This has been quite a momentous time in our nation's history.
Our PM Anthony Albanese has revealed the wording of his
government's historic Indigenous Voice to Parliament
Referendum:

http://news.com.au/national/politics/anthony-albanese-to-outline-governments-historic-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum/news-story/068ba3877093df527410047d13202203

I watched "Insiders" this morning and heard the PM answer
questions about the Voice. I also listened to the panel.
It seems that this Referendum has a good chance of being
supported. But I guess we shall have to wait if the numbers
of support will be enough to get it passed.

It would be interesting to hear your views.

If not now, when?

Never.

Julian Leeser, the Coalition spokesman for Indigenous
Australians has said that the Coalition supports the
Voice to Parliament plan as laid out by the PM. He said
it was now up to the government to explain to the people
how a Voice to Parliament would operate.

Leeser said he supported the move to enshrine a Voice in the
Constitution but wanted to see detail of the question, the
proposed reforms and said that if a Referendum were to
succeed it would depend on whether the government could
adequately explain to the Australian people what the Voice
would look like.

I agree with this. Change can only happen if the electorate
is well informed. Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney
said there would be plenty more detail. "It would be Nuts
for that not to happen!"

What still needs to be worked out - the PM wants to add
to the Constitution that Parliament would have the power
to decide the functions, composition and powers to the
Voice. The Voice would not be a 3rd chamber of Parliament.

The Voice would not supersede Parliament.

The question asked would be simple and straight:

"Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that
establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?"

That's it.

As the PM explained to David Speers on the "Insiders,"
"This isn't a body that is on top of parliament. It's
not even at the side of the parliament. It doesn't seek
to usurp the power of the parliament."

"What it seeks to do is break with what I call the tyranny
of powerlessness that First Nations People have suffered from
(more than) 121 years of the Commonwealth making decisions in
Canberra without having respect and without having consultation
with First Nations People themselves."

The ABC's VoteCompass survey showed that 73% of Australians
support a Voice. This number has risen since 2019.
Hopefully it will continue to rise.

There's more at the following link:

http://abc.net.au/news/2022-07-31/what-is-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-and-uluru-statement/101285958

When that gets through which I hope it does, the guilt industry will need to find other excuses to keep the pseudo-Aborigines' snouts in the trough.
Another way would be long overdue DNA testing which would get the overwhelming support of the real Aborigines.
My guess is they're already feverishly drawing up new stories !

" It has been over 14 years since then Prime Minister John
Howard promised Indigenous recognition in the Constitution
and almost 5 years since First Nations explained what they
want that to look like in the Uluru Statement."

"Since then, understanding and awareness about the Voice to
Parliament has grown. A Voice to Parliament is workable,
will promote equality and can win a referendum. It is time for
the government to put the question to the people."

http://theconversation.com/non-indigenous-australians-shouldnt-fear-a-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-176675

I think the government is on track to outline concisely what it envisages in future legislation to give an Indigenous voice to parliament. The scare campaign of claiming its going to be an non-elected star chamber with powers of veto is patently wrong, but there are those who will push that line. Of greater concern than the rubbish argument of "star chamber" from the racists of the extreme right is those who will claim, "agreement in principle", but oppose on the grounds of "lack of detain", no matter what detail is provided them.

Nothing, other than total rejection, will satisfy the bigots and racists who say "NEVER!"

"I think the government is on track to outline concisely what it envisages in future legislation"

Albo has specifically said that he won't provide all the details because too much detail may kill support. FFS they haven't even decided whether the extra-Parliamentary group will be elected or appointed.

Those pre-emptively saying they support it are showing that they don't give a rat's about the details. They just want to virtue signal. A true citizen concerned about the possible detriment of the so-called Voice (let's call it a megaphone) would at the very least...at the very least...would wait for and demand all the details be released.

"The Prime Minister is worried too much detail will kill the prospects of a successful referendum. He's worried people will vote "no" if they merely "disagree with one out of 50" clauses put forward.

"We're not doing that", he says, "we're learning from history." " (from the ABC so it must be true)

Translation....he doesn't trust the people to do as they're told if he gives them too much detail.

It's the pseudo-Aborigines who as always will sabotage any intended good will !

It appears that the Coalition offers qualified support
for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament Plan as laid out
by the Prime Minister.

Julian Leeser, the Coalition spokesman for Indigenous
Australians has said - it's now up to the government to
explain to the people how a Voice to Parliament would operate.

Lester said he supported the move to enshrine a Voice in the
Constitution but wanted to see the detail of what the Voice
would look like.

What still needs to be worked out - Anthony Albanese wants
to add to the Constitution that Parliament would have the
power to decide the functions, composition and powers to
the Voice. The Voice would not be a 3rd chamber of the
parliament. The Voice would not supersede Parliament.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney said there would
be plenty more detail.

"It would be nuts for that not to happen!"

As our PM said:

"This isn't a body that is on top of parliament. It's
not even at the side of the parliament. It does not seek
to usurp the power of parliament."

"What it seeks to do is break with what I call the tyranny
of powerlessness that First Nations people have suffered from
(more than) 121 years of the Commonwealth making decisions in
Canberra without having respect and without having
consultation with First Nations People themselves."

"It's been over 14 years since then Prime Minister John Howard
promised Indigenous recognition in the Constitution and almost
5 years since First Nations explained what they want that to
look like in the Uluru Statement."

"Since then, understanding and awareness about the Voice to
Parliament has grown. A Voice to Parliament is workable, will
promote equality and can win a referendum. It is time for the
government to put the question to the people."

According to ABC's VoteCompass 73% of Australians support the
Voice. It has risen from 2019 - and will continue to rise.

Here's a link that's worth a read:

http://theconversation.com/creating-a-constitutional-voice-the-words-that-could-change-australia-187972

Will an Aboriginal Australian with 0.001% of Aboriginal ancestry be eligible to be the Voice?

It will leave to parliament all the decisions about
how it is comprised and operates.

Foxy,
The Referendum will be supported, first because of compulsory voting and secondly which ever way it goes it will be supported, it is well to remember that a referendums sole purpose is to ascertain the will of the electorate.
Referendums cannot be won or lost.

Will an Aboriginal Australian with 0.001% of Aboriginal ancestry be eligible to be the Voice?
Is Mise,
That'd defeat the whole purpose !

Issy and Indy are winding up!

No voice for this 'Concrete Jungle Bunny', as you like to call me, ah Indy!

Dear Paul,

The news is good.

There is evidence that a constitutionally enshrined Voice
can pass a referendum. A survey of poll data since 2017
conducted by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy
Research shows that 75% of voters with a committed
position support the Voice. Also ABC's VoteCompass tells
us that 73% of Australians cupport the Voice.

So there is wide public support and good will for the
Voice to Parliament in both Indigenous
and non-Indigenous communities. This is the key ingredient
for a successful referendum.

"When that gets through which I hope it does, the guilt industry will need to find other excuses to keep the pseudo-Aborigines' snouts in the trough."

More boomers die every year. More young people start voting every year. That is why you will lose

So we don't know if it'll be elected.
We don't know who will be eligible to vote if it is elected.
We don't know who'll be eligible to contest the vote if it is elected.
We don't know how the members will be appointed if its not elected.
We don't know who'll be eligible to sit if its appointed.
We don't know who'll be doing the appointing - PM, Cabinet, House, Senate?
We don't know how it'll be funded.
We don't know who'll determine the level of funding.
We don't know how the consensus 'Voice' will be determined.
We don't know how the Voice will be communicated to the Parliament eg via the PM or GG or directly.
We don't know who or how the staff of the Voice will be determined and paid.
We don't know if the government of the day can change the membership.
We don't know if the government of the day can change the rules.
We don't know who will audit and adjudicate on the funding of the Voice.
We don't know how members can be removed for malfeasance.
We don't know.....etc etc.

But 73% of ABC viewers are on board. That sounds about right and amply reflects the thought processes of the woke. Don't ask questions - just nod as required

"But 73% of ABC viewers are on board. That sounds about right and amply reflects the thought processes of the woke. Don't ask questions - just nod as required"

We know it's a voice, it will have no power. Your questions are largely irrelevant. Just admit you're a racist.

Now that the draft wording is available it can
be discussed with greater authority and clarity.
The next stage in the process is one of consultation
and education so that the Australian people can feel
confident that they are well informed when they come
to vote.

There is evidence that a constitutionally enshrined
Voice can pass a referendum. A survey of poll data
since 2017 conducted by the Centre for Aboriginal
Economic Policy Research shows that 75% of voters
support the Voice.

The 73% figure merely shows that 73% of Australians are complacent dills who say what they think Big Brother wants to hear.

When the dills are in the voting booth, free of the scaremongering and bullying by the Marxist cancel culture, the media, and the political class, their answers to whether or not a racist attempt to treat 3% of the population differently for purely racist reasons, might be quite different.

There is no reason given in the "simple" question why they should vote yes, and most of them would not have been taking notice of what has been said or written about the subject (most people only take notice of what affects them directly), so their answers should be 'no' to be on the safe side.

Most referenda fail to pass. Even dills won’t be fooled by Albanese’s disingenuous whinnying about their 'generosity'; and a lot of dirty water has passed under the bridge since the last race-based referendum, which did have righteousness and common sense on its side, unlike this one

"When the dills are in the voting booth, free of the scaremongering and bullying by the Marxist cancel culture,"

I love watching right wing scum cry. Labor are right wing. Even the Greens are not Marxists. Cancel culture does not exist. You are mad people have the right to speak againt hate and reject it.

It's interesting that old white people are deeply upset that white people are not special any more, gay people are allowed to exist, and so on. We will not have a society until boomers die out but they are increasingly irrelevant as their numbers dwindle. It's sad. Imagine being the generation that taught your grandkids to hate you?

"BLAXIT"

First coined here, means exiting from the egalitarian non-race based Australia we support. I don't support BLAXIT just as I didn't support the simple Brexit blank cheque question.

Albo's trick seems putting up a simple emotional referendum slogan:

"Do you support an alteration to the constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?"

Which turns out to be a blank cheque giving 2 votes to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

One vote for the Federal House/Senate, like everyone else.

But a second vote to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders only to
vote in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Representives (BLAXITEERS) who can, effectively veto any legislation that applies to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders - which is pretty much ALL legislation

The Federal Budget applies to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, So logically BLAXITEERS could hold up the Budget until it provided greater benefits for a minority race-based aristocracy, each year.

Why is Albo withholding the details he'll use to fill in the BLAXIT referendum blank cheque?

Would we trust Parliament to fill out a BLAXIT blank cheque?

It was good to remove White Australia race based laws but are Black Australia race based laws a good idea?

When "BLAXIT" turns sour Albo's Labor will have done enough damage to be rightly voted out next Election.

"It was good to remove White Australia race based laws but are Black Australia race based laws a good idea?

When "BLAXIT" turns sour Albo's Labor will have done enough damage to be rightly voted out next Election."

Boomer tears are delicious.

The stolen generation happened in my lifetime and well within yours.

WTF?

Details - what details?

There seems to be a degree of ignorance about the proposed Indigenous Voice.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency has published a 270 page document outlining how this process could take place.

Maybe read that before commenting.

"The National Indigenous Australians Agency has published a 270 page document outlining how this process could take place."

Operative word "could".

Read the report and it is a series of possible structures as to how the Voice (megaphone) COULD work.

Before voting we need answer as to how it WILL work. That the proposers of the Voice are trying/will try very hard to hide the actual working of the extra-Parliamentary body should set off alarm signals to those who are interested in things other than virtue signalling.

"Before voting we need answer as to how it WILL work. That the proposers of the Voice are trying/will try very hard to hide the actual working of the extra-Parliamentary body should set off alarm signals to those who are interested in things other than virtue signalling."

Let's be frank, boomers will cry whatever we do with first Australians that does not involve enslaving them

It will be a voice. It will have no real power. As a result, the details are free to evolve because they won't change anything in terms of the balance of power.

WTF?

The Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples also makes for interesting reading.

Operative phrase "Joint Select Committee".

Quote:"The members of The Voice should be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, rather than appointed by government."

After over 200 years of colonisation alt-right nutters still do not want Indigenous Australians choosing their own representatives.

Quote: "The Voice at the local, regional, and national level should:
• be used by state, territory and local governments as well as the federal government;
• provide oversight, advice and plans but not necessarily administer programs or money; and
• provide a forum for people to bring ideas or problems to government and government should be able to use the voices to road test and evaluate policy. This process should work as a dialogue where the appropriateness of policy and its possible need for change should be negotiable."

So once again alt-right crazies have their knickers in a knot because Indigenous Australians want to provide advice about the legislation that directly effects them.

I agree that some people before posting here need to
get their facts straight.

This would be a good place to start:

http://pm.gov.au/media/television-interview-abc-insiders-david-speers

The Garma Festival will be screened on Channel 2 at
9.30pm this evening. Hosted by Stan Grant. It should
be worth watching.

Well let's start with the easiest issue. Will the members be appointed or elected?

Albo hasn't yet decided irrespective of what the various 'advisory' groups assert. Until he decides, it isn't decided. But this is an interesting exercise in how it will actually work. Albo hasn't decided but the native leaders have and the 'woke' assume that's the end of the issue.

And that's the problem with the 'Voice'. It's 'advice' to government will be treated as instruction by the 'woke'/ABC etc.

Hence we need answers. But we won't get answers because those pushing this know the answers won't please the majority.

Foxy wrote:"I agree that some people before posting here need to
get their facts straight."

So help me, oh wise one. I'm so ignorant of these issues.

Will the Voice be elected or not?

No one knows if the referendum will pass but the boomers are dying out, so probably.

The voice is just that, an indigenous voice with less power than it should have. Given it can't create policy, the details are less important. I remember the referendum on a republic. They chose an awful model so people rejected it.

Referendums are neither won or lost, past or not passed their purpose is to ascertain the will of the voters; they do nothing else.
Every referendum has thus been successful.

Australia might be the only country in the world that began with equality and is busy working its way back into state-sanctioned racial division.

WTF?

The Morrison Government had four years to act on the final report from The Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

It chose to do nothing. Four more wasted years.

Mhaze wonders about his/her (would you prefer "their") ignorance. Well the do-nothing conservatives are the reason for that.

Indigenous groups have had to move this issue forward on their own.

No demands have been made here just consultative suggestions with preferred outcomes.

The voice will probably be elected. Mhaze knows this but demands a definitive answer when it is known that this decision is yet to be made and cannot be made by consultative groups.

So mhaze tries to lampoon the concept of an Indigenous Voice because instead of making demands consultative preference have been put forward.

Indigenous groups have had to move this issue forward on their own.
WTF? - Not Again,
About time !

WTF....

You and millions of others say they support the Voice to Parliament. But you don't actually know what the Voice to Parliament will look like. How can you support a concept that has yet to be defined?

Well we all know the answer to that. For many, it isn't about the facts but about the feelz. Its about virtue signalling.

I listed a series of issues that have yet to be determined. Until they are determined people shouldn't be supporting the proposed changes. If my wife wanted to change the colour of the lounge-room walls but refused to tell me what the new colour would be until I definitely agreed to the change, I'd reject the change. Ditto here.

This isn't about playing-acting to just look 'woke' but about the future governance of the nation. Its a massively important issue that is being decided by people who haven't got the slightest idea what they are supporting.

mhaze,

Sorry, I thought you may have been up for a serious discussion.

I cannot possibly take seriously your comparison about the constitutional referendum process and you inability to enter into discussions with you wife about paint colours.

This will be a process. Some have been involved in this for many years.
You appear to have only just heard about it and want to make demands. You have already said you are ignorant about the matter.

Other posts on this thread have also provided you with an educational opportunity but for some reason you have not taken up those opportunities.

Remember no demands have been made here - just an opportunity to try and meet consensus.

