Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[facthunter]

Believing Dutton? He's just trying to create confusion. .  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

11 hours ago, old man emu said:

Making a decision on which way to vote on this question is the hardest decision my democratic right has imposed on me.

 

On the one hand, I see the need for a section of the population to be positively involved in government decisions that directly affect the members of that section. Not that such involvement seems to be available universally to all sections of the community. On the other hand, the exposition of the toxic culture of politicians over the past 20 years makes me want to refuse to give them any more powers.

 

The debate has highlighted so many failures from the top to manage its roles in the governance of the country for the good of the People. These failures include inappropriate programmes and failure to ensure that money directed toward reaching programme goals is not misappropriated.

 

It is a fact that this area of governance is broken. It is a fact that the majority of the People are sympathetic to the idea of fixing what is broken. But is what is being proposed in this referendum nothing more that an apparently attractive distraction?

 

As the young Danish prince was wont to utter, "Aye, there's the rub".

There appears to be a misconception of what the Voice actually is. They cannot make a decision and they have no power outside them being able to do their own research. And if the research is flawed, it will show up in their advice. They will be subject to transparency rules of their operation and accountable to them  I am really wracking my feeble grey matter on the risk of maladministration that is beyiond any other government organisation. In fact, I would argue they will be in real life subject to a higher bar due to the political nature of the Voice and its opposition by certain people and parties highlighted by Octave.

 

 

5 hours ago, nomadpete said:

I have seen government assistance (money or policy) misdirected by 'middle men' of whatever colour, to their own benefit at the expense of those most in need.

 

I am not satisfied that the proposed voice will, of itself,  do anything to clean up the corrupted system.

I agree with this, but on the first statement, isn't that what the Voice is for - a representative group selected by their communities giving independent advice to government departments on the best way to deal with complex matters, and as they are selected by those commnities, they are accountable for what they do and what advice they give to those communities?

 

That was a long winded way of saying the first issue you raised is what the voice is designed to solve by consulting representatives of the communities to figure out the best solutions and spend, rather than impose ignorant ideas? Yes, it's not guaranteed to work, but these sorts of things ususally bring more success than they don't. Having said that, if you have a better way, let's table it.

 

As for the second sentence, I am again wracking my brain on what the risk of corruption is. They can misspend their research money and drink it at the pub, I guess. That would be to the detriment of their community who hold them accountable for future selection - and the principles of the implementation will have fixed term representation anyway. 

 

I guess they could advise a government department that their mates get large government contracts, but that would breach procurement rules and require a complicit government department that can make decisions and can deliver prtograms to achieve. But, obviously Albo's team heeded the lessons as there are planned. The principles of The Voice, and I urge you all to read them, are here: https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles. They include sanctions and dismissal of a representative for serious misconduct, and that the Voice will be subject to the NACC, which is the body established to tackle corruption. The Voice is a body established to provide advice to stop misspending of government money on futile programs. That's the rub.

 

55 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

A SIMPLE CHOICE! .

To vote No gives another ' go ' at a later date,  with better transparency. 

To vote ' Yes ' , is final. It means no future discussions on whether we ' could '  have done it better.

spacesailor

With better transparency of what, exactly?

Edited September 10, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Old Koreelah]

42 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

A SIMPLE CHOICE! .

To vote No gives another ' go ' at a later date,  with better transparency…

What in hell you on about? What isn’t clear? Just read the plurry proposal and you’ll find the wording is just as clear and transparent as the wording of the Australia’s Constitution- which allowed governments to develop our current system of government. 

[Old Koreelah]

4 hours ago, willedoo said:

…The DAA was a top heavy failure. ATSIC was prone to corruption and nepotism which marginalised a lot of the smaller, more needy groups. Accountability was a big problem in it's day. And then there's the land councils, some of  who can also have the same negative issues when it comes to delivering for the little people.

