Where to now for bold policy ideas?

Establishing a consultative group should have been a simple proposition. That lots of people pretended that it was more than that made it a complex proposition.

Paul,
Establishing a consultative group is a simple proposition.

The government could have done it months ago. Absolutely nothing stopping them from doing it right now.

In fact, if it was so crucial to achieving outcomes as they claimed, why didn’t they? Apparently they are unable to do their jobs without it

Constitutional change however, is never simple, nor should it be.

Which ironically was part of the failings of the Government and their campaigning. In some arenas claiming it was an essential change that would deliver real and meaningful results, whilst in others, talking it down as a simple consultative body that really would have little power.

Playing both sides of the street is rarely helpful in politics.

If it was simply a consultative body as you state, similar the MANY that already exist for his purpose all around the country, then there would be zero reason to insert it into the constitution or to wedge it into the middle of the political process now would there?

If it was simply a consultative group then why are people so very upset given that there are MANY of them run by organisations such as NIAA and the Coalition of Peaks in place to act as a bridge between these groups and the government already?

I would have thought it was obvious why they didn’t simply legislate it: they wanted to establish a consultative group that would survive a change of government and which had a legitimacy outside day-to-day politics. That’s why they didn’t opt for an ATSIC II model.

Equally, the political imperative that prevents them from establishing a body like that now is obvious. It would immediately be characterised as a rampantly anti-democratic initiative, probably by many of the same people who ran the ‘No’ campaign.

I’ve yet to see a credible legal opinion that suggested that it would have caused a Constitutional problem, despite sundry Chicken Littles claiming that it would bring Government to a standstill. I’m happy to accept the views of Ken Hayne on this point.

Bob – I’ve set out the reason in my other reply. An additional observation would be that inclusion in the constitution would have amounted to both a Constitutional recognition of First Nations people as well as a popular legitimation of the institution itself (which the bodies you have mentioned do not have).

If you want to argue that those are purely symbolic matters then so are Anzac Day marches. It seems that symbolism actually matters.

The question in my mind is: why do you think it would have been other than a consultative group given the very clear bounds of the question posed in the referendum, and the related draft of section 129?

Paul, the harbour master called, he said that ship has already sailed, you can stop selling tickets for it.

Paul13, you’re offering a “what could possibly go wrong” argument to re-hash the debate. The debate is over, except for any historical perspective now to be applied to the process.

On that, there was an interesting article yesterday by Keith Windschuttle (cue howls of horror from the wealthy inner-city “yes” elite) in Quadrant (more howling from the same intolerant ABC-viewing upper-class coterie), “Why the Voice Went Down”. He writes about Labor’s internal machinations leading up to the referendum is that earlier this year. I’d like to quote more fully, but space and copyright prevents. So here’s what maybe is the kernel (but there’s more):

While Albo had been “insisting publicly that the Voice was only an advisory group, just a modest change and a gesture that amounted to no more than “good manners”, [Megan] Davis was undermining his case … ”
…
“As a member of the Prime Minister’s Referendum Working Group, Davis helped draft the question that the referendum would put to voters and the constitutional amendment that would result from its approval. In March 2023, when Albanese announced the question concerned, the product was not what the Labor government had expected. …

“Titled “Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples”, the new chapter had three clauses, the second of which said:

Quote “The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.” Unquote

“The jarring note in all this was one that the government had not anticipated. This was the right of the Voice to make representations to the “executive government”. Instead of confining its political advice and recommendations to the parliament via the relevant minister, the Voice would be able to approach departments and institutions of the public service, as well as more independent commissions, authorities and agencies of the Commonwealth. With the executive government at its disposal, the Voice would have unprecedented powers and an almost unlimited ability to cause problems for any government. Moreover, in disputes between the government and the Voice, any resolution would be the responsibility of the judges of the High Court. Albanese sent the draft back to the working group but Davis stuck to her guns and refused to change the wording.” …

Now, you can go with “what could possibly go wrong”, and 39% of (mainly white, wealthy, elite) voters did. Another 61% didn’t. And that’s that. But what’s more interesting — read again that closing sentence above — butter-wouldn’t-melt Albo *saw it wasn’t that simple*.

“I would have thought it was obvious why they didn’t simply legislate it: they wanted to establish a consultative group that would survive a change of government”

A change of government wouldn’t have been simply able to remove it, you’re talking about a democratically elected parliament voting to remove it through legislation for whatever reason required it. A parliament that has a Senate that is very unlikely to see the government (of any party) have a majority any time soon.

Which is ironic, when Yes supporters were claiming that Australians should just trust the parliament to work out the details of the Voice later but at the same time claiming we couldn’t trust a future parliament not to remove it in the same way.