Mhaze I do not know you or your wife but I am sure that if she said to you that she would like to talk to you about changing the colour of the walls you would not consider that to be woke virtue signalling.

You're missing the point that mhaze is trying to make WTF (or are deliberately avoiding it).

The constitution# is the *most* important document in the whole country. Since it defines the government's powers, its wording is literally a matter of personal life and death, and the existence of society as a whole. (Yes, it truly is that important!!)

So obviously, we need to be *extremely* careful about what the precise wording of the constitution is. It is vitally important that the public know *exactly* what is going to happen to the current wording if they have to vote on changing it.

As it currently stands, the public have no idea what really is going to be changed and what the resulting new body that this "Voice" is actually going to be, how it is constituted and how limited it is. So far they've just given us broad ideas about it and general feel-good mother-hood statements but next to no details on the specifics of who, what, when, where actually runs and controls it.

Without explicit wording at the time of voting, it leaves the government with way to much leeway to insert their own wording that allows them to create a great monster of a body of their own desire. No sane person would vote to approve such a possibility.

The government, will have to at some stage, define these details explicitly. So why can't they give them to us now before we have to vote?

This "no details till after the voting" approach they're taking to get the change through stinks to high heaven and alarm bells should be ringing in everyone's head. The obvious sort of questions people should be asking themselves are: "Why is it that the government won't give specifics? Is it that they afraid that we won't vote for it if know these details beforehand? Why would they be so afraid?"

--continued below--

--from above--

In general, a wise person should *always* assume that the government will do what whatever benefits the government without nothing but the bare minimum of consideration for the citizen. Millennia of history has shown us that it is prudent to always assume the worst of a government. So a government should be treated as a necessary evil that needs to be constantly scrutinized and restricted as much as possible.

#This should really be plural here, it also includes the state constitutions, but this discussion is purely federal.

As it has been made quite clear by now that this had been waited for for too long, one would think it had all been worked out to the finest detail by now !
There shouldn't be any discussions needed anymore, just go straight to the poin t & be done with it. Don't let the saboteurs anywhere near this if you want to get it done !

"As it currently stands, the public have no idea what really is going to be changed and what the resulting new body that this "Voice" is actually going to be, how it is constituted and how limited it is. So far they've just given us broad ideas about it and general feel-good mother-hood statements but next to no details on the specifics of who, what, when, where actually runs and controls it."

I read an article this morning that said, anyone who says it's unclear what is proposed, is illiterate or a liar, given the proposal has been laid out clearly in writing

I'd have added a racist to the list

From personal experience I'd like to see Australian indigenous have more say in their affairs.
Wise or unwise, they need to have a say about their priorities, not some academic imbeciles with no life experience & even less common sense.
When the wheels come off let them sort it out, when the wheels stay on let them continue.
Bailing them out is no longer an option.

The disgusting and disgraceful swearing-in stunt of Greens senator Lidia Thorpe yesterday is a harbinger of what this Voice would be like. Thorpe should put any decent Australian off the Voice. Uncouth, ungrateful, unlikeable. Thorpe is single-handedly putting her people's cause back by years.

"The disgusting and disgraceful swearing-in stunt of Greens senator Lidia Thorpe yesterday is a harbinger of what this Voice would be like. Thorpe should put any decent Australian off the Voice. Uncouth, ungrateful, unlikeable. Thorpe is single-handedly putting her people's cause back by years."

The Greens are marketing geniuses. People who were already racist right wing filth say this nonsense. People like me cheered and laughed, loving it all the more because we knew we were about to drown in boomer tears

"You're missing the point that mhaze is trying to make WTF (or are deliberately avoiding it)."

I suspect the latter.

You are very correct 'thinkabit'. They've been talking about this for years and yet all the important issues remain unresolved or at least highly opaque. There is good reason for that.

You really can't blame them. The full Aboriginal agenda would be unpopular and not get through. Hence the sleight of hand.

What I find interesting is the legions who just fall into line while remaining wilfully ignorant of the details, all in the name of avoiding being called racist.

WTF tells me that I just need to be more informed to understand that all the issues I raised have been resolved. Yet neither he nor any of the other boosters of this are able to answer even a single one of the UNresolved issued I mentioned above.

Monash university is to impose a COMPULSORY course on the Voice. No course, no doing anything else. No graduation.

God help Australia, because Australians will not

Lets not complicate matters - or try to divert this discussion.

The only requirement at present is that such a body exist.

It leaves to parliament all the decisions about how it is
composed and operates. Parliament will have the power to
decide the function, composition and powers.

The next stage in the
process will be consultation and education.
We've seen the draft - what still needs to be worked out
and what our PM wants to add to the Constitution is that
Parliament would have the power to decide the functions,
composition, and powers to the Voice.

The Voice would not supersede Parliament.

Indigenous
Affairs Minister Linda Burney said there would be plenty
more detail.

http://abc.net.au/news/2022-07-31/what-is-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-amd-uluru-statement/101285958

Just to be clear, were all the outstanding issues (those as yet deliberately unresolved) to be resolved in ways that I found acceptable, then there's every chance I'd support the change. But I'd need to see that the body was truly representative and accountable while being unquestionably advisory only.

Then I'd support it, not because I think it's a solution to the alleged problem, but because it would eliminate one more excuse for the authorities to ignore the actual solution to the supposed problem.

Senator Lidia Thorpe, one of those white aboriginals, is a perfect example of why we would be mad to include any special clause re aboriginals in the constitution.

So far, Albanese has shown himself to be a practitioner of the Grand Gesture, covering up his ignorance of just about everything, including any knowledge of what concerns real Australians, including real indigenous identifiers.

As the former Northern Territory MP and Walpiri woman, Bess Price, told a reporter from the Australian, the cere­monies and mumbo jumbo insisted on by the Albanese government are not meaningful to traditional people. “We don’t do that in communities,” she said. “It’s just a recent thing. It’s just people who are trying to grapple at something they believe should be traditional.” Genuine Aborigines don’t recognise them as part of their own tradition. The welcome to country is a demeaning ritual, embraced by urban Aboriginal activists and their white supporters.

"Do you support an alteration to the Constitution
that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Voice?" Yes or No.

This is the question the government has drafted for a
referendum.

The details about the legislation around the structure of
the Voice will not be released until after the referendum.

We have to establish first what Australians want.
Then we can talk about what it will look like.
We can go down the cul-de-sac of getting into every detail.

The aim of the referendum as the PM explained :

"What it seeks to do is break through what I call the tyranny
of powerlessness that First Nations' people have suffered
from (more than) 121 years of the Commonwealth making decisions
in Canberra without having respect and without having
consultation with First Nations'people themselves.

Are Albo's BLAXIT words below a dinkydi brain dump or blowing in the wind?

The Guardian Australia reports 2 August 2022 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-how-will-the-constitution-change-and-what-will-australians-be-asked-to-vote-on

"...Prime minister Anthony Albanese has released the proposed draft change to the constitution to recognise Indigenous Australians with a voice to parliament.

But what will Australians be asked at a referendum, and what do we still need to know about a voice?

What is constitutional recognition?

...On [30 July 2022] Albanese spoke at the Garma festival, revealing the proposed question for a referendum to recognise Indigenous Australians and the proposed alteration to the constitution.

The “starting point” is to add three sentences:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

3. The parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

At the referendum, Australians would then be asked:

Do you support an alteration to the constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?"

MAVER'S COMMENT

After we sheep bleat "Yes" to Albo's BLAXIT Referendum the BLAXITEERS can alter "Starting Point" points 1. to 3. anyway they want.

"After we sheep bleat "Yes" to Albo's BLAXIT Referendum the BLAXITEERS can alter "Starting Point" points 1. to 3. anyway they want."

Boomer tears are delicious!

Your racist blather does not matter. Too many of your generations are dead, too many kids are of voting age. You will lose.

Voice totally without reason,

If you are blathering about me, and directing your schoolgirl insults towards me, I advise that I am not a 'boomer' which I surmise is your ignorant discription of baby boomers (a boomer is an old man kangaroo). I was born during WW2, which makes me a 'war baby'.

So, I even older and wiser than you think.

In my first - and last - response to your ignorant and childish rubbish, I would like to say that you are the most vile specimen ever to tarnish Online Opinion with your ranting and raving.

"If you are blathering about me, and directing your schoolgirl insults towards me, I advise that I am not a 'boomer' which I surmise is your ignorant discription of baby boomers (a boomer is an old man kangaroo). I was born during WW2, which makes me a 'war baby'.

So, I even older and wiser than you think.

In my first - and last - response to your ignorant and childish rubbish, I would like to say that you are the most vile specimen ever to tarnish Online Opinion with your ranting and raving."

Jesus - y'all are still alive? I see where the issue is....

You are old and not wise. What you are, is an angry racist. You can't defend your hate, so you cry at me. I'm used to that. I am used to right wing scum crying, as their world collapses around them. I am fanning the flames

I think that when people have a look at what is proposed
in terms of the wording - most people will see that
this is a unifying moment for the nation. What it simply
says is that First Nations people should be given a voice.
This has been a process that has gone through extensive
consultations with First Nations communities.

The proposed referendum question is simple and clear.

And the proposed wording of the 3 sentences to be added
to the constitution are also straight forward. Once
added they can't be changed.

Of course there will be different opinions on this subject.
Considering our nation's history that is to be expected.

But quite clearly this is what overwhelmingly a majority
of First Nations communities have come up with in
their Uluru Statement From the Heart.

And as our PM says, "It's one I believe that will have the
support of the Australian people. And it's one that can
be a great lifting up of our nation, a unifying moment,
which is what I want it to be."

The Voice to Parliament was a key element of the 2017
Uluru Statement From the Heart and called for an elected
Indigenous Advisory Body to the Federal Parliament. The
proposed body would advise the government on issues
affecting First Nations people.

cont'd ...

A couple more clarification:

The PM has taken the first steps towards a referendum
that would enshrine an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

The Constitution can only be amended if a referendum
is successfully supported by the majority of
Australian voters and a majority in at least 4 states
and territories.

The Constitution currently does not even mention
Indigenous Australians. This proposed amendment would place
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the
Constitution and and show them respect by listening
to their voices.

Inserting this provision in the Constitution means a future
government cannot abolish it or let it fall into neglect.

This will put political pressure on both the government and
Indigenous people to make it work effectively.

The mere fact of having a referendum is important. It's
the definitive expression of the will of the Australian
people.

A successful referendum would amount to an important
message to Indigenous Australians and the world at large
how Indigenous Australians are respected and heard in
Australia.

As our Prime Minister summed up - yes we do run the risk
of failure but should we just give up? Should we run
the risk of failing to try?

This is a magnificent opportunity for our country to right
wrongs. Lets not run the risk of failing to try.
Hopefully most of us surely are bigger than that.

The Voice is a trap which, if successful, will divide Australians by race and culture more than ever.

Our lunatic-left PM called Australia a "racist hell". How absurd! What lunacy! We spend $30 billion a year on 3% of the population; yet we are "denying them the right to a 'happy and fulfilling' life", according to the appalling Albanese.

Aboriginal Australians take part in every aspect of Australian life that they choose to; 11 of them are in the Australian Parliament.

There are 70 taxpayer organisations devoted to aboriginal concerns.

The pushers of this racist Voice do not want to advise: they want power that is not available to any other group in the country. And, with the help of the architect of shameful apartheid, Anthony Albanese, they will get it - unless we vote NO.

"The Voice is a trap which, if successful, will divide Australians by race and culture more than ever.

Our lunatic-left PM called Australia a "racist hell". How absurd! What lunacy! We spend $30 billion a year on 3% of the population; yet we are "denying them the right to a 'happy and fulfilling' life", according to the appalling Albanese.

Aboriginal Australians take part in every aspect of Australian life that they choose to; 11 of them are in the Australian Parliament.

There are 70 taxpayer organisations devoted to aboriginal concerns.

The pushers of this racist Voice do not want to advise: they want power that is not available to any other group in the country. And, with the help of the architect of shameful apartheid, Anthony Albanese, they will get it - unless we vote NO"

Your tears are delicious. Your racist world is dying. Your nonsense is irrelevant. We all see through it.

Labor are not left wing, they only seem left wing to fascists.

They already have a Voice, through elected members of Parliament.

Will my relations who have one great-great-grandmother who was Aboriginal be entitled to be chosen/elected as the Voice.
They certainly don’t consider themselves to be Aboriginal, they’re predominantly European and have no desire to be anything else.

The voice proposal is pure racism.

Good to see Lidia Thorpe telling it like it is while taking the oath of office in the Parliament, saying; "the colonising her majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second". She received unexpected support from the Minister for the Republic, Labor's Matt Thistlethwaite who sees swearing allegiance to a foreign monarch as an anachronism in modern Australia, don't 99% of us see it that way. Of course this will once more upset the old fuddy-duddies of yesteryear, the old white conservative Anglo males, members of the 1901 club, the half a percent mob. We need to jettison these old worn out vestiges of a colonial past, and move on.

Dear Paul,

Australia is a complicated country. For some people
there are many allegiances to England. It is also
strongly influenced by America. There are many who fear
that we shall become a colony of America just like the Uk.
Look at the wholesale import of American trends and
culture, most particularly on our TV. It would be great
to see more Australian content.

Australia is a country that of course can be improved.
It has been. Our Pm is trying to do just that. To
improve the troubled relationship between white Australians
and First Nations people. One only has to look at the rise
of the extreme right-wing and white supremism to realise
that things need to change. The results of our last election
should show us all that Australians are not happy with
continuing to live in the past. That change has to happen.

Australia is a country that can be improved. Unlike the UK
is still has energy - it can go down a different path.

Foxy
A successful referendum is one that indicates the will of the voters, the only way a referendum could be said to have been unsuccessful is for the vote to be tied.

Referendums are neither won nor lost, they are a device for finding the will of the voters on a subject.

"
The voice proposal is pure racism."

The tears of racists are especially delicious when society hates them

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price says "she probably won't support a referendum on Indigenous Voice to Parliament."

"She said there were more pressing issues facing Indigenous communities."

What she failed to understand is that the most pressing issue is making the woke feel good about themselves. Whether it's good for the natives is secondary.

Meanwhile Minister for Indigenous Affairs Linda Burney advised that all the information about how the Voice will work will be released before the referendum. That's rather strange since WTF and Foxy have already told us that we only need to read all the reports out there to know how it'll all work. Perhaps Ms Burney needs to do some more reading. </sarc>

I watched Q and A last night on the ABC. It was
filmed at the Garma Festival and had an excellent panel.
The questions from the audience were very revealing
and insightful. It was truly inspiring. I learned a
great deal. It ended with a wonderful musical display.
It was uplifting and gave me hope.

The PM is on the right track. Definitely!
Most Australians are responding favourably.

As for Jacinta Price?

Our Prime Minister urges Ms Price to assess Labor's
proposal in full.

He said - "I think with respect when Senator Price has a look
at what is proposed in terms of the wording then the idea
that this is anything other than a unifying moment for the
nation just doesn't stack up."

" I understand that there's enormous frustration there about
the gap that is there, but there's nothing in this that
delays any practical measures."

"What it simply says is that people should be given a voice.
This is a process that has gone through extensive
consultation with First Nations communities.

Back to MP - Jacinta Nampijinpa Price's
argument against the Indigenous Voice to Parliament which she
claimed was being driven by "elites" who had been part of
the "gravy train."

Her comments evoked the old tropes of Indigenous Corporation
corruption and native title claims - both irrelevant to the
idea of a representative body.

What makes her comments really galling is the fact of the
sheer amount of groundwork that has been done by the Indigenous
people. The Indigenous
Voice to Parliament proposal comes out of the Uluru
Statement from the Heart process which included so many
Indigenous people drawn from local traditional owners,
Indigenous community-based organisations and Indigenous
leaders.