All true. Some Aboriginal organisations have been riven with mismanagement and rorts- just like many white-fella institutions. The difference might be how clever they are at escaping the attention of regulators and the media.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Sort of right Jerry. Trachoma is sure on the decline, which is good news. But the basic proposition still stands....  getting rid of the disease means getting rid of abo  "culture" to the extent that the culture stops you washing your face.  IF health equality  is one of the looked for things to come out of the Voice then this is the sort of thing which must be addressed head on.

[Bruce Tuncks]

AND I hate corruption of any sort, including the abo corruption in their organizations. At least the white organizations have ( or should have) a sense of shame at corruption. There is no comparable taboo on abo corruption.

[Bruce Tuncks]

23 hours ago, old man emu said:

Definitely a genetic link to Aboriginality is required in this particular case. It is essentially why this group has the problems it does have trying to survive as an equal in an organised system which is composed of several similar, but distinguishable groups.

 

I doubt if there is a religious group that does not welcome all who want identify as a living according to the group's "rules", be accepted by others in the group, regardless of the cultural or genetic ancestry of the member.

 

 

There is a big problem applying this logic to women's sport....  I want my gifted grand-daughter to play AFL, but my son ( her uncle) says that there never will be money in women's sport because it will be taken over by men who have ticked some gender box.

Is he right?

[nomadpete]

38 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

And if the research is flawed, it will show up in their advice

Just one question, if it is their own research (of needs, wants, etc),  how would anybody other than themselves know it to be flawed? We are saying nobody would know better than their own selected representatives, which makes sense. So who else is qualified to provide this check and balance that you suggest?

 

45 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

They will be subject to transparency rules of their operation and accountable to them 

Sounds sensible. But the 'voice' itself cannot provide these transparency rules of operation.  Are you thinking these transparency rules might be crafted by the same experts who gave us a notso transparent anticorruption commission?

 

50 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

isn't that what the Voice is for - a representative group selected by their communities giving independent advice to government departments on the best way to deal with complex matters

My point is that indigenous individuals have often in the past been involved with groups offering such written researched advice, and the government of the day has chosen to ignore it in favour of implementing  something different that they think is more palatable to voters. Thinking housing, particularly. 

This newer voice is no more binding than the old advisory pathways.

 

58 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

With better transparency of what, exactly?

Better transparency of financial management and decision making. And of the councils.

 

Jerry, you asked my reasoning. I tried to explain it as I see it. The whole arena is quite complex. There are many players at work. My first step would be to investigate each existing advisory and affairs management group.

 

But that is not addressed by anything related to the 'voice'.

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Just one question, if it is their own research (of needs, wants, etc),  how would anybody other than themselves know it to be flawed? We are saying nobody would know better than their own selected representatives, which makes sense. So who else is qualified to provide this check and balance that you suggest?

Research generally follows a methodology and the methodology is generally published which includes the outcome sought, the population researched and how it  was selected, the questions asked and/or data measured, any calibrations performed, raw data metrics, interpretations applied, and how conclujsions are drawn. That is what is meant by research in an offical sense. Assuming The VBoice is an official body, that would be the expectation., Not being able to evidence research will open it for criticism immedately.

 

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Sounds sensible. But the 'voice' itself cannot provide these transparency rules of operation.  Are you thinking these transparency rules might be crafted by the same experts who gave us a notso transparent anticorruption commission?

Sadly (and I think most know of my opinioon of the NACC's secret trials), yes. But the  Voice is not about anti-corruption - that is the NACC's job. The Voice is about ensuring legitimate representatives of the ATSI commuinity are consulted on matters affecting them. The limits of anti-corruption would the the transparency and governance of it's operations, which as far as I can see are legitimate research (see above) and transparent representation (again, see above, because if the representation doesn't equal the research, there will be an immediate effect. Other elements will be subject to National Audit Office, and no doubt countless senate estimates/committees as at least one side of the political fence seem to have it in for them at the get go.

