The Albanese Government, ABC and SBS media love this song but do not heed its message we are one and we speak with one voice. They want a racial voice to be a different song and not a uniting of all Australians.

I came from the dreamtime
From the dusty red-soil plains
I am the ancient heart
The keeper of the flame
I stood upon the rocky shores
I watched the tall ships come
For forty thousand years I've been
The first Australian
I'm the daughter of a digger
Who sought the mother lode
The girl became a woman
On the long and dusty road
I'm a child of the Depression
I saw the good times come
I'm a bushie, I'm a battler
I am Australian
We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We'll share a dream and sing with one voice
I am, you are, we are Australian
I'm a teller of stories
I'm a singer of songs
I am Albert Namatjira
And I paint the ghostly gums
I'm Clancy on his horse
I'm Ned Kelly on the run
I'm the one who waltzed Matilda
I am Australian
We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We'll share a dream and sing with one voice
I am, you are, we are Australian
We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We'll share a dream and sing with one voice
I am, you are, we are Australian
I am, you are, we are Australian

Unfortunately, we are not 'one', and sentimental songs will not make us so. We are divided by multiculturalism, race and Woke. That we now have a government that wants to to divide us even more, and enshrine the division in the Constitution, says it all.

Hi Josephus,

Thank You for reminding us of the noble dream
of this song that despite differences and diversity
this is OUR land and we have a deeper unity that we
share - in which every Australian counts.

What better way to celebrate this than through music.

As for The Voice to Parliament?
It would be great if we could celebrate right across
the country the roll out of The Voice.

It would mean
a collective rejection of the racism experienced by
First Nations Australians for hundreds of years.
When the white state devised a myriad of oppressive
laws to enforce and legitimize the exercise of their
unjust power against our Indigenous people effectively
stripping them of any rights as first citizens in their
land of birth. Now that was racism.

Fixing this is justice, not racism.

Foxy, a voice based on activists from those with a first nation's ancestor somewhere in their past, is divisive. Look at the choir that sings this song on ABC and SBS there are many aboriginals in the choir; singing we are one, we speak with one voice.

To have a separate "Voice" places aboriginals into an apartheid State, which we have managed in the past to give them equality to all Australians.

Are you suggesting Australian laws are too oppressive for aboriginals? Are you suggesting we allow aboriginals to have their own laws? Which aboriginal country laws are you saying they are to live under if they are not bound by Australian law? Aboriginal cultures are not all the same in every nation, they cannot agree among themselves as one people. Just look at the values of the eleven in Parliament at the moment.

Hi Josephus,

You apparently misunderstand what The Voice is and the
fact that it will merely be an advisory body. Legislation
will be done by Parliament. You need to inform yourself
better on the subject, I shall be happy to continue this
conversation with you when you've done so.

I do not misunderstand what a voice will mean to Australia, as there are examples in other countries like NZ, where they are given preference over other citizens. I listen to Jacinta Price, Warren Mundine and Jimmy Little etc. and they state it will be for elite city activists who want to be heard and not remote full blood community leaders who do not fully understand English.

Foxy you state,
"It would mean
a collective rejection of the racism experienced by
First Nations Australians for hundreds of years.
When the white state devised a myriad of oppressive
laws to enforce and legitimize the exercise of their
unjust power against our Indigenous people effectively
stripping them of any rights as first citizens in their
land of birth. Now that was racism."

The Voice is based in racism, as it represents a single race, it will not solve the feelings some have toward aboriginals, but further exacerbate their feelings. It makes Australia an apartheid Nation based in racism. You seem to think that there were oppressive laws particularly designed against aboriginals. Which ones? In two Hundred years we have moved on from a penal settlement.

Aboriginals want to live under Australian laws and values and retain a simple life. Talking to a friend that works with full blood aboriginals in the NT they do not want rules from Government imposed from Canberra with fly in Gucci clothed representatives. A "Voice" will be based and living in a First World city - Canberra and be advising the Government.

WTF?

Josephus states: "I do not misunderstand what a voice will mean to Australia."

There are many lengthy documents available for you to research about this topic.

This is not the first discussion thread about this topic and many links to this material have been supplied by numerous commentators.

I would advice those who want to understand about the Voice that they engage with this material before they comment.

ttbn has already said on previous threads that ttbn is not prepared to read this material. ttbn has also previously said that ttbn does not believe people who have read this material.

I realise that this is an opinion forum and those that comment need not necessary either tell the truth nor provide sources for fact checking when they make comments.

Those who want to comment from a self identified position of ignorance have nothing of value to provide to discussions of this nature.

They cannot be taken seriously and they opinions are basically worthless

WTF?

Josephus includes a link in one of his threads.

The link takes us to a Sky News page where their is a THREE SENTENCE QUOTE.

There is also some right-wing talking head who I assume is telling us what will happen if the Voice "fails".

No wonder you do not understand.

I suggest you avoid the lazy use of any biased news feeds and go directly to the source material.

If, like ttbn, you do not trust Google as a search engine I suggest you use one of the many others that are available.

Looks like quite a number of posters here have no recollection of ATSIC.

Hi Josephus,

Instead of quoting Jacinta Price et al, you need to
do your research as WTF and I suggest. There are
a wide range of sources available on the web and
they've also been given in many discussions on this
forum including the detailed report presented to
parliament by Dr Marcia Langton and her team.

You don't understand what the Voice entails, and
until you do your research you can't be taken
seriously. You're simply a naysayer and a mischief maker.
Jacinta Price's reference about Gucci to Linda Burney is
hypocritical - when Price is so desperate for the approval
of the right-wing elite celebrities

Foxy, The fact that you despise Jacinta Price because you say she is right wing, indicates the Voice is a left-wing propaganda of the Labor Party, and will not create unity but partisanship. We are all Australians under one law and have equal value. We have eleven aboriginal voices already in Parliament and they speak for that community. Why do we need another tax payer funded bureau-ocracy?

The result of the referendum will be decided by voters, not politicians or activists. If sense and democratic values prevail, a majority of those voters in a majority of states will vote NO. If not, there is no hope for this country.

Josephus

You have made your point. There is nothing to be gained by arguing with ideologues and ratbags; unless you enjoy helping them to make fools of themselves - something they do very well on their own.

Josephus - once again - do your research so that
you can talk with facts not misinformation.

I don't despise Ms Jacinta Price. And her being Right-Wing
does not equate with the claim that the Voice is a "left-Wing
propaganda of the Labor Party," as there are many Australians
from various political parties who support the Voice.

As for all of us being equal under the one law?
The Australian Constitution unfortunately had not made
adequate protection for Australia's First People. It has
failed to protect their rights as the First Peoples of this
country. It's about this historical foundation that is so
lacking that Australians are now realizing the need for
constitutional change to address the lack of recognition of
our Indigenous peoples in our nation's birth certificate.

As for there being some Aboriginal senators in parliament?
They represent and are obligated to serve their electorates
only. They have no powers to speak on behalf of Indigenous
people.

As I keep repeating - stop with the bulldust - and mischief-
making and get the facts.

Foxy,
How do you propose to alter basic human instinct ? Do you really believe legislating will bring about harmony ? This VOICE will and, I guarantee that, bring about division & insanely massive waste of much needed funding for far, far more important issues.
If there was even the slightest chance of this VOICE to work in the idealistic sense you peddle then don't you think it'd would have worked all along by itself by now without legislation ?
As ideal as this VOICE sounds in the academic mind, the reality is that racism is as human as your aversion is to personal responsibility & my aversion to wasting billions on society-wrecking idealism !
It's impossible & utterly mindless to legislate against racism when the racists don't want the bandwagon to come to a halt ! Think $$$$

Hi indyvidual,

Ah, more excuses for no action.

It isn't easy to keep trying to be truthful
when surrounded by lies and even harder not to
succumb to the naysayers cries. It's hard to fight
back when you're made to feel small. And even harder
to not buy into their BS at all.

However, many Australians are now realizing how important
the Voice is and how as a nation we should give the
proper recognition to our Indigenous people that they deserve.
It's way past due. And what they're asking is not that much.

But I agree it is frustrating and exhausting dealing with
assholes.

