Glad to see that the author is voting NO. But, if he was really "over" the Voice, why write about it at this late stage? There is no reason for anyone to be rabbiting on about it. Anyone who has not made his or her mind made up now - or even right from the beginning - is a waste of space who will probably put a cross or a tick on the ballot paper.

We will have the d...headed volunteers poking bits of paper at us as we are trying to get in to vote - even though there is only one question to answer: no choice to be made from a list of candidates, or anything like that. Just one of two answers.

The ignorance and wankery of Australians when it comes to politics and what politicians are doing to them never ceases to amaze me.

You and me both.....

Yes I am over it too.

I am over the lying, the misinformation, the bottomless pit of scare tactics from the No campaign.

I am repulsed by Peter Dutton, motivated by scoring points against a political opponent and to hell with what is right for the country.

I despair for the energy so many have wasted, attempting to justifying their stance when all they display is their willful ignorance (i.e. …I have read all 26 pages of the Uluru Statement from the Heart…).

I despair for the vitriol so many have vomited up about our fellow human beings.

Yes, I am well over it too

I've mentioned before on OLO about resource projects that have been stalled indefinitely by aboriginal concerns. Another issue is no go areas for the general public. One rocky prominence that is enforced is Uluru a.k.a. Ayers Rock. Others that I know of include Bluff Knoll in WA, Mt Arapiles Vic and Mt Warning in Qld to use their 20th century names. If the Voice succeeds I'd expect the number of off-limits areas to proliferate on the pretext of cultural significance.

We're all Australians if we want to climb a big hill we should be able to. Better still make schoolkids do it for exercise. Imagine if aboriginal Australians were denied access to formerly free access areas.

Aries54 and other YES voters, go and read this.
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2023/09/making-life-even-worse-for-us/

David

And that is your excuse for the nastiness and the lying and the misrepresentation of facts VK3AUU ??

As far as I am aware neither the "Yes" nor "No" sides have laid out how it will all be done and how it all will be paid for. In any bargain both sides compromise. What will each side do here in this regard. A simple "I`ll do this and I`ll do that" is not enough. As Taswegian implies will there be more no go areas for us "non indigenes"?
As far as I know all people can go into Cathedrals, Mosques, Temples and Synagogues providing due respect is made and dress codes adhered to. Why cannot non indigenes go into areas of indigenous significance if respect is shown?

Aries54 Apparently you didn't read what Beth Price wrote in its entirety. You need to take a trip to the NT and see what things are really like. Don't just take the word of all the pretend coloured people. Listen to what Beth's daughter Jacinta has to say.

David.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/the-long-bloody-history-of-aboriginal-violence/

This might might throw some more truth into the argument.

David

There is still some amusement to be had from the so-called 'debate'. Both sides accusing the other of lies and misinformation. The ideologues are too far gone to see it.

The same old arguments from the NO campaigners.

Are they really "over it?" Once again bringing
up questions - of race, special rights, division.
even - apartheid.

I can't believe all this belly aching and carrying
on. When what we're being asked to approve is so
modest.

The proposal that Australians are being asked
to approve would insert lines into the Constitution
recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
as the First Peoples of Australia.

The Voice does NOT propose any racial segregation policies,
merely an advisory body that makes non-binding representation
to parliament, and which may recommend changes to improve laws
and policies that have an impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

This does not mean Australia will be divided by race or that
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will have any
special rights.

All we're doing is recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people because they were the first people here, NOT
on the grounds of race.

Why do it? we're asked, when they have the NIAA. Well the NIAA
is a government agency. It is not equivalent to the proposed
Voice to Parliament. The element of Constitutional recognition
is a key difference.

The Voice is also not designed to lead to any policies
favouring Indigenous people such as land tax, property rights,
and so on. This Constitutional change that is being proposed
would not convert private land to native title and as an
advisory body the Voice would have no formal power to force
policy changes or control Australia's land and resources.

But enough said. I too am starting to "get over it" -
sick of feeling the obligation to continually separate
the myths from the facts.
I'm sick of being attacked and insulted.

it would be much easier not to speak out. My support for the
YES campaign has brought me a great deal of nastiness, but I
can only speak the facts. If I see wrongs and falsehoods I
I feel I must do my best to right them. Especially on this
important moment in our country's history.

Dear Taswegian,

Let's test out your trumpeting.

Mt Conner is on the road to Uluru. It is spectacular made even more so by indigenous paintings and amazing vistas.

But it is on the privately owned Curtin Station and visitation is highly restricted.

http://www.google.com/maps/place/Mount+Conner/@-25.4975416,131.89104 Click on the satellite view to get an idea of its size, a fair bit bigger than Uluru.

Now Uluru was originally within a declared Indigenous reserve until the late 50 when it was decided it would make a decent tourist attraction. It was returned to Indigenous ownership but with a 99 year lease allowing access.

The fact that that people bleat about the framework around Uluru but never call for access to an amazing spot like Mt Connor because it is in the ownership of a single white family speaks volumes.

The Voice has nothing to do with any of this so why raise it?

The other amusing thing is the hysteria of the Yes mob thinking that they are going to stop people from voting NO when less than a dozen people are subjected to their twaddle; then whining about their poor little feelings being hurt by all those nasty No voters. Then there are the 'facts', which are really just opinions. The arrogance and stupidity is mind boggling - if you think about it after you stop laughing.

SR your argument is a straw man. Uluru gets all the publicity and has tourism facilities which AFAIK the other place doesn't. For some disappointed Australians climbing Uluru has been on their bucket list since childhood not the other spot. Reports indicate that security guards are paid to stop people climbing Mt Warning Qld due to an aboriginal veto. Who pays for that? Where will the next no-go spot be?

