- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,525
- Reactions
- 26,049
You've worked in a workshop, you know the game, people hate being told what to do.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! ?
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?
You've worked in a workshop, you know the game, people hate being told what to do.
It will?The Voice advice will be on the public record
No it is not.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?
It that the sort of thing that worries you Smurf?
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.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 ....
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.
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.I have no problem with the Voice, consititued, giving advice and it being ignored.
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.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.
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.A key difference is the AMA has no guaranteed access to government.
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.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.
Show how your idea is true as I know it is arrant nonsense, but welcome youpr oving your point.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.
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.
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:It should be pointed out that "closing the gap" is also not relevant to the referendum.
Yet it was what drove the option of a Voice ahead of mere recognition.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.
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.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!
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.
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: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.
Given the proponents actually recognise this point, why is it a concern?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.
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.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 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.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.
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.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.
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.Show how your idea is true as I know it is arrant nonsense, but welcome youpr oving your point.
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?