The Voice

[rederob]

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.

I think you need to learn about the role of government, because not a single post from you suggests you have a clue.

 

[rederob]

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

Perhaps put them into a form of words that is actually about the referendum proposal and is rational.
You have not been able to justify any points you have made.

 

[TimeISmoney]

I think you need to learn about the role of government, because not a single post from you suggests you have a clue.

I've represented special interest groups in council chambers many times and I've also dealt with MPs on an industrial level for 20 years. And once again you can't explain how the voice works on a detailed level and just insist on telling people that they're wrong.

 

[SirRumpole]

Perhaps put them into a form of words that is actually about the referendum proposal and is rational.
You have not been able to justify any points you have made.

* What will be the Voice's funding ?

* Who will be eligible to sit on the Voice ?

* Who will be eligible to vote for it ?

* What will be the procedures to elect it ?

* How often will the Voice's panel be up for re-election ?

* Will it have the right to attend Cabinet meetings, Board meetings of corporations, Council deliberations or Public Service meetings ?

* Will the Voice's recommendations be made public as soon as possible ?

The answers to these and other questions should be known before we vote, not left to the rabble to sort out afterwards.

 

[Sean K]

* What will be the Voice's funding ?

* Who will be eligible to sit on the Voice ?

* Who will be eligible to vote for it ?

* What will be the procedures to elect it ?

* How often will the Voice's panel be up for re-election ?

* Will it have the right to attend Cabinet meetings, Board meetings of corporations, Council deliberations or Public Service meetings ?

* Will the Voice's recommendations be made public as soon as possible ?

The answers to these and other questions should be known before we vote, not left to the rabble to sort out afterwards.

Yep, and another 1000 questions everybody has.

It would have been a much better plan to legislate the Voice as a first step.

Then, once we saw it in action, we could have voted to enshrine it if it actually worked in closing the gap.

But that's not what the Voice is about.

 

[sptrawler]

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.

The problem may be that existing policies and departments really should be removed as they aren't effective, which is the case for many Government departments these days that have been superceded by the privatisation model.
Now a lot of these departments are bloatware full of people trying to make themselves relevant in a system that really only handles contracts with service contractors and they even do that badly.
So maybe the voice should actually replace the ministers State and Federal and their departments and a whole new body formed called the department of voice t paliament.
It seems pointless having both and one has been shown to be a complete failure, by the need for the second.

 

[sptrawler]

* What will be the Voice's funding ?

* Who will be eligible to sit on the Voice ?

* Who will be eligible to vote for it ?

* What will be the procedures to elect it ?

* How often will the Voice's panel be up for re-election ?

* Will it have the right to attend Cabinet meetings, Board meetings of corporations, Council deliberations or Public Service meetings ?

* Will the Voice's recommendations be made public as soon as possible ?

The answers to these and other questions should be known before we vote, not left to the rabble to sort out afterwards.

WIll the voice be able to recommend different outcomes/penalties from the current legal system, where the crime affects indigenous people.
These are probably the things that are decided post referendum, where the majority in the parliament decide, because they have people like the roodebt people looking after the decisions on our behalf.
Well you cant have it all ways, these are the questions he public are asking themselves and the answer is" trust us".
Like I said, there is no logic to throwing stones with one hand and saying trust them with the other.
That's life when you run the rusted on debate.
Like I said nothing wrong with the idea, pizz poor planning, pizz poor selling, or it was set up to fail in the first place.

 

[TimeISmoney]

The problem may be that existing policies and departments really should be removed as they aren't effective, which is the case for many Government departments these days that have been superceded by the privatisation model.
Now a lot of these departments are bloatware full of people trying to make themselves relevant in a system that really only handles contracts with service contractors and they even do that badly.
So maybe the voice should actually replace the ministers State and Federal and their departments and a whole new body formed called the department of voice t paliament.
It seems pointless having both and one has been shown to be a complete failure, by the need for the second.

Every vulnerable minority group should do the same then. Go and live in different parts of Europe or the US then you'll see what failure of government looks like, with little to no social benefits, no public health system, and no human rights for many. Most people don't know how good they have it in Australia. This thread just seems to keep on going around in circles.

 

[wayneL]

WIll the voice be able to recommend different outcomes/penalties from the current legal system, where the crime affects indigenous people.
These are probably the things that are decided post referendum, where the majority in the parliament decide, because they have people like the roodebt people looking after the decisions on our behalf.
Well you cant have it all ways, these are the questions he public are asking themselves and the answer is" trust us".
Like I said, there is no logic to throwing stones with one hand and saying trust them with the other.
That's life when you run the rusted on debate.
Like I said nothing wrong with the idea, pizz poor planning, pizz poor selling, or it was set up to fail in the first place.

Agree apart from where you said nothing wrong with the idea.

IMO there's everything wrong with the idea in a liberal democracy. It is divide and rule, pure and simple.

 

[sptrawler]

Agree apart from where you said nothing wrong with the idea.

IMO there's everything wrong with the idea in a liberal democracy. It is divide and rule, pure and simple.

I think there is nothing wrong with the idea of a new group to replace the existing system which is a failure, as the minister herself has already pointed out, basically the whole Federal department of aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders should be sacked.
Whether that requires a change to the constitution, I don't know but that is upto everyone to decide , I think the Minister for aboriginal affairs should be replaced by an administrator who is employed rather that being selected from elected MP's and they should run the section as a business with the inclusion of aboriginal reps elected from the various regions.
That's what they do with local councils that are failing or full of corruption and it seems to work fine.
This would then get the politics out of it and have people in positions where they are accountable and can face consequences for poor administration.
Like I mentioned, a lot of Government departments are no longer fit for purpose and are a leftover, fat and overpaid relic of pre privatisation times, all they do know it seems, is employ consultants and pay contractors who they have outsourced their functions to.
Canberra, bloatware central, "yes minister" alive and well.
The voice, the new department, to do the job the other department should be doing.
Maybe the old department could become the department of food hampers, cross stitch and boot scooting advancement, that would save sacking them.
The only really good argument I've heard is, if not the voice, what? Because there is a problem obviously.