There followed a 2 year, two-stage Indigenous Voice
co-design process involving 9400 individuals, communities and
groups determined what this would look like in practice.

This is proof of a remarkably collaborative and deliberate
process to consider on how our First Nations peoples'
experiences and perspectives could be made a core part of
policy making.

Compare this process with Australia's party processes and
the political infrastructure - where membership numbers
have dwindled, local branches stacked, candidates are
parachuted into electorates where they don't live. Where
party powerbrokers defy the wishes of the rank and file
and handpick their own candidates.

All too often these party processes and the rest of this
political infrastructure built off these parties serve
the interests of the elite.

The Voice to Parliament is the remarkable culmination of
years of consensus building and grass roots consultation.
Before politicians try to cast it as "elitist" perhaps
they should look not only in the mirror but also at the
parties they support.

mhaze and co,

Have you done the 'Dulux' test on Jacinta Price yet? Just in case she's one of those white fellas trying to pull that black wool over your eyes. According to you all Aboriginal activist are just white fellas in disguise. Odd that you're not questioning Price's aboriginal heritage. Why is that?

So the first of Albo's infamous, changable, "Starting Points" is http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-how-will-the-constitution-change-and-what-will-australians-be-asked-to-vote-on :

"1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice."

Who will have the right to vote for BLAXITEER Reps in that "body"?

On what criteria? Racial? Proven by DNA test? 50+% or other physical tests?

Providing opportunities to exclude those who don't pass the tests?

Very nebulous "Affinity to a Tribe"?

Safeguards against corruption of mail order affinities?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Remember ATSIC was a "body". So there's a track record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Commission#Corruption_investigations

"Corruption investigations

In 2001, ATSIC became embroiled in controversy over litigation surrounding its chairperson Geoff Clark, relating to his alleged participation in a number of rapes

in the 1970s and 1980s, after being named by four women.[4]

ATSIC was also investigated for corruption, and the embezzlement of funds

intended for service delivery to help Aboriginal peoples.[citation needed]

Soon after this, the government under then Prime Minister John Howard began to remove some of ATSIC's fiscal powers, which were transferred to a new independent organisation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services (ATSIS).[citation needed] The government suspended Geoff Clark as chair of ATSIC in 2003 after he was convicted of obstructing police during a pub brawl, and Lionel Quartermaine became acting chair.[4]"

and the list goes on.

V of R,
The Voice is pure racism, it may be considered to be benign or malignin but it is still racism when one race receives special treatment or entitlements based on their race or ethnicity.

not questioning Price's aboriginal heritage. Why is that?
Paul1405,
She made it openly quite clear that she considered herself to be of two race heritage. That's why !

Indy,

I say, its because Price articulates things you and others with an anti-aboriginal bias agree with, so to you she's a "good darkie", an Uncle Tom type, who serves your purpose, therefor she's Aboriginal, which she is. Showing your racists attitude, will you call her a "Concrete Jungle Bunny" as you referred once to me, on knowing I have aboriginal heritage. BTW I don't consider myself Aboriginal at all, although my first cousin was accepted into the tribe.

Paul1405,
Again, you're making things up, are you getting desperate again ?
Anti-Aboriginal ? Racist ? is that the only argument you can invent ?
Very poor show !

"The Voice is pure racism, it may be considered to be benign or malignin but it is still racism when one race receives special treatment or entitlements based on their race or ethnicity."

Yes, to those used to privilege, equality feels like persecution. Why is it racist to try to recognise and move past, past racism? Darkies won't know their place?

VofR, the Voice would definitely be a racist government body. By its design, it is to exclusively serve one race based cohort of society- consequently is it racist. Whether someone considers that a good or bad thing is entirely a subjective stance, but there is no denying the it is an objective truth that it is racist.

And as for recognizing past injustice, the government has already done that. That is what Kevin Rudd's apology speech was.
But it should be noted, that this is NOT what the Voice really concerns. Why you seem to think that the voice is about recoginising past injustice/racism is rather alarming- since you're the one telling us that the proposed voice is needed and yet you don't seem to know what it is for.

For your benefit, since you don't seem to know, the proposed purpose of voice is: "The Indigenous Voice would provide a way for Indigenous Australians to have a greater say on the design, development and implementation of policies and programs that affect them." That is a direct quote that I took from this official government website: https://voice.niaa.gov.au/final-report

"the Voice would definitely be a racist government body. By its design, it is to exclusively serve one race based cohort of society- consequently is it racist. Whether someone considers that a good or bad thing is entirely a subjective stance, but there is no denying the it is an objective truth that it is racist.

And as for recognizing past injustice, the government has already done that. That is what Kevin Rudd's apology speech was.
But it should be noted, that this is NOT what the Voice really concerns. Why you seem to think that the voice is about recoginising past injustice/racism is rather alarming- since you're the one telling us that the proposed voice is needed and yet you don't seem to know what it is for.

For your benefit, since you don't seem to know, the proposed purpose of voice is: "The Indigenous Voice would provide a way for Indigenous Australians to have a greater say on the design, development and implementation of policies and programs that affect them." That is a direct quote that I took from this official government website: https://voice.niaa.gov.au/final-report"

Yes, dumbass, in the past we created things like the stolen generation, the NT intervention, and the white australia policy and Aboriginals had no voice. Now they will. That would be the entire point. It's not 'racist' to create bodies designed to fight racism and give equality to marginalised groups. You are just an idiot

For those playing at home this is the article Foxy lifted 'her' most recent opinions from....

http://www.crikey.com.au/2022/08/02/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-elitist/

You just can't help yourself can you Foxy? Nicking other people's words to give your thoughts a veneer of erudition. Funny part is that you know how to use quotes marks ("") since you inappropriately used them t'other day to pretend that I'd said something I didn't say.

As to Price and her views, I find it extraordinarily interesting the way the aboriginal boosters freak out every time a native strolls off the reservation. Apparently, to them, all aboriginals have to be on-board.

________________________________________________________________

Then we have Paul. What do you do when you haven't got the cognitive wherewithal to address my actual views. Well you make up different views ("Have you done the 'Dulux' test on Jacinta Price yet?") and then attack them.

The only aboriginal I've ever called into question was Bruce Pascoe. For good reasons.

In a funny way, I think there's some projection from Paul there about Price's true aboriginality. Biden once claimed that if blacks didn't vote for him they weren't really black. Seems if aboriginals don't support the Voice, they aren't really aboriginal - at least in some circles.

"As to Price and her views, I find it extraordinarily interesting the way the aboriginal boosters freak out every time a native strolls off the reservation. Apparently, to them, all aboriginals have to be on-board.

In a funny way, I think there's some projection from Paul there about Price's true aboriginality. Biden once claimed that if blacks didn't vote for him they weren't really black. Seems if aboriginals don't support the Voice, they aren't really aboriginal - at least in some circles."

It's interesting. Black people are human and have a range of views. right wing scum assume if one black person is scum, then their views are justified. Price has made a living feeding right wing hate of her people, it's her job. Like Candace Owens, she is an enemy of dark skinned people, but it pays well.

We should keep in mind that race is a fallacy, we humans all belong to the one race.

TVOR,

Now then, Pope Nickolas V might not agree, in his Papel Bulls 1452 and 1455, when Pope Nicolas V issued a series of papal bulls that granted Portugal the right to enslave sub-Saharan Africans. Church leaders argued that slavery served as a natural deterrent and Christianizing influence to “barbarous” behaviour among pagans. Using this logic, the Pope issued a mandate to the Portuguese king, Alfonso V, and instructed him to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans, that's the black fellas.

I know all about the Pagans, I was fully instructed on their behaviour, by an old Irish (could be a relo of Issy's) Nun, Sr Mary in the 3rd Grade, I was 8 years old at the time and fully informed. The question is, were Aboriginal people pagans prior to 1788? If so are we not fully entitled, like good Pope Nickolas V said "invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue", over the past 230 years we have done all that, and more. BTW Pope Nickolas didn't say anything about "VOICES" only the ones he heard from God......and Catholic slave traders.

The voice of reason, I like your style, its refreshing, BUT, look out for the Big Kahuna he doth lurk in the shadows.

VofR: "It's not 'racist' to create bodies designed to fight racism and give equality to marginalised groups."

Yep, agree with you there - it possible to have a government body that fights racism but is not itself racist.
For example, Today's police departments: they are not formed as racist bodies and yet they fight racism. For a case in point, take the scenario where a police officer (whether they are white/black/yellow whatever) arresting someone for spray-painting a racist message, such as Swastika with the words "Death to Jews" underneath, on a public wall. Here the arrest is a not racist act and the arrest itself is fighting against racism.

However, having an organization that only represents and advantages exclusively one section of society based on race and is constituted exclusively of people of that race IS racist! By the very definition of racism. But like I said before (and IsMise said in different words) whether you consider that a good or bad thing is purely a subjective issue.

By-the-way: the White Australia policy is associated with the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. This act had nothing to do with indigenous aboriginals of Australia but rather with immigrants from overseas. If, hypothetically, an act like this introduced in a future where the Voice existed and the voice made representations to parliament about this act then it would be acting beyond its statutory limits. Well, hopefully it would be acknowledged that it is acting beyond it limits- but we can't say for sure since they won't give us much detail about how it will work and what it can actually do.

"but we can't say for sure since they won't give us much detail about how it will work and what it can actually do."

Ignoring all your other nonsense.....

https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/indigenous-voice-codesign-process-interim-report-2020.pdf

Does Google just not work where you live?

Good news.

Recent polling conducted by The Australian Institute shows
the nation is ready for a constitutionally enshrined Voice
to Parliament, with an increase of people surveyed saying
they would vote "Yes" at a referendum

Professor Megan Davis and Pat Anderson AO will be speaking
at a webinar alongside The Australian Institute and the
Sydney Peace Foundation today at 1.OO pm AEST.

History is Calling and as Pat Anderson stated - "It's been
calling for this referendum for years. The Voice will
improve the lives of not just First Peoples, but for
future generations and all Australians."

V of R,

When you post a link, delete the “s” from ‘https’ and the link will pop up red and be instantly available to others, it’s an OLO thing
Maybe your computer is a smart one like mine and it won’t let you post an incorrect url , then you got problems!!

Early daze Foxy. Its an early daze.

Albo's "First Nations" Incorporated activism has left we moderate-to-conservative Aussies in a DAZE.

Speeches in the Leftwing "Sydney Peace Foundation" are sure to alienate average Aussies.

Whatever the Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics suggest during Albo's Honeymood period...

This goody goodyness won't last as the true import of a racist change to the Constitution becomes understood, Before the Referendum

The Indigenous Voice to Parliament proposal comes out
of the Uluru Statement From the Heart process which
included a ground-breaking process of First Nations
from Australia through 12 deliberate dialogues.
Joining each dialogue were a representative sample of
approximately 100 Indigenous people drawn from local
traditional owners, Indigenous community-based
organisations and Indigenous leaders.

These regional dialogues selected their own representatives
to attend the First Nations Constitutional Convention at
Uluru. At the Convention and by an overwhelming consensus
more than 200 delegates adopted the Uluru Statement.

From there as I stated earlier, a 2 year, two-stage Indigenous
Voice co-design process involving 9400 individuals, communities
and groups determined what this would look like in practice.

The very existence of the Voice is proof of a remarkably
collaborative and deliberate process to consider how this
First Nations Peoples' experiences and perspectives could
be made a core part of policy making.

When you compare this with what has gone on in our country's
political parties - it's no wonder that so many
Australians will support the Voice. It is time to do so.

So will the members of the Voice be elected or appointed? Don't know? Well how can you say you support the idea of the Voice?

Or don't the details matter as much as the warm inner glow?

In July 2021 the Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process
co-chaired by Marcia Langton and Tom Calma is explained
at the following link as is - what detail already
exists about the Voice:

http://theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-how-will-the-constitution-change-and-what-will-australians-be-asked-to-vote-on

Prof. Marcia Langton says:

"When people say they want more detail, all that tells me is
they refuse to read our report because all that detail is there...
I see this demand for more detail as mischief-making and
sowing confusion. We couldn't have been more clear then we
have been... What we've set out in our report for a Voice is
very straightforward and clear, and is the preferred option for
most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people."

This First Nations rubbish has worn very thin.

"First Nations" really refers to hundreds of (often warring) tribes across the continent of Australia that speak over 250 different languages. There was no pre-colonial nation, much less several.

The actual First Nation on this land was established in 1901

Abos couldn't produce a written language in their 50,000 years, and they are not even the oldest continuing group on Earth, as that other blatant lie has it. That distinction belongs to the San people in South Africa, who have been around three times longer than Australia's indigenese .

Foxy

All those BLAXITEER numbers you quote, as some sort of desperate proof, at:

"Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 3 August 2022 2:25:47 PM"

Won't be worth a Tinker's Fart when 15,000,000 Australians vote "NO".

Here is the final report of the Indigenous Voice Co-design
Process:

http://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf

And here's what the public had to say:

http://theconversation.com/what-did-the-public-say-about-the-governments-indigenous-voice-co-design-process-163803

Dear oh dear Foxy,

"When people say they want more detail, all that tells me is
they refuse to read our report because all that detail is there..."

But the PM has said it hasn't been decided if it'll be elected or not. So just because the aboriginals produce a report that trumps what the PM says? Is that your view Foxy?

This of coarse is the essential problem with the entire process. They call it an advisory group but they and people like you treat advice as though its an instruction.

And until we see the details (remember them) of how it'll work, its safe to assume that that is how it will play out. They call it advice and treat it like an instruction. And if the government of the day fails to adhere to the instructions, then every lever of pressure from the ABC through to the courts and the HREOC to the various UN bodies will be employed to enforce the 'advice/instruction'.

I know you can't or don't want to get this but as the campaign to get this through gears up and the voters find out just how little detail the government is prepared to release, I suspect those more concerned with the welfare of the nation rather than the warm inner-glow, will be reconsidering their original agreement with the Voice.

So if you believe all the detail is out there, why won't you answer the original question? You say that people who ask for detail just haven't read enough yet you can't answer the simplest, most fundamental question.....Will they Voice be elected?

Hi Foxy,

We should not b concerned about the red necks and racists, their hateful opinions are reflected by a very small percentage of the population. They are disproportionately represented on this mainly conservative Forum. The race hate party, One Nation, received about 4% of the national vote at the election.

ttbn, the majority of your ancestors were most likely illiterate. in 1800, 50% of the British population were illiterate. The vast majority of the other 50% had only basic reading and writing skills, such as being able to sign their name.

I have tried to catch up with the opinions here. A bit hard to keep
up as I am still not getting notifications.
The principle of putting up the major clauses and leaving the rest
for later when we think about it worries me.
You must remember politicians are tricky buggres.
I think if they do not set a DNA fraction limit as to what is an aborigine
we will have many like that white woman that pranced around the senate
with her arm in the air waffling about the coloniser Queen.
If there is no sunset clause for this amendment then in a fairly short
time there will be a privileged group of people who all look like us
and have the same culture as the rest of us who have special access
to government. A new Landed Gentry ?

I am concerned they are doing the same with the CO2 emissions legislation.
I want to know how they will enforce the 43%, will there
be a inspector of emissions and police prosecutions if your use of
your car exceed the yearly allowance or petrol rationing ?
Who knows ? Or will we told after the legislation is law ?
Similar principle same trick.

Maverick,

So you think that the Voice won't be worth a
tinker's fart?

Some thought the same about same-sex marriage.
Yet it got through.

Well, there's no rain without thunder.

And, the only history that's worth a tinker's dam
is the history we make today.

Dear Paul,

Some of our posters remind me a bit of kids jumping around
in their rooms dressed in black pajamas pretending to be
ninjas.