Foxy,
You introduced this Thread as One Voice but then you refer to it as The Voice. Huge difference in inference.
As I said in earlier posts, academically & idealistically this VOICE sounds ok. In reality however and, judging by the people pushing this agenda (after all it is just an agenda) most logically thinking people will have reservations about its end result !
We already know & experienced many of the pushing characters & the evidence is not promising a workable outcome.

With this Voice referendum we have to hope that most Australians will vote intellectually and not emotionally like the one or two (one mainly) loudmouths here telling us how good it is.

Given the paucity of information about the thing from the architects of this proposed attack on our Constitution, the Government, it stands to reason that all the "positives" are just wild guesses by emotional, overwrought ideologues desperate to seem 'nice', when we are looking at a very serious change to the Constitution and the way Australia is governed - without good cause: just "good manners" (Ockernese)

the white state devised a myriad of oppressive
laws to enforce and legitimize the exercise of their
unjust power against our Indigenous people effectively
stripping them of any rights as first citizens in their
land of birth. Now that was racism."
Foxy,
Do you seriously believe the Stone Age culture would have embraced the colonising (not solely white) culture as it now embraces the benefits of our flawed culture ? Indigenous & non-indigenous historical records abound with references of objection to colonisation so, how many indigenous could you name who would revert to their ancient cultural ways even if they were given the opportunity to again exist without interference & when another Nation walks in on them Australians would not interfere with their lives again ?
In all sincerety, idealism such as this VOICE wrecks societies, not benefits them !
I honestly tried to see it in a positive light but I'm afraid I have not yet witnessed idealism to succeed anywhere ! Even some indigenous who can see the folly of it are being persecuted by those of their own who can smell the lure of power & money that this VOICE will offer !
Because power & money is what this is about, not a cohesive, harmonious Australian society !
If peoples' emotions, instincts etc need legislating than legislating is already a failure. If it all came from the heart so to speak, people would have long ago reconciled !

indyvidual,

Josephus introduced this thread as "One Voice."
So talk to him.

As for it not being workable? That is not correct.
Read the report that has been years in the making
from Dr Langton and her team - and you will learn
just how workable the proposed model really is.
Also don't forget - it will be the government that
will make the final decisions - not the advisory
body of The Voice

indyvidual,

Also, don't forget if you point out faults
give wise advice, because just being a
naysayer (and ignorant, harsh critic) is one
nasty vice!

We will celebrate right across the country in
many different ways the rollout of The Voice.
Showing that indeed every Australian counts.
Most Australian do have the noble dream of
the song - "We are one, but we are many..."
AND THAT despite differences and diversity
this is our land and we have a deeper unity
that we share.

We will restore to our First Nations peoples
their full rights as first citizens in their
land of birth.

See you on another discussion.

Foxy has given us the powers over the Government that the Voice will have with this comment.

"As for there being some Aboriginal senators in parliament?
They represent and are obligated to serve their electorates
only. They have no powers to speak on behalf of Indigenous
people."

She has removed the powers of Government and invested the power in an unrepresentative body based on race, which today is a mixed race and not full bloods.

Josephus,

Foxy did nothing of the kind.
What she said was that the government has
the control. The Voice is only an advisory
body. Get your facts correct and stop
twisting things to suit your fraudulent agenda.

Ockernese has said that it would be"would take a very brave government to do something relating to Indigenous affairs that the Voice opposed".

In other words, the Voice would be telling the Government what to do. There would be nothing advisory about this Third Chamber for 3% of the population; it would be calling the tune. Vote NO. We let the politicians get away with undemocratic, dictatorial practices during Covid. Enough is enough. Vote NO to protect democracy for everyone.

Failing Opposition Leader Dutton has said that Ockernese is treating voters like mugs with the Voice. Voters will be mugs only if they don't vote NO. Ocker doesn't matter.

Dutton is the mug for whining about 'details' when he should be firmly opposing the Voice like his National Party colleague. To hell with details. The referendum just asks if the racist nonsense should go ahead. N0 will finish the whole thing: no details needed.

Now is the time for the Nationals to break the coalition and stand candidates in all Liberal seats for the next election. The Liberals are finished. Too many Leftists, and the weakest leader ever.

WTF?

ttbn references someone else's opinion: " it would take a very brave government to do something relating to Indigenous affairs that the Voice opposed"

The Voice is designed to be complementary to Government. It is not opposing anything.

I expect Governments to be brave when it comes to all its affairs not just Indigenous ones.

ttbn states: "In other words, the Voice would be telling the Government what to do."

This is a completely false statement. Check the previously supplied source material.

ttbn states: "There would be nothing advisory about this Third Chamber for 3% of the population; it would be calling the tune."

This is a completely false statement. Check the previously supplied source material.

WTF

Your belief in, or like for, a particular 'source' doesn't make that source correct. There are all sorts of stories out there. As I said to Josephus, there is no point in arguing with idealogical ratbags. You believe what you choose to believe by all means. No skin off my nose.

WTF?
ttbn I think now you are just trying to be deliberately obtuse.

I have provided (as have others) either links to or names of the documentation associated with the Voice.

This has been an ongoing discussion. The sources that you have been provided with are not stories. They are the official documentations.

Once again - read before you comment.

Calling into question the validity of said documentation without being prepared to read and analyse it is just low effort commenting yet again.

Note exactly what Foxy stated about Governmembers and she is informed, so we should believe her.
"They have no powers to speak on behalf of Indigenous people."
So, the Voice has more power than aboriginals' senators advise in Parliament. This does not sound like an advisory body but a body with power to serve one race of people. My friend who works with aboriginals in the NT says they do not want other aboriginals telling them what they want. They just want to get on with their lives without interference from the Government. They want to live in a single large room house with the roof down at the sides to about 60 Cm above the ground with a fire pit in the middle of the room and a chimney out through the roof with an attached toilet and shower. That way they can oversee the family, as rooms isolate, and cause pain in incarceration.

Dear Josephus,

I really had forgotten how thick you are at times but thanks for the reminder.

The fact you are rabbiting RWNJ talking points shows you really aren't thinking about this for yourself. Both Foxy and WTF recommended you go and do some more reading of the extensive amount of information out there but you and sticking to your petty little script.

You decry Foxy for saying:

"As for there being some Aboriginal senators in parliament?
They represent and are obligated to serve their electorates
only. They have no powers to speak on behalf of Indigenous
people."

Then you deliver this gem: "My friend who works with aboriginals in the NT says they do not want other aboriginals telling them what they want."

That is the bloody point of the Voice you fool. 38 separate regions being represented by 25 on the Voice body and not at the whim of electorate politics potentially stripping away indigenous representation.

Look I know you have little interest about better informing yourself nor about embracing the many positives that will come about, but the application of even a modicum of intelligence would be appreciated.

The Voice is only an advisory
body.
Foxy,
And what was ATSIC ?

WTF

I don't give a flying f..k about your "official" references. Get over yourself. With the sorts politicians and bureaucrats involved in this Voice outrage, 'official' means diddly squat when it comes to truth and honesty. Besides, OPINIONS are the name of the game here. I have expressed my opinion of this ghastly, undemocratic and racist tripe, and I'm sticking to it. You obviously hate that opinion. Well, tough titty. If you think that people are going to change their minds because you think they should, you are going to be even more disappointed with life than you already are.

You are entitled to opinions, so express them and let others express theirs without harassment from you. Who appointed you to dress down anyone you disagree with! You are getting to be worse than that woman.

Josephus

You always conduct yourself in a gentlemanly manner, and one of the nasties calling you "thick" and a "fool" is very poor form, but not unexpected. People like him, Foxy, Paul1405 and now this WTF character still think that they can shut down people they disagree with. It's a characteristic of the Left. They are slow learners though. Their tactics haven't worked for at least the couple of decades that I've been on OLO. So, stick to it. These people are not typical of the wider community, and it's a fair bet that there are lots of people out there who take in what you say who you will never hear from, but who will be thinking about what they read here when they vote.

WTF?

ttbn states: "If you think that people are going to change their minds because you think they should, you are going to be even more disappointed..."

I think people should form their opinions based of factual information.

An opinion about an important issue should be supported by facts not feelings and emotions.

When I choose to I will continue to comment when I see misinformation and overemotive nonsense used to support comments.

