The general public, which includes Compton, uses "courteous" because Albanese repeatedly used the word. Given the carry on from supporters of the racist Voice, it would have been a demand, not a polite request.

The latest blatant hostility and threats coming from the yes camp - what they really want - is anything but courteous; it is downright aggressive, and proof that NO is the only way to go. What Albanese has been saying is all lies, or he hasn't been listening.

And, how the hell would race- based division "unite our country". Thinking doesn't get any madder than that!

The statement that we are "now locked in a bitter and nasty battle that is tearing Australia apart" is surely enough to have any ideas of the Voice thrown out now. What do these people think things would be like if the undemocratic, racist nonsense came into being!

Cut the cackle. Vote NO - that’s if Albanese doesn't see sense and drops the whole rotten idea.

Again this author invites us to participate in his giant step backwards for madness.

Let’s wait and see how gullible are the general public of a multicultural society; and

historically, hunter gatherers lost out thousands of years in the past to Agrarians.

Winner takes all, isn’t that the lesson for the “all”?

The voice has become a political football by the heinous activities of the hard right, religious nut jobs and white supremists, spreading their fake news far and wide!

We face a very real possibility of WW111, and the county needs to be united, not torn apart by political opportunists and resident fifth columnists.

Same filth, different attire and a very small but vociferous minority.
Alan B.

This is all a bit dramatic?
But voting is not about emotion: it should be based on logic?
So no one needs to make speeches about it!
Instead, they need to give just one, or perhaps two or three, good reasons for a change.
Short and simple.
But I have yet to hear just ONE good reason.
On that fact alone, a NO vote is necessary.
When someone speaks on behalf of a yes vote, they are clearly more emotional than logical.
And when one examines any argument they put forward, it falls down in a heap.
So the yes vote is all about ill-founded emotion, and illogicality.
Small wonder it is falling behind.
As it should!
United we stand, divided we fall.

I agree with Everald – both sides of this debate are running nasty and dishonest campaigns that fail to engage with voters' genuine concerns and include too many personal attacks on people they disagree with.

However this referendum turns out, it is going to leave scars that will take a long time to heal.

"But I also reveal with sadness that when I seek answers to those questions so I can use them at meetings I address, the YES campaign hits me with criticism for committing the mortal sin of asking."

That's what people do, and the fact your what about 80 something tells me you havent learn a thing in your life about the nature of people, to act as they do.

"Quite extraordinarily, they are oblivious to the obvious fact that if people vote No because they don't get the information they request, there wont be any Voice legislation to reveal to us as the Referendum will have been lost."

They're not oblivious to that you fool
- They're used car salesmen.

[Rolls eyes] why do I even bother...

Like the questioners during Everald's coffee breaks, I too have similar questions about the Voice. And no-one is answering them.

If this referendum fails, I place the responsibility for its failure squarely on the shoulders of politicians. The NO's for the blatant lies and scare campaign that they have manufactured. And the YES because they have asked us to trust them, everything will be revealed latter. Don't worry.

Who in their right mind would trust a politician, any politician? But, I'm afraid we are going to have to trust them on this one, it's too important not to.

After all, what are the NO's really scared of? They have never answered that question adequately. Dividing the country? Like it isn't divided now. Like one group in our country isn't impoverished or discriminated against? How dare that group even ask to be heard. Don't they know their place?

The Voice may not be perfect, but the NO-Olition have not offered anything. Leaving the status quo as is, is not an option.

Perhaps unfortunately, Mr. Compton, but your country is not being and is not going to be torn apart over such minor matters as the "Voice".

Whether aboriginal people be heard because the constitution demands it or because others genuinely care and voluntarily want to hear them, should make no practical difference.

Most Australian just yawn!

If you want to see a country currently being torn apart and on the point of implosion over issues that truly matter - look at Israel!

Hi Aries54,
"The Voice may not be perfect, but the NO-Olition have not offered anything."

I think you have the whole decision making process back to front.
The No's don't have to offer anything.