They're lost in their self-protective memes and cliches
and diversions. They'll just annoy and bore with their
gaslighting and goal post moving bits of boilerplate
that they've picked up

Dear Paul,

Here's a link that gives a review of the Indigenous Voice
Co-Design Process Final Report to the government.
It's an interesting read:

http://aph.org.au/2022/03/review-of-the-the-indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report-to-the-australian-government/

‘Well, there’s no rain without thunder”

What a ridiculous statement.

Good onya Bazz, Is Mise, mhaze, thinkabit and ttbn.

You're moderate voices in this divisive politicians' and activists' push to massage a Race based change to the Consititution.

Albo's emotive "simple" one question Blaxit Referendum will go sour in its implementation.

People will wonder how a third "body" of Parliament, for one race only, came about. A gift to the LNP, ensuring a one term Labor Government.

Thanks for the link Foxy,

It debunks the fear and smear campaign of some who make erroneous claims about third chambers of parliament etc. There are some on the conservative side of politics who oppose any "voice" and are looking for excuses to bring the whole process undone.

The race-based Voice is anathema to any liberal democratic society. People have been fooled by Albanese, with his whiny, nasal Ocker accent and hard-luck 'humble' upbringing stories, into thinking that he is fair dinkum. He is not.

Albanese is as dictatorial and totalitarian as they come. Aboriginal welfare is not imporDanD (his way of pronouncing important) to him; revenge is his thing, and we are all going to suffer for not being brought up in public housing bya single parent. Divide us. Lower our standard of living. We haven't seen anything yet.

Good Morning Paul,

Some people don't like facing the truth of this
country's colonial past and that has been part
of the problem. These people don't want to be
re-educated about the long history of exploitation
and cruelty. These people look back on the British
Empire with a sense of pride.

After all we were taught at school that the British
Empire was marvellous, giving India trains and
cricket and saving the savage Africans from the
eternal fires of damnation and all that. It was
simply wrong. These people have always thought of
England as the best country in the world. Well, it
isn't. It was cruel and greedy and unjust.,
much like the rest of the world, and the aftermath
of the British Empire in this country has given rise
to a hateful legacy of racism.

It's the injustice of things that infuriates me.
Some of the people posting here lack the power
of analysis. I'm not sure that they can be
influenced and encouraged to think critically
about their country and its relation to the world.

Still we need to do what we can to right things.
And the current government is trying to do just
that. It needs our support and hopefully it will
also get it from the Coalition as well. Julian
Leeser - the Coalition spokesman for Indigenous
Australians is a good man. He does offer qualified
support for an Indigenous Voice to the parliament
olan as laid out by the Prime Minister.

One vote for all Australians, equality in the electorate, one citizen entitled to the same representation in Parliament as another.
All attainable but not by giving one section of electors a special ‘in’ over the others.

Those who advocate such , when the division is based on race are racists pure and simple.

Albo has previously said that 'we' (ie the left) learned their lesson with the republican debate and won't make the same mistake again. And what was that mistake? Well they told the plebs exactly how the republic would work and the plebs decided they didn't like it. Specifically they said that the republic would have an appointed president whereas the deplorables wanted an elected president. So the lesson the left learned was to hide unpleasant details from the deplorables.

Consequently Albo has said, having learned that lesson, that some details are better not discussed. Clearly they suspect that these hidden details would be unacceptable to the mob, hence the need to avoid discussing them. What's being hidden? We can only guess, but it won't be good.

OTOH, Langton says that all the details have been released - perhaps she should tell Albo that. What she really means is that all the details the mob deserve or are going to get have been released. The rest will be 'decided' (its actually already been decided) after the vote. So vote the way we tell you to and we'll tell you what you voted for later. They think this is how democracy works!

OTOH, Burney advised that all the information about how the Voice will work will be released before the referendum. So clearly she thinks all the details HAVEN'T been released. It takes all the best efforts of doublethink for the usual suspects to think that all the details HAVE been released AND that the details WILL be released later. But they are used to believing two opposite things at once - anything to avoid being called racists.

Foxy et al have told us we just need to read all the reports to find out how the whole thing will work and they pretend to have done so. But when asked the simplest question (Will it be elected?) they run a mile.

The left is trying to push this through by hiding the truth about its workings. It'll be interesting to see if they can.

This, apparently,is how they think democracy works.

Hi Issy,

Why are you saying; "One vote for all Australians, equality in the electorate, one citizen entitled to the same representation in Parliament as another." There is no suggestion that the "Voice" will be a star chamber of Aboriginals enacting legislation or vetoing parliamentary bills, just not true.

There are people now in parliament representing the interests of big business, these people are toddies who are financed and directed by sectional interests. The Shooters and Hooters Party in NSW is such an organisation representing the gun lobby. Do you object to them? NO!

Hi Foxy,

This is a progressive move that is overdue, and hopefully supported by the majority of the parliament, and the majority of fair minded Australians, resulting in its implementation after a successful referendum.

The detractors might be a majority on the Forum, but in the broader community they are diddly-squat in number.

Ken Wyatt sent Albo a message of encouragement on the subject, and Andrew Bragg from the Liberal Party is strongly in favour of the "Voice" as being enshrined in the Constitution.

The Voice is not a 3rd chamber of parliament.
It does not seek to usurp the power of parliament.
Suggesting otherwise is simply wrong and ignorant.

http://theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-how-will-the-constitution-change-and-what-will-australians-be-asked-to-vote-on

http://theconversation.com/non-indigenous-australians-shouldnt-fear-a-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-176675

Dear Paul,

Racial prejudice has for a very long time fuelled
anti-Voice sentiments and blindness in this country.
Our hearts should bleed for our First Nations
people, particularly for the young.
The naysayers will deserve the damning verdict of
history.

The naysayers are ignorant and deliberate - and we
should oppose them with all our strength.

"The Voice is not a 3rd chamber of parliament."

Well since you don't know how it'll work, you can't know that as a fact. You have just decided to believe what you've been told by people who have decided to hide details from you.

"Suggesting otherwise is simply wrong and ignorant."

Well it's definitely ignorant...ignorant of the facts. But that's how you like it. Details and facts are so - icky.

"The naysayers are ignorant and deliberate "

Yes they are ignorant. Ignorant of the details being hidden from them - and you. But deliberate? The only deliberation here is from the promoters who are deliberately hiding the details.

The Clown prince Albozo has crafted questions so vague that they could extend to a reserved space in the gallery to a body that supersedes parliament.

When you put something in the constitution you need very specific or you will end up with something that can be used to screw up things for generations

What we know:

Details to make it clear that:

1) A simple YES/NO question will be asked.

2) A Voice to Parliament would have a Constitutional guarantee.

3) The Voice will provide advice only to Parliament and
Government.

4) Parliament will decide the structure of the Voice.

What happens next:

More information on the proposal will follow.
All Australians will know what they are voting on.

1) The government will outline key elements of the Voice
by the end of 2022.

2) It is important that all Australians are involved in
learning more about the Voice.

3) There will be ample time for all Australians to understand
what they are voting on.

http://fromtheheart.com.au/

The law in Australia stops at the water's edge, leaving
to parliament to resolve the questions of First Nations
political standing in modern Australia.

Australia remains a land where there are no treaties, no
constitutional recognition of the place of Aboriginal and
Torres Straight Islander peoples.

As Stan Grant explains:

"Consider the words of the Uluru Statement. It's a plea
from a people who for so long in our nation's history were
not counted should now be heard. It speaks to the torment
of their powerlessness yet seeks release from the torment
not by separation or rejection of Australia but by
joining the abiding sense of Indigenous sovereignty to
the legal and political sovereignty of the Commonwealth.
In this way it looks to form a new people, Australians
indivisible."

"The Clown prince Albozo has crafted questions so vague that they could extend to a reserved space in the gallery to a body that supersedes parliament.

When you put something in the constitution you need very specific or you will end up with something that can be used to screw up things for generations"

Have you considered calling the reading/writing hotline?

"1) A simple YES/NO question will be asked."

Just like every other referendum. That's how referenda work. That's equivalent of telling us the sun will rise in the east.

"1) The government will outline key elements of the Voice
by the end of 2022."

Finally. We got there. So the details aren't as yet known....despite telling us earlier that if only we were as well read as Foxy we'd know the details.

Therefore all those signalling their immense virtue by agreeing with this are doing so while not actually knowing what they are agreeing with. (It reminds me of Bill Shorten..."I don't know what the PM said, but I agree".) Standard thinking of the left it seems. Falling into line is more important than considered opinion.

As I said all that thinking and facts are so icky!

__________________________________________________________________

Shadowminister wrote: "When you put something in the constitution you need very specific"

That's true IF and only if you don't want there to be any ambiguity. OTOH if you make the wording vague you can rely on the lawyers and courts to implement it in ways that the public would never have agreed to

"Therefore all those signalling their immense virtue by agreeing with this are doing so while not actually knowing what they are agreeing with. (It reminds me of Bill Shorten..."I don't know what the PM said, but I agree".) Standard thinking of the left it seems. Falling into line is more important than considered opinion."

I have linked to the proposal for how this process would work more than once. I have pointed out more than once that it is CLEAR this body would have no real power, just a voice. You just don't want to hear

Will the voice be elected and if so, who will constitute the electors?
Will the Voice have to be a member of a specific minor branch of the human race?
Or will any. Australian be eligible to stand?

If eligibility is based on ‘race’ then the proposal is racist, if it isn’t racist then could someone explain why it isn’t?

What will be the pay rate for the Voice?
Will the Voice sit in Parliament?

Foxy has told us that everything about the proposal has been told to us, Burnley says that it hasn’t, one or the other is seriously misinformed.

As the Voice is said to be advisory only, why can it not be set up the same as any other advisory body by a simple act of Parliament?
Why does it need to be in the Constitution?

If it doesn’t work we need to be able to get rid of it without the expense of a Referendum.

suggestion that the "Voice" will be a star chamber of Aboriginals enacting legislation or vetoing parliamentary bills, just not true.
Paul1405,
So, what are the facts ? Will those who perpetually ask for more, suddenly find themselves satisfied ?

VofR:"I have linked to the proposal for how this process would work more than once. I have pointed out more than once that it is CLEAR this body would have no real power, just a voice. You just don't want to hear."

Yes, you did link to a proposal.
But NO you didn't link to a proposal of a process that explains how it WOULD work, but rather how it MIGHT work. And there's a hell of a lot of difference between these two!

While I grant you there is a good chance that if the referendum resulted in a yes vote then the system we get, initially at least, will be somewhat like your proposal. There is also chance, a lesser chance admittedly, that it will be something COMPLETELY different. And having such an unknown, unseen, alternative of the government's own desire is something that we simply cannot take a chance on. Why? Because we are creating a new entity with constitutional power.

The other point you should note is my use of "initially at least" in the above paragraph. Why have I inserted this? Because by the "The Parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have powers to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice." provision that they wish to insert in the constitution (or some wording like that) the deep future maintenance/control of the implementation of the voice will by acts of parliament. So even if we do initially get the voice that your links roughly sketch out the details can change at any point in the future by whim of the government*. And this is for an entity that is constitutionally established and consequently has constitutional backed power. That's nuts!!

[PS: I'm surprised that the aboriginal elites themselves approve of this, because while it's possible that the some future government will increase "The Voice" to something more like "The Screaming Obligatory Demand" (quite plausible given the current trends in politics) it is also theoretically possible that they could reduce it to "The Whisper".]

I can't understand why some people seem to have
great difficulty in understanding what's going on.

These are the facts:

1) The draft referendum question is:
"Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that
establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?

If the referendum passes, these 3 clauses will be added to
the Australian Constitution which is the basic law of the
land:

1) There shall be a body to be called the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Voice.

2) The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make
representations to Parliament and the Executive Government
on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people.

3) The parliament shall subject to this Constitution have power
to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers
and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

WHAT WE KNOW:

Details to make it clear that:

1) A simple YES/NO question will be asked
2) A Voice to Parliament would have a Constitutional guarantee.
3) The Voice will provide advice only to Parliament and Govt.
4) Parliament will decide the structure of the Voice.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

More information on the proposal will follow. All Australians
will know what they are voting on.

1) The government will outline key elements of the Voice by the end of 2022.
2) It is important that all Australians are involved in learning
more about the Voice.
3) There will be ample time for all Australians to understand
what they are voting on.

http://fromtheheart.com.au/

And here's the Indigenous Voice discussion paper to clarify
things even further:

http://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/indigenous-voice-discussion-paper-2_0.pdf

Only 13 different posters have bothered to express opinions on this subject. Pretty irrelevant when 17 million, approximately, Australian voters will get to decide without the wisdom of the 13, a couple of whom actually think they have some role to play.

So the status quo will be maintained, the Commonwealth Parliament will still be able to make laws affecting Aboriginal Australians; funny, I thought that that situation was always considered racist.

Here's the problem Foxy.

You gave the following point: "4) Parliament will decide the structure of the Voice. "

Now, the trouble starts right here at your point (4).

Why does this allow the Voice to be potentially very problematic?
Because the parliament could create any sort of great monstrosity of an entity of any size, with any amount of complexity and any power as long as the final result is something that can "(clause 2) make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people." The parliament is free to use any existing power (and I assume even transfer any power) it has to achieve this this outcome.

In short, we simply don't know what this voice will actually be- all we know for certain is that it will have the power to make representations to parliament on behalf of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people.

The results from the last "Voice to parliament"

"How head of failed forerunner to the 'Voice to Parliament' is charged with fleecing $2MILLION from the Aboriginal Trust Ex-ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark is facing 380 charges of fraud and deception Family members had faced 1100-plus charges over the alleged $2million fraud Senator Jacinta Price warned ATSIC was a reason against a Voice to Parliament"

Lunacy is doing exactly the same thing that failed and expecting different results.

SM,

Things can't be different in 20 years from the days of Geoff Clark and ATSIC, just as things have changed from the days of white fellas going out and shooting black fellas, or do you favour a return to the "good old days". ATSIC was NOT a "Voice To Parliament", but Geoff Clark was a fraudster.

The racists bigots, and there are some, will oppose no matter what is offered, they simply hate Aboriginals. These haters claim people like Foxy have made up their minds to vote yes without knowing the detail, not so, no one as yet has been asked to vote one way or the other. In fact its the haters who are already committed to a no vote.

I am confident a referendum proposal that will be acceptable across the political spectrum, and acceptable to the majority of Australians will be put forward. I don't include the old farts and haters in the majority, you know who you are.

"Because the parliament could create any sort of great monstrosity of an entity of any size, with any amount of complexity and any power as long as the final result is something that can "(clause 2) make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people." The parliament is free to use any existing power (and I assume even transfer any power) it has to achieve this this outcome."

Except the proposed thing is defined as having no power, only a voice.

Boomers are dumb

Paul,

"The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) (1990–2005) was the Australian Government body through which Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were formally involved in the processes of government affecting their lives, established under the Hawke government in 1990. A number of Indigenous programs and organisations fell under the overall umbrella of ATSIC."

This is exactly what Albozo is trying to redo. I have no problem with this. What I do have a problem with is engraining this into the constitution without a dry run.

"This is exactly what Albozo is trying to redo. I have no problem with this. What I do have a problem with is engraining this into the constitution without a dry run."

What in the christ is a 'dry run'?

VorR: "Except the proposed thing is defined as having no power, only a voice."

Yes the "proposed" thing is defined as having no power, but there is ZERO guarantee that this is what we will get (or what it will remain as in the future).

There is NOTHING in the 3 clauses they're planning to add to the constitution that commits the government to deliver the product they're trying to sell us.

By-the-way: I've had a good chuckle reading one of your links. There they openly admit that they DON'T want the Voice to be selected by a general vote among the Aboriginals/TS Islanders because they fear that very few would bother to vote. If only a small minority was bothered enough to vote, it would obviously destroy the credibility of its claims to be a unified majority backed voice for them.

[By-the-way: I'm a member of Gen-X not a Boomer]

"I can't understand why some people seem to have
great difficulty in understanding what's going on"

Here is the difference Foxy.

