I don't quite see it as a "race based franchise". Even if it is, it's a lot less harmful and invidious than the racist franchise that Albanese has just gifted to Modi. Uncapped Indian immigration, like it or not.

But yeah, it's a bit of a casual wedge. If it gets up, victory laps in Glebe/Northcote. If not, blame bad old Dutton/Murdoch. Lose some skin.

Here are his real agendas: No 1: Humungous Australia, a permanent United Nations immigration narco-state, or else. No 3: Defer the Republic Issue, so he can suck up to Chas-Camilla for longer. No 2: There is no No 2.

If the proposal succeeds it will be unlike the homosexual marriage referendum where the result was quietly accepted by the losing side. What may emerge is 'whitefellas truth telling' about billions frittered away on aboriginal spending for poor results on the ground. Currently the spending of the Yes vote dwarfs any No spending which seems to contradict the claim of government neutrality. The $1bn+ funded ABC appears to be doubling down plus steady support from SBS and NITV.

What will particularly irritate many is if Albanese crows about the forces of decency prevailing so the journey of healing can begin or similar twaddle. Some may remember being told power prices would go down. Also the question of where 700,000 migrants will live seems to have been conveniently forgotten. Conversely if the proposal fails the woke will have a group hug and talk of international shame. Either way it is an unnecessary division.

In a liberal democracy all citizens should be equal in representation and share of funding. Our indigenous brothers are better organised than is generally appreciated with elected MPs across all the major and minor parties at state and federal level.

In an Orwellian democracy, some citizens and communities will receive special treatment and power.

Whatever Albanese does has a political calculus for winning the next election.

"Fighting" Tories alone makes Albanese a dimwit. There are no Tories in Australia to fight. There aren't even any conservatives in politics these days.

I saw the idiot getting on a plane wearing an old fashioned hat (not the popular wide brimmed things wrongly described as akubras (Akubra is a brand name), but the early 20th. Century things that most men wore those days.

Perhaps his minders told him that he should try to look like Ben Chifley.

It doesn't matter much whether or not he doesn't care if the Voice sinks or swims; the man is an ignorant fool that Labor should get rid of if it wants another three years, and wants to halt the rush to the bottom Australia is experiencing now; and stop this appallingly divisive, racist plot that will cook Australia's goose for ever.

There is no reason for a "simple proposal" for recognition to be anywhere near the Constitution. No particular racial group should have recognition above others. There is nothing special about the modern descendants of the Stone Age original inhabitants, who are the ones looking for handouts and special treatment.

One commentator described Albanese as a "student communist"; I say that Albanese is a fully graduated communist.

There's a lot of what ifs here, Graham and we don't know what the final question will ask.

That said, you made some good points and put the question in a way that would garner widespread support.

If the voice needs to be more than your proposal, then the changes ought to be small and incremental over time. And the government of the day retaining power of veto!
Alan B.

Some Tories need reminding of 21st May 2022, to their eternal angst, they didn't win, they ran last, LABOR won the election, full stop. As much as some members of the "born to rule" class believe otherwise, LABOR has a mandate to do what it promised pre-election, and that's what its doing, implementing its agenda. Proposals from those who oppose real recognition in the form of 'The Voice" offer nothing more than ineffective window dressing, such as recognition of Aboriginal people in the Constitutions preamble. The real agenda of those opposed is the maintenance of power in the hands of the elite, and in no way wanting true equality.

'The Voice' 'YES' campaign seems united, whilst those of the 'NO' side appear rather divided. Dutton is trying to evoke the rednecks and racists, along with the conservatives and moderates in opposing 'The Voice', already many Liberals don't want a bar of this notion of getting into bed with racists and bigots.

Sounds like a gish gallop attack-
1. The Voice
2. Indian immigration
3. Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

If one of them gets through the Labor party communists win big.

Voters need to acknowledge that the contemporary Labor Party is not the party of the 1940s. But Labor voters have an alternative in the DLP Democratic Labour Party- (Loosely Catholic/ Christian Labour).

