I'm inclined to agree with Putin that the West is going a bit silly in the head. Despite promises of government neutrality in the debate the $1bn+ publicly funded ABC is going all out on the Yes side ..see today's ABC news website. The ABC got smacked down with the George Pell accusations perhaps a No result might put them in their place.

If alas the proposal gets up I predict two types of repeat outcome. Firstly this body will oppose big resource projects that create wealth while at the same time asking for more money. Current examples include a veto on the Barossa gas field and shutting Burrup Peninsula as well as several others. The second jarring outcome I'd expect is that this body will blame everybody else but themselves if metrics such as youth crime don't improve. I suggest there should be better results for the money and parliamentary representation they already have.

Any further discussion of this rotten Voice will bring only more frustration and nastiness. If people haven't made up their minds about by now, they never will. Vote no or yes when the time comes. For now, shut TFU about it.

The voice of experience is needed as never before. Another great article that deserves wide readership. Australia was inhabited by hundreds of warring tribes at the time of European settlement. To call them 'Nations' is stretching it a bit. This continent has since enjoyed 200 years of Pax Britannica and every citizen regardless of racial background should recognise and be thankful for this. The 'voice' is an unnecessary distraction from facing real problems such as cleaning up our Marxist tax system that is focussed on distribution of wealth at the expense of its creation, and kowtowing to UN decrees about limiting carbon dioxide emissions, when carbon dioxide is fundamental to life on Earth and is not a driver of a climate that drives it.

The Voice will divide intermarried aboriginal families and give those with aboriginal DNA preference over their cousins of non-indigenous heritage. This is a travesty of equality promoted by the Yes case for a voice. Dividing cousins by race is not the Australian way nor is it Christian as all persons deserve equality of opportunity under our laws.

Singling out a race or a religion or sexual preference as a basis of special treatment is third World politics and can lead to dictatorships. This happened under Hitler who singled out white Caucasians for preference over Jews.
To be true to equality of justice - VOTE NO.

When Palm Island ran out of water in the mid 90s the company I was running was asked to supply our water/energy saving equipment to the island. They had a barge running 24/7 carrying water from Townsville, which was costing a fortune.

We had a man up there for almost a month installing $24,000 worth of gear, fulfilling about half the contract. He went back about a month later & found much of the solid brass gear gone. He was told it made excellent fishing sinkers. Gear had been removed leaving open pipes, & Townsville water streaming down the gutters into the sea.

We declined to fulfill the contract & brought him home. He showed us photos of the dozen diesel fishing dories taxpayers had supplied to try to develop a fishing industry for the island. After 5 months nine were dragged up on the beach or rocks, broken, 2 were missing completely, but one was in pretty good condition. It was the one doing the sly grog run 3 nights a week.

If a voice is needed it is a taxpayer voice.

Will the Voice break Albo or the Dutz?

Says the Canberra Times in part: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8156552/the-danger-for-duttons-leadership-as-moderates-find-their-voice/

"Advocates think this year's historic Voice referendum has been boosted by the principled resignation of Peter Dutton's handpicked spokesperson on Indigenous matters, Julian Leeser.

...The splintering of frontbench solidarity hangs a lantern over Dutton's high-risk stance. And, it increases the moral pressure on remaining moderates to show similar spine.

That's the danger for Dutton now. Further principled resignations.

...Already weakened by his historic failure in the April 1, Aston byelection, Dutton must now find a compliant yet credible replacement for Leeser.

Until Tuesday morning, no senior Liberal had put the Voice ahead of their own career, although backbenchers Bridget Archer (Tasmania) and Senator Andrew Bragg (NSW) had certainly put their own parliamentary advancement in jeopardy.

Archer lauded [Leeser's] "courage and integrity" while Bragg predicted it would improve the prospects of success in the spring referendum.

"I believe a 'yes' vote is now more likely because of Julian's conviction," he said.

Other Liberals have made their disappointment with Dutton known privately. Those in lower house metropolitan seats fear being "tealed" at the next election for having been on the wrong side of the Voice debate.

All eyes are now on the leading Liberal moderate, Simon Birmingham

[who] represents moderate South Australia where support for the Voice is expected to be high. The state Labor government recently legislated a local version of the proposed national Voice..."

It's a pity the referendum-free SA 'voice' may not be up and running before the federal version as I think it would highlight some problems. The legislation is supposed to cover Torres Strait islanders but the representatives must come from one of 6 zones. Trouble is Torres Strait is 2800 km from Adelaide. In all likelihood most of those seeking election will come from the Adelaide area.

Genealogists can find no aboriginal ancestry for the minister Kyam Maher but he claims to have been initiated in the APY lands. Perhaps anybody could therefore claim to be aboriginal via that process. The mini-voice has been fudged even before it starts. Expect more of this kind of thing for the national version.

