God save us from naive “Do-Gooders”.

A useful article.

As I've said before Albanese has a pro voice advertising agency on a billion dollar annual retainer called the ABC. Therefore he is effectively funding one side. Some of the rhetoric is getting silly. South Australia's mini aboriginal parliament will allow for Torres Strait islanders which seems a bit of stretch. Now people of Indian descent say they also feel the pain of colonisation.

Despite assurances to the contrary stopping resource projects will be a major aim of this body. Again some claims are daft. For example opposing a gas pipe on the seabed way offshore requires power boats and scuba gear for some kind of interaction. Those things came in the last century not in aboriginal prehistory so perhaps normal protest rules apply. If this thing gets up it will come back to haunt Albanese.

Just say "No!"

It's evil. Nothing good would come of it. There has been enough said about it; and Ockernese is hiding what should be said. Vote NO.

"The question here is what can The Voice achieve that the ADC, ATSIC, and the NIC couldn't?" A good point.

Vote NO.
ttbn,
If only it was that simple. The Woke will vote yes simply to prove their stupidity & selfishness plus of course, to keep the generous bandwagon rolling !
Ask any decent indigenous.

Disagree! What the voice does is out there in the very statement referred to! And the parliament still retains a veto if any subsequent request asks for too much, e.g., sovereignty. The only dark thing here is the skin colour of the supplicants. And may create a precedent for other nations to follow, e.g., Malaysia?
Alan B.

Aboriginals already have representatives in the Federal parliament roughly in proportion to their numbers in the Australian population.

That is all they deserve and hopefully that is all they will get. Albanese is very coy about how its members will be selected and no one seems to have a clue about how much it will cost.

Also, why is the government not funding a NO case.

David

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

Agreeing to that statement would allow government to make ANY changes to any part(s) of the constitution, provided some clause is also included in favour of "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice"!

Also, since this term, "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice", is undefined, it could mean just ANYTHING. It could mean, for example, that aboriginal people have the constitutional right to freely scream in other people's ears, even to enter their homes at any time to do so, or it could mean the opposite, that it is OK to scream in the ears of aboriginal people at any time and place. Or it could mean that everyone must obey any orders of an aboriginal person, effectively turning everyone else into slaves (or vice versa), or perhaps it could even mean that aboriginal people have a constitutional right to speak to others with their fists (or vice versa), maybe even that they have sexual rights over others (or vice versa).

- Anything goes: saying 'Yes' in this referendum is signing a blank cheque which could give away all you got.

why is the government not funding a NO case.
VK3AUU,
Good one !

Yes just say NO. No tommyrot about details as per our timid Opposition Leader. Asking for detail gives credence to the principle of having a constitutional Voice. In other words, there is no point in seeking detail unless you agree with the principle of dividing Australians by race; and in the very document which sets out how Australia is governed.

What a poorly written article.

It claims: "Traditionally, the Australian Electoral Office (AEO) posts out to voters a summary of both the 'yes' and 'no' arguments before a referendum. The 'yes' case is written by parliamentarians who support a 'yes' vote in the coming referendum, and the 'no' case is written by those parliamentarians who support a 'no' vote in the referendum."

But says nothing of the fact that the indigenous question in the 1967 referendum did not include a "no" argument, just a "yes". That is the convention.

And here he is rubbishing on about a quasi third chamber of parliament. Even Sky News has essentially given up on running that line.

Hopefully he might get a chance of a rewrite because it sure as hell needs one.

"Traditionally, the Australian Electoral Office (AEO)..."

Its actually the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). An error that makes one wonder about the rest of the piece.

"But says nothing of the fact that the indigenous question in the 1967 referendum did not include a "no" argument, just a "yes". That is the convention."

The legislation to start the referendum process was passed unanimously by the parliament ie no one opposed the referendum. That is why a "no" case wasn't funded by the government. That is the convention.

That won't be the case this time around and if the government funded a "yes" case it'd be forced to fund a "no" case also. But giving both sides isn't in the left's DNA so it is going to fund neither side and allow its $1b mouth-piece (the ABC) to make the "yes" case instead.

Many in agencies like ASIO, the AFP and State Police forces believe the runup to the Voice referendum and results from it will lead to an increase in sectarian and political motivated violence in Australia.

That is from some pro-Voice Left and some anti-Voice Right.

Also of concern are those who may resist the unrolling of new powers of the Commonwealth justified by the Voice.

More incidents like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieambilla_police_shootings is one of the concerns.

Dear mhaze,

There was a universal support for the changes by all politicians back then which is why I enjoy making the point.