If the 'Yes for change' want us to vote yes
They need to show us all their plans in detail.

You wouldn't commit to buying a car or a house without finding out the cost of it, house price, interest rate on loan, home insurance, stamp duty... it's called 'due diligence'.

These people want us to sign on the bottom line fine, then they will allude to these important details later.
ITS NOT HOW THINGS WORK

Show me the fine print, or even if I do vote
- THEN I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I'M VOTING FOR DO I?

Show me the fine print or the answer is automatically NO
That's how things actually work in the REAL WORLD
- And if it fails then it's their own fault.

Just the fact that they are unwilling to share their full plan details is suspicious and untrustworthy.
Only a fool would vote yes under these circumstances.
Throw in the emotional blackmail, and this whole thing is nefarious.

There I offered you something
- It's called 'common sense'.

AC - whilst I agree with many of the points you raise, I do believe that the NO-Olition do have to offer something. To blindly continue with the status quo regarding First Nations people would (IMHO) be exactly the same as burying your head up your ..... To that end the YES camp have offered a possible solution. It is up to each side of the debate to present their case. ATM the NO's are presenting lies and scare tactics to defend their position. That's disgraceful and indefensible. The YES on the other hand haven't given us any details of their solution either. I would prefer to support a possible and hopeful solution rather than a pack of deceitful lies and untruths.

the NO's are presenting lies and scare tactics
Aries54,
There are exaggerated claims but to call them lies is a step too far. The Yes's are looking for power by callously exploiting the ignorant & they present untrue statements such as claiming to close the Gap ! Closing the Gap would put most of them out of business ! Their only goal is power ! If that's not obvious enough then I hope the Voice succeeds to make the Yes voters regret their ignorance !

Nobody is going to be asked to vote on an unknown. Before the referendum is held, all that is being asked will be spelt out in minute detail.

The NO campaign is inventing spurious reason to vote NO. And nobody knows for sure what we are being actually asked to vote for. But we will know all the details months before a referendum is held.

Then the NO campaign will need to explain their bona fide reasons for saying NO to perfectly reasonable questions! Questions that address real, on the ground, genuine and serious issues that should have been addressed years ago!
Alan B.

Australia torn apart? What about the white Australia policy? It undermined the democratic foundation of equality and was given legality by the race provisions of the constitution. The Voice will rely upon the same provisions. I don't see how debasing a foundation of democracy should ever be seen as necessary for solving a problem, no matter how well intentioned. In its day the Immigration Restriction Act was looked upon as an appropriate means of preserving economic and social conditions for Australian citizens. Do we think that today? Do we look back and think that Australia was saved from being torn apart by degrading a democratic foundation?

Before the referendum is held, all that is being asked will be spelt out in minute detail.
Alan B,
Where & when was that said ?

There is nothing "spurious" about voting NO, in what still purports to be a democracy, to a race-based abomination that would give more say to the 3% claiming to be blackfellas than the other 97% gets.

As for "all that is being asked will be spelt out in minute detail" before the referendum - there is no indication that will happen; in fact Albanese is bleating, begging and bullying us to vote yes, and he will tell us what will happen afterwards!

But, he doesn't know what's going to happen himself. Mayo and Reid have told us, in detail, what will happen: treaties, reparations and a shift in power from the majority to the minority. Either they have pulled the wool over the PM's eyes, or he is lying.

And the NO campaign has already given reasons to vote NO, unlike the proponents of this racist BS. In fact, Mayo and Reid have also amply provided the reason to vote NO, as the fall off in support for a yes vote indicates.

The YES campaigners are crapping in their own nest.

TTBN hasn't got half the fun we could have if Albanese realises that the referendum is going to be overwhelmed and tries to postpone or drop the vote altogether. If you read the mechanism act it is full of the idea that the government can decide not to proceed with a referendum. However Section 128 of the Constitution provides that not less than two or more than six months after the passage of the bill through parliament, it SHALL be submitted to the electors in each State or Territory. This has happened several times in the past and no-one has objected. However on this occasion the NO group could approach the High Court for a writ of Mandamus ordering the Governor General to issue a writ for a referendum to be held during the prescribed time window notwithstanding advice from the government to the contrary. What Fun!

plerdsus

Interesting.