Lesser, rather than being 'lauded' should be kicked out of the party. He was elected because people wanted to vote Liberal - not for him personally; 99.9% of his electorate wouldn't know him from Adam.

The party he stood for decided on NO. He is a dog.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think on balance we should say yes. And allow ourselves the comfort of knowing the government retains the power of veto over any proposal. As for the voice proper, it needs to be voluntary and unpaid, with just reasonable expenses met. I think we should all get behind recognition and reconciliation. As a worthwhile objective.
Alan B.

How do we define 'aboriginal'?
One way would be to look at their ancestral mix.
Go back say five or six generations?
How many ancestors are of european (or overseas) origin, and how many are of local aboriginal origin.
My thought is that in almost all cases, the european group would be far greater
So the 'aboriginal' has far greater 'affinity' with his european ancestors?
So why is the emphasis on the aboriginal side?
What other factor is there which sways their thinking towards it.

Those who are moved more by emotion than by reason will probably vote yes.
They see a few downtrodden persons, and want to help them.
Somebody says this is how we help them, and they say yes without further thought.
But those who rely on truth and reason will vote no.
They see the situation as it really is.
Fraught with danger and inequality.
It would add, harmfully, to a level of control already skewed in favour of aboriginals.
And never forget most of them have been here a relatively short time.
Probably far less than you have.
You were here first, so you should have more say?

No doubt I shall be branded a foul insensitive racist for the following remarks.
There is no doubt that what happened to the original inhabitants of Australia was wrong and many injustices were done. This sort of happening must never take place again. All inhabitants must work and act together for the total benefit of this country and its entire population.
However everybody in Australia must accept that this is 2023 and it is the 21st century, 1770 will never come again, neither will 1788. The non indigenous population are most unlikely to packup and leave this fair land and return to whence they, or their forebears, came from. While every person has the right to their own cultural beliefs please do not expect all others to fully believe and accept them. Respect them but not necessarily believe them.
Everybody please accept this and move on. Time does not run backwards.
Neither should we.

We voted in 1967 to take race out of the constitution and make every person equal, now they want to put a race back in with special privileges. This is not equality, Vote No!

Dear Josephus,

You really are a sick puppy aren't you.

Divisive, meanspirited, conniving and all round pretty pathetic.

You chirped:

"We voted in 1967 to take race out of the constitution and make every person equal, now they want to put a race back in with special privileges. This is not equality, Vote No!"

And

"Dividing cousins by race is not the Australian way nor is it Christian as all persons deserve equality of opportunity under our laws."

You conveniently ignore the fact that our current constitution allows for laws to be made for specific races which paved the way for the Liberal party's Intervention. Not a peep from you about this.

Where is it in Christian doctrine that people "deserve equality of opportunity under our laws"? It isn't. This is a secular notion so don't try and assign it to your faith.

I won't tell you to go read the Constitution because I have raised this with you before yet you have chosen to ignore it.

Basically you are a selfish person and attempting to look after your own interests. Which is fine I suppose as we live in a capitalist society where these things are celebrated by a section of our populous. But don't try and feign concern about the cousins of indigenous people. They don't matter to you and you really don't care what happens to them, you are just miserably riffing off memes you have gathered for Right wing websites.

The author seems rather duplicitous.

In his previous article he laments:

"So, Mr Albanese has established an expert committee to investigate the best course of action for Coastal Shipping. There appears to be rules for establishing such committees. They must be party-aligned. They must have an open mind, which means that experienced operators are eliminated as they would be singularly focused on a successful solution. The committee should be gender-balanced."

Yet the Voice in essence is calling for "experienced operators" representing a geographically large and diverse area who are singularly focused on a successful solution.

So when it serves his interests it seems he wants one thing but when it serves the interest of indigenous people he rejects it.

Smacks of racism to this black duck.

SteeleRedux, your attitudes are from your heart on how you subconsciously see yourself. Your posts are always negative, and it indicates who you are.

Christianity teaches All humanity is made in the image of the divine, and all have fallen from that Glory and is spiritually dead, and whomsoever seeks shall find life. This puts all as equal before divine justice and law. The Gospel offers life to the repentant seeker.

State how you have personally helped an aboriginal disadvantaged person.

Dear Josephus,

When you keep posting rubbish and I keep calling it out then it will look very negative to you. Easily fixed of course.

None of what you says backs up your claim of equal opportunity for Christianity. In fact Christ quite explicitly said the enslaved should “be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”.

That is hardly a call for equal opportunity now is it so why claim it?

You haven't answered my trashing of your claim that the Voice will be introducing race into the Constitution. The obvious reason is that you can't refute it. But you knew that already so why did you claim it nonetheless?

SteeleRedux said "Where is it in Christian doctrine that people "deserve equality of opportunity under our laws"? It isn't. This is a secular notion so don't try and assign it to your faith."