It has been said that "an entirely vacuous and self-contradictory way of thinking has taken hold of most of the population". I don't quite know how any one person can know what "most of the population" thinks, but it could explain why we have the most Leftist Government ever, led by an ignorant Ocker who sounds like a side-show barker; and a totally useless and timid Opposition. Along with anonymous people thinking that their opinions are better than others, and acting as mouthpieces for whatever political ideology they are enslaved to. All emotion and no intellect: all piss and wind, but expecting to be listened to. All low-information types, manipulated by 'experts' in the media and online: bullies whose minds never got past the schoolyard stage - and, of course, the most Left-wing PM ever, and social media where only one side's opinions are allowed.

At least we can stand up to their rubbish on OLO without being cancelled; and what makes them acceptable on Twitter and Facebook, just makes them look ridiculous here among people with a healthier outlook.

The Voice. ATSIC chapter 2. Divide and conquer.

NO. NO. NO and NO again

The last federal election results showed us the direction
in which people want the country to go. As did the state
election in Victoria. Australians usually do get things
right at the ballot box.

We're not entitled to our opinions
when those opinions are factually wrong. They should and
usually are called out by rational people on this forum.
The selective few who keep complaining when called out -
only have themselves to blame. If they don't like the
facts being provided they can of course improve.
Although I suspect that some don't have the capabilities
to improve therefore they resort to personal insults.

That's par for the course on public forums and social
media.

As for The Voice to Parliament?

There will be interesting times ahead to see how many
Australians do support it. And just as with same-sex marriage,
I'm sure that most Australians will have a collective
rejection of the racism experienced by our First Nations Peoples
for hundreds of years.

Most Australians will see the need to get rid of this unjust
power effecting our First citizens and effectively stripping
them in the land of their birth.

I have full confidence in Australians to finally do the right thing.

Even the Spectator is allowing Peter Dutton to get away with doing nothing, saying that the softies letter to Ockernese demanding details of the loathsome Voice is "a welcome and well-timed development "

Pig's ribs! Dutton should be vigorously opposing it.

A proper and detailed and clear purpose must be given to every voter as it involves the changing of out Constuction. Just voting on a Yes / No vote without every voter reading its details, just means Trust the Politicians.

Dutton's 15 questions about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament
1. Who will be eligible to serve on the body

2. What are the prerequisites for nomination?

3. Will the Government clarify the definition of Aboriginality to determine who can serve on the body?

4.How will members be elected, chosen or appointed?

5. How many people will make up the body

6. How much will it cost taxpayers annually?

7. What are its functions and powers?

8. Is it purely advisory or will it have decision-making capabilities?

9. Who will oversee the body and ensure it is accountable?

10.If needed, can the body be dissolved and reconstituted in extraordinary circumstances?

11. How will the Government ensure that the body includes those who still need to get a platform in Australian public life?

12. How will it interact with the Closing of the Gap process?

13. Will the Government rule out using the Voice to negotiate any national treaty?

14. Will the Government commit to Local and Regional Voices, as recommended in the report on the co-design process led by Tom Calma and Marcia Langton?

15.If not, how will it effectively address the real issues that impact people's lives daily on the ground in the community?

Sky News tells us that most people are over the
cheap culture war stunts. That even Liberal backbenchers
are arguing that MPs should be able to decide for
themselves if they want to support or oppose The Voice instead
of a forced unified and binding position. After all the
Liberal Party is supposed to be a "broad church."

Therefore Mr Dutton's claims are not adding to a good lock.
And are coming across as only attempts at stirring and
being divisive - showing just how out of touch he really is.

He's looking irrelevant because not only was a detailed
report present to Parliament ages ago but the Labor
government will launch a "week of action in February to
effectively launch their "Yes" campaign for the
constitutionally enshrined Indigenous Voice.

Supporters of The Voice will also engage in various
community activities such as barbeques and door-knocking
to further raise awareness and momentum and provide even
more detail ahead of this year's referendum.

If Mr Dutton wants to be taken seriously - like some people
on this forum, he needs to get his facts straight.

WTF?

ttbn states: "...who will be thinking about what they read here when they vote."

I would state it as a question: "Who will be thinking about what they read here when they vote?"

As a total - probably not many. Most younger voters will be getting their information elsewhere.

I think many political commentors are out of touch with the public mind-set.

The TEALS rolling the Liberal party on their home turf. "Dictator Dan" getting the nod of approval.

The look of stunned silence on the face of an almost catatonic Peta Credin on Victorian election night just shows how out of touch with the public political commentators can be.

One thing that might help is the recognition of history. We could start with the War Memorial. The War Memorial is supposed to be a recognition of Australia's wars. Land was given to the settlers of Australia regardless of the connection of Aborigines with the land. There was a war to complete the dispossession of the Aborigines. That was Australia's original sin, and it should be recognised in the War Memorial. The slaughters of Aborigines should also be noted as these slaughters were a continuation of the original war of dispossession. The Aborigines demand for a separate voice is in part due to the recognition of what has been their fate during much of the history of Australia. An alien religion has been imposed on them. An alien language has been imposed on them. An alien culture has been imposed on them. Australia now has members of various ethnic groups. With the exception of the Aborigines they have not been denied their languages, culture and religion except during the first few years of English settlement where the only recognised religion was the Church of England.

Dear David,

Thank you.

Surely as decent moral people most Australians
do have the capacity after hundreds of years of history
to finally do the right thing by the First People of
this country who are not asking for very much.

As decent moral people could not support a vote for "a voice" without knowing what they are voting for.

Albozo has sunk the referendum. Without the courage to tell Australia what they are voting for the referendum will die.

Dear Josephus,

And the answers can be found here if you wanted to do a modicum of reading.

http://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf

The only question is whether Albo will adopt the report in full. If he doesn't then there will be a need to further inform people of any changes.

Let me know if you feel any of your questions, (not Dutton's because he is just playing people), have not been answered and I will be more than happy to hold your hand and work through them.

That was Australia's original sin, and it should be recognised in the War Memorial.
davidf,
Not Australians, British !

David f, the original aboriginals were full blood and not the interbred group of today, that want their ancestors land back. The Voice is not intended to deal with the history of the settlers but to deal with first nations people today.

If the Voice represents the primitive culture of the past, they do not need to have a body in government, as they can manage their own. The Voice if it gets up, should only deal with people of full blood, living in their culture and on their land grants. It should not represent any persons living in cities of first World environments.

indyvidual,

I think that David F., was referring to the first
inhabitants of Australia - who were of course
the Aboriginal people, who generations of Australians
remember from that one history class when the teacher
mentioned them.

Of course the Fleeters considered themselves as British
and the fact that they were on the other side of the world
would not stop them feeling that way.

In fact, it took some time for the British and their
descendants in Australia to stop thinking of England as
"home."

Some say the tendency only really died out when Robert Menzies
passed away in 1978. ?Australia under any name was viewed
has been viewed as an outpost of the British Empire far beyond
the point at which this perception was literally true or even
remotely reasonable - as we can see from so many of the posts
on this forum.

Josephus,

Once again - do your research as to who is considered
an Aborigine. There are 3 criteria that have to be met.
You need the facts in order to continue expressing an
intelligent opinion.

Dear Josephus,

The Aboriginal people of today are not in general full blood. A lot of that is due to exploitation of Aboriginal women by white men. Children of those unions identify with Aboriginal society since they generally are rejected by non-Aboriginal society. The fact they are not full blood is due to the exploitation of Aboriginal women.

It is an unreasonable demand to restrict Aborigines to those of full blood. If their land were not taken from them, if their women were not raped many of them would not be living in cities and would be full-blooded.

The Voice does not represent the culture of the past since that culture does not in general exist. The Voice represents the survivors of the people of the past who exist in the present. The history of the settlers is why the Voice is necessary.

We cannot reverse the settler crimes, but we can acknowledge them. We can be thankful that the Aborigines were not wiped out and try to compensate the survivors of mixed heritage by giving them a Voice.

Steelreflux,

According to the document you linked, as nearly every piece of legislation affects indigenous people as well as the rest of us, the voice would require indigenous involvement at every step of the legislation and regulation creation process at both the federal and state levels. This would be far more invasive than Albozo is selling.

This vote now and we will design the legislation later is a blank cheque to a racially based legal system that will override the majority of voters. This is basically apartheid.

A grand total of 9 different people have had their say here.

