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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dkit

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

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

There is always the possibility of defeat. Victory is not certain just because egotists want something to happen. And opposition to what you want is not 'negative' because it doesn't fall in with what you want. What is 'negative' to one person is 'positive' to another. I, for instance, believe that this Voice junk policy would have an extremely negative effect on democracy if it passed. And, I deem the Opposition to be idiots for wanting "details" of something that should never have been thought up in the first place.

I'll agree with Compton on that much: both parties are rubbish and not to be trusted.

Positive and practical posts from Taswegian, DKit42 and Bernie Masters.

Adding one more layer of government?
Adding more complexity to the terrible complex we already have?
Allowing some of us to be heard while the rest of us are never heard?

Say 'NO'!

---
On the other hand, maybe sneaking a request/petition through an aboriginal friend, or otherwise bribing an aboriginal person, could help where nothing else does...

"A senior Warlpiri Elder says the Yuendumu community will not be able to heal from the death of Kumanjayi Walker until they are able to spill the blood of his killer, Constable Zach Rolfe, in a form of traditional justice known as “payback”. Northern Territory News

Payback still exists in some outback communities, apparently. Anyone for 'voicing' that to Parliament. Humbugging is still popular, too

I won’t vote, and I don’t care. (Myself and the other forty percent of the country that are smart enough to know, a vote matters for nothing).

Hmmm,

The current draft wording is:

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

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

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."

The author feels it should be a lot more prescriptive, far more so than most other sections of the Constitution.

The 67 referendum changes were very simple and I thought that was partially why they worded and were so accepted.

I'm not convinced that the racist and divisive negativity is that widespread outside of Facebook cliques and forums like this that it warrants moving away from the draft words.

However time will tell.

Steele Redux, what matters that are proposed to Government by a Voice that Government don't already know? Is Albanese ignorant of what Aboriginals need, or does he not listen to Aboriginal Senators in Parliament?

What issues are new on Aboriginal affairs that a Voice will bring to notice? It is another attempt at Sorry that has been said before by other Labor politicians. Those forming the powers of the Voice are themselves not in need of a Voice to Parliament, they obviously have a voice informing Albanese.

Josephus,

If you're going to take part in this debate it has to be
based on facts. Come back to this conversation when you've
done the research and know what you are talking about.
Otherwise you will not be taken seriously and shall be
ignored. Get facts - not misinformation.

Dan

A majority YES vote will certainly "matter". Our Constitution will be reduced to a feel-good list, impossible to repair. If you never vote again, you should be voting NO in this referendum.

Having “Indigenous Citizens elected by Indigenous Voters” as members of the Voice seems fine in principle, but I am not convinced it’s a best method.

It would probably require a legal definition of “Indigenous”. That could be difficult to establish and contentious, and could easily become a major distraction in the debate.

There are already recognised organisations of established indigenous groups who are well placed to represent their communities – Ben Wyatt suggests in an article in today’s Australian linking in with the Prescribed Bodies Corporate of groups administering Native Title agreements, for example.

Indigenous people have a lower rate of voter turnout than the general population; it may not be the best way of gathering and representing their views.

I also agree with SteeleRedux that the article seems unnecessarily prescriptive. Representative organisations can make their own arrangements on how often and for how long they should meet, for example. Presumably this will vary depending on the issues before parliament. And as it is a Voice to parliament, ultimately Parliament should decide the issues it considers and how it presents its recommendations.

We also need to have a clear distinction between what should be in the Constitution, what should be in legislation, and what should be determined by the Voice members themselves.

And I’d happily stand corrected, but I’m pretty sure one parliament cannot bind future parliaments, so it is not possible to pass a law “which cannot be altered without another referendum being held” unless it is in the constitution itself..

ttbn

Sorry to say, but the outcome has already been decided. Voters become actors in the staged farce .

You’ve got more faith in those criminals than have I.

Dear Josephus,

Another question from you in bad faith but let's run with it.

The Australian Council of Social Services is an independent body advocating for the disadvantaged.

"The Australian Council of Social Service is a national advocate supporting people affected by poverty, disadvantage and inequality, and the peak council for community services nationally."

The bulk of their funding comes from the government and they give advice on policy particularly in relation to those impacted by "poverty, disadvantage and inequality".

They are consulted widely, particularly around budget time and give advice to government on how policy will affect those they speak for.

Quote
We work at the national level, to influence changes to federal policies and laws.
We collaborate with the State and Territory Councils of Social Service.
We support the voices of people directly affected by policy.
We are dynamic, determined and strategic.
We are uncompromising in our commitment to human rights and equity and to calling out human rights breaches and inequities.
We partner with allies in diverse sectors around common goals to maximise our combined impact.
We work to find common ground across difference.
We are non-partisan.
End quote

There are quite a few similar bodies engaged in similar advice to government.

