The Voice

[rederob]

If the people vote "YES" to the Voice then can we trust that the Voice and parliament will get in with it, the issues will be worked through and resolved in a timely manner, and public debate can shift onto any of the rather long list of other matters facing Australia and its people?

First, if the Voice got up it would take a few years to get in place everything necessary for it to be effective.
Secondly, you do not "resolve in a timely manner" issues that have been in place for generations. In 1987 Bob Hawke made a claim about children not living in poverty, and how is that one going?
Finally, public debate has never been unipolar. Bigger matters today relate to costs of living, mortgage stress, inflation and interest rates.

Or does it become like climate change with debate turning into a 36 year (and counting) circus of short sightedness at best, pure politics at worst, whilst the climate scientists, engineers and others who know the details of the problem and/or how to fix it watch from the sidelines truly amazed at the circus before them?

It's really easy to fudge climate change effort. Very few people understand how meaningless it is to say we are on track to meet our 2030 pledge. What they will understand is how weather extremes are impacting various communities, or that load shedding (blackouts) is occurring through a failure to futureproof our energy systems.
On the other hand we have a large population who deny there is a problem, deny the science, and claim we are irrelevant to the problem because of our population.
What is different here is that we have irrefutable data from Closing the Gap and can track the policy areas that have failed to make a difference. So with the Voice in place, and an ability to see where they have provided advice, we will have a transparency that does not exist in the climate debate.

 

[SirRumpole]

So with the Voice in place, and an ability to see where they have provided advice, we will have a transparency that does not exist in the climate debate.

What is the guarantee of "transparency" ?

Ordinary citizens don't get to see advice presented to Cabinet by Public Servants or corporations so why will it be different for the Voice ?

 

[IFocus]

You added that little analogy in the edit. It wasn't a marriage - it was an age of conquest. Some modern nation-states still operate with that type of view on taking over territory - so we should be much more mindful of our defences and alliances than we are; that would be a tangible lesson we could learn from the ATSIs,

Did you happen to know those with Norman-derived surnames still even now almost a thousand years after the conquest have a typically higher social status in England?

The British took hold of Australia on the legal basis that the land was unoccupied.

Federation formed from the same lie.

So Australia was built on a lie and by your account still being perpetrated today?

 

[rederob]

What is the guarantee of "transparency" ?

Ordinary citizens don't get to see advice presented to Cabinet by Public Servants or corporations so why will it be different for the Voice ?

Your ignorance shines like a beacon to racism.
Why don't you start to read about what the Voice is and how it is being proposed to operate?

 

[SirRumpole]

Your ignorance shines like a beacon to racism.
Why don't you start to read about what the Voice is and how it is being proposed to operate?

If you can't answer the question, that's your problem, troll.



" An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic. They can come in many forms. Most trolls do this for their own amusement, but other forms of trolling are done to push a specific agenda."

 

[sptrawler]

What is different here is that we have irrefutable data from Closing the Gap and can track the policy areas that have failed to make a difference. So with the Voice in place, and an ability to see where they have provided advice, we will have a transparency that does not exist in the climate debate.

We had irrefutable evidence that the 'Gonski" report was going to improve outcomes in the education system, now years later the results are in and it showing that the problems wasn't related to the issues as identified by the report, but by the teachers being trained incorrectly and delivering poor outcomes.
Which the Government is now trying to address, meanwhile we now have two generations of sliding educational outcomes to address
So actually getting a report to say what those who funded and set up the report want, isn't very difficult, actually changing or improving the real outcomes are. As Jason Clare is finding out as he attempts to clean up the mess.

As @IFocus says the high level of reoffending with indigenous kids, is showing that jail isn't working, that doesn't prove that not jailing them will improve the situation either.
It is easy to draw conclusions, it is proving much more difficult to explain an alternative.
What also isn't helping the debate is the W.A native title changes that have recently been enacted, it is starting to appear that a gravy train of companies to identify heritage sites are going to appear.

In todays 'West Australian' there is an example of person who bought a 4,000sqm block in Exmouth 2 years ago, he now has to get it checked for heritage sites at a cost of $20k and if there are sites found what then? Should the survey be paid for by the purchaser, or should it be the council/Governments responsibility?
Will there be caveats put of heritage listed land and will existing landowners be compensated by the Government for loss of value, they paid their stamp duty on the understanding the titles office gave clear title.
Interesting times ahead.