YOU are prepared to accept assurances from the promoters of this that everything will be okey-dokey and when the details are released there won't be anything untoward. For many the lack of detail is a red flag but for people like you, the lack of detail as to how it'll work is a secondary or tertiary issue as opposed to the warm inner-glow of doing something (anything) that the leaders of the aboriginal industry want.

WE aren't prepared to accept that the lack of detail is a mere detail. We want to see exactly how the Voice will be selected, controlled, made accountable and especially how it's decision will be arrived at and conveyed to the other Parliamentary wings.

In the end the difference is between those who have grown used to simply deferring to their leaders and those who adopt Reagan's policy of "trust but verify".

Unfortunately, the notion that you shouldn't put all your faith in your leaders will elude you.

"What is a dry run?"

Are you incompetent at using Google or dictionaries?

dry run

"a rehearsal of a performance or procedure before the real one."

Clearly, you are nearly illiterate.

It is false to suggest that people are being
cajoled into thinking that they have some sort of
"duty" to vote "Yes" rather than actually create an
appealing formula for constitutional change.

This is deeply disingenuous because these people
are ones who would disapprove and oppose - no matter
what model was presented. They are blabbering on
about "detail," when there is the model
for the Voice presented by Professors Marcia
Langton and Tom Calma:

http://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/indigenous-voice-discussion-paper-2_0.pdf

More detail will be revealed as the process develops.
It will be interesting to see how much support these people
doing the criticism now
give as more detail is provided. I suspect they will continue
to oppose - because their opposition is nothing more
than virtue-signalling.

"The model of the Voice is not what the referendum is
about. It's about ensuring that there will always be a
First Nations Voice in the centre of decision-making, and
that First Nations people are recognised and respected for
their sovereignty that was never ceded or extinguished.

Here is what Prof. Marcia Langton has to say:

http://news.com.au/national/politics/not-a-race-marcia-langton-on-why-voice-to-parliament-so-important/news-story/Oae3a48682efb4d7fd92525de28b544

Sorry - here's the link again:

http://news.com.au/national/politics/not-a-race-larcia-langton-on-why-voice-to-parliament-so-important/news-story/Oae3a48682efb4d7fd92525d2e28b544

Last try:

http://news.com.au/national/politics/not-a-race-marcia-langton-on-why-voice-to-parliament-so-important/news-story/0ae3a48682efb4d7fd92525d2e28b544

"cajoled into thinking that they have some sort of
"duty" to vote "Yes""

Why did you put duty in quotes? No one said 'duty'. Who are you quoting? You have a real problem with this notion of quoting don't you. Its not that hard. If you use other peoples words you put it in quotes (unless you want to try to elevate yourself by pretending they're your words), otherwise quotes ("") aren't needed (unless you want to pretend that others said things they didn't say).

I'm not saying you are blindly falling into line over the Voice out of duty. I'm saying you're doing it out of habit - just doing what those you accept as your betters tell you to do.

I don't care what Marcia Langton or anyone else says the Voice will look like. I only care what the final decision is/will be. Until then its all ideal speculation and I'm not going to sign up to a notion that is as yet undefined.

Until vital issues like 'Will it be elected?' are resolved, everything is up for grabs. You don't know if it'll be elected yet are happy to go long with it anyway. I'm not.

I don't think that anyone wants to discriminate against
our First Nations people. Despite our arguments and
the different points of view expressed in this
discussion - I get the distinct feeling that we all want to see
solutions for the problems experienced within Indigenous
communities. If we all agree on this then what remains is
for all of us to contribute constructively to make this
happen.

We can start with the first step. The referendum - by voting
YES!

It's a start we all need to make.

mhaze,

Double quotation marks can be used to show sarcasm or to identify words used as words instead of for their meaning.

Someone could write; Johnny believes Hitler was a "good" bloke. the double quotation is obviously sarcasm, or its to be taken as the opposite meaning, bad.

Paul,

You're confusing double quotes (") and single (') quotes.

Dear Paul,

I knew you'd get it.

Last night I watched the movie - "Top End Wedding."
It's now made me want to travel to the Northern
Territory to see places like Darwin, and the beautiful
Katherine Gorge, and Kakadu. But most of all - the
Tiwi Islands.

http://northernterritory.com/darwin-and-surrounds/destinations/tiwi-islands

People travel overseas - why not see what we have on our own
door-step. We just may learn something about the rich cultures
that exist on this land.

We've all heard arguments against the recognition of
the Voice to Parliament. We've all heard about how it
privileges one group and that this is divisive. That it
fails the "all or nothing test." That changes to the
Constitution should not mention any people unless it
mentions all groups.

OK. lets define the groups. There appears to be 3 groups
without which Australia would not be the Australia that
we know today. These 3 groups are - 1) Our First Nations
people. 2) Settlers from Britain. 3) non-British immigrants.

As Tony Abbott said - these 3 groups
have given Australia "Our Indigenous heritage, our British
foundation, and our immigrant character."

However if you reject the Voice to Parliament because it
does not satisfy your "all or nothing" test - are you also in
favour of changing our anthem, flag, Australia Day, and making
Australia a republic? Because of of these things also fail
the "all or nothing test."

Our national anthem is flawed - it does not mention all three
groups. The Australian flag is certainly flawed as it is selective in what it displays. As is Australia
Day - which to many is a day of mourning. Our attachment to the Crown of the UK also fails the test - it does not represent us all.

The following link gives more:

http://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/all-or-nothing-including-a-first-nations-voice-to-parliament,16618

Foxy:
The Flag - a symbol , usually on a piece of cloth: that people can voluntarily display or not at their own pleasure.
The Anthem - a song: that people may sing or not at their own pleasure.
Australia Day - a day off work to celebrate: that people can celebrate or not at their own pleasure.

The Constitution - a document that has the power of life and death and establishes/maintains the existence of a whole society. It applies to every person of Austrlian citizenship and every person in the bounds of the country whether they like it or not*. And it is exceptionally hard to reverse any changes to it.

Changes to the constitution are way more important than changes to the others. Any change to the constitution needs significant debate and deliberation. Any change should be unambiguously detailed and well understood by all (especially the possible consequences of it- no matter how unlikely those consequences are). No change should be made due to whimsical feeling or notions.

[* Admittedly there are possible minor corner cases- like diplomats and the Queen(?)]

Foxy
Good idea to travel within Australia, I started in my teens and saw beautiful places that are now but a memory, some are under water and others under asphalt or simply removed.

Travel was helped considerably by the fact that I worked on the NSW Govt. Raillway and got a free All Lines pass for holidays.
Presenting the pass in other States as proof of being a railwayman invariably resulted in a free All Lines pass for that State and, from the blokes on the job, somewhere safe and dry to sleep on railway property and not a few invites home for a good meal.

Them were the days!!

thinkabit,

Each of us has to make a decision as to what we are
going to support or not. To you I suggest to read the
link I gave if you haven't read it. It bears thinking
about things before making your decision about the
referendum when the time comes. This was my intention
in giving the link. We've had so many decisions that have
already been made on our behalf. This time we are being
given a chance as to what kind of country we want Australia
to be for the next one hundred years.

I'd like a say in that - and if it means that inserting
what needs to be done into our Constitution - I think will
be well worth it - to finally recognise our First Nations
people.

It's the least we can do.

Is Mise,

Thanks for that. How lovely that must have been.

That's the chap that I would have loved meeting and
getting to know. (sigh).

thinkabit,

I forgot to add - that giving our First Nations people
a Voice to Parliament won't affect the rest of us.
So if you don't object to all the other symbols given
earlier - then you should not object to the Voice
either.

The choice is between the status quo and a whimsical racial change to the constitution.

Until I know what we are voting for the answer is NO.

Foxy: "I forgot to add - that giving our First Nations people
a Voice to Parliament won't affect the rest of us."

You don't know that for sure because we simply don't know what the voice is actually going to be. The changes that have been describes to us allow the parliament to create voice in *any* fashion they desire as long as the final result is something that allows the aboriginals and TS islanders* to make representations to parliament. So it certainly could affect the rest of us.

[* well at least some anyway- they haven't even specified how the aboriginals are going to determine what to say.]

Information has already been provided in this discussion
through the many links given, the details of what we know,
what happens next, including the referendum question and the
changes to the constitution as well as the discussion paper
on the Indigenous Voice.

It should by now be clear to everybody what's involved.
Those railing against the Voice on the basis that they need
more detail its pretty clear that they will oppose it anyway
no matter what's provided.

The model of the Voice is now what the referendum is about.
It's about ensuring that there will always be a First
Nations Voice in the centre of decision making.
That the First Nations people are recognised and respected for
their sovereignty that was never ceded or extinguished.

thinkabit,

Why don't you read the following:

http://fromtheheart.com.au/?gclid

http://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/indigenous-voice-discussion-paper-2_O.pdf

I wonder if South Africa will boycott our sporting teams as we did theirs when we have apartheid embedded in our constitution. We white Australians stood against their anti black apartheid; will black South Africans stand against our anti white apartheid. And, apartheid is what it is: favouritism for one race, not just against whites, but against every other race in multi-racial Australia. Oh, the shame and embarrassment of it!

It is spectacularly stupid of the lunatic class barrracking for this racist Voice nonsense to have ignored, or conveniently forgotten, that the head of the Voice panel, Mark Leibler, has said that, if people are given the details they will not vote for it because the details will make the whole project unacceptable.

As we can see from this discussion there are some
awful, toxic stuff that will be part of this debate
from people opposing the Voice to Parliament.

That's to be expected. This toxic stuff we're going to get
from those who take bad interpretations of what's happening.
We have the usual predictable behaviour from people like
One Nation supporters and their ilk - that Indigenous
Australians are receiving preferential treatment and that it's
racist against white Australians.

Their point is to convince you that the Indigenous Voice is
not worthwhile.
It is.

We need to listen to Indigenous Australians whose careful
consultation process has led them to this point:

http://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/indigenous-voice-discussion-paper_O.pdf

Ok Foxy, so you think the Voice can't possibly be detrimental to others?

Let's cook up a scenario just for you and see if you still think this is the case: ->

You use a pseudonym here. So I take it that you generally wish to keep your identity private on the internet. But is it possible for the Voice to reveal your true identity to the Australian public?

Well let's work thorough this logically:
Technically this would require the power to force the webservice providers to identify you. So could the government hand this power to the Voice?
Conceivably yes- because clause 3) says "The parliament shall subject to this Constitution have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.". So all the there would have to be is a link between clause 2) "The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people." and the need for it to be able to identify people. Once this link is established then the Voice can legally receive and exercise this power.

So, here's a hypothetical scenario for such a link- let's say that the federal government wants to introduce a bill to parliament about regulating comments on the internet. (This is plausible since telecommunications are a federal responsibility). So WHAM- the Voice now has the constitutional right to respond to this. Now since this concerns forums and the like, this now establishes a link between the Voice and you and your internet usage. (Eg: The Voice could say that for background research for its response it needs the details and internet history of all people who have ever made online comments about aboriginals.)

** continued below **

** from above **

Can the voice release your details publicly? Well since we don't know at the moment what limits voice will have we can't really say. But I posit that the voice will have some sort of parliamentary privilege like politicians have, since it needs to be able to speak freely to parliament, so most likely -YES! It could name you explicitly in its report to parliament and then the whole damn country would who you are!

Do you see now how this claimed to be benign voice we're being sold could potentially mutate into a monster?

Had there already been a Voice, I wonder what it would have advised Parliament about the pending removal of the the cashless welfare card that has assured that there is money for food and other domestic necessities that used to go on grog; and there was no cash to be taken off the women and old people by thugs. And the lifting of the grog bans in dry communities.

These things made the lives of women and children better.

Senator Price said she could not think of two more appalling examples of legislation pushed by left-wing elites that are ‘guaranteed’ to worsen the lives of indigenous people.

Saying Yes to this 'Voice' would give blank cheques to Blacktivists, politicians and activist judges.

Putting the Voice in the constitution is as racist as the entrenched race provisions of the old South African constitution.

Non-aboriginals will eventually react to what they see as favouritism, bias, and excessive government spending on
aboriginals.

Saddened by the news of the death of Judith Durham of 'The Seekers' at aged 79. A truly unique Aussie talent, loved by millions, Judith brought joy to so many.

RIP Judith.

An appropriate song;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ42OwIEHNw

Oops- In my last post "Well let's work thorough this logically:" should obviously be "Well let's work through this logically:", there's probably other mistakes as well.

One day I should start using spellcheck and grammar correction :)

This is getting tiresome. We're just going around in circles.
I am tired of repeating what we know - or should know.
Last night I received some bad personal news. My older brother
whom I love dearly has been diagnosed with stomach cancer. He
lives inter-state and is now in hospital awaiting surgery on
Tuesday. So forgive me if my mind is not fully on the subject
under discussion here. Although it does provide for me a
good digression.

Back to the topic:

" Establishing a Voice to Parliament could be an opportunity
for Indigenous Nation Building."

Here's what that means:

"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced the wording
of the referendum question to enable a constitutionally
enshrined Indigenous Voice to parliament. It would seem
Albanese has made a solid start on his election night
promise to embrace the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart."

He stated at the Garma Festival:

"The Uluru Statement is a hand outstretched, a moving show
of faith in Australian decency and Australian fairness
from people who have been given every reason to forsake
hope in both."

"At its core, the Uluru Statement is an invitation to
Australia to establish a new relationship with Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people. It is also an opportunity
for First Nations to nation-build alongside the Australian
people and its government."

We're told that:

"If Indigenous Nation building is embraced by Australian
governments and First Nations, there is an opportunity for
real change, as envisaged by Indigenous Nations for
generations and re-affirmed in the Uluru Statement from
the Heart."

There's more at the following link which goes on to also
explain - what did the Uluru Statement ask for? What is
Indigenous Nation Building? And, How can governments and
First Nations achieve this?

http://theconversation.com/establishing-a-voice-to-parliament-could-be-an-opportunity-for-indigenous-nation-building-heres-what-that-means-187534

Foxy,
I hope your brother makes it, I’m sure the prayers or well wishes of the OLOeans are with you.

Foxy,

I can see a poorly defined attempt at virtue signalling that can give us a constitutionally guaranteed 3rd parliamentary house to another version of ATSIC.

Your justification is a series of links to self-interested parties.

I hope that Albozo can do better.

Is Mise,

Thank You for your kind words.

_________________________________________________________________

Now back to the topic.

Many factors have for a very long time fuelled the anti-Voice
sentiments in this country - including political. This time
we're being given a chance to right that wrong. Whether we take
this opportunity up or not - is up to us.

Personally I want to take up the invitation to establish a
new relationship with our First Nations people. I want to take
a hand that's outstretched from people who are simply asking
to be heard. I believe that this is an opportunity for real
change and I certainly don't want to block that opportunity.
for people who have joined together and worked so hard in
a consultative way to get to this point in time.

In any case - here's the model that is being presented:

http://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/indigenous-voice-discussion-paper-2_0.pdf

It's up to each of us to decide how we're going to vote.

I have nothing further to add.

Hi Foxy,

Best wishes for your brother, be positive, all will be well, doctors today are very good, they will do their expertly best for him, I'm sure of that.

Hi Paul,

Thank you. The poor bloke's already been through a
great deal. He's had heart surgery. And now has a
touch of dementia. (He's very confused). They were
supposed to be coming down to Melbourne for Christmas.
It's not looking good at present.

I like the idea of local and regional voices, this could be extended to groups in the wider community.
For example, sports car owners, vintage and veteran car owners, canoeists, hikers, yacht owners, bushwalkers etc., all are often affected by changes in laws and regulations and often their concerns fall on deaf ears

Multiple Voices are what we need.

Hi Foxy

I hope your brother pulls through.