Under your insipid philosophy they have no place as "what matters that are proposed to Government by a Voice that Government don't already know?"

It is very hard not to see your stance as racist as your objection seems to only be with a body which would represent indigenous people.

Why is that so?

"I’m pretty sure one parliament cannot bind future parliaments" (Rhian).

But, once it is enshrined in the Constitution, it would take another referendum to change it. The Voice could not be abolished like ATSIC was by the Howard Government.

That is the whole point. That the Voice will
stand as an advisory body on laws and programs\
that affect our Indigenous people. That laws
that affect them will be made
inconsultation with them. That they will not be ignored and
simply have laws made for them without their consultation.
It's a fair request - considering that to date they were
not consulted - and laws were made for them - including ones
that were racist.

Foxy stop making general statements without facts - What Australian laws are racist as you claim?

Steel, you said, "The Australian Council of Social Service is a national advocate supporting people affected by poverty, disadvantage and inequality, and the peak council for community services nationally."

Do they not represent exactly what affects aboriginals in the same position? That body is not enshrined in the Constitution as proposed by a Voice. The Parliament can appoint a body to represent aboriginal needs it does not need a Vote on the Constitution. Once it is enshrined in the constitution it is there as a permanent body and cannot be easily removed if taken over by half caste radicals.

Josephus,

I want you to do your own research. I am not going to
spoon-feed you. I want you to educate yourself about
our First People - there's plenty of information on the web.
It's there for anybody to find. All you have to do is
Google it. There are facts to be had. The Constitution has
specific laws just for Aboriginal people and they are
discriminatory laws. Look them up for yourself. To me
it just sounds like all you want is to keep putting Indigenous
people down. I'm not going to play your game.

Josephus,

Were you born in the United States?

You sound like a hillbilly type who's
migrated here. And probably a Trump supporter to boot.

Having “Indigenous Citizens elected by Indigenous Voters” as members of the Voice seems fine in principle, but I am not convinced it’s a best method.
Rhian,
That's exactly my view also and, not due to ideology, it's because of experience & evidence !
Does Senator Lidia Thorpe look like someone who misses the traditional Aborigine way of life ?
Her complexion & features suggest 99.99% caucasian blood line.

Josephus.

You state the main point exactly as it is, not only is but also historically.

ATSIC short history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Commission

ATSIC was the well meaning attempt to achieve what now, with the voice, will fail miserably for the same reasons. Nepotism, rorts and abysmal failure of self governing Aboriginal institutions.

What Aboriginals are most in need of, the thirty billion PA, to land on the bottom where it can best serve the physical needs of the group.

The voice is nothing about that critical physical aspect most in need of addressing. And how prescient of you to point that out.

But I fear, the path is deep and wide , leading to our cabin. As with gay marriage that interminably rolled on for years, until the worn out population rolled over to it for the sake of peace.

This voice nonsense will follow the same worn path; over and over and over until it becomes legitimised not by merits but simply through boredom of the masses.

In the end, your vote is worthless!

There are too many pertinent details that haven't been released. There can only be two possible reasons for that:

* they haven't worked the details out yet, in which case what's the rush?
* they have worked them out but suspect that if the details were released many potential "yes" voters would become firm "no" voters.

Its safe to assume that the details are being withheld because they would be unpopular. It'll be interesting to see just how compliant the population has become and if they'll just 'trust' their rulers as they did with the pandemic.

The only saving grace out of all this is that future parliaments will be able to fix whatever disasters this bit of virtue signalling creates. (Rhian is right, one parliament can't bind its successors.)

Josephus,

Foxy advised "I am not going to spoon-feed you."

Whenever someone refuses to provide evidence for their suspect claims by asserting that you can do it yourself, its safe to assume that there is no such evidence and, worse, that they know there's no such evidence.

Case in point...
Foxy says "The Constitution has specific laws just for Aboriginal people and they are discriminatory laws. Look them up for yourself."

Don't bother. The Australian Constitution contains no, nada, nix references to aboriginals. All such references were removed in 1967.

People who misunderstand so much or are so easily misled are going to vote "yes" - the carpet-baggers are counting on it.

