The Voice

[sptrawler]

SP stop digging if you believe in a treaty (outcome goes way beyond the Voice) then you would back the Voice without question as a stepping stone.

Especially as you are a savvy media/ political observer it’s surely a no brainer! ?

You've worked in a workshop, you know the game, people hate being told what to do.
The only way it is going to work, is to work toward giving them self determination over remote communities and make a compensation payment for the land our cities are on, or some similar negotiated outcome.
Otherwise the same issue is going to be rolled out in another 10 years IMO.
Everyone agrees that the voice is a powerless gesture, so really what is the point, that will be what people are asking.

 

[IFocus]

Which is the problem with the Voice is it not?

Government is under no obligation to take any notice of it. Just as it's under no obligation to take any notice of any of the other countless public servants, consultants, lobbyists and others who give it information at present.

Perhaps what we really need is an obligation on government to publicly disclose all advice received?

The Voice advice will be on the public record unlike what happens now.

Question we all know there are major failures now what advice has governments received and ignored to the detriment of Aboriginals?

Where is that information?

Do you think an political opposition might rub the failure of a government policy outside of public advice into their faces.

If not the Voice then what?

 

[IFocus]

You've worked in a workshop, you know the game, people hate being told what to do.

I was the worst offender ??

 

[Smurf1976]

The Voice advice will be on the public record

It will?

Whatever the Voice recommends or says is publicly released in a timely manner and government cannot withhold that information from public release?

If so then that highlights the government's failure to sell the message here as to how it works.

If the "yes" case were pushing that message they'd probably have more support.

 

[orr]

Which is the problem with the Voice is it not?

No it is not.

ROBO debt was based from the begining on illegality. Then greased through by sociopathic, sicophantic self serveing public servants kissing the ring of their putrid dystopian (would you like their names ) Masters as the RC has made clear.

The Voice; would on face value allow submissions to point out just such behaviour as affecting decendents of origonal occupants of the continent....
From there it would be at the very least a moral imperative; and on which the government of the day would be judged by their actions.
It that the sort of thing that worries you Smurf?

 

[orr]

And trawler i luv your input....
Deborah Conway who did some great work with Ruby Hunter( not that I suspect you'd know who these women are they are on topic) did a great track called 'Idiot Grin' .... you and that emoji no more to say ....

 

[Smurf1976]

No it is not.

ROBO debt was based from the begining on illegality. Then greased through by sociopathic, sicophantic self serveing public servants kissing the ring of their putrid dystopian (would you like their names ) Masters as the RC has made clear.

The Voice; would on face value allow submissions to point out just such behaviour as affecting decendents of origonal occupants of the continent....
From there it would be at the very least a moral imperative; and on which the government of the day would be judged by their actions.
It that the sort of thing that worries you Smurf?

Regardless of whether Robodebt was a good idea or bad, regardless of whether it was legal or illegal, the point is government ignored the concerns raised by competent people at the time.

The issue being about government ignoring advice, not what the advice was or whether the idea was good or not, but that the government ignored the advice it was given.

There doesn't seem to be anything to prevent doing that with the Voice, just as it's routinely done with everything from the environment to roads.

Robodebt is a particularly bad example, but it's not the only such incident that's killed someone and/or brought about serious impacts.

It that the sort of thing that worries you Smurf?

My point is simply about ignoring advice as such.

Anyone can receive advice, governments get lots of that routinely, but it's what they do with it that counts. All too often it's a case of latching onto anything that supports a preferred outcome and ignoring or even silencing anything that doesn't.

Then there's the quality of the advice in the first place. I say that being well aware of the games that go on and that all too often an issue is "captured" by either the Minister or a senior public servant and goes down a path of, at best, taking a one sided view in order to make the preferred outcome appear to be the only credible option. At worst it ends up with outright fabrication to support the preferred outcome.

That's what consultants are for. Their job is to find arguments that support the preferred conclusion. That's why they're hired and anyone who's seen the game knows how it works. Consultant comes in, everything's done with a straight face to appear fully legitimate, but the conclusion was written before they even turned up. Everything that happens is simply a charade to tick the boxes that all options were considered, everyone was consulted and so on. BS they were.

Been there, seen this one.

Back to the point - receiving advice of itself doesn't change much. It's the quality of that advice and what's done with it that counts.