Let's wait and see what the other 17,302,243 (June '22 figure less us 9) have to say when they are all forced to vote on this rubbish.

Life's too short to deal with other people's insecurities.

Most Australians prefer not to water the weeds in their lives.
They prefer to water the flowers.

We must decide if we consider all people regardless of race as equal or believe some are victims of their ancestors' past and lesser human than the average population.

Paul, David and Steel and Foxy, want them to continue to be victims needing exceptional care, they have no aspirations for them to enter Australian society. They prefer they remain as oppressed victims.

Any first Nations person that receives income from our society from work or services do not need special treatment, they have achieved equality by western discipline. Aboriginal persons who earn thousands from playing sport, working in mines and Rural and producing product for sale into the tourism industry, do not need a Voice as there are their equals in the Parliament already.

Who needs a special Voice above the government elected? and for what purpose? Will the taxpayer fund them?

All this fuss over 798,365 (maybe) descendants of long-gone aborigines, of whom only 150,000 live in remote areas where they might need help, but won't be helped by the Voice any more than they have been helped in the past and currently by all the industry's bureaucrats and billions of dollars frittered away.

WTF?

ttbn states: ".. won't be helped by the Voice any more than they have been helped in the past and currently by all the industry's bureaucrats and billions of dollars frittered away".

In a previous thread I gave an anecdotal account from a previous employment of a school principal that misappropriated funding for Indigenous students and ttbn replied with "good on (him)".

You can't talk talk about frittering away money on one hand and then congratulate those who do it on another.

All this fuss over 798,365 (maybe) descendants of long-gone aborigines, of whom only 150,000 live in remote areas where they might need help, but won't be helped by the Voice any more than they have been helped in the past and currently by all the industry's bureaucrats and billions of dollars frittered away.
ttbn,
Spot-on !
The real Aborigines who still live on parts of their ancestral lands will not even be thought about by their whiteish pretend cousins !

I think it'd turn out to be ATSIC Mk2.

The only aboriginals benefiting from the taxpayer funded Voice will be those in the Voice living in Canberra with the status of first World standards.

Dear Josephus,

You write: "The only aboriginals benefiting from the taxpayer funded Voice will be those in the Voice living in Canberra with the status of first World standards."

Still wallowing in your self imposed pig ignorance I see.

What a typical pissy little throwaway line. You obviously raised this topic so you could indulge yourself in cowardly little mantras without contributing anything constructive or bothering to better inform yourself.

If you had you would have learnt about the 35 regional bodies contributing to the Voice all of whose members do not reside in Canberra.

I hope you don't wonder why you aren't taken seriously.

Get a life.

Dear Steele,

He's been told many times to get his facts.
He's not interested. Thankfully, he is a minority.

Josephus has faith. That means he doesn't have to know anything to know everything.

All this identity politics and race-driven nonsense, and there is a critical shortage of antibiotics in Australia. 90% of all medicines are imported, thanks to politicians who would rather play around with junk policies instead of getting Australia producing vital goods again, including pharmaceuticals, preferring to import them from places like China, who could cut them off altogether if and when it suits them.

If you had you would have learnt about the 35 regional bodies contributing to the Voice all of whose members do not reside in Canberra.
SteeleRedux,
What are some of the more relevant achievements of these regional bodies ? Which are the ones that stand out ?

indyvidual,

Read the final report that Steele gave.
You seem to not understand what their
purpose was or what The Voice is all about.
Do your own research - it will help you to
understand.

The previous Governments have helped aboriginals to set up businesses and industry in remote communities, as well as park rangers and State governments who have given employment to aboriginal people in teaching, nursing, and police.

These people do not need someone advising the Governments enshrined in the Constitution. A Voice is merely tokenism as the aboriginal community already has people equally well educated to lobby Governments for their causes. Listen to those who are already speaking up for aboriginal needs. NO! There are those that want to retain them as victims and promote the guilt industry on society.

The Government can already establish a lobby group of the 250 aboriginal nations to speak on their behalf. It does not need a Vote.

You seem to not understand what their
purpose was or what The Voice is all about.
Foxy,
It's you who doesn't understand the agenda of this VOICE. It's along the lines of saying the weapon doesn't kill, it's the person firing it !

indyvidual,

You're the one asking questions that have already been answered.

More twaddle from Ockernese.

Now the race-based Voice is a "very gracious request from Indigenous people". A request? What BS! This referendum is being forced on us from above - or more correctly, from a dictatorial, power-crazed, intellectual runt of a PM.

If we don't vote yes, we will "send a bad message in the way that Australia is perceived internationally", according to this lunatic.

His divisive, racist referendum, "is an opportunity to unite the nation", he whined. Just the opposite is the case

Please explain - and not just rave.

Thanks.

Consistent polling shows a growing support for an
Indigenous Voice. This I find very re-assuring that
this country is going in the right direction. That
on this issue, like marriage equality or climate
change, the Australian people are ahead of politics.

The Uluru Statement presents an opportunity for a
"re-founding of Australia." For setting the historic
record straight. For truth telling of its history.

The authors of the Uluru Statement from the Heart never
intended it to be a political document., but a gift to
the Australian people. It offers an opportunity for all
to walk together for a just and truthful future.

At a time of political division it speaks of a place
beyond politics. And that may be its pathway to success.
To take it out of the hands of politicians and place
it into the hands of the people.

Australians will get it right in the end as they always do.
I have every confidence in the Australian people who will
ignore the politics - and not allow some snide mis-informed
back-talkers to influence them.

Our Prime Minister made an election promise.
He is determined to keep it as he should.
An honourable man - who keeps his promises.

An honourable man - who keeps his promises.
Foxy,
Promises that will divide the Nation ? Honourable ?

indyvidual,

Most Australians approve of The Voice to Parliament.
It will not divide the nation. On the contrary it
will unite it. You are in the minority. Get over it.

Foxy,

Is Albozo keeping his promise? That'll be the first having failed to do this with the electricity price promise and his carbon tax. However, what he promised at the election and his referendum proposal are quite different.

As far as the polling is concerned, the chances of a referendum passing presently are about 50% which drops substantially if the coalition opposes it. And if Airbus Albo refuses to detail exactly what they are going to do the coalition will oppose a blank cheque for Aussie apartheid.

shadowminister,

It will be interesting to see what the Australian people
finally decide won't it?

Possibly in a few years time - we'll both be wondering what
all this fuss was all about.

Foxy,

There was little to no fuss after Juliar ditched her version of the voice.

shadowminister,

So why do you think there's a fuss now?

So why do you think there's a fuss now?
Foxy,
Because of the frustration to thinkers that were hoping the circus would die with Gillard's departure !

indyvidual,

The thinkers are not the ones causing the fuss.
It's the clowns in the circus doing it as they
always have.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote:

"The previous Governments have helped aboriginals to set up businesses and industry in remote communities, as well as park rangers and State governments who have given employment to aboriginal people in teaching, nursing, and police.

These people do not need someone advising the Governments enshrined in the Constitution."

What a bloody brilliant example of school boy ethics. "He's getting more than me Mr Jones".

And to top it all off in comes the ubiquitous "These people".

I labelled you racist before and it seems you just can't help yourself because the tone is certainly there for everyone to see.

There are 11 aboriginal MPs in the Aus Parliament, Aboriginals are both represented and consulted.

Foxy's confidence in the advisory only aspect of the voice is misplaced as Albozo has refused to publically commit to this.

shadowminister,

You are the one who seems not to understand. Our
Prime Minister has made his position quite clear.
Details have been supplied in the final report. And
the Indigenous repesentatives in parliament are their
representating only their electorates - not the
Aboriginal people which is what the Voice will do.

You seem to have difficulty in understanding.

apologies for the typos.

Foxy,

You seem to lack understanding.

I've read the reports and they don't even vaguely resemble what Albozo claimed.

He has made no promises and the referendum as it stands will give him a blank cheque.

The aboriginals already have eleven voices in Parliament represented by thousands of Votes. If Albanese is not listening to their advice, he will not listen to another voice if he is so ignorant to dismiss those in Parliament. The brain wash on the Voice is done by SBS and ABC they dislike Western Civilization.

shadowminister and Josephus,

Both of you - just go away!

just go away!
Foxy,
Stop being an indoctrinated clown !

indyvidual,

You first!

