"The 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart, which has been endorsed by hundreds of Indigenous leaders".

Who says that they are "leaders"?

"Hundreds"? What about the 900,000 people identifying as descendants of aborigines? Do they know of these "leaders"? Have they consented to be led by these activists? Have they voted for these "leaders"?

Very few natives resisted; most ran away until they found that they could get free rations. They were not massacred. Some were killed. Some settlers were killed; nothing unusual about that when two vastly different cultures meet. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the here and now.

"The SBS Documentary". The SBS is as bigoted and as anti-white as the ABC. Not to be trusted or relied on for anything.

Whatever problems these people have in the 21st. Century are entirely of their own making. They have had every opportunity to prosper in the same way everyone else has. Many, if not most of them, have done so. Those who have not, will never do so; and no do-gooding, virtue-signalling by cynical politicians and activists will change that.

I think before long any aboriginal parliament will embarrass its proponents. Despite claims to the contrary I expect it to call for vetoes on resource projects that generate wealth while at the same time asking for more money. I wouldn't expect much progress on aboriginal disadvantage. We will hear how problems are all the fault of 'non First Nations' people including recent migrants.

We should turn the tables and ask why aboriginal disadvantage remains after $30bn a year in targeted spending, supposedly 1200 or some other large number of committees, 11 Federal MPs who claim aboriginal ancestry and dozens of State MPs. Without giving names some of them don't look at all aboriginal. Now we want to add more cost and more hangers-on. Isn't what already exists enough?

An ever so slightly better article than the article, written by the author, on "why we should take the vaccine"

We should say yes to the voice as this will for the first time in history, give the average indigenous person some say in outcomes/funding allocations that directly affect them!

And take much of the decision making out of the hands of unelected elder elites/unelected swill.

Who have to some extent been guilty of favouritism and nepotism to the determent of indigenous populations, by and large.

It's time the silent/the gagged/the powerless were heard! Housing funding, medical outcomes and life expectancy.
Alan B.

Possibly 20,000- 60,000 native people died in the wars. ttbn clearly did not read the article. Other comments suggest that he has trouble reading

Peter Bo author of the article

How many died in tribal clashes & due to lack of compassion before invasion !

What people like this author refuse to consider is that the current problems being suffered by Aboriginal people is as a result of a clash of cultures - one being a primitive non-industrial hunter/gatherer society and the other being a technologically advanced and powerful society. It was never going to end any other way, hence why most Aboriginal people quickly took the decision to adapt to the new way of life offered by the invaders.
As an aside, if the British colonisation was indeed an invasion, then the truth is that Aboriginal people lost the war and the British won. So the Aboriginal people are now a conquered race and, in my opinion, they will never improve their lot in Australian life until they accept this and adapt to this reality.

What Bernie says.
Alan B.

One apparently only needs to have 25% racially inherited genes to belong to a racial group. It therefore follows that folk that are just 25% European are therefore white. Correct?
Alan B.

I would be concerned were ‘the voice’ become a fourth arm of government; my current understanding being : 1 legislature. 2 Executive, 3 Judiciary, + 4. The Voice.

I am unaware of any existing Democratic government having a constitutional 4th arm designed and installed specifically for an identified racial group. (This isn’t to say that there aren’t any, I am unaware of any, perhaps one of the OLO readership could enlighten me?)

What ‘EXACTLY’ are the rules/functions/responsibilities of this arm? Is it to ‘advise’ the parliament on proposed legislation in the form of ‘tweaking’; much as is done currently through the Aboriginal senators within the review process? Does it undertake to execute and adjudicate ALL laws passed by the legislature or ONLY those laws having a significant ‘impact’ on the specified racial group; laws such as current Australian federal and state taxation laws?

I imagine the parliament would be ‘compelled’ to consider proposals put before it by the voice?

Does ‘The Voice’ have a new, parallel, public service to implement new legislation or has ‘The Voice’ the authority to compel the existing public service to implement when and how the legislation is to be addressed?

Viewers of ‘Yes Minister’ are only too well aware that implementation is within the personnel employed; does the staffing of the parallel branch require sufficient ‘identified’ positions for the racial group most affected by the law?

I have always been under the impression that ANY law affecting a specific race within our population would be un-constitutional. However, I am aware of legislation targeting specific, identifiable sectors within our population, such a high/low income sectors or ‘homeless’ or ‘unemployed’.