 

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

My point is that indigenous individuals have often in the past been involved with groups offering such written researched advice, and the government of the day has chosen to ignore it in favour of implementing  something different that they think is more palatable to voters. Thinking housing, particularly. 

This newer voice is no more binding than the old advisory pathways.

You're right that the previous institutions have not had the success one would hope for. As I don't know the appoitnment system to these, I can't comment on that particularly. There has also been misconduct (one president or CEO or something of ATSIC allegedly raped someone in the commission). Lack of success and extreme misconduct are not limited to these institutions (Christian Porter on alleged rape, anyone). Of course, this is not a good enough reason to say yes.

 

But, there are differences between previous institutions. Firstly, no government agency was compelled to even consult with them. And I would be surprised if a lot of those consultations were even implemented - at least in full. I vaguely recall scathing asessments from ATSIC of the level of heeding the government took of their advice. It was also weaponsied many times, defundxed, and ultimately disbanded.. but that I don't think  that was due to the incompetence of the commission itself, but by a systematic dismantiling and smearing by the Hoawrd government abetted by the press (I stress it is my opinion, but many of the facts that led up to it being disbanded seemed t point to it). The tent parliament was famously riled many times by the LNP, including baited with lies by them that required Julia Gillard to be carried from a restaruant by security. I can't speak of NAIDOC or NIAA as I know very little of them.

 

All this referendum does is enshrine in the constitution the obligation (not the power - the government already has the power) to establish a voice and ensure it is consulted on ATSI affairs. That is it. By the way, that is exactly the same for every power and obligation bestowed on the government in the consiutution; in fact the wording for the Voice constrains the power much more than any other similar provision.  If it gets up, it is a signal to the government that people will want it to work; the government will enact the legislation and regulations to implement. at the moment, the principles of the voice are an indication of what the ALP government will likely do. That is not in stone and can be changed, and the NACC secret trials are an example of where that may go wrong. The democratic process doesn't end with an election, people get involved and shape laws as required. Yes, it can be turned into a shit show, but the subsequent government can, just like any other power or obligation, fix it.

 

What the referendum is asking, is two things: 1) Do you think that the government should establish a body of representiatives of the ATSI communities selected by the ATSI communities that must (not may) be consulted in policy and law making  in ATSI matters? and 2) In order to ensure future governments can't remove that requirement without the approval of the Australian people, do you think that that obligation should be enshrined in the constitution?

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Better transparency of financial management and decision making. And of the councils.

Their only financial management is paying for their operations, so their annual reports and the national audit office should will care of that. They have no government decision making capability. They obviosuly make internal  operational decisions, but does any government department publish the reason for making a decision about internal matters like this outside of the annual reports?  If you can point to anywhere in the constitution that requires the same of any other power or function (yes, there are provisions for transparency, but they are general as opposed to a specific function or organisation), I would gladly concede.

 

What councils is it proposed the Voice has control over?

 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

I forgot to add, my opinion is that the chance of it improving the lives of ATSIs is better then it failing (given the principles I found). I do accept there is a good chance it can fail, but I like the fact the government of the day's ability to weaponise it to the same extent as optional representative bodies is lower (but still high) and survive electorally.

 

That is why I would be voting yes if I could. One of the problems is that it is impossible to be sure what will happen. But then, if you care enough about it, and it is not implemented right, you will make representations to the government, press, etc, to get it made right. What the government can't do ios get rid of it.. They either live with the bad press or make it right.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

9 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Research generally follows a methodology and the methodology is generally published which includes the outcome sought, the population researched and how it  was selected, the questions asked and/or data measured, any calibrations performed, raw data metrics, interpretations applied, and how conclujsions are drawn. That is what is meant by research in an offical sense

I agree all that is expected of scientific research. However we are not talking about science in this case. We are talking about influencing political decisions.