There seemed very little chance given the current state of politics that this would happen this time.

Reading the Hansard from 65 and 67 it is obvious how the better nature of our representatives came to the fore. The was a genuine reluctance to turn the referendum into a divisive political bun fight, even if there were some reservations:

“In coming to this conclusion, the Government has been influenced by the popular impression that the words now proposed to be omitted from section 51 (xxvi) are discriminatory - a view which the Government believes to be erroneous but which, nevertheless, seems to be deep rooted.”
Harold Holt CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL 1967 Second reading.

Whitlam’s message was on point as well.

“This is a very valuable Bill. There can be no question of our attitude as a party in the Parliament or outside it. It is sufficient for me to say that back in 1 959 the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party made it Party policy to repeal both section 127 and the relevant words of paragraph 26 of section 51 of the Constitution. I apprehend that there will be no opposition in the Parliament to this Bill or to this referendum, and. while we can never take such things for granted, we will certainly hope that for the honour of this country and the welfare of the Aboriginal citizens of it this referendum proposal will receive overwhelming acceptance. I trust that all members of this House will fulfil their duty in the public arena by urging an overwhelming vote in favour of this referendum proposal.”

Cont…

Cont...

And Bob Katter Snr was doing his bit in a Katter fashion:

“1 warn briefly and simply to express my appreciation of the proposal before the House. I am perturbed at the various ways people approach the Aboriginal question. 1 rise tonight not to sing any sanctimonious hallelujahs, but merely to say that at long last another step is being taken to give these people appropriate status. In my town we simply live with these people. I am 48 years old and I have been associated with them all my life. I have been to school with them, grown up with them and mixed with them. Psychologically we can never see any difference. This may sound a little silly to people who live in the cities but it is perfectly true.”

Kim Beazley Snr was as well:

“The Commonwealth should have this power because it is the Government which is confronted with the conscience of the world on this issue. 1 believe that we ought to transform our Aboriginal policies because it is right to do so. I am not speaking about a lot of sentimental policies; I am speaking about policies which are right.”

And Bill Wentworth who later became Aboriginal Affairs minister for the Liberals was quite pointed and really set the scene for the current referendum:

“Some people say - I think wrongly - that no discrimination is necessary in regard to the Aboriginal people. I think that some discrimination is necessary. But I think it should be favourable, not unfavourable.”

All are available on Hansard.

Dear Maverick,

Utter garbage. How about you provide a reputable link to this ridiculous assertion.

Yes SR that's what I said - in far fewer words. There was no one to make the "no" case therefore one wasn't made. That is the only 'convention' that came out of 1967. It has nought to do with the current situation and , despite your insinuation.

The convention is, on this type of issue at least, that in the past our politicians refer to their better nature and come together to advance the cause of our indigenous folk thus not requiring a 'No' argument to be made.

I backed that up with quotes from members from both sides of politics.

Why is this a problem?

SteeleRedux

Putting it simply for you...

Have your pro-Voice confidents mentioned the Race based TREATY and "Truth Telling" Compensation Commission many hope will follow the Referendum?

Note Lidia's different aims to your Uluru hopes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidia_Thorpe#Activism

Cheers Mavs

"convention"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.... http://youtu.be/dTRKCXC0JFg

SteeleRedux

Checkout the aim of some pro-Voice Aborigines advocating a Whites Pay Aborigines Reparations Constitutional Authority (WACARs) - especially urban taxpayers, miners and farmers paying up.

Also shared by the non-Aborigines "Pay the Rent" campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidia_Thorpe#Activism

Where are all these aboriginals who want to lead in the Voice, when they cannot control the crimes happening in remote aboriginal communities? The Voice will receive more Taxpayer funding for Grog.

Albo removed the grog bans in communities now he has back tracked and imposed bans. He is an absolute waste of any intelligence. He will not listen to people from the community like Jacinta Price, who warned this would happen, as he wants aboriginal elites to speak to change Australian Laws and Constuction and pay the rent.

Dear Maverick,

You claimed: “Many in agencies like ASIO, the AFP and State Police forces believe the runup to the Voice referendum and results from it will lead to an increase in sectarian and political motivated violence in Australia.”

I called bull.

You still haven’t provided any links to support it but it seems you are dialling it back so fine.

What is wrong with seeking reparations?

Dear Josephus,

Why is it whenever you post you always dig yourself deeper with blatant untruths?

Albo did not remove the alcohol bans but rather the Stronger Futures laws lapsed as dictated by the legislation.

So why claim otherwise?