BUT CM,

The D.L.P, not on your life? cross carrying COMMUNISTS no less! Don't ya remember old B.A. (BOB) Santamaria and his National Civic Council, and his Saturday afternoon talks on the telly! Marks in disguise if ever I saw one. Now ya are push'n for a vote for Christ knows what, those Bolsheviks types! I've got my concerns about YOU fella, could be a Marxists in disguise yaself, a cross carrying Groucho COMMUNIST! Just can't tell theses days with ya Leftist lot! I know about ya secret agenda, I know, ya wanta turn all us dinky-di's like meself, into tutu wearing pansies, forcing decent fellas, like meself, to shop at Ikea, whilst listen to ya old collection of Charles Aznavour records, now...that would be nothing short of torture, against the 'Believers Invention' and all that stuff!

" Don't ya remember old B.A. (BOB) Santamaria and his National Civic Council, and his Saturday afternoon talks on the telly! Marks (sic) in disguise if ever I saw one."

Well we all know that poor old Paul's historic knowledge and understanding is, shall we say, abysmal. But the NCC/DLP as communists takes it to a whole new level. Just when you think he can't get wrong-er, Paul gets wrong-er.

Just to elucidate - the raison d'être of the NCC was to fight communist influence in the union movement and therefore in the ALP. That is, they were anti-communist.

Graham wrote:"If he wanted to promote reconciliation and national unity Albanese could put forward a simple proposal for constitutional recognition in the preamble, and legislate the Voice as an ATSIC 2.0. We'd grumble about the latter, but somewhere around 90 per cent of us would vote for the first."

Precisely. That they won't do this is evidence, if more evidence were required, of the ulterior motives in this push. After all, if the referendum passes then the parliament will still need to legislate to constitute the so-called voice. So why not just legislate it now and leave it at that.

I can appreciate that the carpet-baggers don't want a repeat of ATSIC whereby their corruption would close the whole enterprise down. Irrespective of how inept it became it'd be constitutionally protected. But it remains at the mercy of parliament into the future so the protection is ephemeral.

So a constitutional change is window-dressing. Thus one has to wonder at the motives and its quite possible that mere electoral advantage is at the top of the list. Quite how that would play out if the referendum goes down is anyone's guess.

mhaze,

Considering Canem Malum incessantly bangs on about the reds under the beds, those "communist" in 90% of his posts, in his last posting he refers to "Labor party communists". I don't need a history lesson, I am well versed in the antics of both the D.L.P and Bob Santa. Are you not familiar with those two Pommy communists Marks and Spencer, not to be confused with the run of the mill German variety communists Marx and Engels who as a side, ran a department store in Straddlesburg. Are you clear on that?

I think that's Paul's rather infantile way of conceding he was utterly wrong about the NCC/DLP/Santamaria being communist.

Kudos mhaze-

Labor voters have an alternative in the DLP Democratic Labour Party!

Typical conservatives, just got no humour. BTW, the D.L.P these days would be struggling to stand no more than 3 or 4 candidates in the 151 Federal electoral divisions across the country. How is that; "Labor voters have an alternative in the DLP" You guys know nothing, just keep voting for One Nation and Big Clive, your ship will come in one day....well hopefully not!

The DLP were decidedly anti-communist! No ifs buts or maybes. And the labor party of the fifties and sixties are no more!

The case for the voice as extolled by elbow may be a bridge too far for many Australians.

If it gets up by the barest of margins, it will be the most divisive referendum yet put. And hardly a good outcome.
Alan B.

Today we can well and truly put the DLP in the same category as the Protectionist and Free Trader parties of yesteryear, an anachronism of a bygone era.

To say; "Labor voters have an alternative in the DLP Democratic Labour Party!" dream on sunshine, that shows a complete misunderstanding of the Australian political landscape. The DLP today is a micro party whose limited support is centred in Victoria, it would have neither the capacity (members) or the resources to launch a concerted national campaign against the major parties, or the Greens for that matter.

I always think of Albanese and a bullet in the same thought bubble.

I amused!

