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