Comment

Comment on The Voice debate is yet another ugly chapter in Australia's history

If it is not an additional layer of bureaucracy, where I can find information that explains which minister or government body that the Voice will make representations towards? Will it direct representation to the existing NIAA or will it replace this government agency?

When explaining the concept to my parents and grandparents, it has been challenging to convince them that this is not just ATSIC 2.0. Their concerns are that the corruption that occurred within that former organisation will be harder to control as the organisation would now have a constitutional shield to protect against criticism or accountability.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Ilandar@aussie.zone ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

When explaining the concept to my parents and grandparents, it has been challenging to convince them that this is not just ATSIC 2.0. Their concerns are that the corruption that occurred within that former organisation will be harder to control as the organisation would now have a constitutional shield to protect against criticism or accountability.

The difference here is that the Voice doesn’t have a budget, run programs or deliver services. It can only make recommendations. I’m not sure what your relatives think corruption would look like in this case.

Regardless, their concerns that the Voice would have a “constitutional shield” are completely unfounded, because there is nothing in the amendment to prevent the government from completely restructuring it in the future. And if such a thing were to occur, since Australians are only voting on the concept of the Voice, and not the exact design of the Voice, no one can use the defence that the government is “ignoring the will of the people”.

source
Minarble@aussie.zone ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It’s a good question.

From the Voice principles about how it will be set up:

The Voice will not have a program delivery function The Voice would be able to make representations about improving programs and services, but it would not manage money or deliver services.

voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles

It will not be a body that administers funding and programs that is what the bureaucracy is supposed to do.

The Voice will be able to look at what the various bureaucrats are doing and advise them and the Minister better ways and more efficient ways of delivering the services they are delivering.

If the Minister for Aboriginal affairs has a brain wave about some program the Voice will be ideally positioned to say this will work, that won’t work throw that bit out it’s ridiculous.

So it’s not a bureaucracy it’s a leadership group elected from the regions and indigenous communities that is there to advise in the best way to fix the many problems our indigenous brothers and sisters are facing. Problems that every one recognises they are facing and need fixing. It gives ownership of the solutions to the people facing them. Ownership to the people best places to find workable and effective solutions.

It really is not much to ask. The only power it has is to advise but that advice will be hard to ignore without the people of Australia saying to their elected representatives- why are you not listening?

The key is the advise is coming from one central place that represents the regions and indigenous people and carry’s with it the moral authority of the Voice.

Hope this helps!

source