Settled down children !
My take on this is I do not think the people running the show are
clever enough to manage it.
Remember these are the people who were happy to see coal power stations
blown up and dismantled and are happy more to be closed even this year
before the replacement generation is in place. More to be closed yet !

Look, they really are STUPID, its not just a go at pollies, they
Really are STUPID so you want to trust them on this constitution ?

Albanese is worried that informed debate about the Aboriginal Voice might reveal too much.

Albanese doesn't want to provide Australian voters the two 2,000 word summaries, as required under Referendum conventions, that would provide arguments for the Yes and No cases.

His fear is informed discussion of the YES and NO cases would expose the broad disagreements between Aboriginal Factions.

The major factions are:

1. the Young Urban Radicals, a Melbourne based faction who walked-out of the Uluru convention. They don't want a Referendum at all due to the risk it would be voted down. Instead they want Albanese to go straight to Treaty and a "Truth-Telling" Compensation Commission.

and

2. the Uluru Statement pro-Referendum, generally Northern Australia, Traditionalists, who DO want a Referendum. The Young Urban Radicals consider this group a bunch of old fuddie-duddies.

For the CONVENTION REQUIRING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROVIDE 2000 WORD ARGUMENTS ON THE YES AND NO CASES.

See http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/rp/rp9900/2000rp02

"The YES and NO Cases

Parliament prescribes the manner in which referendum votes are taken.

In most referenda since the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1912 (No. 2), each elector has received a pamphlet containing arguments in favour of, or against, any proposal upon which s(he) is voting.

Normally, these arguments must be no more than two thousand words in length, and must be authorised by a majority of those parliamentary members who voted for or against the proposed law."

Dear Foxy

Please respond to my post above.

Cheers Mavs

Hi Maverick,

I'm sure that the Prime Minister will follow the
correct procedures when the time comes prior to the
Referendum and we shall all be informed of what to do
et cetera. In the meantime - of course there will be
those who are trying to stir the pot. Ignore them.

Things will follow as they should. Our PM has enough
people advising him on what needs and must be done.

Don't concern yourself.

The noblest cause is the action to stop apartheid from being legalised in Australia.

The old communist objective is that everyone is equal, just that some are more equal than others.

shadowminister,

Don't make your views so obvious.
Try being a bit more subtle.

Thanks Foxy for replying.

However you are evading my main point!

That is Albanese following the Referendum Convention requiring his government provide each voter/"elector" with two 2000 WORD ARGUMENTS on the YES and NO CASES concercening the Voice Proposal(s)

Regarding this Convention see http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/rp/rp9900/2000rp02

"The YES and NO Cases

...In most referenda since the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1912 (No. 2), each elector has received a pamphlet containing arguments in favour of, or against, any proposal upon which s(he) is voting.

Normally, these arguments must be no more than two thousand words in length, and must be authorised by a majority of those parliamentary members who voted for or against the proposed law."

Please respond to my main point.

Foxy,

I have always opposed legally enforced racial discrimination. I'm sorry if that troubles you.

That Labor is fighting tooth and nail to shut down debate on this topic and prevent people from getting the information they deserve points to the complete lack of integrity in the labor party.

Very true shadowminister

Labor is fighting tooth and nail to shut down debate on the Voice.

This is why Albanese, under pressure from the Labor Left, is refusing to follow the Referendum Convention of providing each voter/"elector" with two 2000 WORD ARGUMENTS on the YES and NO CASES concerning the Voice Proposal.

Regarding this Convention see http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/rp/rp9900/2000rp02

"The YES and NO Cases

...In most referenda since the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1912 (No. 2), each elector has received a pamphlet containing arguments in favour of, or against, any proposal upon which s(he) is voting.

Normally, these arguments must be no more than two thousand words in length, and must be authorised by a majority of those parliamentary members who voted for or against the proposed law."

++++++++++++++

FOXY ?

It saddens me that Foxy is growing cranky.

She is increasingly driven by her "True Faith" rather than being open to political discussion.

Cheers Mavs

Hi Maverick,

I'm not cranky. My views on The Voice have
been made quite clear on this forum. I am
going to vote YES. End of story. How you guys
decide to vote - is your choice. And I'm not
looking for any further explanations from our PM.
I'm satisfied with what I already know and look forward
to what's going to be presented to us further down the
track.

I'm not going to nit-pick at this point in time.
But you go right ahead.

shadowminister,

I see things totally differently to you regarding
The Voice. But that's all right.

We both shall have a chance to have our say in the
Referendum. It will be interesting to see what the
rest of Australia thinks. I have every confidence
that the right decision will be made.

foxy: "We both shall have a chance to have our say in the Referendum. It will be interesting to see what the rest of Australia thinks. I have every confidence that the right decision will be made."

In a democracy, a general referendum that is properly conducted (ie: no electoral fraud and a change of the current law occurs only if the majority approves) will always mean that the right decision is made. If that result is one that you disapprove of and didn't vote for is immaterial. Indeed, the fact the it gives the right result (ie: it gives the result that the majority want) is the whole point of holding a referendum.

Well put!

Without a definition of "What is an Aborigine ?"
the whole thing is meaningless.
If it passes in a hundred years or so we will have our own House of Lords !

Dear Maverick,

Either you didn't read your link or you have deliberately decided to exclude acknowledging the following from it:

"In some cases, NO arguments are not produced. In 1967, for instance, arguments for and against the Nexus alteration were produced, but only a YES argument in relation to the Aborigines amendment."

It would seem on the issue of indigenous matters the convention is that a No case is not provided.

What reasons do you think justify the breaking of that convention now?

Hi SteeleRedux

"What reasons do you think justify the breaking of that convention now?"

Based on information accessed ultimately from the state, based on conversations with the various factions regarding the denial of the right of Australians to be adequately informed by way of the two x 2,000 word statements, on the YES or NO Case Convention:

The main reason is that different Aboriginal factions have embarrassingly (for themselves and the Government) conflicting views on all the elements of the Voice.

The conflicting elements of the Voice include:

1. an informal Aboriginal interests gathering in Parliament versus a formal Aboriginal Representative "House" of Parliament.

2. an informal agreement of rights versus a formal Treaty of Aboriginal Privileges, and

3. differing views on the statutory basis of powers and finance for a permanent "Truth Telling" Compensation Authority

For example the Young Mainly White, Sydney-Melbourne-Canberra, Urban "Aborigines" have views

in conflict with

the Older, Uluru Line, Genuine "Full Blood" Aborigines, generally from Northern Australia

Basically the PM aims to provide no pre-Vote information because he doesn't want to reveal these conflicts and that much is policy on the run.

Cheers Mavs

I have just read this article from Quadrant and the situation is worse
than I thought. The major point is those elected will be representatives
not delegates.
There is a major difference in how they can operate.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/the-voice/2023/01/no-wonder-they-wont-detail-how-the-voice-will-work/

There seems to be a lot of machinations that the public is not aware of.

Dear Maverick,

Mate, I inform you that the convention to changes to the constitution regarding Aboriginal matters is to provide a brief Yes case only.

Yet you come out with this:

"Based on information accessed ultimately from the state, based on conversations with the various factions regarding the denial of the right of Australians to be adequately informed by way of the two x 2,000 word statements, on the YES or NO Case Convention:"

It is gobbly gook. Why are you claiming a type of historical convention when our history clearly shows an entirely different convention with regards to Aboriginal matters.

The convention is established and you need to show just cause why it should be ignored and waving a non-applicable convention around isn't going to cut it.

All the rest you have offered is mantra inspired fluff.

Why don't you have a more considered crack at it.

Thanks Bazz

Peter Smith's short essay at QUADRANT Online

Entitled "No Wonder They Won’t Detail How the Voice Will Work"

of 15th January 2023

at http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/the-voice/2023/01/no-wonder-they-wont-detail-how-the-voice-will-work/

is well put.

It is a useful balance to the "Vote For The Voice on Faith rather than sound governance" crowd who are still stuck in the 1960s Referendum.

Especially where Smith says:

"Again, to be clear, the Voice will not be comprised of delegates. It will be comprised of “representatives.” But representatives who don’t have to present themselves and their records to eligible voters at regular intervals; even if it were practicable, which it isn’t, to delineate the body of such voters. Quite simply, this is not an acceptable model in a liberal democratic country. Democracy was described by Winston Churchill as the least worst form of government, precisely because parliamentary representatives, and therefore governments and leaders, could be voted out.