PS - As for Robodebt well it's a different subject but for the record I'm not even slightly keen on the idea. Pretty sure I said that at the time.

 

[sptrawler]

And trawler i luv your input....
Deborah Conway who did some great work with Ruby Hunter( not that I suspect you'd know who these women are they are on topic) did a great track called 'Idiot Grin' .... you and that emoji no more to say ....

I just love your posts orr, they are always good for a laugh, keep up the in depth analysis, with slightly off the wall humour.

 

[orr]

Regardless of whether Robodebt was a good idea or bad, regardless of whether it was legal or illegal, the point is government ignored the concerns raised by competent people at the time.

The issue being about government ignoring advice, not what the advice was or whether the idea was good or not, but that the government ignored the advice it was given.

There doesn't seem to be anything to prevent doing that with the Voice, just as it's routinely done with everything from the environment to roads.

Robodebt is a particularly bad example, but it's not the only such incident that's killed someone and/or brought about serious impacts.



My point is simply about ignoring advice as such.

Anyone can receive advice, governments get lots of that routinely, but it's what they do with it that counts. All too often it's a case of latching onto anything that supports a preferred outcome and ignoring or even silencing anything that doesn't.

Then there's the quality of the advice in the first place. I say that being well aware of the games that go on and that all too often an issue is "captured" by either the Minister or a senior public servant and goes down a path of, at best, taking a one sided view in order to make the preferred outcome appear to be the only credible option. At worst it ends up with outright fabrication to support the preferred outcome.

That's what consultants are for. Their job is to find arguments that support the preferred conclusion. That's why they're hired and anyone who's seen the game knows how it works. Consultant comes in, everything's done with a straight face to appear fully legitimate, but the conclusion was written before they even turned up. Everything that happens is simply a charade to tick the boxes that all options were considered, everyone was consulted and so on. BS they were.

Been there, seen this one.

Back to the point - receiving advice of itself doesn't change much. It's the quality of that advice and what's done with it that counts.

PS - As for Robodebt well it's a different subject but for the record I'm not even slightly keen on the idea. Pretty sure I said that at the time.

I beg to differ on a number of points:
But a quick quote from Milan Kundera 'the fight against power is the fight against forgetting'

There's a bit bean made down this thread on the myths of aborigonal oral history and here we are seventy odd pg's in and a few reactionary's are posting what appears their first aquantince with Geffory Blainey but no mention of Henry Renolds? Ah the power of the written word. Not much use if you've never done the reading.

to your point Smurf;
I have no problem with the Voice, consititued, giving advice and it being ignored. The proposal asks for nothing more.
The moral impertus is on what advice is and is not ignored by government and then by the actions that would follow.
On which the electorate would be the final arbitor.
It's Democratic. As would be the democratic passing of Legislation post referendum.
The real power is in the parliament.....
As to your consultant quibbles? the more free access to FOI's accross the board ; I'm with you there. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

In no small part did the actions of the previous government, ROBO debt being one, have the Demos give their abitration. Get the idea?

 

[Smurf1976]

I have no problem with the Voice, consititued, giving advice and it being ignored.

The issue I do have is with the public's understanding of this which at present I suspect is a very long way from reality.

 

[SirRumpole]

The issue I do have is with the public's understanding of this which at present I suspect is a very long way from reality.

The public have little understanding because we are being asked to vote on a simplistic question with the details left to people who we have little reason to trust.

 

[rederob]

A key difference is the AMA has no guaranteed access to government.

Nobody has a "guarantee" so there's no difference. Both the Voice and the AMA may (note: not "shall") make representations to Parliament. However the reality here is that there are peak lobby groups that constantly have the ear of relevant Ministers, are regularly invited to political functions, and quite a few make party donations to support them win government.

Nor does any other lobby group from childcare to mining. They might be able to influence government in practice, or they might not, but the constitution doesn't recognise them.

That's a key difference.

The purpose of the referendum question is to provide first nations people recognition, so there is a pretty good reason we are being asked to vote on that proposition.
What have other bodies got that deserves they be recognised as well?

 

[rederob]

The constitutional changes to give indigenous and their descendants a lifetime second method of influencing public policy is unfair and racist in itself (You're giving a racial privilege). I'm sure most Australians wouldn't have a problem in recognising that indigenous people were the first to inhabit the Australian continent.

