I just watched a clip of what appeared to be First Nations youth vandalising a Darwin supermarket. We need some explanation of how this proposed body will end this. Albanese says he won't fund arguments for or against. However he has an advertising agency on a billion dollar annual retainer pushing the yes vote. It's called the ABC.

A no vote could save major embarrassment for the government if progress metrics aren't met and promises such as to refrain from resource veto demands aren't kept. I'd expect most of the talk to come from urban dwellers claiming to be First Nations telling the rest of Australia to be ashamed. Perhaps they should be ashamed for achieving so little with the $30bn already spent every year.

All the details demanded by vile, disingenuous, right-wing bastardy, are already out there in print. And assure us that the body will be advisory only with parliament having final say or power of veto.

Various pale skin activists, however, are trying it on and demanding it includes acknowledgement of indigenous sovereignty. But they're not players nor have any say. And that demand will not be included at this time. And probably never. I will probably vote yes to an advisory body only.
Alan B.

It is clear a lot of thought has gone in to this article.
It is a pity that it comes across as foolish and narrow minded.
It puts forward the idea that people are meant to vote as they are told?
If they desire to question the importance of issues, they are wrong?
If they want detail of how and why, they are being a nuisance?
The truth is, when you drill down to the real basics, there is nothing to vote for.

If certain persons are not mentally engineered to cope with our lifestyle and legal system, that can be a problem for us.
But suitable allowance can be made, and the reality is that this is being done, constantly.
Our present laws are adequate, and can cope with the situation when both 'sides' want them to.
But it is the old story of 'it takes two to tango'.
Positive effort must come from both parties.

So far, I see governments trying hard, but narcissistic and divisive action opposes them.
And that is troubling.
It really is time for truth and logic to rise up.
That is what will carry us forward.
That is what will make things better.

Long-winded legalese just confuses issues.
In the light of day, it can dissolve in to a meaningless tangle.
No law will work unless the people at large agree with its wisdom.
And the concept being put forward is just twaddle.
It is also divisive and nasty.
There is only One Australia, not two.

I am tired of these articles and especially dislike being told how I should think and vote on this topic.

For me I don't need more information, details on how it will work etc etc.

The very description of this topic tells me all I need to know. It doesn't matter how much or little power it has, it is a racially selected sub-group who have sole access to this "voice". It is simply apartheid and needs to be verboten just like it's bastard original incarnation in South Africa.

dkit

The Australian people simply need to be told how the Voice will close the gap and improve the lives of currently disadvantaged Aboriginal people. It's a very simple request for information but I suspect the Albanese govt really has no idea how the Voice will achieve for Aboriginal people living in remote dysfunctional communities.

It occurred to me that I am, perhaps, being a little unfair.
I didn't say how important it is that these articles are published.
And that is so.
Every person has the right to be heard.
And others, of course, have the right to agree or disagree.
It is consensus which rules the day.
But to reach a logical conclusion, we need facts, not conjecture.