It is definitely not "in the best interests of Australians, particularly Aboriginal Australians"; and I am surprised that a man of Mr. Dillon's calibre would question that.

The only thing to be "explained well" is that it is a con job. Aboriginal people are not "different from non-Aboriginal people". There is not even a visible physical difference in an increasing number of people identifying as aboriginal, for whatever reason.

The whole deal is racist; and the racists are those people - black and white - who fling that word at everyone who is white, and yabber about the evils of 'whiteness', without which the aboriginal people would still be in the Stone Age.

The Voice to Parliament gig is a dreadful, racist, time/money wasting embarrassment for Australia; a cover up of the serious problems and threats faced by all of us, irrespective of race, colour or creed: due mainly to our pathetic and cowardly political class, keen on the totalitarianism of, not individual identity, but the easier to control group identity. It is the oldest trick in the book.

ttbn,
What else did you expect from a Uni jockey ?

Indyvidual

Well, he is an aboriginal man who generally makes sense. I would link him with say, Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price. So, I'm surprised that he would entertain the idea at all.

This was my unpublished response to recent articles in The Australian. Tough-love.
The statistics bear out Victorian Senior Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers belief that “The violence towards Aboriginal women and children by Aboriginal men continues unabated” (“Culture of violence drives attacks”, 13/6). The Australian’s three part series on Aboriginal woman Ruby documented how the culture in some remote indigenous communities was complicit in protecting perpetrators and blaming victims.
Ms Rogers also states “Judicial officers are much more prepared to say it doesn’t matter whether you are an Aboriginal person or not; this is unacceptable”. Why was it ever otherwise? The judiciary becomes complicit in future offences when it fails to insist on all Australians abiding by standards of behaviour that guarantee personal safety. Culture should never have been used to deny Aboriginal women and children the protection of Western law.
Where are the role models for the next generation when welfare dependency and substance abuse become the norm in some remote communities and city ghettos. It is time for “tough-love” but everyone seems too afraid to implement it for fear of being labelled racist or paternalistic.
Australians with remote Aboriginal ancestry may feel they are better placed to find solutions through a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament. This is an insult to the good will and empathy of the vast majority of non indigenous Australians who have willingly paid to redress disadvantage wherever it exists. The exponential growth in those claiming Aboriginal ancestry suggest some are more interested in benefits flowing to them than the plight of those in remote communities. Solutions need to be found for those with genuine needs not those claiming intergenerational trauma.
I might add that Jacinta Price is the sort of voice that is needed. We would be crazy to enshrine in the constitution the power of activists who privilege themselves on the basis of one small part of their DNA.

Maybe. But let's put it to the people and a referendum! Maybe most Australians will think that with the recent election, their voice is already there?
Alan B.

Alan, there is no maybe to it. In the previous parliament there were six aboriginal members and senators and in the recent election at total of 10 members and senators were successful. If that is not more than adequate representation in the federal parliament then I am a monkey's uncle. A referendum will turn out to be a waste of time and money, although it will undoubtedly be thrust upon us.
David