[and as I have likewise argued on Voice threads...]

The Voice, a racist concept within the Constitution, is a bad idea per se. Run by unelected people, it has every chance of becoming a fiefdom. That would not be a benign, never mind beneficial, addition to Australia’s national life."

Cheers Mavs

Dear Mavs,

Going to Quadrant for an uninformed take by a flog who doesn't even seem to have read the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process report is not very bright.

The report states: "Each region decides how best to draw its voice members (i.e. election, nomination/expressions of interest/selection, drawing on structures based in traditional law and custom, or a combination) and how many voice members there will be."

So there will likely be both delegates and representatives, something the author does not acknowledge.

Nor does he acknowledge there are fixed terms or a higher standard of what makes a fit and proper person than the Australian Parliament mandates.

Guidance in the report of what should constitute that 'fit and proper person' include:

- conviction for certain serious offences, e.g.,
punishable by imprisonment of a period
greater than 12 months or other offences
involving dishonesty that are punishable by
imprisonment of at least 3 months;
− breach of a civil penalty provision; and
− deemed to repeatedly break the law.

There are a few current MPs on both sides who would be levered out of parliament if this were applied to them.

My advice my dear Mavs, is to expand your reading list. Quadrant and the Spectator just aren't going to cut it if you are seeking an informed opinion.

All the best.

Presently most aboriginal activists are self-appointed mouthpieces performing for the benefit of their back pockets.

The aboriginal people should elect anyone that is part of the voice and not the inner city woke elites.

The report drawn up by these self-appointed activists encourages the appointment of "representatives" by (election, nomination/expressions of interest/selection, drawing on structures based on traditional law and custom, or a combination) which essentially means activists will be appointed for activists by activists for the benefit of rent-seeking activists. Any attempt to impose actual democracy on this gang will be considered cultural colonialism.

What we will get is an ASIC with corruption on steroids that is protected by the constitution.

Hi shadowminister

Your concerns about "activists will be appointed for activists by activists for the benefit of rent-seeking activists" is on the money.

SHORT EXAMPLE - A PRECEDENT

This is what happened at the 2019 Victorian First Peoples' Assembly election where "only 7% of the eligible [First Nation] voters turned out to vote".

Presumably the 7% were friends, family, fellow tribe, "mob" or activists supporting their own activists.

Given this miniscule Voter Turnout the Victorian First Peoples' Assembly is hardly a democraticly appointed represenatative body.

The Victorian...Assembly is held up as a model by many federal level activists and Labor, Green and teal(?) politicians in Federal Parliament.

MORE DETAIL

An election to elect representatives to the First Peoples' Assembly in the Australian state of Victoria occurred in 2019. The election filled seats to the body which was charged with the responsibility of preparing for negotiations with the Government of Victoria about a treaty with the state's Aboriginal population.

The voting period was 16 September to 20 October 2019.[1] Only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in Victoria and at least 16 years of age were eligible to vote in the election.[2][3] However,

only 7% of the eligible voters turned out to vote."

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Victorian_First_Peoples%27_Assembly_election

The comment: "activists will be appointed for activists by activists for the benefit of rent-seeking activists" applies equally to all our elected bodies. One of the reasons the teal independents did so well was because people were fed up with our democratic system being manipulated by the self appointed few.
The key difference is that the three tiers of givernment exercise real power. The proposed voice will have no power other than the quality of their arguments.
The comment: 'only 7% of the eligible voters turned out to vote.' is not all that it seems. Aboriginal people have expereinced 200 years of empty promises - we should not underestimate the level of disenchantment with engaging in 'the white man's games'

Well said - BAYGON!

Nothing has changed since this thread was started a week ago.

Just vote yes or no, and stop the childish bickering and bulls....ing.

Begone BAYGON!

Your heart may be pure and your intentions well meaning.

But you're only flattering flamboyant Foxy's faith fooled FAIR-skinned furry Philistines with fulsome falsity.

Hi Maverick,

Flamboyant Foxy?
You betcha!

But -

BAYGON can see beyond - the breath-taking appearance,
the porcelain skin, waist-length plait,
pink full lips, greenish almond eyes, dress to impress
elegance, mane of red-hair.

He's a gentleman.

PS BAYGON

I think the Voice, if passed, may allow a lot of power plays in Canberra by politicians, white, black and brown.

But their efforts and visions always need to go through the highly paid service providers, who soak up the funds, before benefits (money and services) get to the Aborigines who really need it.

Hi Foxy

of the "the breath-taking appearance,
the porcelain skin, waist-length plait,
pink full lips, greenish almond eyes, dress to impress
elegance, mane of red-hair."

Yes you are that
and I admit
a worthy
if contrary
debate-tante*

* Querulous Debutante :)

Hi Maverick,

Querulous?

More appropriate - amiable, affable,
admirable, and of course - adjustable.

Then there's - blessed, blest, blissful, and blithe.

Baygon,

On one hand, you agree that the voice would be a license to rent seek by self-appointed activists, yet on the other hand, you say it's ok for these activists to abandon any pretence of democratic representation because of history?

ASIC was the "voice" version 1, so far the Voice version 2 is version 1 on steroids and like AIDS is unpleasant, expensive and incurable.

shadow minister - not quite. The point I am making is that self appointed activists characterise our democratic process. This goes for the committee that runs the local football club to the people who are elected to parliament. It is a weakness in democratic systems globally that needs to be addressed. One of the reasons so many democracies are lurching towards some form of totalitarianism is that it is beginning to be seen as 'normal'.

South Australian Labor is gagging to have its own Voice, and it can have it without reference to voters if they can get it through parliament, which looks possible, with a couple of Green nutters, and a powerless Liberal opposition.

Federal Labor could do the same thing: just legislate. But, no. They want to change the Constitution; which is why the referendum question should be rejected. It is the threat to our Constitution that is the real danger.

Ockernese doesn't have the guts to just legislate; he wants the excuse of 'just doing what the people wanted' when the dangerous nonsense goes tits up, but can't be abolished by a future government without another referendum to change the Constitution.

Don't let the bastard get away with it. Vote NO.

Although, it is thought by some commentators that we might not have to vote at all, given Ockernese's stuttering and stammering over questions put to him buy some sections of the media over the last few days.

I repeat, there is one unanswered question in all of this that
requires a clear legal answer;
What is an aborigine ?

It is not like that perennial question "What is a woman ?".
We seem to have a lot of Tick-a-Boxes around already.
This is a fundamental legal question that if not defined will destroy
the constitutional legal system where it relates to aborigines.

Imagine, if you will, in the high court a question of should the
government have taken more seriously a certain matter.
A party to the dispute says, "But these people are not aborigines !"

No Comment yet ? I thought I would be jumped on immediately.
Something I have noticed, the most active activists are as white as me.
So what is their reasoning or justification.
The whole thing puzzles me.

Bazz,

We've been over this before. There are three criterias
that have to be met as designed to be considered Aboriginal.
Why don't you look them up?

Bazz,

You should look the criteria up.

They cover:

Descent, self identification, and community recognition.
All three have been accepted by federal government
departments.

1) An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent.

2) Who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

3) Is accepted as such by the community in which they live
or formerly lived.

Their skin colour does not come into it.

Bazz

Expecting comments is like listening at a keyhole: you won't hear anything good.

Listen to a real aboriginal, Warren Mundine, who says:

"The Voice is not Aboriginal culture. In our cultures, only countrymen and women can speak for country. No national body can speak for the circa 300 traditional owner groups, Australia’s “First Nations,” it would be a huge bureaucratic structure drowning out Aboriginal voices, not enabling them to be heard".

Of course the whitey smart arses and knowalls don't want to listen to actual descendants of aborigines who are against the Voice. It doesn't fit in with the hard racism and the 'divide and rule' concept.

The Indigenous Voice co-design report by Professors
Langton and Calma led by a group appointed by the
former Indigenous Minister Ken Wyatt as part of the 2019
election promise to develop options for an Indigenous Voice
has been presented to Parliament. Their report was the
result of 18 months worth of consultation with 9,478 people
and organisations including 1115 community consultations in 67
locations, 2,978 submissions, 1,127 surveys, 124 stake holder
meetings and 13 webinars.

