Just look across the Tasman . . . just look across the Tasman to see where this 'voice' lunacy will take Australia . . .

On Everald's logic:

1. "Indigenous people were not consulted when the Australian Constitution was drafted and approved in 1901"

AND "women were not consulted about the Constitution in 1901"

AND I, as a man, wasn't consulted about the Constitution in 1901.

THIS MAKES ORIGINAL CONSULTATION A NON ISSUE

2. Hawii's state flag has a Union Jack in the corner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Hawaii.svg . This is even though Hawaii is not part of the Commonwealth of Nations. The Union Jack remains part of Hawaii's history - JUST LIKE ITS PART OF OURS.

3. Look on the bright side.

The more Australian flags real of fake Aborigines burn the lower the chance the Voice Referendum will get through.

Mavs

Well anyone who believes in "Climate-Change" should oppose the burning of flags because that releases CO2 to the atmosphere. Also there will always be poor people who can make good use of an old cloth. Sadly, Australians release even more CO2 through unnecessary explosive fireworks.

Creating an aboriginal advisory body does not require any constitutional change, but passing of this referendum would provide an extra coat of justification for the disease of nationalism - while aboriginals lived here for 65,000+ years, till the British arrived they were never infected with this white-born disease!

Dear Alan B,

you wrote: "For mine, anything less than 50% and they are like you and me, essentially (more white than black) white fellas."

Sure, and you will of course be saying any blonde and blue eye people who see themselves as Jews with a birth-right to migrate to Israel be denied because they couldn't be of the Semitic peoples therefore must be frauds?

No Steele, I'm not saying anything like that. You are trying to put words in my mouth. And that's totally unacceptable.

I have cousins Aunts Uncles who are more than 50% indigenous, yet have blue eyes. Aunty Dot, who was more than 50% indigenous, had both blue eyes and blonde hair. Her sister Aunty Pat had fussy black hair and brown eyes. Their Father was away fighting in WW11 when they were born, and apparently conceived during his RR leave?

My mum had a different dad, hence my 8%, Something I've never acknowledged or used.

As for being Jewish, that can also be established by DNA not your eye, skin colour or shape of nose.

It's a war crime to annex occupied land, your real beef with me for illuminating that fact, right?
Alan B.

Two simple reasons it should not pass. It is racist and it is undemocratic.
Little,
That's not how it's seen in the aborigine & pseudo-aborigine circles & I understand why. However,
if that Voice brings about fair play on every front then it's worth starting to iron out the finer crinkles.
If historical facts are to be used for this then so should be the history of social & medical welfare & the already heaped-on good will !
Ignoring the good will only validates voting against the Voice !
The numerous working cattle stations handed back to traditional inhabitants of these stations' areas should be included in the calculations as should the contribution to pollution by the indigenous.
Demanding that non-indigenous Australians curb their doings should also apply to the indigenous non-traditional habits.
The only way this Voice can work is by all present & future inhabitants of Australia doing their bit towards a more united society. The descendants of the invaders aren't going to move nor are the descendants of the indigenous going to forfeit the benefits since invasion.
Those of mixed heritage should find it extremely easy to make this work if they have the integrity !