Mavers

Hi Paul

Building on your song, here's two more dedications to Judith Durham, the soul of the Seekers:

"I'll Never Find Another You" http://youtu.be/wZf41UudAbI?t=1m2s

and

"When the Stars Begin to Fall" http://youtu.be/wOKDT0S2O3c

She was the first pop singer that I noticed when I was just out of toddlerhood.

Mavers

Dear Maverick,

The worst thing about getting older is how things change.
Not only physically, and often mentally, but the great
sorrow of losing family and friends. People you've loved
and imagined would always be there. My beautiful brother
was always so strong. I spoke to him on the phone yesterday
(he's in hospital waiting for his operation on Tuesday).
And he must have been on meds because he only gave one word
answers and sounded sleepy. But it was good to hear his voice.
I asked him how he was - "Up the sh**." he said which made me
laugh.

Thanks Maverick for you well wishes.

Judith Durham? God Bless her! So many beautiful songs.
Such a beautiful voice. "I will love you till I die," is
a favourite. And of course "I am Australian," from the Seekers
should be our national anthem.

The Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews has offered the family a
state funeral for her. Which they've accepted. The date is to
be announced soon.

Eternal Rest grant to her, O Lord
And let perpetual light shine on her
May she Rest in Peace.
Amen.

Well said Foxy

A sense of humour and friends are the main things keeping me afloat during physical decline.

Ma brain remains nimble, but!

Mavers :)

PS. A song Maybe the whole thread can agree on http://youtu.be/KrLTe1_9zso

Hi Maverick,

What beautiful lyrics. I love this song.
It still puts a lump in my throat hearing it.
Makes me cry.
It should be our National Anthem.

Thank You,

I react to "I am Australian" the same way as you Foxy.

As "I am..." is much more about unity "we are one". "I am" was written in 1987* too late for the 1977 selection of Advance Australia Fair by a panel of 60,000 people**

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Australian

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Australia_Fair

Hi Maverick,

"I am Australian," has such a positive effect on most
people. And, it does unify. Isn't it amazing what music
and the right lyrics can do.

Hi Maverick and Foxy,

What a bloody awful song, nah, just joking.

What a terrific song is 'I Am Australian', with great words, I too, although I'm not greatly nationalistic, stirred by the words.

Just from a practical point of view, although the words are great, unfortunately the music score is rather low key and doesn't lend itself to be the music of a national anthem.

This is the stuff of national anthems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g4fhqCSdLQ

Although it does sound rather imperialistic.

Now here's a bunch of regulars guys getting into the swing of things. Not a hint of imperialism in sight here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQL0sBQHGzc

Good Morning Everyone,

I woke up to some very sad news this morning.

The lovely Olivia Newton-John has died in California
at the age of 73. She has lost her fight with cancer.
Tributes are flowing from around the globe and rightly
so. She was an amazing lady. Not only a wonderful
performer, and singer, but a genuine beautiful human
being who did so much for other cancer patients.

Her legacy is the very modern Wellness Centre that she
built for cancer patients here in Melbourne next door
to the Austin Hospital where patients were treated and
helped. She was personally involved in that centre and
she did so much in helping people with cancer. I know.
I was one of them.

She will be greatly missed. I wish her husband, and her
daughter and families and friends - my Deepest Condolences.
We've lost a truly beautiful human being. May she Rest In
Peace.

Republic-pusher, Peter FitzSimons, has told Senator Jacinta Price that she is giving racists a voice by opposing the Voice. According to the definition of that overused and misused word, people voting Yes to the proposal will be the true racists - believers in the dogma that people should be treated differently because of their race.

There is no model that is going to receive the full
approval of all Australians. But there is something
deeply disingenuous about the way in which those
white conservative MPs are opposing the Voice by
citing one or two Indigenous people's views when its
pretty clear that they were planning to oppose it
anyway.

Jacinta Price and other politicians who belong to
parties with dwindling memberships, local branches
stacked, candidates being parachuted into
electorates where they don't live and party
powerbrokers defying the wishes of the rank
and file who hand-pick their own candidates are now
trying to paint the culmination of years of
consensus building by our Indigenous people as
"racist" and "elitist." Which is laughable.

Racist prejudice has for a very long time fuelled
the anti-Voice sentiments and blindness.

My heart bleeds for our First Nations people,
especially the young.

These nay sayers will deserve the daming verdict of
history. It's ignorant and deliberate and all
decent Australians should oppose it with all their
strength.

BTW:

Yes, there is room for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament
without the 3rd chamber bollocks given that the
Australian Constitution has extra powers (section 51A)
to treat people differently based on race. It only stands
to reason that they should have a say in how those powers
are exercised.

What is it about this week?

In memory of Olivia http://youtu.be/6pFw6rprqH8

For all you well wishers concerning my brother.
He's gone into surgery. They're doing a full
opp. not a partial one. The specialists have
said it is high risk due to his dementia.
So please say a prayer with me that things will
be fine. Thanks again for your understanding
and humanity.

Hi Maverick,

Thank You for the Olivia link.

Such an awesome person. Inside and out.
I remember being totally in awe of her.
One of my favourite songs was "Magic,"
from the film "Xanadu."

"You have to believe we are magic
Nothin' can stand in our way
You have to believe we are magic
Don't let your aim ever stray
And if all your hopes survive
Destiny will arrive
I'll bring all you dreams alive
For you..."

You have to believe!

Hi Foxy

I say a prayer for your brother and you.

What your going through.

Here's another song for all during these dark times,

Adding Taiwan to Ukraine

http://youtu.be/TDyiREoBw0o

Mavers

"Republic-pusher, Peter FitzSimons, has told Senator Jacinta Price that she is giving racists a voice by opposing the Voice. According to the definition of that overused and misused word, people voting Yes to the proposal will be the true racists - believers in the dogma that people should be treated differently because of their race."

He's correct. Jacinta is garbage wrapped in skin.

Racists always think the word is 'overused'. LOL! I bet you wish we had the White Australia policy back.

Hi Maverick,

Thank You.

I read somewhere that the wish to pray is a prayer in
itself.

Anther day of sadness, the passing of Olivia Newton-John, a fine Australian with so much talent, born in Britain, she has left us with some unforgettable musical and film memories. Who can forget her roll as Sandy in the movie 'Grease' with John Travolta.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oKPYe53h78

Hi Foxy, please give the thumbs up that your brothers op went okay.

Voice of an idiot,

You are clearly a racist. How dare Jacinta be black and not follow the woke racist group think.

This third house of parliament is inherently racist as it can only be joined by people of one race and Fitzsimmons is the racist giving voice to other racists.

[Deleted for obscenity and abuse.]

Good Morning Paul and all the well wishers for my brother.

I can give a thumbs up. The operation went successfully.
So fingers-crossed that he'll keep on doing well.
I spoke to the hospital, and to his wife yesterday.
It was a relief that everyone was so positive. He was in
ICU - and doing well.

Thanks to you all once again for wishing him well.
Our prayers look like they've been answered.

On the other side of the coin. My husband and I went for our
fourth booster shot yesterday afternoon at our medical
centre. We had to re-schedule an earlier appointment
because of flu-like
symptoms that I'd developed. Anyway here we were waiting in
the waiting room when an elderly couple started to create a
scene - yelling that they'd been waiting for 15 minutes.
And that they had not been told they would have to wait.

Imagine 15 minutes! (sarcastic). All of us just looked at them
and their appalling behaviour. A nurse came out and tried to
calm them down saying that she was on her own were going as fast as
she could but that they were short-staffed and to please be
patient.

The couple ended up walking out in a huff. Which suited us -
because we got in earlier. And were done within minutes.
I gave the nurse a hug and told her that she was appreciated.

My duahgter-in-law is now a registered nurse and I can tell
you that medical staff are under very great pressure and
stress. A bit os understanding wouldn't go astray.

Foxy,
Glad that things are going well for your brother.

I can relate to the nursing stress, my wife is a nurse at a regional public hospital and the stress is very real and burnout is not uncommon in the profession.

Congratulations to your daughter-in-law, she’s chosen a hard but rewarding role.

Is Mise,

Thanks. It's such a relief for our family.

As for my daughter-in-law. She's an architect,
and decided to change her profession to nursing.
She's only recently completed her degree and is
now doing her work at a large Melbourne Hospital.
She's very dedicated - and we're all very proud of her.

My wife also recently became a nurse, at 48. It's brutal, she does tons of double shifts

Nurses and all of our hospital staff deserve our
support. Including ambulance staff.

Good news Foxy, we always welcome good news. Great that all went okay for Bro, prayers may help, but great medical staff is a bonus.

Watched a program (ABC) on women having miscarriages and premature births in Afghanistan, the numbers are overwhelming, with even basic treatment and medication unavailable. One doctor (female) and five nurses (female) for 200,000 people. A woman has to be at deaths door before a male doctor, if available, is allowed to attend her, its shocking! And we do nothing!

Onya Foxy Bro.

A relief and a different Ode To Joy http://youtu.be/VnT7pT6zCcA .

Mavers

"Watched a program (ABC) on women having miscarriages and premature births in Afghanistan, the numbers are overwhelming, with even basic treatment and medication unavailable. One doctor (female) and five nurses (female) for 200,000 people. A woman has to be at deaths door before a male doctor, if available, is allowed to attend her, its shocking! And we do nothing!"

What do you propose 'we' do? When women flee those conditions, the right oppose helping refugees, so.....

V of R,
Your use of a thinly disguised four letter word says heaps about you and your lack of English adjectives but nothing about the recipient of your vulgarity.

"Your use of a thinly disguised four letter word says heaps about you and your lack of English adjectives but nothing about the recipient of your vulgarity."

Are you just not Australian, mate?

My responses are intelligent and factual but when people are garbage, I let them know

I’m Australian, just not the gutter variety.

VOR is an ignorant foul-mouthed pig who almost continually lies.

Hi Paul,

I've had a bad reaction to the fourth booster shop that
my husband and I received on Tuesday afternoon. Yesterday
afternoon I started coughing and spewing up, had a runny nose,
and the shivers. I eventually took Panamax which helped and
also some throat lozenges - Difflam - which got me through the
I still feel a bit weak - but now much better.

If there's a fifth booster shot sometime in the future I might
tell them to shove it! (No, I won't). But Jeesh - Pfizer is awful.
No previous reaction to Astra Zeneca.

The plight of women in Afghanistan is dreadful.
Not sure what we can do. We also lack doctors and nurses in
our own hospitals - and bad things are starting to happen
here as well.

You'd think that the World Health , the Red Cross
and other humanitarian Aid organisations could get together
and do more.

Hi Maverick,

Thanks for brightening up my morning.

My brother would have loved your Ode to Joy
from the Muppets. He's quite a character.
An ex-muso. He was well known in the 60s.
Had a record deal with CBS back then.
At one stage he accompanied the Bee Gees.
He now lives in Byron. Loves it. He's a good
bloke - with a warm heart. Love him very much.

Hi Maverick,

It's funny how things get turned around.
When I was little my brother looked after
me. He even monitored my boyfriends. I once
tried to bribe him to get him to clear out when
I had a guy visiting. My brother didn't like the
guy, so it didn't work. Now the shoe's on the other
foot. It's my turn to care for him - with whatever
he and his wife needs.

Hi Foxy

Glad you and your brother may prove true groupies of Beaker van Beethoven.

Ode to Joy http://youtu.be/VnT7pT6zCcA is just the beginning of Beaker's squeak to fame.

Reckon young Beaker will replace Elton, Barry Gibb, Mick J, even Paul Mc, in this musical world of muppets, men n women.

Yes siblings shuffle in posis and feelings. Mine are a bit more distant. Following family traditions, we're all fairly standoffish though self reliant.

BTW my Granfather did his doctorate in Aboriginal health. But in those days First Nationals (coined here first) were considered more specimens for study than poeple. Things change.

Mavers

Wringing of the Beaker http://youtu.be/ysIzPF3BfpQ

Hi Foxy

Hope you get better soon over your 4th Covid jab.

Every 3rd person I've talked to has had a bad reaction to their 3rd or 4th jab. So its probably unpredictable "pot luck" unfortunately.

Mavers

"I've had a bad reaction to the fourth booster shop that
my husband and I received on Tuesday afternoon."

That's terrible Foxy, I'm glad you're doing a little better.
I may be on team unvaxxed, but I feel genuinely sad every single time I hear about people dealing with vaccine side effects.
(And I've heard of quite a few now, from hospitalised teenagers to the sudden deaths of older people.)

My objections were that I never trusted these vaccines.
They don't inoculate, have too many side effects and haven't been studied long term.
That's enough for me to think they fail to rate as being neither safe or effective, end of story.

Adults can make their own decisions regarding life choices and issues surrounding their health,
- but kids need adults to make the right choices and protect them from harm, and to that, (jabbing the kids) I say no.

Hope your health continues to improve in the coming days.

Hi Foxy,

"Yesterday afternoon I started coughing and spewing up, had a runny nose, and the shivers. I eventually took Panamax which helped and
also some throat lozenges - Difflam - which got me through, I still feel a bit weak - but now much better."

How can you be sure it was side effects from the vaccine? Your symptoms sound very much like a respiratory infection.

The side effects from the vaxx are these;

chest pain.
pressure or discomfort in the chest.
irregular, skipped heartbeats or 'fluttering'.
fainting.
shortness of breath.
pain when breathing.

I had much the same symptoms as you last week, and I had my 2nd booster shot at the start of June.

p/s My younger brother, unvaxxed, has been sick for 6 weeks with Covid.. Getting better now so he tells me.

Paul, my girlfriend has a list of known side effects written on a T-shirt she ordered, (and that list came from Pfizers own documents) There's far too many known side effects to list in a single message. From 17 year olds in hospital for 3 weeks, single mums having strokes, and plenty of older people here today and gone tomorrow.
It's all our own job to make decisions regarding our health, covid or no covid. I don't begrudge the oldies wanting to play it safe, but my opinion is that the side effects are potentially far worse than the virus itself.

And the vaccine isn't a vacinne, it's a gene therapy.

Thanks to all of you for your comments.

I'm pretty sure that what I've got is a reaction to
the Pfizer vaccine. It came on suddenly the day after
I had the 4th booster shot. I'd already suffered the
flu about two weeks previously and had been on anti-
biotics. This is very different. And I am feeling
so tired and sleepy. As well as today suffering from
nausea. But at least the cough's gone.

Anyhow - whatever it is - it's not pleasant. But it's
done, so that's that.

I guess it's still better to have had it, then not.
I only hope that this will be it - for a while at least.

Half sounds like you may have covid Foxy

"headache, and fatigue; a cluster of digestive symptoms with abdominal pain, vomiting" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symptoms_of_COVID-19

Have you tested your RAT?

Mavers

Hi Maverick,

No I don't have COVID. Yes, I've been tested.
So far so good. Finger-crossed. I am getting better.
Slowly. My husband's fine. He's had no reaction to
Pfizer.

Mavers, you mentioned your family tradition of
standoffishness. My husband is an only child - and
he too has trouble showing emotion. I make up for
it in a big way - being very tactile. My husband is
very self-reliant as well. Which is so good during difficult
times.

Hi Maverick,

Talking about Indigenous people.

I remember the Mia Mia Aboriginal Art Gallery which
operated for 15 years in Westerfolds Park, here
Templestowe, Melbourne. It attracted so many people,
schools, and overseas visitors. It was a magnificent
gallery run by Aboriginal gallery curator Colin
McKinnon-Dodd. It had a cafe as well as the gallery
and was a very busy place.

Then in 2013 it was given a month to vacate by Parks
Victoria. Colin fought tooth and nail for the gallery
to no avail. They moved out the gallery went into
ruin. An old ruined building remains.

Colin died November 20th 2014. Age 55 of cancer.

Shame on Parks Victoria.

Hi Foxy

Good you don't have the dreaded Covid.