Show how your idea is true as I know it is arrant nonsense, but welcome youpr oving your point.

 

[SirRumpole]

The purpose of the referendum question is to provide first nations people recognition, so there is a pretty good reason we are being asked to vote on that proposition.

If it was just recognition there would be no problem.

The Voice is the problem.

 

[rederob]

It should be pointed out that "closing the gap" is also not relevant to the referendum.

Actually it is. If you had read reports leading to the referendum question you would know the idea of a Voice was added to help close the gap:

"..., many of those consulted by the Panel supported the idea that constitutional recognition could provide a more positive framework within which the issues collected under the heading ‘closing the gap’ could be addressed more successfully." ​

Furthermore, the Voice was originally only the 5th option of the Referendum Council that reported to government in 2017:

"... a fifth option, providing for a First Peoples’ Voice to be heard by Parliament, and the right to be consulted on legislation and policies that relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples."​

And the Council also stated:

"... it is our view that they are inextricably linked to the issue of constitutional reform"​

Actually improving the lives of ATSI people is a different issue entirely - the Voice may or may not do that, but it's in no way guaranteed that it will so it's not the question.

Yet it was what drove the option of a Voice ahead of mere recognition.

 

[rederob]

If it was just recognition there would be no problem.

The Voice is the problem.

You have never yet been able to explain the problem of a Voice unless it is couched in a complete lack of understanding of the whole issue.
Isn't it interesting that experts who were involved in consultations and constitutional law backed the Voice as a solution rather than a problem!

 

[SirRumpole]

You have never yet been able to explain the problem of a Voice unless it is couched in a complete lack of understanding of the whole issue.
Isn't it interesting that experts who were involved in consultations and constitutional law backed the Voice as a solution rather than a problem!

No I think I have explained the problems of the Voice, you just haven't listened !

 

[IFocus]

It will?

Whatever the Voice recommends or says is publicly released in a timely manner and government cannot withhold that information from public release?

If so then that highlights the government's failure to sell the message here as to how it works.

If the "yes" case were pushing that message they'd probably have more support.

It’s in the model proposed Albo has repeatedly said the same

 

[rederob]

Regardless of whether Robodebt was a good idea or bad, regardless of whether it was legal or illegal, the point is government ignored the concerns raised by competent people at the time.

Implementing an illegal scheme - as evidenced by the removal of certain words on the proposal presented to Cabinet - was a deliberate and calculated abuse of power:

"The second part of the report begins with the design of the Scheme and its adoption by Cabinet as a Budget measure, with a particular exploration of how concerns about its legality were put to one side."​

There doesn't seem to be anything to prevent doing that with the Voice, just as it's routinely done with everything from the environment to roads.

Given the proponents actually recognise this point, why is it a concern?

Anyone can receive advice, governments get lots of that routinely, but it's what they do with it that counts. All too often it's a case of latching onto anything that supports a preferred outcome and ignoring or even silencing anything that doesn't.

I made that exact point earlier. The difference with the Voice is that there will be a process of assessing grass roots ideas, costing them and prioritising them for consideration. The idea of silencing the Voice is fraught, especially as it will be accountable for what it presents.

Then there's the quality of the advice in the first place. I say that being well aware of the games that go on and that all too often an issue is "captured" by either the Minister or a senior public servant and goes down a path of, at best, taking a one sided view in order to make the preferred outcome appear to be the only credible option. At worst it ends up with outright fabrication to support the preferred outcome.

I think this is a misunderstanding of process, as the Voice will operate within a prescribed framework. Part of that is working with bureaucrats on policy development and implementation.

Back to the point - receiving advice of itself doesn't change much. It's the quality of that advice and what's done with it that counts.

The bit you skipped was what led to the advice in the first place. The Voice intends to improve that aspect by recognising that the nature of issues impacting ATSI communities varies considerably and that responses need to be tailored to particular circumstances.

 

[TimeISmoney]

Show how your idea is true as I know it is arrant nonsense, but welcome youpr oving your point.

How does it work if the voice isn't there to convince policy change to advantage one group, it really just shows how discriminatory people want to be and haven't learned anything from it, it can't be any more obvious.