SteeleRedux, I see you have no values to improve the criminal elements in society just attacks on those that do. You and your attitudes encourage rebellion to a civil society.

Dear SteeleRedux

Re: “Many in agencies like ASIO, the AFP and State Police forces believe.”

No links available - as the advise and sources providing it remains protected.

But here's a hint:

"In 2021, we changed the umbrella terms we use to describe violent extremism to reflect emerging and evolving threats...investigations focus on individuals or groups based on their use or advocacy of violence.

...A growing number of individuals and groups no longer fit on the left-right spectrum, rather they are motivated by fear of societal collapse or a specific social or economic grievance or conspiracy.

As we predicted when we updated our language, protests in Australia and overseas are being driven by anti-vaccination agendas, conspiracy theories and anti-government sovereign citizen beliefs.

ASIO now refers to two categories: [eg.] ideologically motivated violent extremism (IMVE)...

ASIO’s terminology focuses on an individual or group’s support for violence, which is what triggers ASIO’s interest.

...Some sub-categories for ideologically motivated violent extremism include nationalist and racist violent extremists, anarchist and revolutionary violent extremists, and specific issue violent extremists....

Specific issue violent extremists are motivated by a particular grievance or belief, such as opposition to a government policy [eg. Voice in Parliament, race based Treaty and the Reparations Tax] or action..."

Source: http://www.asio.gov.au/resources/need-know/violent-extremism-terminology

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

You're right. The "non-Aborigines" (more specifically White people) who vote for the Voice can frequently be identified. This is if they vote by Postal Vote, which ties their name to their Yes Vote.

Hence the Postal Voted Yes Guilty will be added to the Reparations Tax Register of Whites required to pay "rent" to their self-appointed Black Landlords under the future Race Treaty.

Cheers Mavs

PAY THE RENT: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11665105/Australia-Day-Homeowners-urged-start-paying-Aboriginals-weekly-rent-living-land.html?ito=push-notification&ci=F7LtI-AoTn&cri=IN5e8txTFg&si=25232452&xi=d81fc6b2-3ef9-4105-aa77-25522ec1101c&ai=11665105

"This is if they vote by Postal Vote, which ties their name to their Yes Vote."

I'm not sure if that is meant to be a joke but just in case, it is factually wrong.

When postal votes are opened they are done so with the name on the envelope facing down and the the actual voting paper and the envelope are physically and permanently placed in separate boxes. The vote is never linked to the voter.

"PAY THE RENT"
We've always known this whole thing is about rent-seeking.

Dear mhaze,

You write: "We've always known this whole thing is about rent-seeking."

Do we really?

So nothing to do with a significant gap in life expectancy, or world topping incarceration rates, or 20 to a home living conditions?

Most thinking Australians are appalled at this blight on us as a so called progressive nation and are looking to solutions.

Your lot is ignoring all of that and ascribing purely selfish motives to the Voice.

More pity you.

Dear Maverick,

"No links available - as the advise and sources providing it remains protected."

Of course there isn't a link because it is all rubbish.

The link you did quote from said only this: "Specific issue violent extremists are motivated by a particular grievance or belief, such as opposition to a government policy or action, and not motivated primarily by nationalist and racist, religious, or anarchist and revolutionary ideologies."

But you had to include this: "[eg. Voice in Parliament, race based Treaty and the Reparations Tax]" making it look like part of the original quote. Further you dropped the part it being NOT motivated by "racist" ideologies.

You are both dishonest and race baiting.

Dear Josephus,

Standard deflection. Answer the question. Albo did not remove the alcohol bans but rather the Stronger Futures laws lapsed as dictated by the legislation. So why claim otherwise?

Giday Steeleredux

PAY YOUR ABORIGINAL LANDLORD RENT REPARATION

A big thanks to Josephus

For “PAY THE RENT” ie the Daily Mail article of January 25, 2023 at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11665105/Australia-Day-Homeowners-urged-start-paying-Aboriginals-weekly-rent-living-land.html which states in part:

“Australian property owners have been urged to start paying a weekly 'rent' tax to indigenous groups based on their ancestral claim to the land.

Under the 'Pay the Rent' model proposed by a campaign of the same name, and backed by celebrities, homeowners would voluntarily pay a percentage of their income to a body led by Aboriginal elders and administered without any government oversight or intervention.

…The scheme could then be extended further to all users of the land - people having weddings or holding concerts would also be encouraged to hand over money.

…Supporters of the scheme include feminist author Clementine Ford and high-profile Greens senator and activist Lidia Thorpe.

…The organisers of a website which already collects this type of rent for traditional owners in Victoria, say the scheme could go further than taxing homeowners."

