Thanks, ABC, for this article:
How different would the Voice to Parliament be from other advisory bodies?
It notes this:
There are currently 110 advisory
committees or groups that "develop policies and provide advice on
specific issues" registered on the federal government website.
Some
of them you might have never heard of, or even noticed were advising
the government, such as The National Blood Borne Virus and Sexually
Transmissible Infections Surveillance Subcommittee or the Foods for
Early Childhood Reference Group.
Each
group holds a number of experts in their field, such as the 31 medical
professionals who work for the aforementioned subcommittee on sexually
transmitted diseases.
The Voice is expected to work in the same way in that it would be set up to give advice to the government
Question: is the expectation that "advisory committees" would in future not just be approaching Government directly with recommendations, but also (or alternatively?) having to urge the Voice to take up the issue? Is the Voice going to be a "filter" for all, or most, or none, of the current groups on recommendations to government?
The Voice group itself is said to likely be something like this:
The government hopes the Voice
would be the first body designed with gender balance in mind and the
members peer elected on a national scale.
According
to a current proposal of the body, which is subject to consultative
change, something else that differentiates the Voice from any other
Indigenous advisory group is its geographical spread, of the proposed 24
members.
Two from each state
and territory — 16 all up, five from remote communities, two from the
Torres Strait and one representing Torres Strait Islanders on the
mainland.
Individuals would
serve four-year terms and would only be allowed to serve twice and two
full-time co-chairs would be elected by the members themselves.
Now, for this group to be effective, and to potentially be on the receiving end of submissions from more than 100 current groups, there is no doubt at all that it is going to have to have a substantial staff. What's the likely staffing ratio, and the travel costs? I see that in 2004, an ATSIC commissioner got $136,000 or so in total remuneration. Bringing that up to date, I would guess that $200,000 would be in the ballpark? Times 24, that's less than $5 million, but does it include travel expenses, which I assume will be substantial. But how many staff does it need? The total cost might not be huge, in terms of government expenditure overall, but it's still a diversion of funds.
All of which is to achieve - what exactly? Essentially a "feel good" exercise in empowerment.
The fundamental reason for seriously considering a "no" vote is that such an organisation would be, essentially, an expensive duplication of advocacy that is already happening - and at least in some cases - already achieving results.
The reason such bodies might work fine in some countries, but the same is likely to be an ongoing source of friction in ours, is because of the size of Australia, which results in the vast number of "first nations" competing for attention for very differing issues in different parts of the country.
In short - there are a lot of racist and bad reasons for arguing against it. There are also solid practical reasons for at least considering a "No" vote...
Update: May God forgive me for what I am about to do: cite a Quadrant article with approval -
Is the Voice Redundant?