Ttnb

Yes, you’re right, what’s in the constitution can only be changed by referendum. But that’s not my reading of what Everald is advocating. He suggests passing legislation detailing how the Voice will work in advance of the referendum, to be triggered only if the referendum returns a “yes” vote. The enabling legislation and constitutional change are linked, but separate. That might work, and has the merit of clearing up any confusion about the details of how the Voice will work in practice in advance of the referendum. But unless all the detail of the enabling legislation is repeated or mandated in the constitutional amendment – which would be highly unorthodox, and fraught with its own problems – then there would be nothing to stop subsequent parliaments changing the enabling legislation. In a nutshell, the constitution mandates there must be a Voice; parliament decides how that is put into practice, and passes legislation to that effect. But the current parliament cannot prevent a future one from changing the enabling legislation in future, as Everald proposes.

Indyvidual

Over the years there have been many different legal and administrative definitions of indigenous people, all of them in some way problematic:

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/essentially-yours-the-protection-of-human-genetic-information-in-australia-alrc-report-96/36-kinship-and-identity/legal-definitions-of-aboriginality/#:~:text=These%20statutes%20have%20generally%20defined,the%20Aboriginal%20race%20of%20Australia'.

I don’t think what people look like is particularly important – ancestry is an element, but also culture and being recognised as a member by a recognised indigenous group. We can live with this ambiguity for the moment, but if people have to prove they are indigenous to be a member of, or vote for a member of, the Voice then I can’t see how that can work without verifiable and objective criteria defining who is and is not indigenous, which I think would be very problematic

legal and administrative definitions of indigenous people,
Rhian,
I'm all for indigenous Australians to make decisions that affect their lives. However, from my observations there are now people identifying as indigenous although they do live the live they say has been denied to them. Many in fact live far more prosperously without the effort those whom they accuse of having denied them opportunities have to put in.
I know people who identify as Australian indigenous when they're actually not. The danger I can see with this VOICE is that more such people clamber aboard the bandwagon, pushing genuine indigenous aside. It has, is & will happen more if the VOICE takes effect. Integrity-devoid bureaucrats of every complexion will syphon the coffers dry just as they did & still do.
That's my concern.

Josephus,

I was so sure that you'd be able to find your own answer
to the question you asked me earlier. But then mhaze
stepped in and re-assured you there was no such
thing, so of course why should you bother looking for it.

However, may I politely suggest that you look into
Section 51 (26) of the Constitution. It's about the
Australian parliament's access to make special laws
regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Its the race power law.

And then there's also Section 25 of the Constitution which
is no longer used - but it still exists.

You're welcome.

Oh dear Foxy, you are so easily misled....

Section 25 doesn't mention aboriginals/natives/indigenous or any other euphemism. But it is true that it once applied to races like aboriginals. But it wasn't discriminatory against them, it was used to penalise states that discriminated against them. ie it was pro-aboriginal not anti-aboriginal. Is that too complex for you to follow?

Section 51(xxiv)..." The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good
government of the Commonwealth with respect to:...
(xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."
Note: "any race". But the clueless are fed the line that it is discriminatory and they fall for it, facts be damned.

Note for the clueless - s51(xxvi) once did indeed discriminate against aboriginals but was changed in 1967. Some people haven't caught up yet.

It's interesting to speculate as to how/why people like Foxy need to fabricate racist claims about the constitution.

The woke left has spent decades believing the claims of the aboriginal industry that there is rampant anti-aboriginal racism within the general community. Yet when they go looking for evidence of this alleged racism they come up empty handed.

Now, an honest response to that would be to revise the original claims. But that's not how the virtue-signallers work. So in the absence of actual examples of racism, they fabricate fantasy racism.

T'was always thus.

Good Morning Josephus,

The following link explains the reasons why amending the
race power (Section 51) in our Constitution is necessary.
The race power law lets the Australian parliament make
special laws about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples. Anyway the following link explains:

http://referendumcouncil.org.au/discussion-topics/amending-race-power.html#

Hi Josephus,

I do not fabricate. I pass on available information.

There's another link that also explains further:

http://abc.net.au/news/2020-06-04/races-power-in-constiution-should-change-say-retired-judges/12312362

"The race power law lets the Australian parliament make
special laws about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples."

Yeah and we can't have that! We can't have SPECIAL LAWS for these folks.

Now about that SPECIAL LAW to create a voice for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Truly it is said that if it wasn't for double standards they'd have no standards at all.

Incidentally Section 51(xxvi) allows laws to be made for "any race". Strange you and your bias sources keep missing that bit.

My friends and I will be voting 'NO'.

https://xyz.net.au/2023/01/voice-to-parliament-dutton-hedges-bet/

https://xyz.net.au/2023/01/voice-to-parliament-dutton-hedges-bet/

https://twitter.com/PeterDutton_MP/status/1611919809880666112

mhaze,

My sources don't miss anything.

They acknowledge it all.