Cheers Mav

"Your lot is ignoring all of that and ascribing purely selfish motives to the Voice."

Oh! Do you think the Voice is going to be involved in handing out the money? Seems right. Perhaps that's why they refuse to provide details.

The bit I found most representative was..."[they] passed it on to their Aboriginal counterparts, who then used and distributed the funds as they saw fit.".

Distributed to whom? Part of the problem with the old ATSIC was that they distributed the money to close family and friends - at least what was left over after they distributed to themselves.

Grift all the way down

The alcohol ban had expired under the NT Labor Government during the time Albo was elected. The violence problems were highlighted by Jacinta Price when she was elected, but her voice counted for nought under Albo's elitest Voice proposal.

Listen to aboriginal elders like James Dargin in Woolongong who has learned to forgive the past and live in Australian community.

Hi mhaze, Josephus, ttbn, Indyvidual, Yuyutsu and others

GOOD NEWS for the NO VOTE

but not for Steeleredux, Paul or Foxy.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported Jan 24, 2023 http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/support-for-voice-slips-as-voters-await-more-detail-20230123-p5cenw.html

"Support for Voice slips as voters await more detail"

"Australians’ support for an Indigenous Voice to parliament has fallen from 53 to 47 per cent after a political row over how it would work, putting the proposal in danger of defeat at a referendum later this year.

Only 13 per cent of voters are confident they understand the plan for constitutional change to give First Nations people a bigger say in national affairs, heightening the debate about whether the government should reveal more details to build popular support."

COMMENT

Poor Albo may need to release details even if that threatens the hopes of leading urban radical, rather Caucasian-looking "Aborigines"

who look forward to the money spinner of Whites Paying a Reparations Rent Tax to this self-appointed "Aboriginal" minority of Black Landlords.

" rather Caucasian-looking "Aborigines""

I think the correct term is ABBAriginals ie people who claim to be indigenous but wouldn't be out of place in an ABBA cover band.

Dear mhaze,

You quite facetiously write: “Oh! Do you think the Voice is going to be involved in handing out the money? Seems right. Perhaps that's why they refuse to provide details.”

No, because I have read the readily available details, why don’t you give it a try?

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

The Voice will not be handling project funding at all.

Dear Mavercik,

So no acknowledgment that you altered the quoted text. Are you going to do so?

At least you have dialled back the rhetoric and seem more concerned about what it might cost you.

"The Voice will not be handling project funding at all."

Yet when I talked about the push to collect rents you related it to the Voice which I specifically hadn't done.

National Indigenous Australians Agency
Voice Secretariat

I wonder what its yearly budget is projected to be.

David

BAD News for your YES Vote Steelerectum

Poor Albo's Getting Desperate and for good reason. Lidia Thorpe’s position could see the Greens oppose the Voice referendum, effectively lining up alongside Liberal and Nationals opponents.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/25/my-door-is-open-anthony-albanese-challenges-political-foes-to-contribute-to-voice-legislation

"PM’s call comes as Greens face party split on issue and Liberals signal they will oppose the proposal"

"Greens senator Lidia Thorpe signalled she could break ranks and vote against legislation enacting the [Voice] advisory body unless Labor provided “guarantees” that First Nations sovereignty would not be not ceded, the prime minister made a public appeal for parliamentarians to prioritise the national interest.

After a Greens party room meeting on [January 25th, 2023], Thorpe signalled she could break ranks if her party locked in. “Regardless of the final party room position, I have informed party room I will not support the legislation for voice to parliament unless I am satisfied that First Nations sovereignty is not ceded.”

She added: “It would take a lot for me to change my personal and long-held view that I don’t think First Nations justice will come from being written into the coloniser’s constitution.”

AND HERE'S THE KICKER STEELE

It opens the possibility that the Greens will be split on the final vote...Guardian Australia understands numerous Greens members had privately expressed concerns that Thorpe’s position could see the party oppose the referendum, and effectively line up alongside Liberal and Nationals opponents."

Listen to the Voice at the Melbourne Rally, this is the people Albo bows to as representing aboriginal culture.
/www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/journalists-refuse-to-report-the-reality-of-australia-s-toxic-race-industry-andrew-bolt/ar-AA16SZMK?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=14bba3d2e2504b7c99bf6ebb8f893dcb

These are the intentions of the aboriginal WAR protesters in Melbourne, declaring war on the "white F@ dogs".

http://www.facebook.com/WARcollective

Paul and Foxy support the Greens and left-wing Labor radicals and their voice.