Sounds rather representative to most rational people.

OOOps, sorry for the typo.

It should read - 115 community organisations.

This Voice malarkey stems not from any love of aborigines, but more from a hatred of white civilisation. The biggest threat to Australia is its own citizens. We have fouled our own nest.

Not even birds poop in their own nest.

The unnecessary time and attention given to the Voice overshadows the increasing horrors of aboriginal life in Alice Springs, where the Mayor has called for federal intervention.

As the Northern Territory is a territory, not a state, the federal government can put Federal Police and ADF forces in to aid local police.

So far, the Federal Labor Government has declined to do so. Too busy on something that won't help the aboriginal population in Alice Springs (the Voice) or the rest of the population subject to theft and violence, which has increased since the same Federal Labor government dropped alcohol restrictions.

Which political party has been in power the most in this
country? That's the party that needs to take responsibility
for the problems that our Indigenous people have today.

I've been reading an article about the "careful editing" by the Prime Minister's office of a transcript of an interview between the PM and 2GB Radio about the Voice and whether or not Albanese had sought any legal advice on the matter. The PM told the interviewer that the person who gave legal advice to the government was the Solicitor-General, but when he was asked if he had sought the SG's advice, he said "No. No … We got advice from a range of High Court judges, former High Court judges are on the record, such as Justice French and others."

"No?!", said the interviewer, but this was "edited" from the transcript.

Bad enough: who expects anything different from Labor. But worse is the article's comments on the lack of action by the Opposition Leader, who "has lost sight of his job as a conservative Liberal leader – to protect the nation from racial revenge-style Marxist attacks on the most important legal document in Australia, the Constitution".

This week, with the unconvincing stumbling waffle from Albanese, plus the transcript fiddling, he has loads of ammunition to get stuck in.

But no, he just keeps bleating for 'details', at a time when Australians are so fed up with the whole thing, that "popularity for the Voice is sitting at about 95 per cent against".

One commentator asks advocates - who claim that the Voice is to be a 'unifying force' to 'heal the racial divisions between Australians' - "why is it going to "represent only one lot of Australians and be paid for by the other". And why the Voice is threatening the substantial racial unity that already exists, "with the major of Aborigines assimilated into living the same westernised life as everyone else" with the Voice to remind them that they are ‘different’".

Foxy,
Is it 1 and 2 and 3, or is it 1 or 2 or 3 ?
As far as decent is concerned we probably all have ancestors that go
back to Africa.

Foxy,

There is a difference between being consultative and representative. Talking to lots of people does not mean that you represent them.

Bazz I arrived in Australia in 1959. Few of us spoke English so we were not really able to engage with Australians. That did not stop us from discussing our experiences among ourselves. One anecdote may be of interest. One of our number had been sacked. It turned out that the boss had sacked another worker who then complained that as an Australian he should not have been sacked in preference to a Migrant. Naturally we were not impressed and we asked ourselves what makes him an Australian? He certainly was not an Aborigine. I do now know how you define Aboriginal. But I do know that most of us have a very recent Australian heritage and it seems that it is about time that we started listening to the people who have much longer links to this land.

Dear shadowminister,

You wrote, "Talking to lots of people does not mean that you represent them."

However, talking to a lot of people and listening to what they have to say is what you should be doing if you are their representative and want to do a good job.

Dear BAYGON and David,

I also remember the experiences of my parents who were
not considered "Australians," by our neighbours but were
looked upon as "foreigners." They were expected to
give up their culture and totally assimilate in those days.

"Speak English." was the slogan that was heard on buses and
trains. Dad spoke several languages. So I can't even begin
to imagine what our Indigenous folk must have gone through.
And now when all they are asking for is to be an advisory
body regarding laws and programs that affect them - people
are still arguing not to allow that?

I can't understand the logic behind that way of thinking.

David f,

A representative should consult, but someone consulting is not necessarily a representative. If I as a white man consulted in Aboriginal communities I would still not be a representative.

Activists seldom represent the community, more likely an extreme fringe.

shadowminister,

250 representatives were also chosen by their communities to
represent them. They worked on the co-design process of
the Uluru Statement. They and all the others consulted
in this process over so many years finally presented the
report to parliament. Your denying that they don't represent
their people is mischief making and ignorant.

Hi Foxy

GOOD NEWS for the NO VOTE based on the Lack of Information issue I've been on about.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported Jan 24, 2023 http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/support-for-voice-slips-as-voters-await-more-detail-20230123-p5cenw.html

"Support for Voice slips as voters await more detail"

"Australians’ support for an Indigenous Voice to parliament has fallen from 53 to 47 per cent after a political row over how it would work, putting the proposal in danger of defeat at a referendum later this year.

Only 13 per cent of voters are confident they understand the plan for constitutional change to give First Nations people a bigger say in national affairs, heightening the debate about whether the government should reveal more details to build popular support."

COMMENT

Poor Albo may need to release details even if that threatens the hopes of leading urban radical, rather Caucasian-looking "Aborigines" who look forward to cash from the coming Reparations Rent Tax (already spruiked in Victoria).

++++++++++++++

VICTORIAN RENT TAX?

see ie the Daily Mail article of January 25, 2023 at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11665105/Australia-Day-Homeowners-urged-start-paying-Aboriginals-weekly-rent-living-land.html which states in part:

“Australian property owners have been urged to start paying a weekly 'rent' tax to indigenous groups based on their ancestral claim to the land.

Under the 'Pay the Rent' model proposed by a campaign of the same name, and backed by celebrities, homeowners would voluntarily pay a percentage of their income to a body led by Aboriginal elders and administered without any government oversight or intervention.

…The scheme could then be extended further to all users of the land - people having weddings or holding concerts would also be encouraged to hand over money.

…Supporters of the scheme include feminist author Clementine Ford and high-profile Greens senator (for VICTORIA) and activist LIDIA THORPE.

…The organisers of a website which already collects this type of rent for traditional owners in Victoria, say the scheme could go further than taxing homeowners."

++++++++++

More on the Lidia Thorpe angle here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidia_Thorpe#Activism

Cheers Mavs

Hi Foxy and Paul

LYDIA THORPE'S EFFORTS SPELL BAD NEWS FOR YOUR YES VOTE

I must say I've been on the money for months in focussing on Lidia Thorpe's tendency to disrupt Voice Referendum dreams, eg. see my October 2022 post http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9952&page=0#339597

Its as if Lidia were Dutton's Agent Provocateur in working against the Voice Referendum push.

Lidia Thorpe’s anti-Referendum position could see the Greens oppose the Referendum, effectively lining up alongside Liberal and Nationals opponents.

Checkout http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/25/my-door-is-open-anthony-albanese-challenges-political-foes-to-contribute-to-voice-legislation

"PM’s call comes as Greens face party split on issue and Liberals signal they will oppose the proposal"

"Greens senator Lidia Thorpe signalled she could break ranks and vote against legislation enacting the [Voice] advisory body unless Labor provided “guarantees” that First Nations sovereignty would not be not ceded, the prime minister made a public appeal for parliamentarians to prioritise the national interest.

After a Greens party room meeting on [January 25th, 2023], Thorpe signalled she could break ranks if her party locked in. “Regardless of the final party room position, I have informed party room I will not support the legislation for voice to parliament unless I am satisfied that First Nations sovereignty is not ceded.”

She added: “It would take a lot for me to change my personal and long-held view that I don’t think First Nations justice will come from being written into the coloniser’s constitution.

It opens the possibility that the Greens will be split on the final vote...Guardian Australia understands numerous Greens members had privately expressed concerns that Thorpe’s position could see the party oppose the referendum, and effectively line up alongside Liberal and Nationals opponents."

Hi Maverick,

The Yes vote will get through.

My prediction. No matter what the naysayers want and
say.

The time has come for this to go through.

The time is right.

Foxy is sprouting optomistic slogans rather than listen to the divisions in first nations activists. They do not want a "Voice", they want total sovereignty over this Land - listen to the protests in Melbourne. They want their own laws and government and courts.

Foxy's delusion is based on faith like her belief in Pell's guilt.