You're the one who seems to be having problems
with what's being presented and are desperately
grabbing at straws.

Give it up and let the people decide for themselves.

Online Opinion:

You say: 'Any (http) URLs you type will automatically be converted to hyperlinks'.

Can that be extended to https hyperlinks.

So Foxy, are you in favour of special laws for natives by supporting the voice or opposed to special laws for natives by wanting the repeal of S51(xxvi)?

Asking for a friend.

I suspect doublethink in spades.

BTW, you originally claimed "The Constitution has
specific laws just for Aboriginal people and they are
discriminatory laws".

Care to explain how this is a special law just for aboriginals and how they are discriminatory. (Expected answer....one of Foxy's stand-by "if you don't know, I can't tell you" damp squibs.)

Give it up and let the people decide for themselves.
Foxy,
I for on e would but think of all the straw people out there !

Dear mhaze,

You do rubbish on don't you.

Of course our Constitution is racist. Not only Section 51 but Section 25 oozes with it.

"25. Provisions as to races disqualified from voting
For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted."

Both sections should be removed in my book.

As to Section 51 applying to all different races, in practice it has really only recently been directed at indigenous folk by supporting the Northern Territory Intervention.

I've pulled up many a pillock claiming the Voice will suddenly make our Constitution racist. It all ready is.

That our first nations people should be referred to adequately in our Constitution is long overdue. The establishment of a Voice to Parliament seems to most decent folk a way of continuing to right the deep wrongs in our past.

Apparently....

The constitution is racist because it allows the government to make special laws concerning aboriginals and that is discriminatory. Any part of the constitution that talks about race has to be deleted. Anyone wh disagrees with that is a racist.

Apparently....
We need to add a new part to the constitution that will allow the government to make a special law concerning aboriginals. That isn't discriminatory. There is absolutely no problem with having clauses in the constitution which are race based. Anyone who disagrees with that is a racist.

Truly doublethink lives.

And apparently you can't discriminate between laws which permit punitive actions against a particular race and another which affords affirmative action.

As to whether the document is racist it is pretty simple mate, do you believe having the power to ban a particular race from voting is a racist provision within the Constitution or not?

SteelRedux,
Rephrased; do you believe having the power to ban a particular race from voting at a stage in their cultural development when the concept of voting was still foreign is a racist provision within the Constitution or not?

WTF?

At the time of Federation, in South Australia, Indigenous men and women were able to vote in both state and federal elections.

In 1902,the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 removed Aboriginal Australians' rights to vote in a federal election.

Oh dear Steele,

Let's look at section 25 again, shall we....

"For the purposes of the last section[ie S24], if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted"

Nowhere in there does the constitution give the parliament the "the power to ban a particular race from voting (SR's words)". NOWHERE. In particular this isn't an anti-aboriginal clause. In fact the exact opposite.

By way of background for the historically challenged, at the time of federation some states (Qld and WA)excluded some races, especially aboriginal but also others, from voting for that state's lower house. Section 24 detailed how the distribution of electorates was to be determined which in essence was based on population. But the framers were concerned that some states would use their aboriginal population to increase their representation while at the same time excluding that same population from voting. Hence Section 25 was included which, it was hoped would entice those hold-out states from excluding their aboriginal population from voting. That is, it was a PRO-aboriginal measure, attempting to encourage states into giving the vote to their aboriginal peoples so as to increase their overall representation in the Federal lower house.

I was going to say how hilarious it is that SR and others have so badly misunderstood the import of S25. But its actually not funny. Tens of thousand, perhaps millions will vote in the next referendum with views based on this lack of knowledge. As I said earlier..."People who misunderstand so much or are so easily misled are going to vote "yes" - the carpet-baggers are counting on it."

Oh dear mhaze,

There is no direct evidence that was the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution, supposition only.

In fact Section 30 runs counter to any such supposition in that it states:

"30. Qualification of electors
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives shall be in each State that which is prescribed by the law of the State as the qualification of electors of the more numerous House of Parliament of the State; but in the choosing of members each elector shall vote only once."

So completely encompassing the State's racial laws and using them as a basis for the right to vote Federally.

Albanese doesn't want to provide Australian voters a 2-4 page summary (as required under Referendum conventions) that would provide arguments For Yes and Against No.

because this would expose and trigger the broad disagreements between Aboriginal Factions and other stakeholders.

For example one Victoria based faction (lets call them the Urban Radicals) don't want a Referendum at all due to the risk it would be voted down. Instead they want Albanese to go straight to Treaty and a "Truth-Telling" Compensation Commission.