 

[wayneL]

We had irrefutable evidence that the 'Gonski" report was going to improve outcomes in the education system, now years later the results are in and it showing that the problems wasn't related to the issues as identified by the report, but by the teachers being trained incorrectly and delivering poor outcomes.
Which the Government is now trying to address, meanwhile we now have two generations of sliding educational outcomes to address
So actually getting a report to say what those who funded and set up the report want, isn't very difficult, actually changing or improving the real outcomes are. As Jason Clare is finding out as he attempts to clean up the mess.

As @IFocus says the high level of reoffending with indigenous kids, is showing that jail isn't working, that doesn't prove that not jailing them will improve the situation either.
It is easy to draw conclusions, it is proving much more difficult to explain an alternative.
What also isn't helping the debate is the W.A native title changes that have recently been enacted, it is starting to appear that a gravy train of companies to identify heritage sites are going to appear.

In todays 'West Australian' there is an example of person who bought a 4,000sqm block in Exmouth 2 years ago, he now has to get it checked for heritage sites at a cost of $20k and if there are sites found what then? Should the survey be paid for by the purchaser, or should it be the council/Governments responsibility?
Will there be caveats put of heritage listed land and will existing landowners be compensated by the Government for loss of value, they paid their stamp duty on the understanding the titles office gave clear title.
Interesting times ahead.

Like I said these things benefit the elites with no outcome for the plebs.

I believe that is intentional.

 

[sptrawler]

The British took hold of Australia on the legal basis that the land was unoccupied.

Federation formed from the same lie.

So Australia was built on a lie and by your account still being perpetrated today?

The voice in no way addresses that issue and IMO that is the main problem, until that issue is sorted the Indigenous population can always say everything is a result of colonisation and the land being taken from them, as you rightly do.

So unless something more structured is presented, the voice in many people's eyes, is just a case of throwing good money after bad.
That is from sources other than the forum by the way, at the end of the day it will all be about the cost and who foots the bill.
There was no public backlash when Kev appologised, things are moving to a whole new level and people are rightfully getting nervous, many worked hard to get what they have and they sense it is under threat by stealth.
That's life, I think as usual good intentions are turning into a disaster, as usually happens when the Governments have a brain fart without some serious planning.
The Electrical issue is also coming to a boil also, hopefully some of these projects that the Govt have up in the air get landed soon, because the public is getting more nervous by the day IMO.

 

[TimeISmoney]

In todays 'West Australian' there is an example of person who bought a 4,000sqm block in Exmouth 2 years ago, he now has to get it checked for heritage sites at a cost of $20k and if there are sites found what then? Should the survey be paid for by the purchaser, or should it be the council/Governments responsibility?
Will there be caveats put of heritage listed land and will existing landowners be compensated by the Government for loss of value, they paid their stamp duty on the understanding the titles office gave clear title.
Interesting times ahead.

Have these property owners got a representative body protected by the constitution and paid at the cost of the tax payer that can advise on these matters?

 

[SirRumpole]

A pretty good essay on the merits of the Voice.

What is the true purpose of ‘The Voice’? | The Spectator Australia

There are two elements to this proposed Voice referendum. The Voice itself and its inclusion in the Constitution. The latter is, appropriately, termed ‘enshrinement’. In other words, it’s not a…

www.spectator.com.au

 

[rederob]

If you can't answer the question, that's your problem, troll.

The answer to your question and every other question you have put up has been answered in publicly available information.
I also provided a link at post #1574 that made it clear.
It's tedious addressing your ignorance so why don't you read or watch people who have explained what you want to know. Linda Burney last provided an answer to your question on Insiders yesterday, and she has regularly reiterated the Voice will be transparent and accountable.

 

[SirRumpole]

The answer to your question and every other question you have put up has been answered in publicly available information.
I also provided a link at post #1574 that made it clear.
It's tedious addressing your ignorance so why don't you read or watch people who have explained what you want to know. Linda Burney last provided an answer to your question on Insiders yesterday, and she has regularly reiterated the Voice will be transparent and accountable.

Linda Burney is not Constitutionally enshrined, so she can't guarantee anything.

 

[Sean K]

Your ignorance shines like a beacon to racism.

I've only take you off ignore for a day to see what you might be posting, but it remains the same. Continuously and persistently ad hom.

 

[rederob]

I've only take you off ignore for a day to see what you might be posting, but it remains the same. Continuously and persistently ad hom.

