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

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

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

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

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

Indyvidual

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

This was my unpublished response to recent articles in The Australian.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

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

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

Australia's annual defense budget is $40 billion, while our welfare directed at 'aboriginal" people is $62 billion. There are an awful lot of sticky fingers who want to get control of that incredible amount of money.

The present ploy is to appeal to the sons and daughters of the well off who today are so enamoured of the new fashion of virtue signaling. Today, it is just so trendy to despise your own country, people, and culture, and instead pretend to be the protectors of the "oppressed."

So we get all of these sugary "statements" from "aboriginal" people who have already learned that identifying with one race in Australia can get you massive benefits. One of the latest, is to "close the gap" which never closes. What this means, of course, is that the good old Aussie taxpayer should shovel even more money at the Aboriginal Grievance Industry so that the self appointed 'aboriginal" leaders can get even richer.

And you can bet that every trendy lefty will be holding their hearts and thinking how virtuous they are supporting all of those poor aborigines living in self imposed squalor in their apartheid areas where people of other races may not tread.

Well Lego, it’s much simpler than that.
The problem with closing the gap “Whitest” style is; nothing takes the native out of the native. Tribal attachments.

Trampling on their own gains by trampling on each other, is an endemic tribal attachment.
ATSIC, formed by a white alcoholic and dismantled by a white supremacist in 2004, over the allegations of corruption. (Now there in itself is an oxymoron). IE ATSIC called out for corruption by corrupt politicians leading a corrupt political system called Democracy. ( But then again, how dare insignificant me suggest politicians are corrupt; if they were corrupt, they’d be in jail wouldn’t they…ahem..not when their job is to make the laws watertight, with permanently open back doors for themselves)?

How we do struggle with this problem on the ground.

Dan

We can not close that "Gap" when so many on all sides profit from leaving it wide open !

For better or worse, these are my observations:
So called aboriginal persons are generally more european than otherwise.
There would be very few 'full-bloods' left living in this land.
We cannot allow a handful of such persons to control the rest of the population?
Whatever harm was experienced by the ancestors of these persons, we weren't there, and they weren't there.
They can have no grievance against us, and we have no obligation to them, because of anything that happened a long time ago.
It was their ancestors who lost control of the land that they occupied.
A new group took over, and now calls the shots.
That is simply a fact.
Whether right or wrong, we cannot change it now. We cannot change history.
In the present day, laws generally cope with difference in our society.
No one needs to break the law seriously, so no one needs to be jailed for a crime.
It is a personal choice, based on how we think and act.
Laws do need to be adjusted and upgraded from time to time, as the standards in society change.
If we treat 'aboriginals' differently, with special laws and considerations, we are being divisive, and hence harmfully racist?
So we should come back to basics, and keep steadfastly to the idea of one country, one peoples, one set of laws, one flag.
And sports persons playing overseas will represent this country, not some other personal concept.
I am aware that a great deal of money has been spent on this 'divisiveness'.
I wonder where it has all gone.
If it hasn't been frittered away, all of those on the receiving end should be millionaires by now?
Another observation is that if persons behave differently, they will be treated differently.
When in Rome, we should do as Rome does?
'White' Australians need to start being truthful with themselves too.
It is time to think hard about basic truth, and draw back from this stupidly divisive path we are taking.

Ipso Fatso,
It's good to see there are still people out there with the skill of observing without having to resort to take "sides". Cheers !

I'm certain no one here would be commenting without having read the full statement, but just in case:

https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF

ipso Fatso. "If it hasn't been frittered away, all of those on the receiving end should be millionaires by now?"

They are. They are called white advisers.

David

They are. They are called white advisers.
VK3AUU,
You'd be surprised or most likely you do know how many non-white are worth even more.

"The Uluru Statement isn't how we will close the gap"

This discussion has now become obsolete.
- The problems have now been fully resolved.

Dominic Perrottet says $25 million cost to fly Aboriginal flag on Sydney Harbour Bridge a 'small price to pay' for unity
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-19/sydney-harbour-bridge-aboriginal-flag-25-million/101165564

$25 Million for a flag pole ?? Whichever bureaudroid approves that needs to be locked away NOW !
is it planned to be of solid Gold ? There simply is no technical, moral or whatever justification for that quote !

Hey Indyvidual,
Maybe they're going to throw in a free 24 karat gold-plated toilet seat or something as well.
Who knows these days...

...Oh hang on, 25 million not 25 thousand,
I guess it will be a solid gold toilet and seat not gold plated, my mistake.

'Voters don't like hypocrisy': Perrottet changes stance on flag push
http://youtu.be/3QwJ8nDfTzY

How many quotes did they get & how much were they ?
The companies quoting need to have their books looked at !

Should Australia by some miracle manage to close that gap, how would the guilt industry fare ?
Would they actually be employable ? Could they possibly be resourceful members of society ?
Hard to imagine the present figureheads to pull their own weight in anything let alone be of use to their own people.
Could they or would they ever be there for their people as the non-indigenous are ?
I sure would like to see which side of the fence is the more humanitarian.