They see the Uluru pro-Referendum, Northern Australia, Traditionalists, who do want a Referendum, as a bunch of old under-educated yokels.

Albanese wishes to hide this rift by denying Voters a summarised 2-4 page information package (as required under Referendum conventions) that would allow voters to make an informed choice.

CONVENTION REQUIRING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE REFERENDUM VOTERS WITH A GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED BOOKLET SPELLING OUT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION,

AND INCLUDING 2000-WORD ARGUMENTS ON THE YES AND NO CASES."

See http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/rp/rp9900/2000rp02

"The YES and NO Cases

Parliament prescribes the manner in which referendum votes are taken.

In most referenda since the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1912 (No. 2), each elector has received a pamphlet containing arguments in favour of, or against, any proposal upon which s(he) is voting.

Normally, these arguments must be no more than two thousand words in length, and must be authorised by a majority of those parliamentary members who voted for or against the proposed law."

It is obvious that some here do not recognize the Parliament already has aboriginals advising the Parliament and have full voting rights. There is no denial of aboriginals standing for representing their concerns in Parliament.

The Voice is an attempt to divide Australian people along race. Typical Marxism.

I don't know all that many real Aborigines but the ones I know have not & most likely won't want to board this bandwagon !
Besides, all the integrity-lacking pseudo indigenous have already taken up all the seats !

Dear Josephus,

Once again your racist slip is showing.

This is a list of bodies directly advising the Federal government.

http://www.directory.gov.au/boards-and-other-entities

There are over 1200 of them.

They include the Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd (LiveCorp) was declared under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act (1997).

https://www.directory.gov.au/portfolios/agriculture-water-and-environment/department-agriculture-water-and-environment/australian-livestock-export-corporation-ltd

The chair is Mr Setter who is also the Chief Executive Officer and Director of Consolidated Pastoral Company Pty Ltd (CPC), Australia’s largest private beef producer with two feedlots in Indonesia.

Why do beef farmers need a body to give advice to government when there a bunch of National Party politicians "advising the Parliament and have full voting rights". "There is no denial of" farmers "standing for representing their concerns in Parliament".

Why doesn't your pissy little comment apply for a whole bunch of other advisory bodies to the federal parliament?

Simple answer, they are black and you do not like it.

Just imagine the peace all decent folk could enjoy if the Woke & the racists didn't have the word Racism to fall back on at every opportunity !

SteeleRedux, do these lobby bodies have recognition in the Constitution? A body of aboriginals can already be appointed to represent their interests, it does not need a Vote by the Nation to establish such a body. Aboriginals already have sales of their products to other Nations especially in Art, Food, and livestock.

I believe I have done more for aboriginal causes than the average city person. Having lived among them for a while and building a school and accommodation for children to avoid their children being removed from their settlements near Alice Springs.

It is people like Stele that continue to want to isolate aboriginals by race when Australia is trying to make race irrelevant and everyone one Nation.

Steele said, "They include the Australian Livestock Export Corporation Ltd (LiveCorp) was declared under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act (1997).

https://www.directory.gov.au/portfolios/agriculture-water-and-environment/department-agriculture-water-and-environment/australian-livestock-export-corporation-ltd

The chair is Mr Setter who is also the Chief Executive Officer and Director of Consolidated Pastoral Company Pty Ltd (CPC), Australia’s largest private beef producer with two feedlots in Indonesia."

Sorry Everald having followed and agreed with many of your thoughts over the years you are very wrong supporting the yes group. Having lived with and around Aboriginal people for 50+ years this would have to be plain idiocy to even suggest this style of legislation, especially changing the constitution will improve anything for the people concerned. Even those Aboriginal people (very few really) who are actually aware of what this issue is, they are primarily against it. The yes group are in many cases sucking on the nipple of government and looking after their own or family interests.
Having witnessed the billions of dollars waste over the years, any yes is only going to continue to make it worse.
NO NO NO all the way.

I think you will find that the Calma/Langton proposal is for twenty-four elected delegates drawn from thirty-five regions across the country including the Torres Strait.

The vote will only be available to registered first nations people in those electoral areas and delegates will have staggered four year terms (maximum two consecutive terms).

See pages 17/18

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

Dear Josephus,

Being your normal disingenuous self I see.

You had been asserting Aboriginals didn't need a body to advise parliament because they already had indigenous representation.

I pointed out to you that there are many bodies which advise the government, many of them funded by our Federal coffers.

You are now saying the Voice does not need to be enshrined in the parliament. That is a separate argument.

It has thankfully reduced the racism inherent in your argument but the process certainly has been illuminating.

The Yes brigade already has the ABC & SBS. That is way more representation than any other group in this Nation !