 

[rederob]

* What will be the Voice's funding ?

* Who will be eligible to sit on the Voice ?

* Who will be eligible to vote for it ?

* What will be the procedures to elect it ?

* How often will the Voice's panel be up for re-election ?

* Will it have the right to attend Cabinet meetings, Board meetings of corporations, Council deliberations or Public Service meetings ?

* Will the Voice's recommendations be made public as soon as possible ?

The answers to these and other questions should be known before we vote, not left to the rabble to sort out afterwards.

They are questions you nincompoop.
The issue is recognition.
What is wrong with recognition?
As for your idea that we need to know how it will operate, how can that be important if it can be changed in an instant?
That's exactly why it will always be up to Parliament to say how the Voice works.
You just don't get it, do you!

 

[Sean K]

The problem may be that existing policies and departments really should be removed as they aren't effective, which is the case for many Government departments these days that have been superceded by the privatisation model.
Now a lot of these departments are bloatware full of people trying to make themselves relevant in a system that really only handles contracts with service contractors and they even do that badly.
So maybe the voice should actually replace the ministers State and Federal and their departments and a whole new body formed called the department of voice t paliament.
It seems pointless having both and one has been shown to be a complete failure, by the need for the second.

Is there a summary of all the indigenous voices available? I've read multiple articles documenting this and that advisory bodies and land councils etc, but not a concise summary of all that currently exists. I'd also really like to know where the current $30b in Aboriginal funding goes and what outcomes that has achieved. Is the Voice just another layer of bureaucracy over an already bloated system that has failed and failed over decades to make a difference?

 

[sptrawler]

Is there a summary of all the indigenous voices available? I've read multiple articles documenting this and that advisory bodies and land councils etc, but not a concise summary of all that currently exists. I'd also really like to know where the current $30b in Aboriginal funding goes and what outcomes that has achieved. Is the Voice just another layer of bureaucracy over an already bloated system that has failed and failed over decades to make a difference?

The failings of the Department, which obviously has brought about the voice situation, definitely should give good cause for a Royal Commission to identify what is causing the failures in the existing system.
Then that in itself may show good grounds as to why it needs replacing with the suggested voice, there is certainly a long way to go in convincing the general public the reasoning IMO.
As usual time will tell, if the Government can get a coherent reason and purpose defined, I'm sure there would be support as was shown when it was first announced.
Australians are well aware the the aboriginal situation is terrible and most want it improved, where the issue is failing IMO, is the inability to explain how this changes the purpose of what's existing and can't be incorporated into existing and why it is so important to enshrine it.
The public generally doesn't trust politicians and no wonder when you have situations like robodebt, so they are always wary of being asked to commit to something they don't understand.
There are lots who through union membership, work history etc have undying faith that Labor don't do anything wrong, not everyone is a Labor devotee or a Liberal devotee many just don't like change for changes sake, it's a hard sell when it is vague.
It will be interesting to see what the new tack presents.

 

[rederob]

I've represented special interest groups in council chambers many times and I've also dealt with MPs on an industrial level for 20 years. And once again you can't explain how the voice works on a detailed level and just insist on telling people that they're wrong.

I can and have said how it will work.
But it's template has already been provided, so rather than get everything wrong, read about it instead.

 

[rederob]

This thread just seems to keep on going around in circles.

This thread has many posters who have read nothing or understood little about what is readily available on the Voice. That includes you.
I have asked you to show how your claims are true and you never do. For example, you said "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). " What is this second method?
And then you say the thread goes around in circles.

 

[SirRumpole]

They are questions you nincompoop.
The issue is recognition.
What is wrong with recognition?
As for your idea that we need to know how it will operate, how can that be important if it can be changed in an instant?
That's exactly why it will always be up to Parliament to say how the Voice works.
You just don't get it, do you!

Of course I get it will be up to Parliamen t you ninny, that s exactly the problem.

 

[rederob]

Of course I get it will be up to Parliamen t you ninny, that s exactly the problem.

If you understood anything at all, you would know that sentence was devoid of logic.
The Parliament has nothing to do with recognition. The referendum is about recognition.
If you are against recognition, what are your reasons?

 

[SirRumpole]

If you understood anything at all, you would know that sentence was devoid of logic.
The Parliament has nothing to do with recognition. The referendum is about recognition.
If you are against recognition, what are your reasons?

FFS Rob, read my previous posts. Recognition is not the problem, the Voice being entrenched in the Constitution is the problem.

 

[TimeISmoney]

This thread has many posters who have read nothing or understood little about what is readily available on the Voice. That includes you.
I have asked you to show how your claims are true and you never do. For example, you said "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). " What is this second method?
And then you say the thread goes around in circles.

If you structure yourself in the constitution then you can sway policy to your advantage, and you can use information that most people won't be privy to for your own benefit. Other minority groups will not have this advantage to help their cause. The Voice is based on a group of people having different constitutional rights depending on their ancestry, if you can't understand that is discriminatory then I guess nothing will.

 

[TimeISmoney]

FFS Rob, read my previous posts. Recognition is not the problem, the Voice being entrenched in the Constitution is the problem.