I cannot see an affordable way to canvass the possibly 150 remnant indigenous nation's various desires/needs, and coming to any simple practical plans. The closest equivalent I can think of is COAG.

Further, any 'research' commissioned by government on any matter seems to be spruiked only when it supports the political play of the day, or  quietly downplayed if it does not.

 

Anyway, even right now, the 'voice' has drowned out any calls for cleaning up a complex problem, to the point that we are not even sure how many government departments (or NGO's) are already operating, what each cost, and what runs they have on the board.

Edited September 10, 2023 by nomadpete
spellcheck

[old man emu]

Most of what Jerry and others have posted here on Sunday 10/9/23 has related to the implementation of Item iii of the wording of the amendment. Those opinions are based on what the Government might or might not do when it applies the power to make laws etc about the body to be known as the Voice. Unfortunately, not a jot has been jotted about the content of those laws etc, or if jots exist, they have not been released for examination.

 

That is the source of the dilemma about how to vote. I would stand with what I believe to be the majority and vote for the establishment of the body. However, it is both a lack of information, and a distrust of politicians that makes me want to resist supporting Item iii. A response to the question posed is an all-or-nothing response. How can one give their all when there is dissatisfaction with one part?

[facthunter]

Did you have ALL the answers when you said YES to a marriage. ?  Nev

[rgmwa]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Did you have ALL the answers when you said YES to a marriage. ?  Nev

I thought I did.

[facthunter]

Most of us are not "THINKING" much at all but you didn't hear me say that.  Nev

[onetrack]

I'm advised the Voice is being proposed to provide advice on any future legislation that might affect Indigenous peoples, and to offer such advice where the Indigenous peoples don't agree with either parts or the whole of the proposed legislation, because it doesn't meet Indigenous needs or aims.

 

But the Indigenous groups are so varied, and in such numbers - with the vast majority of them having conflicting ideas on what they desire, long-term, as regards Indigenous needs - that I fail to see how the Voice can present anything more than constant complaints, that are isolated individual aims.

 

A very angry and vocal group of Indigenes desire total Indigenous sovereignty. Nothing will satisfy them until they have an independent Aboriginal Nation, which will be designed to stand alone as a Nation within Australia - effectively withdrawing from any idea of a united Nation.

Then there are the other Indigenous groups who want nothing more than local control over their decision-making, and funding allocation, and projects.

 

Then there are the Indigenous groups who want vast levels of compensation, and land handed back to them - as well as a Treaty - that will mean nothing can be done by the White population without constant reference to the Indigenes, to gain their overriding approval.

 

This was the massive failing behind the introduction of the new W.A. Aboriginal Heritage laws - an over-reach of legislation done with no consultation and little thought to the consequences. The W.A. Govt actions show how easily laws can be made under pressure from certain powerful minority groups, who are intent on a divisive agenda. 

 

And the bottom line is that Voice adds another massive level of bureaucracy to decision-making in Australia. It's well known, that once bureaucracies are established, they continue to increase in size and absorb large amounts of funding, often well above their actual needs. It's called the Govt Gravy Train.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-11/voice-referendum-australia-answers-complicated-four-corners/102832900

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by onetrack

[spenaroo]

Anyone reading the land title cases that have conveniently been popping up in the media at the moment.

with local councils fighting the claims for huge amounts of land.
And the aboriginal response being basically "we don't have access to usage records etc.., so we are just trying to claim everything and see what sticks"

[old man emu]

6 hours ago, facthunter said:

Did you have ALL the answers when you said YES to a marriage. ?  Nev

My wisdom or ignorance of the effects of saying "I do" have not impinged on the lives of few more than my immediate family which existed at the time. Had I not uttered those words, the possibility still existed that I would have fathered the same children, and given the opportunity for further generations. 

 

The way I vote in response to this referendum will have wide effects on the lives of millions, immediately and in the future.

