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.