Who really cares or needs to be recognised in the constitution when billions a year are spent and will continue to be spent, all with no genuine results. Should yes get up, a few will become really wealthy, a number will become wealthy and the majority will see no change despite what is being said by yes people. History repeats over and over. NO, NO, NO

.

.

As we all know, ever since Cook landed in Botany Bay, home of the Eora people, in 1770, the British colonisers considered that Australia was uninhabited, by virtue of the doctrine of terra nullius.

It was not that they ignored the existence of the Aboriginal peoples, but that they discounted them as a species of subhuman primates that had not yet attained the degree of civilisation that warranted due consideration of their attendant rights. But as a number of reputable anthropologists subsequently pointed out, this was largely (if not totally) due to their ignorance of the intricacies of Aboriginal culture.

That was 253 years ago now and we are about to be asked to vote on whether we should acknowledge their existence in our constitution and allow them to have a say in laws concerning them.

A national referendum is planned sometime before the end of this year. The precise terms of the referendum have not yet been published and probably won’t be before the ballot papers are in hand.

Professor Anne Twomey, one of the experts advising the federal government on this referendum, explains that a simple constitutional amendment followed by more detailed legislation makes sense.

"We don't want things frozen into the constitution that might be hard to change in the future. We want to have flexibility".

"So, if the Voice isn't working well, if there are problems in it, say corruption or some sort of other issue, then you can legislate to resolve that."

That sounds good sense to me, so unless there is something contrary to that in the wording, I shall probably vote “yes”.

.

.

As I recalled on a previous thread, ever since Cook landed in Botany Bay, home of the Eora people, in 1770, the British colonisers considered that Australia was uninhabited, by virtue of the doctrine of terra nullius.

But it was not because they ignored the existence of the Aboriginal peoples, it was because they simply discounted them as a species of subhuman primates that had not attained the degree of civilisation that warranted consideration of their attendant rights. They were deemed part of the local flora and fauna, indigenous animals. But as a number of reputable anthropologists subsequently pointed out, this was largely due to their ignorance of the intricacies of the Aboriginal culture and lifestyle.

That was 253 years ago now and we are about to be asked to vote on whether we should acknowledge their existence in our constitution and allow them to have a say in laws concerning them.

Today, it is estimated that 10% of Indigenous Australians have already attained or are studying for a bachelor's university degree or above (compared to 51% of the total Australian population).

A national referendum is planned sometime before the end of this year. The precise terms of the referendum have not yet been published and probably won’t be before the ballot papers are in hand.

Professor Anne Twomey, one of the experts advising the federal government on this referendum, explains that a simple constitutional amendment followed by more detailed legislation makes sense.

"We don't want things frozen into the constitution that might be hard to change in the future. We want to have flexibility".

"So, if the Voice isn't working well, if there are problems in it, say corruption or some sort of other issue, then you can legislate to resolve that."

That seems good sense to me. Unless there is something contrary to that in the wording, I shall probably vote “yes”.

The racist arguments of the politically conservative religious organisations don’t hold water so far as I am concerned (c.f., Jeremiah 2:13 KJV).

This is how I see it :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrLTe1_9zso&ab_channel=rich963

.

I think the voice is a recognition of the fact that for most of the existence of Australia, the Aborigines have been treated badly. Others have settled on their land. An alien religion has been forced on them. Their children have been removed from them and subjected to an alien culture and religion. The wages supposed to been paid to them have been stolen. In the Australian Memorial the wars that Australia fought have been remembered with one exception. There is no recognition of the war fought against the Aborigines. In addition to the Voice, the war against the Aborigines should be recognized along with the other wars Australia has fought. There is much nonsense written about the Aborigines. They have been called a civilisation. That is nonsense. What is not nonsense is the fact they have not been treated decently, and the Voice gives them a chance to comment on laws that affect them.