I suppose I have to say it all again...
We can be reasonably sure that about 250 years ago a foreign population established itself in this country.
Many of us are descended from that group.
None of us know exactly what happened back then.
We weren't there.
But it is reasonably certain that there was fighting between the local inhabitants and the newcomers.
The newcomers prevailed, and became the dominant force in the country.
They became the controllers of the land.
The local inhabitants then had options.
To become part of the new regime, or continue to fight them.
It appears they chose the latter.
Worse, the fight was carried on by later generations.
It became a feud.
Which is where we are today.
They have adapted, and now use a different approach.
They are using the law to establish a 'beachhead' as it were.
Land rights, and goodness knows how much money spent on them.
Now lawful division of their group from the rest of Australia, via the Constitution.
Mumbling about a treaty.
Remember, they are the tail end of a feud, and are far removed from anything in history.
Time for the general populace to wake up to what they are doing?
Time for them to fit in with the rest of Australia.
If they can't, that is a different problem altogether.
And why is the government asleep at the wheel?
Or is it just stumbling around in its own darkness?
Time for somebody to wake up.
Wake up and act responsibly.

A drunken feud.

This is a grand opportunity for Peter.
If he can campaign fearlessly, and take the people with him to achieve a NO vote, they will then support his efforts to form government?
Another win win situation?
He should remember: a faint heart never won a NO vote, nor did it ever achieve parliamentary success.
Is he going to let Albo sail through without hindrance?
That would be a grave mistake?

Albo is appeasing aboriginal members of his Party like Linda Burney who keeps on promoting the Closing the Gap proposal in his ear. The ABC and SBS and NITV work on the native cultural vibe to establish an aboriginal Republic, after all the horrendous affliction the settlers have caused to the tribal inhabitants. They claim the British wars caused genocide of rightful owners and disposition of their sacred lands, waters, and beaches.

It is the support of the Left-wing media that want what they believe are the rightful owners sovereignty restored in an Aboriginal Republic. Remove the Crown and democratic elected Government and enshrine Tribal Elders. Democratically elected members are not adequate according to the Yes campaign. They said so! The White-fella Westminster government is anathema to 60,000 years of tribal values, we can manage our own affairs and $4.5 Billion p/a better!

Proud Boy Jose'

I caught you out, dead to rights, lying about aboriginal claims of sovereignty, which would impose a minority unelected Aboriginal government on Australia, not true! You can't support that lie, but YOU can keep perpetuating it.

You claim you are a Christian, that fools no one, least of all me! A true Christian today is unlike you, not filled with hate for a people who have suffered greatly, because of colonisation. There are those who do have genuine concerns about this referendum, I respect them for that, but YOU are not one of those. I expect a fair number of informal votes, when it comes to a final vote.

Paul, it was you who said a Democratically elected member of Government "cannot properly care for aboriginal needs", even with eleven elected members of Government and the NIAA on $4.5 Billion. It is you who do not believe Democratically elected Members are capable of caring for the aboriginal disadvantaged. It is you who wants another system of unelected Government.

The hope of Linda Burney is a new form of Government a new way for Australia, a new beginning for change when aboriginals will voice their changes on how Australia functions; not by elected members but by twenty-four tribal elders. The way it was for 60,000 years, and we will all be happy. According to Linda Burney; well maybe also Paul.

Paul, keeps on rabbiting on about the genocide of colonization, so he cannot accept the current state of development in Australia, and the great programs and industries established with colonizers funds to assist aboriginal development.

Prod Boy Jose'

Again you lie, I never said; "a Democratically elected member of Government "cannot properly care for aboriginal needs", even with eleven elected members of Government and the NIAA on $4.5 Billion." I do say the Voice will prove to be a valuable instrument in ADVISING, got that ADVISING, government in what is best for Aboriginal people from their perspective. Final decision making will still rest with the members of the elected parliament.

Again I ask you, what motivated you to tell a barefaced lie: "It was stated on NITV news today that by 2037 is the date set for aboriginals to have full sovereignty of Australia" I'll tell YOU what motivated YOU, your ugly racists attitude, in yet another attempt to denigrate Aboriginal people!

It is obvious from comments here that many have no idea of how the well funded Aboriginal industry works. Some of the garbage being pumped out for the yes vote is nothing but straight out lies or to put it mildly untruths. Should yes get up there will be a small minority get very rich, a few get wealthy and the poor old black fellow will still sit under a gum tree not knowing what is going on. Meanwhile it will cost the country billions more. No is the only way to go.