If Australians are to be divided by race perhaps there should be no-go areas for aboriginal Australians. For example no crossing Sydney Harbour Bridge as it is of too much cultural significance to non-aboriginal Australians. While the Voice preamble doesn't cover this its architects are also talking reparations while there are currently a number of resource project holdups. It's the thin end of the wedge.

Nothing will be achieved until we ALL agree that this is 2023 in the 21st century. 1770 and 1788 will not come again and if we are all to share and live in this (once) lovely land we must all work and contribute towards it.
Regardless of colour and beliefs.

Dear Taswegian,

Mate you need to slow down a little.

Firstly you haven't illustrated it is a straw man at all.

Really if we cut to the chase your issue is that you perfectly accept that it is the single owner's right to dictate what happens on their land but not if it is a collective and especially not if that collective is made up of Indigenous Australians.

It really isn't the race thing you are trying to make it out as either. These spots aren't reserved for Aboriginals as a group at all, in fact there are some places where certain TO groups would be less keen to have neighbouring TO group onto their country than non-indigenous folk.

The Costello family are the single largest private land holder in Australia. They own 90,000 km2, bigger that the Netherlands and Switzerland put together. Some of it is extraordinarily beautiful country. None of us can see it without their express permission or that of their agents. It is a no go area of this country that doesn't seem to bother you.

Or are you going to start bemoaning it to be consistent?

John Mikkelsen might be "over it" sitting in his easy chair in his comfortable home, sipping a before dinner aperitif, studying the latest brochures to decided where to take his next overseas holiday. Poor John, this distraction called the Voice is so draining on him, he needs a well earned holiday just to get "over it". Unfortunately Indigenous Australians living and suffering third world conditions in one of the richest countries in the world, can't just "get over it" like poor John can, their loss is John's gain!

.

Dear John (the author),

.

You wrote :

« The Voice is a move to enshrine an unelected advisory body in the Australian Constitution … »

That’s correct, John. The “Voice Principles” published on the federal government’s website indicate :

« The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities :

• Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.

• Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities.

• To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process. »

•

1. The Encyclopedia Britannica explains :

« Aboriginal people had no chiefs or other centralized institutions of social or political control. In various measures, Aboriginal societies exhibited both hierarchical and egalitarian tendencies, but they were classless; an egalitarian ethos predominated, the subordinate status of women notwithstanding.

Although it is inaccurate to speak of a gerontocracy in Aboriginal Australia, men of importance were easily distinguished. They were usually elders who had this status not necessarily because of their age or grey hair but because of their religious position and personal energy. »
.

2. The “Creative Spirits” organisation adds :

« Traditionally, Aboriginal nations did not have what today we would now call a ‘leader’, or previously a ‘king’ or a ‘chief’.

Rather, experienced and senior-initiated men and women were held in high esteem, and physically, spiritually or intellectually gifted people were also able to command significant respect. The community consulted such elders of high esteem for advice and leadership in official matters.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

“An Aboriginal leader is a person to whom other people will listen, and who can create and maintain consensus," writes Frances Morphy, a Fellow at the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) at The Australian National University. "Thus, leadership is conferred conditionally and has to be constantly earned. It is a process rather than simply an ascribed position in a hierarchy.

There is also a big difference in where leaders stand. "The English metaphor implies a view of a leader as the apex [top] of a vertical hierarchy, whereas the [Aboriginal] metaphor implies a flat structure in which the leader forges ahead and others follow."

Aboriginal leaders wouldn’t consider their positions as powerful or privileged, but from a perspective of serving their people and nurturing their physical, spiritual, mental and emotional well-being. Leaders are holding and looking after the community they serve. »
.

The authority of a member of an Aboriginal community is the recognition by the other members of the community of his or her particular qualities. Authority is not imposed. It is freely recognised by the community.

It is clear, therefore, that while there would be no formal election of the members of the Voice advisory body, members would be chosen by the traditional informal democratic practices of the various Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

.

Foxy "I can't believe all this belly aching and carrying
on. When what we're being asked to approve is so
modest."

I don't think that you could say it was modest if you read Document 14, anything but.

David

It has been obvious for some time now that the $400,000,000 voice referendum is a huge waste of money. Albozo has pissed this money away to virtue signal, instead, all he has demonstrated is that he is a failure and a huge d!ckhead.

"Opinion polls showed a majority of Australians supported the Voice when Albanese first proposed the referendum after his centre-left Labor Party was elected last year. A poll published in The Australian newspaper on Monday showed 58% of respondents opposed the Voice and only 34% supported it."

The activists couldn't contain their glee in anticipation of the power being within their grasp !

I am afraid that after Saturday, the power is going to slip out of their grasp.
David

.

Dear VK3AUU,

.

You wrote :

« https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/the-long-bloody-history-of-aboriginal-violence/

This might might throw some more truth into the argument.

David »
.

It's true that the lore of hunter-gatherer tribes around the world is vastly different from that of modern civilised peoples who have evolved from that primitive state.

If a major colonising country had not decided to offload its convicts to Australia in 1788 the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes that had been occupying it for over 65,000 years would probably have continued to enjoy living here for quite a few more years.

If treating their women badly was the thing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes did in those days that’s probably what we used to do too when we were hunter-gatherers.

But that was 10,000 years ago now. After that, we took up farming and raising animals.

But I’m not sure we stopped treating our women badly just because we became farmers and graziers.

The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (abbreviated as DEVAW) was adopted without a vote by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 December 1993. That was only 30 years ago. And to think that some nations continue to vigorously oppose it !

Anyway, I guess it’s taken us non-indigenous Aussies 9,970 years to get where we are today on that since we were hunter-gatherers.

I hope our indigenous mates can do it a bit faster than that !

Don't you ?

.