"Standoffish" in the sense that we siblings don't communicate as much as average - bout 6 phone calls a year.

Showing feelings is less of I problem for me. I show and swing in feeling quite a bit. Makes me a better conversationist, specially with women, rather than being a stoic male.

Talking about Indigenous people. Of the few I've known heavy smoking with regular coughing and heavy beer drinking have been unfortunately more pronounced than for other categories of folk.

Here's an interesting link on the interplay of "white" and indigenous dot painting http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/arts/are-dot-paintings-traditional-aboriginal-art#:~:text=You'll%20be%20surprised%20to,art%20school%20teacher%2C%20Geoffrey%20Bardon.

Cheers Mavers

Hi Maverick,

Thank you for the history of dot painting. Who says
we can't learn something from OLO.

I've got a few Aboriginal paintings. But not dot
ones. I've got landscape water colours by Ronald Bull.
The dot paintings are interesting. I also taught
young people to paint them during the Storytime sessions
and Book Clubs for schools that I used to run at our
regional municipal libraries. The kids loved it.

The wife tells me, when she tried 'dot' and bark painting some years back during an indigenous cultural exchange, she found Aboriginal painting as difficult as the Aboriginals girls found using the Maori poi (single verity). When she tried Island weaving with palm fronds, she found that easier as she is expert with flax, but the palm fronds are much tougher material to work with.

BTW, our 16 year old grand-daughter is not only a fantastic island dancer in Cook Island style, similar to Tahitian, but extremely good with Maori double poi's (very difficult to master). The girl has natural talent. Does a good 'Nutbush" as well, in European tradition.

Hi Paul,

Your family sounds incredibly interesting and talented.
Lucky you. At one stage I had considered taking belly-dancing
lessons. But I chickened out. Instead I stayed with the
traditional Lithuanian Folk-dancing. I've still got my
national costume - which I tried to pass onto others - but
nobody in the family wants it. Not even the head piece.
Mum got buried in hers. That was her wish. Ah well perhaps
one day my grand-daughter might like it. Who knows.

Hi Foxy,

Some have the notion that to be culture something has to be old, not so, culture can be both traditional and modern. 'Dot' painting in recent times has become a part of Aboriginal culture just as 'Cubism' has become a part of European culture, both are modern, and both are of equal value in their own right with more classical forms of culture, regardless of there age.

Sorry to hear that no one in your family wants such a treasure as your national costume as a keepsake, and a reminder of family history and traditions. In my wife's case a family treasure such as a 'korowai' (cloak) to which many hours of labour and love has gone into its making is a most prized possession. It is lent out to whanau (family) for special occasions such as weddings, special birthdays and graduations etc. It is kept by my youngest step-daughter (42). A favourite moko, a name-sake of the wife's, an 18 year old niece asked to borrow it recently for her school graduation. In the 13 years I have known my wife, she has worn the family korowai on three occasions, at our friends gay wedding in NZ, at our wedding, and at her 70th birthday party. It doesn't come out of the closet that often.

Dear Paul,

As I said earlier - you've got a fantastic family.
I've still not given up hope that perhaps one day
my grand-daughter may also take an interest in her
heritage. Time will tell, I guess.

It's been quite a week.

So many deaths.

Now another one has been added to the list.
The iconic Lillian Frank who gave so much
to Melbourne - including million to charities
has died at the age of 92. She was my hairdresser
for a few years when we lived and worked nearby
until she sold her Toorak salon. I got to know and
admire Lillian. Her charity lunches were wonderful.

She will be greatly missed by all. She gave so much
to others - and did it with such elegance and
style.

RIP Lillian.

From http://www.examiner.com.au/story/7859416/republican-leader-warns-of-a-scare-campaign-repeat/ August 13, 2022

"Republican leader warns of a scare campaign repeat"...'Latte-sippers'

The Voice concept emerged from the 2017 Uluru Statement, which received input from local traditional owners, Indigenous community organisations, and Indigenous leaders.

But Country Liberal Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has framed the idea as an "Indigenous elite"

, disconnected from local communities, simply maintaining access to the "gravy train".

Her comments were publicly backed by a cross-section of conservative MPs.

"Don't underestimate the capacity of a scare campaign to make it close." [says] Greg Barnes

Greg Barnes, who chaired the doomed pro-republic campaign, says the arguments are a "repeat" of what he faced in 1999.

"It's as though Abbott and co. pulled out the playbook and said: What can we use from that?," he says.

"They'll say it's an elitist issue.

The Teals are into it
the Greens are into it,
Labor's into pandering

to its latte-sipping set...I'm not sure that the community buys it now."

..."Don't underestimate the capacity of the scare campaign to make it close, but no cigar ... While some of these arguments might seem far-fetched, if you say them often enough, they're effective," he says.

Hi Maverick,

I guess many politicians use that old chestnut - of
repeating something often enough and many people
will end up buying it. In this case I guess we'll have
to wait and see. Voters seem to be questioning what
they're told more nowadays. And the old song books not
longer work. Neither do the old slogans - as we saw from
the last election results.

I'm hoping that there will be enough information provided
ahead of time to satisfy even the most concerned voter.
Of course those who want to muddy the waters are the
ones that are opposed to the issues and wouldn't support them
anyway.

The results should be interesting.

Its a quantum leap for the bigots and racists whose grandfathers were shooting Aboriginals for sport, to give the decedents of those same black fellas a voice to parliament. If they agreed to that, granddad will be spinning in his grave. These are they ones who will say NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!

I was under the impression that the "First Nation" aka First Race

are represented by the MPs and Senators they vote for.

Or are the First Race seeking extra representation that is denied to others?

There are already several voices in parliament for the bigots and racists that want to impose apartheid in Australia.

Jacinda Prices view is:

"More recently the emotional weaponisation of the word “heart” in Uluru Statement from the Heart, the voice and now the repeated use of the question “if not now, then when?” have all been crafted to appeal to our emotions. We’ve heard Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney, member for Lingiari Marion Scrymgour, Uluru Statement from the Heart campaigner Thomas Mayor and leftist ideologues all use these words and terms consistently and repeatedly in their Referendum, Truth, Voice, Treaty argument.

If we consider the position we are in now as a result of the past emotional blackmail we have been subject to, then it is pertinent we do not repeat history by doing nothing more than granting Albanese his Whitlam moment.

These campaigners, Rudd and the rest pushing for the voice, ignore our grave concerns about making unnecessary changes to our Constitution in the form of an enshrined body likened to ATSIC by Burney.

We have every right to question, seek clarity or outright disagree with a vague proposal that’s being sold as a completely new approach to resolving disadvantage.

There is zero proof the voice proposition will be successful. ATSIC and the many replacement bureaucracies are testament to the likelihood of it failing; but enshrining it in the Constitution determines if it should fail it can never be dismantled."

The hard right make every effort to discredit an Aboriginal 'Voice to Parliament', they have found the perfect stooge in Jacinda Prices, she appears black but she talks hard white.

Hi Maverick,

you ask the question;

Or are the First Race seeking extra representation that is denied to others?

I say there are many voices to parliament at present. For example does not the gambling industry voice its opinion on matters affecting it to MP's through lobbyists and industry organisations. Do they not exert influence through political donations. There are people everyday who exercise a "Voice to Parliament" on all kinds of matters. Politicians are not in a vacuum.

Paul,

That's extremely racist of you.

Jacinta has not only spent much of her life in these remote communities and witnessed first-hand the consequences of virtue signalling policies of Labor and greens on these communities and knows far better than the paternalistic city-dwelling idiots about what is actually needed.

What the clowns in Labor and the greens want is not a real aboriginal voice, but one that echoes the virtues the city dwellers think they should have.

SM,

Not racists at all, this women seems to endlessly talk in negative terms when it comes to her own people. As far as I can see Jacinta has done very little to advocate for Aboriginals, being a member of Alice Springs Town Council and in her own words; "More recently, I’ve worked as the Indigenous program director at the Centre for Independent Studies, and I’m a regular on Sky News."

She claims to have a "vision" for Aboriginal people, but does't spell that vision out. It seems to be a vision of unjust assimilation for on white mans terms, and nothing else.

Maybe you can give me a brief on how this woman has worked to improve the lives of her own people

Paul,

Once again you are spouting bollocks. Show me one thing where she denigrates her people!!

The only people she denigrates are the virtue-signalling snowflakes who take offence when people (like Jacinta who are actually in touch with what is happening on the ground) criticise their politically correct but ineffectual policies.

You really are very racist.

<<Jacinta Price was accused of hypocrisy by Steve Hodder Watt, an Aboriginal activist, who published messages in which Price referred to him as "white". In 2020, Price was sued for defamation by Nova Peris, former federal government senator for the NT, who is also Aboriginal. Price had accused Peris of protecting sexual predators while on the television program Studio 10. According to transcripts provided by the Supreme Court of Victoria, Price stated that Peris had been involved with "powerful men who have made it to powerful positions who have never been condemned". Price later apologised to Peris for these remarks.>>

As I said, Jacinta claims to have a "vision" for Aboriginal people,can you tell me what that "vision", involves, I'm yet to see it. I have no problem with her conservatism, but for me she comes across as extremely negative, and offering no alternatives. Maybe it inflates her ego to be a spoiler, and be seen as going against the grain.

She said she is on "Sky" TV, what is she, the token black woman, among all those Anglo conservative males?

Paul,

JP apologised for that and from what I understand the case went no further. However, JP successfully sued the ABC.

"Ms Price began defamation proceedings and lodged documents with the federal court claiming the land council and the ABC had falsely accused her of vilifying Aboriginal people and their culture."

The ABC made a grovelling apology and a cash payout for saying just what you are saying now. I see you still can't come up with a single example. Lying again I see.

"Jacinda Prices, she appears black but she talks hard white."

We absolutely need to give 'first people' a Voice....unless they use it to say things we don't want to hear in which case they need to be silenced asap.

All we need are more activists in Parliament who back their "suggestions" with predictable believer aimed guilt, protest and endless consensus delays.

But can they shift the Aboriginal Embassy from the Old Parliament House lawn to the new Parliament House lawn to be more politically relevant.

http://lp-cms-production.imgix.net/2019-06/a793821494ff29abf52edbb6dfdc632a-aboriginal-tent-embassy.jpg?auto=format&q=40&ar=16%3A9&fit=crop&crop=center&fm=auto&w=1946

Probably too cold and windy.

Can anyone list the achievements of Jacinda Price in regards to Aboriginals? She supposedly has a "vision" for them, unfortunately I can't find it anywhere, maybe some of her supporters here can put up a link, or a list, or some such thing concerning this "vision".

SM you claim that I am saying what the ABC said about Price. Where have I said that? The ABC made comment regarding a speaking tour Price was making. I have not commented on Price's speaking tour at all. So stop making things up.

From My Maiden Speech as Your Senator for The Northern Territory http://www.jacintaprice.com/maiden-speech

I’m Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Senator for the Northern Territory and the former deputy mayor of Alice Springs.

My mother was born under a tree, and lived within an original Warlpiri structured environment through a kinship system on Aboriginal land. Her first language was Warlpiri.

And no, Prime Minister, we don’t need another ‘hand out’ as you have described the ‘Uluru Statement’

No, we Indigenous Australians have not come to agreement on this statement — as also what you have claimed. It would be far more dignifying if we were recognised and respected as individuals in our own right

who are not simply defined by our racial heritage but by the content of our character.

I am an empowered Warlpiri/Celtic Australian woman who did not and has never needed a paternalistic government to bestow my own empowerment upon me. We’ve proven for decades now that we do not need a Chief Protector of Aborigines. I have got here along with 10 other Indigenous voices, including my colleague Senator for South Australia Kerryn Liddle, within this 47th parliament of Australia like every other parliamentarian: through hard work and sheer determination.

However, now you want to ask the Australian people to disregard our elected voices

and vote yes to apply a constitutionally enshrined advisory body

without any detail of what that might in fact entail!

Perhaps a word of advice — since that is what you’re seeking: Listen to everyone and not just those who support your virtue-signalling agenda but also to those you contradict.

we spend days and weeks each year recognising Aboriginal Australia in many ways,

in symbolic gestures that fail to push the needle one micromillimetre toward improving the lives of the most marginalised in any genuine way.

But we must always remember that our nation is not simply black and white.

We are rich with the contribution of Australians of many backgrounds, 30% of who were born overseas — and this is one of our greatest strengths as a nation.

Hi Maverick,

A good speech, and there is nothing I would discount from it. However we should remember that not all Aboriginal people, in fact not all Australians, do as well as Jacinta. The time has come for First Nations people to be recognised in the Australian Constitution, something that was not possible given the attitudes at the time of its writing.

As for a 'Voice to Parliament', I support that concept as a consultative body for legislation that affects Aboriginal people. I don't support any notion of a third chamber, and no serious person has proposed that, and the majority would not support it anyway.

p/s As for born under a tree, Jacinta's mother was not unique in that regard, my wife was born under a tree in NZ September 21st 1949.

Paul,

You said that Jacinta was "garbage wrapped" in skin and:

"This woman seems to endlessly talk in negative terms when it comes to her own people. As far as I can see Jacinta has done very little to advocate for Aboriginals"

Just the garbage trash talk that got the ABC sued.

As for her vision, you didn't even try.

This took me 10 seconds to find:

http://www.jacintaprice.com/jacinta_price_australia_day_speech_reflect_respect_celebrate

There is plenty there for those that are literate.

SM,

I never said Jacinta Price was "garbage wrapped" in skin, you are a liar! Where did I say that, or withdraw it?

I did say; "This woman seems to endlessly talk in negative terms when it comes to her own people. As far as I can see Jacinta has done very little to advocate for Aboriginals"

Can you show us, her positive achievements and advocacy for Aboriginal people. Appearing on 'Sky' with its panel of red-necked, far right reactionaries, is hardly a positive.

Paul,

I confused you with that other idiot VOR.

At least you admit that you claimed that JP denigrated Aboriginals which is what the ABC got sued for.

Clearly, you didn't (or couldn't) read the article I posted. JP has actively raised the issues that are important for aboriginal women i.e. domestic violence etc.

As opposed to the greens, Labor and teals have got rid of the cashless card which enables the money to be spent on booze and encourages domestic violence.

Similarly, I don't see a single achievement by Bum Bandit or his bunch of clowns called the greens.

Jacinta's Australia Day Speech: ‘Reflect, Respect, Celebrate’ PART ONE
January 26, 2022 http://www.jacintaprice.com/jacinta_price_australia_day_speech_reflect_respect_celebrate

This is the text of a speech delivered by Jacinta Price to the Australia Day Council at the Melbourne Club on January 24, 2022.

In 2016 on Australia Day, I was deeply compelled to voice a story, my story of identity, of being Australian and of my history. Little did I know the breadth of responses that my story would spark. Some found it refreshing and welcomed the open door to have the conversation, others found it confronting and shut the door to the conversation. Either way my contribution to the debate of changing the date has provided a credible unifiable reasoning and point of view. I’ll recap that story in a moment. But first some reflections on all that has happened since.

We have, without a doubt, since 2016 gone through and are still riding out one of the most challenging periods of our history as a collective. The Australia Day theme of Reflect, Respect and Celebrate could not be more appropriate, not just from an Australian history view but also from our recent journey view.

In 2021 the nation was blessed to be informed by a long-time educator and Senior Australian of the Year, Territorian Nauyiu Elder Miriam Rose, when she said ‘we need to slow down, deeply listen and feel it, our spirit, our place and this will give us an open heart’. More timely wisdom could not have been given, as the National Biosecurity threat of COVID-19 had well and truly arrived. During the past year, we have all, together experienced restrictions on travel, learning from home, working from home, vaccinations, check ins and lockdowns. These experiences have reminded us of the spirit of what is to be Australian, to care, to protect ourselves and our loved ones, and our government and community has done what was needed to get the job done.