From Warren Mundine,
"Australia was built on a simple democratic principle.
Every Australian is equal before the law. Full stop!
Doesn’t matter if you’re a prince or a pauper, you get the same treatment. That is the fundamental principle written into the DNA of the Australian Constitution, which is our national rulebook.

But what happens if you change the rules, so that one group of Australians gets an extra say over your democratically elected government?

The Constitution is the bedrock of our democracy and changing it is a big deal. But this change is so big, if the ‘yes’ side wins the referendum, there will be an entire new chapter in the Constitution.
Right alongside chapters on ‘The Parliament’, ‘The Executive Government’ and 'The Judicature’ will be a new one called ‘The Voice’.
Albo has even said it would be a “brave” government that didn’t do what the Voice wanted.

So, what does it want? That’s the danger with this thing. Albo says getting this race-based body into the Constitution is just a first step – the Voice is how they make more changes to how your government works with a “treaty”.

According to the activists, a treaty could mean seats in Parliament for Indigenous Australians only, or a separate Indigenous Parliament, reparation payments from non-Indigenous Australians to Indigenous Australians, and even direct oversight of your government and the bureaucracy. It’s a dangerous nightmare.

And once it’s in the Constitution – you can’t get rid of it.

Yours in unity,

Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO
on behalf of FAIR AUSTRALI

Paul might ask Lidia Thorpe and her 2,500 warriors what they want in a treaty, is it administrative control of the land, rivers, waters, and beaches? He is hiding under a Green rock believing the Voice is merely making suggestions to all aspects of Government without necessarily acting on them. This is not the facts of the Uluru Statement, and Warren has identified their intent, it is more that making suggestions to Government, it is advising government on how to implement their agenda of Closing the Gap and giving them back their sovereignty and cultural rights.

That currently includes Welcome to Country and ancestral worship of elders past and present, and animistic views of how things were formed.

From linda Thorpe.
All you Black people Fight for your rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zverAa1EJf8

From Lidia Thorpe on ABC,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-01/first-nations-mps-senators-on-voice-to-parliament/101976080

"There are 11 Aboriginal MPs and senators. What role would another body play that isn't already being voiced in the parliament?

If done well, with genuine consultation and grassroots representation, it could amplify the voices of community leaders. But a quick look at how advisory bodies have been used in the past suggests that it would most likely be used by government to legitimise inaction and top-down policies. The government had advice from First Nations people on the racist Northern Territory intervention that was ignored and NT mob are still hurting from that.

We as First Nations MPs and senators already bring our peoples' voices to the table and we actually vote on legislation, which is much more than the Voice will be able to do. However, there is no guarantee we will always have such strong First Nations representation in parliament. This is why I am advocating for treaty, which could designate seats in parliament for First Nations people. A voice in parliament will have more impact than a Voice to Parliament. This is something that has been done in other colonised countries and has provided First Nations people with actual power to achieve real outcomes.

Aboriginal voices in parliament or reserved places would distort the parliament. If there isn't another solution for me the only solution appears to be autonomous regions- perhaps based on current numbers of Aboriginals that want to live in an autonomous region. Autonomous regions unable them to separate themselves from the supposedly evil Anglo-British-White world and govern themselves with their own institutions, their own police, courts, etc. Even if it doesn't work at least they can "own it".

CM,

What do you mean by "autonomous regions" sounds very "apartheidy" as applied by the White regime in South Africa for many years. I believe Aboriginal people see themselves as Australian, and like many they also see themselves as having an Aboriginal heritage, which is important to them as well.

Regardless of the off the planet rantings of some, on both sides, at the end of the day we should come together as a united people. I can't see how 'The Voice' is divisive. Despite many of goodwill and much good intention, a great amount of time and money spent by the settler population on the mountain of problems, we have not been able as yet to overcome Aboriginal disadvantage. Therefore a new approach is reasonable.