[octave]

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I know I keep coming back to trachoma, but it does encapsulate the nonsense of asking for 2 contradictory things at the same time, which is what the voice does. It asks for equality in health outcomes AND it asks for abo culture to be respected.

How can the abos claim the benefits of a work ethic when they have none and no desire to have one?

[Bruce Tuncks]

I have finally come to terms with the requests for name changes. IF the item is plainly the result of white effort then it belongs to those who built it. Thus Sydney should not be renamed, but Ayer's rock is ok to rename.

[Old Koreelah]

12 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

How can the abos claim the benefits of a work ethic when they have none and no desire to have one?

Bruce this sweeping statement is easily disproved and quite offensive to many. 
 

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

Most of what Jerry and others have posted here on Sunday 10/9/23 has related to the implementation of Item iii of the wording of the amendment. Those opinions are based on what the Government might or might not do when it applies the power to make laws etc about the body to be known as the Voice. Unfortunately, not a jot has been jotted about the content of those laws etc, or if jots exist, they have not been released for examination.

Correct - but in there, I referenceed and linked to the principles of the voice (https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles), which is the likely implementation, and did also caveat it using the example of using secret trials for the NACC as a risk it all doesn't go well. But as Swollen Pickles has revealed (video only released a couple of hours ago and posted by Octave), this is a normal constitutional process, and imperfections can be fixed over time.

 

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

The way I vote in response to this referendum will have wide effects on the lives of millions, immediately and in the future.

It won't impact the average non-ATSI person, given most live in towns and citites. Yes, there may be some policy recommendations that, if adopted may impact some non ATSIs, but it will eb the government departments that make that decision - not the Voice..

 

48 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I know I keep coming back to trachoma, but it does encapsulate the nonsense of asking for 2 contradictory things at the same time, which is what the voice does. It asks for equality in health outcomes AND it asks for abo culture to be respected.

How can the abos claim the benefits of a work ethic when they have none and no desire to have one?

I am glad you do, Bruce, because, as I have posted, the rate of new infections has declimed dramatically for a few years now - from memory the adult ATSI population new infection rate is 0.2%.

 

But, let's to a bit of role play:

 

Scenario 1, No Voice - Some Minister of the crown:  "Until you get zero new infections of trachoma, you can't have your Voice - period."   Whatever is causing people not to get to zero continues and the issue persists.

 

Scenario 2, Voice is in place -

Some minister of the crown: "Jeez, we have to get these bnlighter's new infection rate down to zero as it is costiung us money."

 

Soem advisor: "Jeez, I dunno what to do. Why don't we ask the voice what will it take to get the rate of new infections down."

 

What happens next is the Voice may have to do some research to work out why there are pockets of new infections and determine what they think is the best way to handle it.. or goodness me, even come up with options.

 

Or maybe they will just go to the pub and make it up.. .I guess.

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

The way I vote in response to this referendum will have wide effects on the lives of millions

13 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

It won't impact the average non-ATSI person, given most live in towns and citites.

 

Maybe "millions" was hyperbole, but my vote will affect every living ATSI and those to come. What effect it would have on non-ATSI members of the Nation is an unknown, but one hope that it would be positive.

 

Eliminating the endemic health conditions endured in remote areas would surely stop the non-white members of international organisations calling White Australians racists.

[Bruce Tuncks]

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

Eliminating the endemic health conditions endured in remote areas would surely stop the non-white members of international organisations calling White Australians racists.

I reckon that eliminating endemic health conditions in remote areas would REQUIRE what some people would call racism. Personally, I would pay that price but I don't think the voice would do so. I would like it if the voice was required to answer questions like OME suggests, but I have no evidence that they would. My only evidence is that of ASIC etc.

AND, I would like evidence of a work ethic among abos, but I doubt if there are many examples of this...  I would like to be proved wrong, so please go ahead. I don't accept that playing music or painting pictures or playing sport  is good evidence since they are well-known leisure activities.