionally enshrine a body where this could happen ?

 

[rederob]

A lot of organisations start with good intentions

It's not an organisation.
Learn something about the Voice as your contributions remain baseless.

Quite a few unions for example.

You should learn about logic and what a false equivalence is. Read my replies to @Smurf1976.

They increase their own power or incomes at the expense of the national interest.

Another clueless comment. You have never at any point in this thread been able to prove your claims are valid.

Why would we want to Constitutionally enshrine a body where this could happen ?

Because if you had a clue you would know your claims are total nonsense.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's not an organisation.

It doesn't matter what you call it , it will be a body with influence, subject to corruption or influence peddling.

 

[rederob]

It doesn't matter what you call it , it will be a body with influence, subject to corruption or influence peddling.

You mean like governments under the former NSW Liberal Premier (Gladys), or that under Qld's Premier Bjelke Petersen to name just a few obvious corrupt organisations, not to mention the Coalitions "sports rorts". I have hundreds examples of government corruption from elected representatives that have actual power and control of budgets that I could put forward. However, the Voice can only offer advice on policies for betterment, so how do you suggest it could ever be corrupt?

All you do is throw mud and create distractions based on a persisting ignorance, because you are clueless!

 

[SirRumpole]

You mean like governments under the former NSW Liberal Premier (Gladys), or that under Qld's Premier Bjelke Petersen to name just a few obvious corrupt organisations, not to mention the Coalitions "sports rorts". I have hundreds examples of government corruption from elected representatives that have actual power and control of budgets that I could put forward. However, the Voice can only offer advice on policies for betterment, so how do you suggest it could ever be corrupt?

All you do is throw mud and create distractions based on a persisting ignorance, because you are clueless!

Cash for advice ?

If advice recommends large increases in spending in particular areas a payment from those areas could be arranged. Don't tell me that aboriginals are incorruptible, look at Geoff Clarke.

 

[IFocus]

Treaty will come.

I hope it will but cannot see it ever Australia really does have a problem with Aboriginals.

As for the rest of it- I've seen this political fckery before. I know the exact type of grifters that get in. The "useful idiots" that encourage it. The wankers that then shamelessly extract $ from taxpayers from idiot grifts.

Yeah aware of all that I know of stuff happening right now in the North West of WA but that happens at all levels cannot let that be the decider on stuff where it benefits the majority that needs it.

I know how far activists go. It doesn't stop here. My cousins were some of the most notorious in nz. As we speak they are trying to rename the country.

Like I said you have nfi. But your hearts in the right place.

Nah not completely naïve again focus on the big game not the crap that happens around it IMHO on the other side you have the likes of Pauline Hanson who has made a fortune out of playing the race card grifter on steroids' if you look into it, happens on both side of the equation.

Any way I think other than a miracle the Voice is dead, would expect the Fed Labor Gov to legislate then the Coalition Gov to remove likely come back to the states.

I really would like to see some thing any thing that can restore a bit of pride in Aboriginals in the NW of WA there was none it was pretty stark.

 

[IFocus]

Cash for advice ?

If advice recommends large increases in spending in particular areas a payment from those areas could be arranged. Don't tell me that aboriginals are incorruptible, look at Geoff Clarke.

Come on Rump it will fall under the Federal ICAC that's not going to get to far IMHO, Clarke was a shocker, it will be continually up to the government of the day to administer however they see fit its not an open free for all.

But then you would know that surely?

 

[SirRumpole]

Come on Rump it will fall under the Federal ICAC that's not going to get to far IMHO, Clarke was a shocker, it will be continually up to the government of the day to administer however they see fit its not an open free for all.

But then you would know that surely?

I don't how it will be organised they haven't told us, we are supposed to take it on faith.

Again the politicians say "trust us". We keep on falling for that line.

 

[Smurf1976]

You mean like governments under the former NSW Liberal Premier (Gladys), or that under Qld's Premier Bjelke Petersen to name just a few obvious corrupt organisations, not to mention the Coalitions "sports rorts". I have hundreds examples of government corruption from elected representatives that have actual power and control of budgets that I could put forward.

The relevance of my various other examples is simply that's the reason I and so many are wary of the Voice in the first place. If government can't resist meddling in private matters or it can't simply tell the truth about straightforward and easily measured policy then why on earth would anyone accept the "just trust me" argument being presented regarding something as permanent and hard to measure as the Voice?

Everyone's heard the "boy who cried wolf" story, right? The situation we have at present is that scenario on steroids - a very substantial portion of the population simply doesn't trust government at this point on any matter. Not because of the Voice itself but because of all the other things successive governments of both persuasions have failed at or outright lied about. Slowly but surely the credibility of the federal government, regardless of which party is in power, has been eroded.

The most important pre-requisite to any major reform in Australia, on any matter, is to first rebuild the public's confidence in government itself. Not confidence in Labor or Liberal, but confidence in the entire concept of the federal government being competent, professional and not being out to get at individuals. Right now that's seriously lacking.