Answer- Nietzsche believes that many western secular concepts are rooted in Christianity. Perhaps Nietzsche is a little unfair in a sense when he implies that Christianity a victim philosophy but can be seen in the context of the discussion. Nietzsche can come up with some weird ideas at times but in their context they make sense. In a sense The Voice seems to play into the perceived eternal victim-hood of Aboriginal culture.

Perhaps I've missed something here.

Hi Steele,

I am also suspect of this authors motives, the Voice is bad karma based on his 1985 failed business opportunity with a story from the region of the far north. Seems all the problems could be easily solved by putting Mr Ballantyne in charge, no mention of any financial benefit for himself, which I'm sure there was. But I see a lot of snide remarks from this bloke; "the English gentleman, and the red headed wife Heather of Scottish descent". Interesting.

Steele is ignorant of first century Christian encouragements, if a slave became a Christian, he was encouraged to serve his Roman master as if he were serving Christ. in Steles view he should revolt. Fact is slavery was used to pay debt and provide for oneself and family. the Romans had slaves to serve them.

My claim of causing family division came from an aboriginal with Caucasian cousins. Steeles response to that fact shows his small mind.

Dear CM,

You write: "Nietzsche believes that many western secular concepts are rooted in Christianity."

Fine. But you haven't said the notion of equal opportunity was one of them so was the point really worth making?

Dear Josephus,

Under your framing the world would still abounding in unfettered slavery. Toxic faux Christianity of full display.

In the biblical sense a slave is someone who is working for basic wages I.e. working for someone else rather than themselves or self-employed.

Again, Steele has no idea, The Apostle Paul and Jesus' stepbrother James considered themselves as servants / slaves of Jesus Christ and performed their mission without any form of reimbursement. They were often beaten and stoned even to the point of death. They did what Christ commanded them to do - be a witness of his to the Jew and the gentiles. It is unfortunate that Steel will not serve another without expecting equivalent return. It is on this basis that Christian Charities work, in the hope of improving another's life not for self-reward. He cannot understand that in his view everything must be done for personal profit.

Josephus,
Effort & decency for the well-being of all is not in the Left’s dictionary !

Jose'

You start with a falsehood, James was not the stepbrother of Jesus, he was Jesus's full brother, puts a spanner into the immaculate conception idea. Saul Of Tarsus (Paul The Apostle) claimed to be the superior disciple as he believed the spiritual Jesus spoke through him, whereas the chosen 12 only knew the earthly Jesus and those earthly teachings, he on the other hand received divine instruction. James had a different view to Paul, believing the "Jesus Sect", existed and was part of the Jewish religion and should remain so, James never preached Resurrection of his brother, nor did he preach a universal church with gentiles included. Gentiles were accepted, but had to conform to strict Jewish protocols and laws, like adult circumcision, rather nasty. James remained an important religious and political member of the Jerusalem Temple Sanhedrin until he was assassinated in the Temple sometime around 65AD.

Good try Paul, James was Joseph's son but not Mary's son as he was elder of Jesus, and Mary had no children before Jesus. If you read the teachings of Jesus, he believed in a universal Church that is why he commissioned his disciples to go unto all peoples and give them the gospel.

The Apostle Paul made no such claim as you suppose of superiority, he saw that Jewish laws did not apply to Gentile followers of Jesus. James headed the Church in Jerusalem and at one stage Paul takes up a collection to assist the poor believers suffering in Jerusalem, there was no conflict, but Jewish laws did not apply to Gentiles.

Jose'

Paul offered James 80 pieces of silver as recompense for their differences, which had divided the two, Paul was willing to accept certain practices of gentiles, which James found abhorrent. Rather than placating James the offering infuriated him, and it was then as Paul feared for his life from James's followers that he declared himself to be a Roman citizen and sought the protection of the Romans.

The age difference between Mary and Joseph would have been about 10 years. Mary at the age of 12 being betrothed to Joseph, with marriage at the age of 14, Joseph being in his 20's, their's would have been an orthodox Jewish marriage arrangement for the time. Mary would have become pregnant close to the time of marriage, and she would have gone on to have other children.

BTW, Paul ran a tent making business, and had wealthy converts as well. I clam that St Paul is the true founder of Christianity. Jesus set the motivation, but it was St Paul who gave it the necessary impetus to succeed. If it had been left to James, Christianity would have been just another sect within Judaism, and now long forgotten.

Mark 6:3

"Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" So they were offended at Him.

NO NO NO This original post should be yelled from the mountain top for all to hear. Families fight, groups fight, tribes fight, About 300 in Australia?? How are 20 or 30 latte sippers on a committee going to benefit the average aboriginal around Australia. Where there is money to be made people will gather and fight, they are good at it. One only has to look at the current Aboriginal organisations (forget the previous disaster ATSIC) where if not family your not in. A yes will open the doors to continual litigation and court cases keeping lawyers in the manner they are accustomed too.
Having seen and witnessed the huge waste of the aboriginal industry over the years (56 now) with little results, there should be NO decision, NO!!. A massive cost to the country however a few will come out on top and finish up very well off while the poor old blackfella will stay sitting under a gum tree..