Reflecting on Miriam’s words again, what has our COVID-19 experience taught us? For me and many others:

* How immensely lucky we are to have such a beautiful country...

MORE-TO-FOLLOW

"This is the text of a speech delivered by Jacinta Price to the Australia Day Council at the Melbourne Club on January 24, 2022."

Jacinta Price is garbage wrapped in skin. Being an 'acceptable aboriginal' who parrots the racist right wing line is all she is and does

FROM ABOVE

Jacinta's Australia Day Speech: ‘Reflect, Respect, Celebrate’ PART TWO

January 26, 2022 http://www.jacintaprice.com/jacinta_price_australia_day_speech_reflect_respect_celebrate

"...Reflecting on [Senior Australian of the Year, Territorian Nauyiu Elder Miriam Rose’s] words again, what has our COVID-19 experience taught us? For me and many others:

* How immensely lucky we are to have such a beautiful country. We have all been exploring our backyard, whether it is the local park, local business, local national parks or even just a walk around the block, and we truly have the best backyard. That we can celebrate, connecting to place.

* We have deeply listened to the ones we care about, home schooling and work has not been easy, nor lockdowns, but this has in actuality resulted in regular video calls, conscious engagement with people, the provision of increased investment into important services such as mental health through telehealth, bringing help when we need it most into our homes, connecting to people.

* We are more aware of the amazing jobs our teachers do, and our health care workers, aged care homes, hospitals, and have been reinvigorated by the Australian way of caring for your neighbour, your loved ones or your mates, respecting people.

* We have again learnt the simplicity of celebrating and how great this feels through small wins like watching sunsets, spending time with loved ones, taking our dogs for walks, and for many reflecting on what is really important for us as individuals in relationships and as a family. So many have carved out new careers, earned degrees and taken the time to look after the elderly where they can, caring for country and people.

* We have learnt what the word ‘innovate’ can do for us in so many ways. It’s about being open, finding a way... I’ve seen videos of people cooking food with an iron in quarantine, people providing a need in crisis that has turned into small business, and what we can put together as a meal with limited food, having an open mind and heart..."

MORE LATER

Voice of racist,

You are really a racist troll. Go back under the rock you came from.

Senator Nampijinpa Price is the Coalition's new star
and darling. She belongs to a party with dwindling
membership, and captain's picks and now tries to
paint the culmination of years of consensus building
by the Indigenous people as "elitist."

What makes this argument particularly galling is the
sheer amount of groundwork that's been done up to this
point. The Indigenous Voice to Parliament comes out of
the Uluru Statement from the Heart process which included
a ground-breaking process of First Nations from across
Australia.

The Voice to Parliament is the remarkable
culmination of years of consensus building and grass roots
consultation. Before Ms Price tries to cast it as "elitist"
Perhaps she should look in the mirror and at the party
she supports. A party whose membership numbers have
dwindled, local branches stacked, candidates are
parachuted into electorates where they don't live.

Party powerbrokers who defy the wishes of the rank and file
and hand-pick their own candidates. All too often these
party processes and the rest of the political infrastructure
built off these parties serve the interests of the elite.

There is something deeply disingenuous about the way in
which some people are opposing the Voice by citing one or two
Indigenous voices when its pretty clear that they were
planning to oppose it anyway. And it's pretty clear that the
Voice included a ground-breaking process of First Nations from
across Australia.

"Consider the words of the Uluru Statement - it is a plea that
a people who for so long in our nation's history were not
counted should now be heard. "

People seem to think that they can continue to express their
anti-Indigenous opinions with impunity conflicting anti-
Indigenous and political sentiments as if they were the same.
It's ignorant and deliberate and we should oppose it with
all our strength.

"The model of the Voice is not what the referendum is about.
It's about ensuring that there will always be a First
Nations Voice in the centre of decision making and that
First Nations people are recognised and respected for their
sovereignty that was never ceded or extinguished."

Foxy,

Your last post gave your game away. You clearly admitted that the left's objective is "It's about ensuring that there will always be a First
Nations Voice in the centre of decision-making"

So essentially giving 3% of the population a race-based veto on legislation. In South Africa that was called apartheid.

This is not a game.

"A Voice to Parliament gives the Australian government
the opportunity to make policies with Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people, rather than for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people."

"A Voice to Parliament is a body enshrined in the
Constitution that would enable Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people to provide advice to the
Parliament on policies and projects that impact their lives."

http://fromtheheart.com.au/what-is-a-voice-to-pariiament/

Foxy,

The left is playing fast and loose with the truth and playing a game that if they cock it up as usual will have serious detrimental consequences in perpetuity.

Labor put ATSIC in place as a non-constitutional version of this voice and it collapsed under graft and criminality. What Labor has proposed is a stronger more corrupt version of ASTIC (apartheid) in perpetuity.

FROM ABOVE

Jacinta's Australia Day Speech: ‘Reflect, Respect, Celebrate’ PART THREE

January 26, 2022 http://www.jacintaprice.com/jacinta_price_australia_day_speech_reflect_respect_celebrate

"* We have learnt what the word ‘innovate’ can do for us in so many ways. It’s about being open, finding a way... I’ve seen videos of people cooking food with an iron in quarantine, people providing a need in crisis that has turned into small business, and what we can put together as a meal with limited food, having an open mind and heart.

For all the positive reflections, there have been negative ones, which shed a light on ourselves, our situations and for government, on our future policy and economic investment priorities. Some of these include:

* Increased rates of domestic violence
* Isolation and access to support
* Small business fighting to survive
* Mental health deterioration
* Fiscal impacts of a National Health Biosecurity outbreak and the responses and reactions to it

Governments have tried to mitigate the impacts from COVID-19 as much as possible. We have vaccines, we have health systems that are equipped and capable and we have an aware community. This is not by any means ignoring the fact that every single one of us has been impacted, especially those that have lost loved ones in terrible isolated situations.

Recipients of Australian of the Year Awards have done and continue to do remarkable things for our nation. But let me take a moment to reflect on the unsung heroes of the heart, our frontline health works, all the public servants behind the scenes who have worked tirelessly to get all the technology, vaccines, public policies and processes in place to protect us and make our experience as less of an impact as possible. To them I say thank you.

Going back to Miriam’s advice, the words — for true application regarding Australia Day and what it means to be Australian — would encourage a genuine Indigenous design for who we are and how we behave, where:

* keyboard warriors would step away from the screens..."

MORE LATER

Australia remains a land where no treaties. no
constitutional recognition of the place of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples has been
resolved of their political standing in modern
Australia.

We can see from this discussion there's some
awful, toxic stuff that we're getting from
those who take bad interpretations of what's
happening.

Claims of preferential treatment and that it's
racist against white Australians are being
thrown around. Their point is to convince people
that this is not worthwhile.

We need to listen to Indigenous Australians whose
careful consultation process has led them to this point.

I hope that no one really wants to discriminate against
our First Nations people. If we can at least give them a chance
to contribute constructively to make their self-determination
happen - surely we are capable of doing that.

Why listen only to one voice - that of Senator Price?

There's a whole gamut of First Nation's people that
have spoken. Why not heed what they are saying?

Do any of us really pay attention to Pauline Hanson
or Mark Latham?

Most of us don't!

VICTORIA'S ELECTED FIRST [RACE] ASSEMBLY KICKS OFF

The state of Victoria's new First Race ELECTED "First Peoples Assembly" may well be a preliminary model

we OLOers can assess before Albo/"AlBan's" FIRST RACE Federal Assembly in Parliament is created.

The Guardian reports, 17 August 2022 http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/victoria-passes-landmark-legislation-to-create-first-nations-treaty-authority

"Victoria passes landmark legislation to create First Nations treaty authority"

"Indigenous authority will act as an independent umpire to oversee treaty negotiations with the state government.

Co-chairs [restricted to First Race people] of the First Peoples Assembly of Victoria, Geraldine Atkinson and Marcus Stewart, said the treaty authority will be independent.

The nation’s first independent body to oversee First Nations treaty negotiations has been enshrined in law, with Victoria’s parliament passing landmark legislation for its creation on [16 Aug 2022] night.

The legislation will make Victoria the first jurisdiction to establish an Indigenous treaty authority that will act as an independent umpire to oversee treaty negotiations and resolve disputes between traditional owner groups and the state government..."

MAVER,S COMMENT

See more contradictions in this race based Assembly that at last show the way to Tony AlBan's gamble.

Note, current PM, Tony AlBan, want's to hold the First Race Assembly Referendum LATE in his one term government because he knows how divisive and damaging this issue is, already.

First RACE "Assembly" or "Authority" is basically the same thing, because the same elite group of RACE BASERS
are running both.

Foxy,

It is the very definition of racism. A constitutionally entrenched race-based veto on all legislation is a recipe for corruption on a grand scale.

Foxy
I for one do not wish to discriminare against Aboriginal people and I do not wish to see discrimination against any other law abiding Australians.
Australia voted for equality in 1967 and now we see that Democratic vote being overturned.

Shams on the traitors to the Australian peoples expressed wishes in the 1967 Referendum.

A constitutionally entrenched race-based veto against
all legislation?

That is NOT what the Voice will be. It will simply
be an advisory body on laws and policies that affect
only them. Legislation will be up to Parliament.

Let Australians decide on this for themselves.

This time it will be kept simple. The last referendum was
a political stitch-up.

Is Mise,

This is what happened at the 1967 referendum.

http://ergo.slv.vic.gov.au/explore-history/fight-rights/indigenous-rights/1967-referendum

THERE IS HOPE FOR "VOICE IN" PARLIAMENT AFTER ALL

Mavers has been doing some none-vitriolic research and things look more promising.

The "First Peoples Assembly of Victoria" looks like it started in 2019 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_State_Government#First_Peoples'_Assembly_of_Victoria

Since 2019 the sky hasn't fallen.

which may well, in a good way, be a preliminary model for a Federal body

The Assembly has worked toward "Victoria passes landmark legislation to create First Nations treaty authority"
see http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/16/victoria-passes-landmark-legislation-to-create-first-nations-treaty-authority

So we OLOers can assess the First Nations ASSEMBLY of Victoria now

then the Victorian First Nations TREATY AUTHORITY http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/07/decolonisation-in-action-victorian-treaty-negotiations-to-be-overseen-by-independent-authority

before the Federal Referendum.
_____________________

NOTE: Mavers judges things issue by issue rather than ideologically.

Foxy,

The addition to the constitution that Albozo has proposed does not in any way exclude a defacto veto. And if they get a +ve result they can pretty much do whatever they want to the constitution.

Constitutional experts have rejected claims that
the Voice would have veto power. It is a representative
advisory body only. "There are no veto powers. There is
NO capacity for the Voice to amend or stop legislation.
It would neither be able to over turn nor veto any policies,
nor would it be able to prevent any laws coming into place."

Our former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says -
"I will be voting YES to establish an Indigenous Voice to
Parliament. He explains here why he has changed his mind:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2022/aug/15/i-will-be-voting-yes-to-establish-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament

Foxy,

I am amazed at how many constitutional experts have a psychic vision of the future.

And they know this how?

If the Voice doesn’t get its own way the supporters will cry “Racism” and weak politicians, afraid for their lively hood will cave in like eggshells under elephants.
Just watch Victoria once the Referendum is over

Hi Foxy,

You are spot on with what you say, but the truth is not going to deter our Forum band of rednecks and racists claiming otherwise. In the minds of some only lies and distortions will defeat this referendum.

Hi Issy,

There is no elephant walking on eggshells, Elephant Bob from the Shooters and Hooters Party shot the bloody elephant!

Dear Paul,

People who resort to naming Indigenous senators after
sexually transmitted diseases as shadominister did
with Senator Thorpe and had his post deleted by the
moderator - do not have any credibility on this forum

I am fed up with all the misinformation and lies being
sprouted here by people who would not have voted for the
Voice no matter what.

These people are irrelevant and will end up on the dung
heap of the history of this country. The majority of Australians
will do the right thing and fully understand what is being
asked of them.

Paul, you are the ultimate redneck.

Foxy,

You happily repost "opinions" from those who support your views from dubious sources even when they are clearly Bollocks and ignore the vile comments and name manipulation from Paul even when his posts have been deleted. You are so left-leaning that you walk in circles.

What alarms conservatives is that the Questions that Albozo intends to put in the referendum are so vague that Labor and the gangreens are essentially getting a blank cheque to do whatever they want. A defacto 3rd chamber of parliament is entirely possible.

While you may believe that Labor does not intend this, just remember the carbon tax that Juliar gave an iron cast guarantee would never happen.

Hi Foxy,

These are the people who crow that 91% voted for Aboriginal recognition in 1967. We should not forget they are people who were part of the 9% who didn't support that referendum question. I said earlier in this discussion; "Of greater concern than the rubbish argument of "star chamber" from the racists of the extreme right is those who will claim, "agreement in principle", but oppose on the grounds of "lack of detail", no matter what detail is provided them". 100 years ago these old blokes ancestors were shooting Aboriginals for sport, today we are asking a lot from them, to vote 'yes', when all their instincts tell em' to vote 'no'.

Like any referendum before it, this one will be put in the form of a question/statement, requiring an unambiguous yes or no answer. The idea that the actual legislation should be contained in the referendum is not only ridiculous, its totally impractical.

Dear Paul,

For me this topic has now well and truly run its
course. I believe as I've stated time and again
that people have to face up to the moral
implications of their actions., and must not sit
on the fence. I have made my choice regarding
the Voice to Parliament.

Enjoy what's left of the week-end and I look forward
to sharing further discussions with you.

Take care.

Stay well.

Hi Foxy,

On the information I have seen so far I will be voting yes, it would take something dramatic to change my mind. For me there is nothing sinister about this proposal, in fact Aboriginal recognition in the Australian Constitution is 120 years overdue. There is no doubt colonisation of the continent by the European had a dramatic effect on the well being of the indigenous inhabitants, as it did elsewhere the European colonised. Aboriginal people were brutally push aside and treated in the most vile of ways, genocide, murder and exclusion was the order of the day for the best part of 200 years. It is remarkable that like other indigenous people of the world, Aboriginals generally harbour little hatred towards modern white Australia for past atrocities committed, we can't change history, but we can learn from it. This referendum will be one more step in the healing process between white and black, its failure would set the process of reconciliation back 100 years, and that is something that forward thinking people such as ourselves should not contemplate, leave that to our racists, redneck forum friends.

After the FEDERAL Referendum next year the FEDERAL VOICE will probably go in thi direction of the First Peoples ASSEMBLY of VICTORIA. That ASSEMBLY WAS CREATED IN 2019. See http://www.firstpeoplesvic.org/the-assembly/

"A MEANINGFUL VOICE AND REPRESENTATION"

http://www.firstpeoplesvic.org/treaty/voice/

"Treaty is an opportunity to secure better representation and political power for First Peoples.

Both the state-wide Treaty and Traditional Owner Treaties can include changes to current systems and structures of government to give First Peoples a greater say and control over matters that affect First Peoples.

“Treaty is opportunity to secure meaningful structural reform to ensure our people can make the decisions about our communities, our culture and our Country.”
— Aunty Geraldine, Assembly Co-Chair.

We’ve been yarning with Community about various ideas for reforms that will put First Peoples in the driver’s seat. Two big ideas for key reforms are:

HAVING A NUMBER OF SEATS in the Victorian Parliament that members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community vote for.

Establishing a PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE BODY WITH DECISION MAKING POWERS

– a “BLACK PARLIAMENT” of sorts.

[Yes those are the words of the First Peoples ASSEMBLY of VICTORIA.]

"This Black Parliament would be elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Victoria to make decisions and pass and administer laws on issues that affect First Peoples. This might be an expanded version of the First Peoples’ Assembly or a new entity – such details will be worked out during Treaty negotiations..."

MAVERS COMMENT

All looks better than equal representation for all people under the law.