I don't think those of Aboriginal heritage want to be a united people as they don't seem to want to settle disagreements between Anglo-British and Aboriginal people. So maybe we should let them govern themselves. We can still provide defense and foreign affairs services against external powers through the national ministry of defense as we always have. If poverty happens in Aboriginal communities then that is the responsibility of the Aboriginal institutions just as it is in any nation or state. If the autonomous region needs funds then they need to raise them as part of the business and revenue operations within the autonomous region- just like any other state or nation. Hong Kong is one very successful semi-autonomous region in the world. Maybe the Aboriginal SAR (Special Administrative Region) can be just as successful given the amazing Aboriginal people and their incredible creativity. As with any nation the governing structures within that region determine whether people from other places immigrate- based on character- or whatever the sovereign principles of the state determine. It seems those on the communist side keep kicking the can down the road because they don't want to reach a conclusion- I believe it was Trotsky that talked of permanent warfare- the unions seem to embody this in the form of rolling strikes- sadly it is the communities that suffer when they can't get on a bus to work because of the strikes.

We must be decisive and stable.

Dear Canem Malum,

You w#nking on about Reds under the bed doesn't illustrate stability now does it.

Ultimately though you likely have a solution. Let those lands be autonomous. In the USA there are Indian reservations which make substantial amounts from natural resources and gambling, so much so that it is invested back into sovereign wealth funds and each member of the certain tribes are given $1,000,000 when they come of age.

Ensure all mining royalties from resources taken from Aboriginal lands are given directly to them and would see a quick turnaround in addressing these issues. Does it get your stamp of approval?

Regarding Steele Redux's question-

In principle I currently don't have a problem with mining royalties in autonomous regions going to Aboriginals- in the same way that a states mining revenue should stay in the state. Though I'm concerned also in principle with the idea of free money that you don't have to work or take any responsibility for. I could see the possibility that Aboriginal autonomous regions and mining could be used to destabilize Australia as a whole and this would obviously be unacceptable. Of course Aboriginal territories may not be the same under such an arrangement as they are now.

Perhaps Aboriginals could be allowed to sell mining products into the Australian market and in turn sold overseas according to international agreements.

But I'd be interested to hear what others have to say on the issue.

This would be a big change to Australia so there needs to be a way of ensuring that any autonomous territory would be subject to the Federal government (or state government).

Also steps should be taken to ensure that large mining companies weren't able to exploit the arrangements inappropriately.

The devil is always in the detail.

CM,

Given your negative track record on the Forum in relation to matters Aboriginal, I am rather circumspect when a person of your undoubted bias, suggests something along the lines of separate development. You speak of an autonomous aboriginal territory, but then are quick to place a restriction, "any autonomous territory would be subject to the Federal government (or state government)". I envisage from you the need for armed guards, vicious dogs and barbed wire fences, somewhere in the most inhospitable part of Australia. Am I wrong?

There you go- I consider Paul1405 to be biased and bigoted against Anglo-Australian's and wants to execute permanent revolution against them in the form of never ending Aboriginal revolution- similar to Trotsky Permanent Revolution. I suppose he has what he thinks is a reason for his hateful Anglo-phobic vengefulness against White Anglo-British people.

Just remember Trotsky would have been worse than Stalin- as he believed that mass deaths were a necessary outcome to achieve Communist utopia.

100 Million dead under Communism.

CM,

You can consider all you like, my opinion is based on your historical posts on the forum, your negativity directed towards Aboriginal people is well documented. At the end of my post I did ask you; "Am I wrong?" You didn't arespond yea or nay to that, instead you launched into your usual diatribe about communists and Communism.

As a moderate progressive and therefore not an extreme radical, I believe in total equality for all, regardless of ethnicity. I am not in favour of any sort of Trotskyist revolution being waged by Aboriginal people, or any other people within Australia. One thing you are right about is extremism results in the mass suffering of innocent people be it due to extreme Communism, extreme Fascism or extreme Nutism, it don't much matter, the end result is the same.

Paul1405 said- "As a moderate progressive and therefore not an extreme radical, I believe in total equality for all"

Answer- Sounds like Paul1405 believes in enforced "totalitarian equality for all"- forever. Sounds like Orwell's comment about a boot on the head of everybody forever. These aren't the droids you're looking for... well they just aren't.