Would ‘The Voice’ have the authority to block legislation that disproportionately affected one particular race in society? I could visualise a small interest group within ‘The Voice’ having the political acumen to freeze/ hold any legislation unless certain ‘other’ legislation was passed.

Could ‘The Voice’ stop supply?

Most legislation requires a body to adjudicate disputes or disagreements with the implementation or upholding of legislation. Has ‘The Voice’ the responsibility/authority to adjudicate some/all of the ‘specified’ legislation?

Cont…..

Without some of these questions answered, I would not be in a position to make an informed decision.
It does not appear that the government will fund a mechanism to present the case for or against (as is the usual case??). I seem to be unable to find the specifics of what is actually proposed.

Having worked for close on 50 years in a variety of positions and organisations seeking a solution to ‘The Gap’, (under a variety of names) this particular proposal may not be the ‘silver bullet’ I have been seeking

The voice has no power of veto, nor able to reverse government policy. Parliament is only required to listen and give thoughtful consideration. nothing more. Parliament has the final say! And can say no if it wants, to any proposition that comes before it.

What we the people need is a long overdue charter of human rights written into our constitution to effectively limit the power of politicians to create legislation that goes too far or harms some folk/removes their rights.
Alan B.

The voice has no power of veto, nor able to reverse government policy.
Alan B,
That's what Australians are being told until the day the Yes vote is confirmed. Does anyone, including the activists know what will be the next demand ?

Alan B - the problem is that, once enshrined in the Constitution, the Voice may allow the unelected High Court to get involved in the decision-making process. This is also one of the major objections to having a charter of human rights in a document (the Constitution) which was little more than a roadmap for the colonies to follow to allow them to form the Australian nation.
If Albanese really wanted the Voice to succeed AND to be nothing more than what he says it will be, he would produce the draft legislation which will give voice to the Voice (excuse the pun) and allow everyone to understand how it will work.
It would also be nice to be told how the Voice will help close the gap. It almost certainly will provide benefits to what I'll call urban Aboriginals, especially the well educated, but I can't see how it will make any difference to the people living in small regional and remote communities where the gap is profound.

To close this Gap requires people to actually want to close it by accepting what a closed Gap brings by way of responsibilities & commitments on all sides. In a mixed Race society which is very often wrongly called multicultural, it is absolutely vital that only a give & take mentality can make this society a success rather than just a want & sermonise guilt mentality.
Add to this, a mentality that focusses on the present & future by using the past as reference instead of a tool to disrupt the workings for the future of the Nation.

My understanding is that the voice needs a referendum so that "being of Aboriginal blood" can be a requirement of electors and electees without breaking Australian laws.

The Alan Bs of this world don't appreciate how extreme much of the Black Voice Army is>

I draw your attention to pages 16 to 19 of the document:

"Indigenous Voice Co-design Process: Final Report to the Australian Government"

of July 2021

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

It shows the INCREDIBLE COMPLEXITY and AMBITION of the Black Voice Army.

The Voice to Parliament will be just the 5% surface tip of the vastly expensive all-encompasing, racist, Black Voice Army iceberg.

Black Voice Army iceberg.
Maverick,
Yep, icebergs flip when they become top-heavy !

Bernie Masters. You need to aware that Alan has a copy of the draft legislation, that is why he is so confident that the ‘Voice’ can only ‘advise’ etc. Tho why PM Albonese has not shared this document with any but Alan is a mystery to me.
Were the legislative arm of govt. not accept the ‘advice’ of the ‘Voice’ or pay ‘sufficient consideration’ to any proposed legislation (other than to reach an affirmative conclusion), with the power vested in the legislation being embedded in the constituent, it would be incumbent on the ‘Voice’ representatives to seek definitions of ‘Advice’, ‘Consideration’ etc etc through the courts. I would be distressed to see reams of legislation clogging the courts until at least the following sitting period. Hmmmmm……

The Voice is like Dynamite, it can be used to create & it can be used to destroy ! It all depends on the people's agenda handling it & their mentality !
Going by the people pushing it is what worries me !

Whatever the voice is it requires a constitutional change that will legalise electors and electees being of a particular racial origin. No matter how benign or well intentioned the voice might be, I would never agree with legalising racism to make it happen.

‘A house divided cannot stand’. ‘The end justifies the means’. Fester accurately identifies the legalising of racism to reach an arguably ineffectual and ‘not fit for purpose’ end. Senator Price has documented a raft of expensive failures to date.