Paul, note it does not say James, Joses, Judas and Simon, sons of Mary of which only Jesus was a son of Mary. Joseph had sons of a previous wife which are mentioned in Infancy writings and Matthew's Protevangalion. Mary was raised from 3 years of age in school, at puberty she was sent home from school during that period became pregnant before marriage to Joseph, but it was too risky considering Herod's threats to have a child raised to be a king clearly exposed in the school. The priest Zecheriah Chose Joseph and had Jesus hidden in a common carpenter's family. Jesus was raised as a son of Joseph, and the sons of Joseph were considered brothers.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote:

“The Apostle Paul and Jesus' stepbrother James considered themselves as servants / slaves of Jesus Christ and performed their mission without any form of reimbursement. They were often beaten and stoned even to the point of death. They did what Christ commanded them to do - be a witness of his to the Jew and the gentiles. It is unfortunate that Steel will not serve another without expecting equivalent return. It is on this basis that Christian Charities work, in the hope of improving another's life not for self-reward. He cannot understand that in his view everything must be done for personal profit.”

I really am struggling to believe someone would be so utterly disingenuous to put such a comment in rebuttal.

They weren’t “often beaten and stoned even to the point of death” by Christ were they. The comparison of the apostles with slaves is utterly false. Further people who make the choice to do things without recompense are not slaves.

Leviticus clearly states: 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.”

Deal with it.

Jose'

Don't be ridiculous, of course Mark is linking Jesus to his mother Mary and to his four brothers by name, including James, and two un-named sisters. As for the "Infancy Gospels" dating from the 2nd Century AD, there authenticity is unknown, No mainstream Christian Church accepts the accounts contained therein as "gospel", If the Infancy Gospels suit your narrative then you are free to accept them. If you are, then you should also accept the other unrecognised gospels of which there are many.

Jose'

Do you make it up as you go; "Fact is slavery was used to pay debt and provide for oneself and family. the Romans had slaves to serve them."

The Romans had various sources of slaves—war, birth, piracy, and the long distance trade from outside the empire. Of these, war, the enslavement of Rome's defeated enemies, was one of the most important. The commanding general determined the fate of war captives, whom the Romans considered part of the plunder.

All the children born to slaves were also considered slaves and were the property of their masters just like their parents. The children born to freed slaves were, however, considered free with the full rights of a Roman citizen.

I remember a neighbour who’s heritage was Samoan but was accepted as indigenous & he had a slave from PNG for many years. No-one from the authorities ever did anything about it as far as I’m aware !

Indy,

And the significance of this negative story is? That's right ALL Samoans who pretend to be black keep slaves from PNG. That's the purpose, is it not.

BTW; How did you know he was Samoan? How did you know he pretended to be black? How did you know he kept a slave anf the slave was from PNG? How did you know the authorities did nothing about it?

Did Mr Samoan tell you all this?

BBTW; I had a neighbour also, who was white, he would bash his wife, how do I know this, she had bruises and black eyes, much yelling and screaming, cops at the house regularly. That's it he must have been pretending to be black, cause ALL black fellas bash up their wives. Its a cultural thing, so I'm told be rednecks on the forum, and they would know!

Paul1405,
Sorry to make so desperate for dreaming up answers, a couple of my other posts are still left unanswered by you. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to find valid argument to counter my real experiences with made up deflective nonsense.
No matter how hard you try, you’ll never achieve more than being seen as just another racist git who only sees fault in Caucasians & no-one else ! Tell us, does your income get generated by the efforts & contributions of non-Caucasians or by the crowds of your fellow hangers-on ?

Steele, cannot accept that it was followers of Christ that abolished slavery. Their reasoning was based on New Testament truths, not the ancient National laws given to Israel. Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The fact is slavery is used in higher numbers today in the Third World than during the Roman occupation. Though the Western World has abolished and outlawed it; it is underground in Australia in multicultural communities.

Paul, I read what makes historical sense and agree with several sources. Some writings were not included in the Cannon because they were not available to the compilers or raised some questions.

Terrific post Stuart, this should be widely distributed by opponents of the Voice proposal. Offer it to The Australian.

That Kiwi lived up to his heritage & to his position as perfect bureaudroid, the ones our own resident bureaudroid so vehemently defends.
I have the distinct feeling he was in similar circles on the East Coast some years ago.
Every Govt Dept has a number of those types, male & female & lately in between.
No Govt is looking into these dealings & this federal Govt is about to fine tune these doings by introducing the VOICE.