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 …)

.