The advisory body will be chosen from community
representatives - with the approval of parliament.
There is no need for concern. The naysayers are
once again simply using the old outmoded tactics
of fear. We'll se how well they'll work. They
failed at the last election.

shadowminister,

How well did Pell's "innocence" work for him.
The Royal Commission tarnished his reputation
and that of the Church.

Only amongst the left whingers in Aus.

Yeah - that's why church membership is up
and people are putting ribbons on the fences
and gates of Cathedrals and churches everywhere.
The clergy can't keep up to remove them fast
enough. And Pope Francis is saying that being
gay is not a sin. Interesting?

"We are not responsible for the Australia of the past; we are responsible for that of the future. As we celebrate this Australia Day weekend, nothing more starkly engages that responsibility than the proposed changes to the Constitution.

That is all the truer because the proposed voice cuts across the fundamental pillar of a democratic society: political equality. It is simply undeniable that the proposal would grant one group of Australians a constitutional entitlement – to a representative body of its own – other Australians do not enjoy.

Yet ever since the distinctively Western concept of human freedom made its appearance on this Earth, the right of all citizens to participate in the political process on an equal footing has been the lodestar of the struggle for a fairer world."

GOOD NEWS Foxy

Increasing numbers of prominent Aborigines are favouring the NO Vote.

The Guardian reports 27th Jan 2023 http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/26/in-the-clamour-and-confusion-around-the-indigenous-voice-the-media-has-a-special-responsibility

In rallies held in cities around Australia yesterday "Indigenous opponents of the voice sought to use the traditional Invasion Day rallies as a de facto launch of a no campaign,

arguing that justice can only be achieved via a treaty.

...Greens senator Lidia Thorpe has hardened her opposition to the voice on the basis that it would amount to “ceding sovereignty”, amounting to setting up “an advisory body to the colonial system”."

Cheers Mavs

GOOD NEW MAVS!

The opponents to The Voice and other nay activists
won't make much of a difference - except try to
influence people such as yourself in spreading fear.

The actual Indigenous Voice to Parliament will be
the proposed new advisory group containing separately
elected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
which will have a responsibility and right to advise
Parliament and the Australian government on policies
and programs that affect them.

These activists are merely noise makers.

GOOD NEWS!

Aus Apartheid activists are now having to explain what the voice referendum is about!!

'One Voice', what a joke.
Just discussing the topic shows there are many voices.
Even the indigenous themselves can't agree on what they want.
What does Albo think everyone thinks just like him?

Imagine if this nation were populated with clones of Tony Albanese.
What a horrible thought.

Can't believe Australians are dumb enough to vote for this class of political imbeciles.
Oh that's right, we risk a fine if we don't put our support behind one of them.
Promotes 'continuity of shiteshow'

Hi Foxy

I see you are still blaming the majority when it is Aboroginal radical minorities like Lidia who will be the most effective elements in sinking the Voice.

Lidia seems to be concerned that her mainly Melbourne power base will be threated by the relatively older, more moderate people that would form a Voice in the competing power centre of Canberra.

In that regard Foxy, what do you think about Lidia's long term anti Voice positions?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidia_Thorpe#Activism

"Thorpe has been critical of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, believing there should be a treaty before an Indigenous voice to government.

Thorpe led a walk-out of the Uluru convention, believing that it was "hijacked by Aboriginal corporations and establishment appointments and did not reflect the aspirations of ordinary Indigenous people"."

Regards Mavs

Hi Maverick,

When First Nations people around the country were asked
recently if they support a First Nation Voice an overwhelming
80% said YES. only 10% would vote no and 10% are still to
make up their minds.

This poll conducted by The Sydney Morning Herald on 27th
Jan. re-inforces what was found in dialogues in the
Aboriginal communities more than 5 years ago.

It clearly shows that First Nations people want a Voice in
our regions,, cities, remote areas. Only a small minority
10% who too often claim to speak for Aboriginal people
are the noise makers. Thorpe is just one of those.

Your concern is understandable and appreciated - but totally
unwarranted and unnecessary. So don't fret.

Foxy,

That Aboriginals voted for pro aboriginal racial discrimination and an endless source of rent-seeking is not a surprise. The whites in South Africa were also originally very pro-apartheid.

The question is how do the other 97% of the population like becoming 2nd class citizens in their own country?

shadowminister,

I'm afraid I don't understand. In what way giving our
Indigenous people an advisory body to parliament
as far as policies and programs that concern only them -
make the rest of the population second-class citizens.
Please explain.

Foxy,

Don't play stupid. One set of citizens has full voting privileges and access to parliament another tiny set has all that and an additional "voice" requiring consultation in every aspect of lawmaking.

Some are more equal than others.

shadowminister,

You know full well that's not true.
And all they are asking for is to act as an
advisory body and be consulted in matters
that affect them. A reasonable request -
why do you keep persisting with your nonsense.

Foxy,

Having read the reports that you suggested I do to educate myself, it is clear that what the activists are asking for is far more than an "advisory" voice to parliament.

You should read the reports before you post falsehoods.

shadowminister,

You've been told that the activists do not speak on
behalf of the Aboriginal people as they claim. They
are simply noise makers and are a minority. They have
no influence except in selling newspapers. Whereas 80%
of Aboriginal people support the Voice and the proposed
model.

Move on!

Considering that even Albozo doesn't know what the proposed model is due to no model yet being proposed I honestly don't believe any particular model was involved in the poll.

Secondly, this doesn't mean that the activists represent the people as they weren't voted into these positions.

The proposed model is the one that Wyatt presented to Parliament
on which they worked on for five years.

shadowminister,

However you don't seem to understand the entire concept.
Australians are not being asked to vote on a specific
model. Rather the Voice will be determined by Parliament
with the input of the community and the Voice itself will
evolve and change over time.

Foxy,

Earlier you said "Whereas 80% of Aboriginal people support the Voice and the proposed model."

Now you say that there is no proposed model, which has been my argument all along. If you and Albozo have no idea where this will end WTF are we voting for? How can you be so sure that this will only be an advisory body?

Your naivety and absolute trust in Labor are the strongest reasons to vote NO.

shadowminister,

Perhaps this may clarify things somewhat for you:

http://theconversation.com/what-do-we-know-about-the-voice-to-parliament-design-and-what-do-we-still-need-to-know-195720

Watched Q&A last night, thought The Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe put forward a very good argument. Other panellists made positive contributions as well, although National Senator Bridget McKenzie seemed to be out of step with her answers, trying to justify a 'No'vote.

Dear Voice,

No I missed that as well last night.
Darn!

It wasn't a good evening for me.

Paul, have you heard of a film - "Whina," which I believe is
now out on DVD. Its a biopic about the extra-ordinary
life of female Maori leader - Dame Whina Cooper.

Hi Foxy,

Have seen the flick, excellent worth the watch. My wife is a Cooper from Northland.
One of my nieces is always joking with me; "Uncle, give me some land back!" I tell her I'm coming over there to steal some more Maori land, then I'll give her a bag full of dirt back, for s price.

Hi Paul,

I'm going to buy the DVD for my grand-kids. And of
course I'll watch it with them.

This afternoon my order of three lovely long-sleeved
t-shirts arrived. I ordered them from Bwtribal -
they're 100% Australian Indigenous Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander owned and have been operating
for over 10 years. Iheir goods are first class in
quality and design and I feel good to support their
collaborating artists across the country as well.

Nothing like it in Melbourne or anywhere else that I've
seen.

The t-shirts are spectacular in amazing colours - one
is of sea-turtles, another of pelicans, and a third
of aboriginal artwork. Such an array of amazing colours.
I can't wait to wear them. I'm a VIP member of this
outlet. And love their selection of clothing.

They've got matching slacks and shorts.

And they look fantastic on. All very different. Lots of comments
when they're worn.

Hi Paul,

I wanted to add that I'll be watching a repeat of
the Four Corners program tonight and tomorrow morning
they're repeating Q and A - so I'll watch that as well.
I'll let you know what I think after that.

Dear Paul,

I watched both programs. One last night. The other this morning.

The Opus Dei teachings in NSW schools were extreme and very
stressful to watch. It will be interesting to see what the
investigation will find (if anything).

The Q and A program on the Voice - was excellent and revealed
a great deal. Excellent panel - with the exception of Bridget
McKenzie - she should retire. Her cluelessness is embarrassing.

Lidia Thorpe was a surprise. She was excellent - much to my
surprise