From reports on the manifesto of WAR. Warriors of Aboriginal Resistance.

On January 26 a large group of protesters gathered on the steps of the nation's parliamentary buildings to mourn the continents colonization by whites. There were several protests in Melbourne but one of the rowdiest came from the Warriors of Aboriginal Resistance, or WAR for short.

Launched before the G20 summit last November, WAR is a coalition of "young Aboriginal people committed to the cause of decolonization and Aboriginal Nationalism," as stated in its manifesto. Their #Genocidal20 protests last year saw 5,000 people marching through the streets of Brisbane before burning half a dozen Australian flags. We caught up with two of their members yesterday to ask about their provocative approach.

MERIKI PROTESTS OUTSIDE MELBOURNE TOWN HALL

_Meriki Onus,27, of the _Gunditjmara and Gunnai_ tribes is a co-founder of WAR._

VICE: WAR is a powerful name. Can you tell me why you chose it? Meriki: It's no accident. We are Warriors of Aboriginal Resistance. Without resistance the white man succeeds in taking our land and country so our purpose is not to attack but defend and protect. We want to revive the warrior spirit in our people by facilitating a culture of resistance.

Can you explain how the group came about?
My grandmother alerted me to the amazing work that my co-founders were doing up north, primarily in Queensland. We got in touch, bonded, and WAR was born. Then we traveled to Canada together last August where we met like-minded groups. It was so inspiring that we came home and WAR launched before the G20 summit.

Something I'm wondering is how WAR is different from other activist groups. After all, this isn't a brand new movement.
Yes but Australian militant Aboriginal activism has been dormant since the 70s. The 1990s were dire in terms of organizations for and by black Australians. So we're here to change that. And unlike other groups we're not here to dance with other existing enslaving power structures. We are young and ready to fight for everything our ancestors had taken from them.

Okay so what does fighting look like? What is WAR's mission?
Decolonization. We want to inform our people and inspire them, particularly our youth, to take action in the anti-colonial struggle, because that's the only way. Decolonization encompasses all aspects of life. It's the food you eat, it's the things you buy. Food and health are high on our agenda, but we're also helping our own communities to learn their languages, their dances, the traditions. We want people to study and be informed of their true history.

How do you feel about indigenous leaders who cooperate with our government?
I don't think it's helpful, but I'm not interested in naming names because we share a solidarity as Aboriginal Australians. I think these persons tend to be used as puppets by the white man. You know nothing really changes except they can say, Look we have this black person at the table, oh look how progressive we are .

There are lots of Australian flags around us. How do you feel when you see that flag?
It's extremely painful. The range of emotions is difficult to express when I see these smiling faces waving at that flag on this day. Today my people feel as though we're at a funeral. I can't understand the celebration. It will always be Invasion Day: the day we adopted an imported Western cultural norm that's not right for Australia.

Albo wants you to think the referendum on the Voice to Parliament is a minor change to the Constitution. They want Australians believing that it's a small gesture to make our Indigenous brothers and sisters feel more included.

The Voice is a trojan horse.

The activists pushing for the Voice won’t tell you this, but Victoria has a version of it already legislated.
And right now, Melbourne’s mini-voice is demanding a “Black Parliament” – their words, not ours.
In 2019, Dan Andrews set up what became known as the First Peoples’ Assembly.
There to “represent Traditional Owners of Country and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Victoria”, it has an “Elders’ Voice”, its own constitution, runs its own Indigenous-only elections and meets in the Victorian Parliament.

Its priority is to negotiate a “treaty” with the Victorian Government.
Using $65 million of Victorian taxpayers’ money, it’s pushing changes to Victoria’s democracy that will see power shift away from ordinary Victorian voters.
Victoria’s “voice” is open about the fact that “nothing is off the table, so we need to think big and push hard.”1
There is no exaggeration here.
These are some of the “First Peoples’ Assembly” specific goals for the treaty2:
Establishing a permanent representative body with meaningful decision-making powers – a “Black Parliament” of sorts.
Having a number of seats in the Victorian Parliament that members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community vote for.
First Peoples oversight of the Victorian Government and public service for the benefit of First Peoples.
And the Andrews Government is backing them, saying in the announcement of the Treaty Framework3:
Treaty is a significant step towards transferring power and resources to First Peoples…

The Voice is not just about including our Indigenous brothers and sisters and giving them a say.
It’s about money and power, and changing our Constitution forever.
…and Albo is pretending it’s not a big deal.
The Voice to Parliament will divide us by race, it will threaten our democracy and – by looking at Melbourne’s mini-voice – we’re only just starting to see the real costs. - copied