The loudest voices demanding, repeatedly and passionately for societal ‘inclusion’ are the very same voices demanding this wholly ‘exclusionary’ legislation?!. These folk add a whole new dimension to my present understanding of cognitive dissonance.

Like Individual, I am concerned that just one or two ‘bad actors’ can and will ignite this particular fuse, resulting in a log jam of legislation in the courts. Of course, this only presumes there to be a disingenuous actor within the legislature. How rarely have we seen one of those……?

The very notion of embedding institutionalised racism within our constitution is really something I never contemplated happening in Australia.

Racial diversity acknowledgement must be in the form of equal Rights & equal responsibility. This must invalidate counting being hijacked by including all non-indigenous of non-caucasian heritage in any Australian Indigenous Census.
Australian indigenous should be provided with a one-off home & relevant equal pay or salary in the field of work they are employed in on top of the compensation provided thus far.
Compensation must be designed to reduce to basic health services over three to five generations.
The present & future generations of non-indigenous should not be forced to perpetually compensate present & future indigenous as none of the present generations have had any involvement in the right/wrong dealings of the Past. If migration continues along the present levels then this will become the standard anyhow ! It'd pay the indigenous to stop listening to the activists who drew up the Voice !

https://youtu.be/-pWlReAbJ0Y

Anyone with even only the slightest interest in the Voice should watch this !

I watched a TV show last night in which people go back in time & live for a few days running a Corner store. As the story came to Sugar, a South Sea islander woman explained that the Qld Sugar industry was built on the labour of Kanakas, a term she said was derogatory & that some 40, Labourers were forcefully taken to work on the Qld Cane fields. That is a huge number & I was wondering if anyone has information if this number is either correct, lower or higher.
The woman said that many of these forcefully removed never returned to their islands. That would make a big number of descendants who would now be deemed indigenous.
The forced Labour trade is a horrific part of Qld history & must be included in history teaching. It was shocking to hear the Australian participants say that they had never heard of the forced labour on the Cane fields.
There were also many thousands of South Pacific Islanders who weren't forced & who actually made applications to work on the Qld cane fields in the later years. This fact was not included in the Woman's explanation or perhaps I missed it !

my apologies, that should be 40,000 not 40, !

Indyvidual,

Whilst setting up a race based electoral system has its challenges, I don't think it impossible. Perhaps the advocates for the system could contact the Republic of South Africa and see whether they could access information on how the Apartheid system functioned. It might save them a few teething problems.

I cannot understand why extremists hate each other so much as after a time they tend to want the same things. Maybe the secret is in the timing?

Fester.
On a related issue, when apartheid ended in South Africa, Mandela created the Truth and Justice Commission to enquire into all violence - black against white, white against black and black against black. The Greens and Aboriginal activists keep talking about 'truth-telling' but it's only 'their' truth of white against blacks that they want told, a long way from being the whole or real truth.

The Voice is not meant to be race-based as such, it is meant to be indigenous-based. I support that. What I don't support is people from all sides hijacking the proposal.
Because of this inevitability, all the people involved in this should support establishing an Aboriginal proof system via DNA.
Whichever racial heritage is the more prominent is the group of people they then belong to.
Indigenous Australians (not Islanders) have been forced off their traditional roaming grounds & for this they have been, are & will be compensated by common services & welfare.
Great areas of land have been handed back to indigenous groups yet their benefits remain & the people are not required to make a living from or with this land. Those indigenous who already hold good Public Service positions are no longer in need of special consideration & are equal to non-indigenous in every aspect.

26 January is the anniversary of the 1808 Rum Rebellion where treasonous troops overthrew their government because of ... Grog and Gambling interests. Those interests still wield a lot of control as news coming from NSW Libs show.

Colonialist Australia has a problem with grog and gambling, at one stage Aboriginal people were even enslaved using opium addictio - getting people addicted to a substance, control the substance, and control the addicts. Look at where the profits go, its not to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders.

its not to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders.
Aka,
More than is morally justified goes to these groups, it's just that many of their leaders are ignoring the needs but are not backwards in coming forward when it comes to pointing the finger. Bureaucracy & bureaudroids of every heritage aren't doing what they get paid for !

A few families will become wealthy, (mainly city centred ones who know how to work the system) the rest will continue to sit under gum trees as they are now. The go is a definite NO.
Sad but a fact of life.

Yes will be answered by a resounding No eventually !