I just came back to this discussion to suggest that the people who want this Voice nonsense: those who think it's a good idea, are the ones who have to convince everyone to vote YES; not the other way around. As with any transaction, an offer is made, with reasons why it should be accepted. But the offer can be refused with a simple NO - no reasons necessary, particularly in this case when the proposal flies in the face of democracy, equality and egalitarianism, as the Voice does.

When the enemies of freedom come, they cannot devour an entire people by direct power. They must first divide before they can conquer. Division can be created in two ways: hatred and fear, created with identity politics: differentiation instead of similarity, putting people against one another.

Once stripped of unity, people are easier to manipulate.

Albanese and Labor could lay to rest the spurious attacks from the 'NO' campaign that there needs to be details laid out of how The Voice would function. Providing a legislative model, which would give skin and bones to the referendum would seem to be a reasonable counter to many of the lies presently being peddled by the No campaign. Of course no matter what model is presented, the racist Dutton and his mob from the Noalition and others will find reasons to oppose it outright.

Publishing a legislative model before a referendum would be highly unusual. Remembering the Australian Constitution was approved by an act of the British Parliament and Queen Victoria in 1900. Only small numbers of Australians voted to approve an Australian Constitution between 1898 and 1900, voting was not compulsory. In the majority of referendums held in the states the vote was restricted to white males only.

We have voice proponents and the governments assurances that what is being asked will be clear and known months before this referendum is held.

Anything else will assure the thing is voted to oblivion as soon as the referendum is held.

In the interim, the sky will not fall as the Duttonites are claiming.

Know what the question is before you say yes or no. Anything less will assure you status as an absolute moron.
Alan B.

Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Linda Burney - recently labelled incompetent and deceitful - also likes to play the victim. Even claiming recently that as an Aboriginal woman (part Scottish, actually) her expected life span is eight years less than a non-aboriginal person's; despite the fact that, barring some genetic reason for a lower life expectancy for Aborigines, only personal lifestyles reduce aboriginal lives, or anyone else's lives - e.g. smoking, drugging and drinking alcohol.

She talks about 'closing the gap'. But, apart from two years of teaching, from 1981 to 2016, when she went into politics, she was employed in the aboriginal industry. What did she do then to close the gap? What did she do then to encourage the aboriginal population themselves to close the gap?

As a very privileged woman, she could certainly give tips to indigenous people; tell them how to get ahead and follow in her footsteps

. She has a salary of $211,000 (2019)
. An electorate allowance of $32,000.
. Expenses of $123,815 (2016); $462,528 (2017); $562, 818 (2018); $133,160 (2019).
. Four investment properties.
. An estimated person worth of $5,000,000.

Burney could be doing so much good, rather than wasting her time and our money any longer.

“ Burney could be doing so much good, rather than wasting her time and our money any longer. “

She’s in there because idiots vote to put her there.

You just don’t seem to get it!

Dan,

For the second time, how will not voting help? What are the "other ways" you talk about?

“What are the "other ways" you talk about?”..

I’m sworn to secrecy here on OLO, since mÿ suggestions in the past as alternatives for voting, were proving too difficult for the squeamish to contemplate.

So, can’t help you with the question.

Your country may have a few problems now Everald, with Albo's crazy immigration & this referendum, but that will pale into insignificance if the yes gets up & Albo gets to apply his nefarious scheme he is keeping carefully hidden.

NO,NO,NO.

Should yes get up:
The elites will be lining up for a well paid place to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
The latte sippers from the cities with no idea will still be sipping.
Lawyers will rubbing their hands in glee awaiting the court cases to come.
Politicians of today will be gone, living the good life and will not worry about the mess they have left.
Another department formed costing millions to run with more on the gravy train.
Have seen it all over the last 50+ years.

No, No, and No again