Why would a government want to get rid of a simple consultative body that was going to achieve great things for Indigenous Australians? Seems a very strange thing to claim unless it wasn’t actually going to work like that.

The case for constitutional enshrinement was extraordinarily weak and the electorate agreed.

“Equally, the political imperative that prevents them from establishing a body like that now is obvious. It would immediately be characterised as a rampantly anti-democratic initiative, probably by many of the same people who ran the ‘No’ campaign.”

So, the claims around it being essential for proper Indigenuous consultation were just made up political talking points. I agree, there’s plenty of other ways to engage and consult all people that don’t involve changing the Constitution.

“I’ve yet to see a credible legal opinion that suggested that it would have caused a Constitutional problem,”

Well if you personally haven’t read a “credible” opinion outlining the potential issues and risks, then why did we even need a vote? Ken Hayne a known long time Voice and Indigenous rights supporter says it’s fine. I can’t believe everyone else didn’t just acquiesce to their betters.

But the one thing we can be absolutely certain of, a no vote contains no constitutional problems at all. Which is part of the reason we are here.

Rustygear is that it? Really? That’s all you’ve got?

You know that lobby groups already make representations to both Ministers AND government agencies all the time, right? Somehow the wheels of Government grind on regardless.

With due respect, I’ll take the opinion of a High Court judge over someone like Windschuttle as to the Constitutional implications any day. His argument that the ability to make representations amounts to ‘unprecedented powers and an almost unlimited ability to cause problems for any government’ is a palpable nonsense. That some people find it credible says a lot about the levels of civics education in the country.

As Hayne said:

“It has been suggested that if the proposed constitutional amendment is made, litigation will derail the intended effect of the amendment or may derail the ordinary workings of parliament and the executive… I do not share these fears. I think they are baseless.”

Paul13, others have replied, and really, you’re rehashing. Anyhow:

1) “You know that it was just a lobby group right” — “Yes” used a strategy of shape shifting, or motte and bailey; or as I called it, “shell-gaming” on this. It was frustrating because it was clearly intended as bad faith argument. So if “no” said “constitution”, “yes” would say “oh no its just an advisory group”. If “no” said “so no need for constitution then”, “yes” would say “oh no, it needs to be more than any old advisory group”. Similar trick used when talking about “recognition”. The “yes” side relied on their arrogant elitist belief that all “no” were dumb hicks, so wouldn’t see the trick.

2) Hayne: He was advising the Indigenous working group on the Voice. So he’s hardly a neutral commentator. Of course he’s going to say the constitution has no power, or whatever he needs to say, to advance his belief that he’s on the side of angels. This was another frustrating part of “yes”: it was all authority assertions of “experts say”, without actually spelling out the logic, which would have entailed detailed debate. Again, “yes” believed they could get away with that because their elitist hubris drove them to regard all opponents as sub-normal.

But it’s over now. The ruling-class elites lost. That’s because people weren’t as stupid as the self-important, highly conceited, condescending, wealthy white inner city left-progs had convinced themselves they were. “Yes” just looked sneering and manipulative.

Getting back to my original point above, before you tried to snowstorm the argument with the same tired old tricks: in historical perspective, it will be really interesting to look at the dynamic between Megan Davis (who clearly didn’t believe Hayne: she thought constitutional amendment was a powerful coercive asset) and the other hardline “frontier wars” activists, and frontman Albo with his daggy dad schtick, nasally tape-looping “eergh, it’s just a walk down the road”. The story hasn’t come out what went on in the corridors of Labor power — yet.

100% to their credit though, at least they are allowing dissenting voices to comment on the articles which is much more than can be said for most publications. The majority of these that even allowed comments, were highly selective on the comments they permitted to be published and refused to post many entirely reasonable arguments that broke zero of their stated rules.

A perfect example of this was news.com.au who posted an article, the name of the author currently escapes me but he is a regular contributor and rabid YES supporter. He wrote the usual hit piece and to my shock comments were enabled. About 50 comments were quickly made, none of which broke any rules but additionally none of them agreed with him and were picking holes in his flimsy arguments. Suddenly all comments were deleted and commenting on the article was disabled.

Sure, there is an obvious bias to the publishing of articles on here but it could be much worse.

Bob, this often occurred to me too, that RiotAct has been faultlessly liberal (in the old sense of ‘open minded’) in allowing comments from both sides, even when things got a little heated and there’d have been a reason to decline a “no” comment on T&C grounds. So kudos to RiotAct for that.

I guess we’ll never know if anyone ever actually submitted a full article from the “no” side to RiotAct in the first place, so I can’t pass judgement there.