Maybe you too might read what has been posted and written, and can be accessed by anyone who cares to be informed.
It's tedious addressing wilful ignorance. @SirRumpole has made an artform of asking questions that have been many times answered but he chooses not to understand or cannot understand.

I don't get distracted by streams of irrelevant posts, but I try to correct misinformation and also point out outright lies. I have yet to see a credible case for the "no" vote. The reason why this is so is due to the referendum question's simplicity. Despite what people might think, an outcome would be Constitutional recognition enshrined in a body that can provide advice. The only people affected are indigenous, and they stand to benefit if Parliament accepts and acts their advice. How there can be harm in a change that could be beneficial to a sector who suffer more disadvantage than average for all citizens defies common sense.

Edit: To confirm my point you only need to look at post #1632 which you gave the thumbs up to. The Australian government, in my referenced link, state:

• The Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability.

Please show or explain how what I have said is not an example of wilful ignorance on your part and his.

 

[sptrawler]

The reason why this is so is due to the referendum question's simplicity. Despite what people might think, an outcome would be Constitutional recognition enshrined in a body that can provide advice. The only people affected are indigenous, and they stand to benefit if Parliament accepts and acts their advice. How there can be harm in a change that could be beneficial to a sector who suffer more disadvantage than average for all citizens defies common sense.

If people had faith and trust in Government, that would have no trouble getting through, it is a sad reflection on the state of our politicians that people are wary.
But their wariness is understandable and has to be respected, that should have been identified and sorted in the preparation stage.

 

[TimeISmoney]

A pretty good essay on the merits of the Voice.

What is the true purpose of ‘The Voice’? | The Spectator Australia

There are two elements to this proposed Voice referendum. The Voice itself and its inclusion in the Constitution. The latter is, appropriately, termed ‘enshrinement’. In other words, it’s not a…

www.spectator.com.au

What happens in places like Cairns and Darwin is that they commit offenses in isolated communities and then get trialed by the city courts, to avoid tribal punishment or family embarrassment they don't return to their original community and instead hang around cities.

Maybe you too might read what has been posted and written, and can be accessed by anyone who cares to be informed.
It's tedious addressing wilful ignorance. @SirRumpole has made an artform of asking questions that have been many times answered but he chooses not to understand or cannot understand.

I don't get distracted by streams of irrelevant posts, but I try to correct misinformation and also point out outright lies. I have yet to see a credible case for the "no" vote. The reason why this is so is due to the referendum question's simplicity. Despite what people might think, an outcome would be Constitutional recognition enshrined in a body that can provide advice. The only people affected are indigenous, and they stand to benefit if Parliament accepts and acts their advice. How there can be harm in a change that could be beneficial to a sector who suffer more disadvantage than average for all citizens defies common sense.

A lot of what you say is just your opinion, many reputable lawyers have commented on the wording of constitutional changes saying that it really isn't fully explanatory of its function and can be interpreted in many ways.

 

[Sean K]

It's tedious addressing wilful ignorance.

Please show or explain how what I have said is not an example of wilful ignorance on your part and his.

I'm just going to keep quoting your ad homs. RUOK?

 

[wayneL]

Interesting in the context

 

[SirRumpole]

Maybe you too might read what has been posted and written, and can be accessed by anyone who cares to be informed.
It's tedious addressing wilful ignorance. @SirRumpole has made an artform of asking questions that have been many times answered but he chooses not to understand or cannot understand.

I don't get distracted by streams of irrelevant posts, but I try to correct misinformation and also point out outright lies. I have yet to see a credible case for the "no" vote. The reason why this is so is due to the referendum question's simplicity. Despite what people might think, an outcome would be Constitutional recognition enshrined in a body that can provide advice. The only people affected are indigenous, and they stand to benefit if Parliament accepts and acts their advice. How there can be harm in a change that could be beneficial to a sector who suffer more disadvantage than average for all citizens defies common sense.

Edit: To confirm my point you only need to look at post #1632 which you gave the thumbs up to. The Australian government, in my referenced link, state:

• The Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability.

Please show or explain how what I have said is not an example of wilful ignorance on your part and his.

Your arguments simply parrot the opinions of proponents of the voice who have an interest in sanitising the proposal to a level of simplicity that they think will fool the public into an emotional response without asking hard questions. Well when it comes to permanent enshrinement in the Constitution that simply won't wash.

SeanK had the right idea, legislate it first and if it works then put it to a referendum because as it is we are supposed to trust politicians who keep screwing us over.

 

[wayneL]

IMO one of the most sensible politicians we've ever had in this country: