"Aboriginal aka Indigenous aka First Peoples aka First Nations" Voices to Parliament come and go, unremembered and unlamented.

Here is a list of the forgotten:

In the beginning, Whitlam’s National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (1973-77)

Only to be replaced by the National Aboriginal Conference (1977-85)

Which was scrapped to make way for the infamous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) (1989-2005)

Which ran simultaneously with The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (1991-2000)

But both were scrapped and replaced by the National Indigenous Council (2005-2007)

Which itself was scrapped and replaced by the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples (2009-2019)

Which ran simultaneously with the rapidly forgotten Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council (2013-2019)

All these bodies were Voices of the Past. Albanese's Uluru Voice proposal is just the most recent in a long line of failures.

This is all about Albo's Racist proposal to favour, just one "First Nations" RACE via the Constitution.

Non-First Nations people should vote against Albanese's Racist proposal. Australia is for the equality of all races. It is called Democracy.

Aunty Lidia is blazing away, doing her best to sink the Voice too. We should back her Voice-Wrecking talents, as her Treaty idea also won't get up.

Dear Maverick,

Mate, you have just given the most eloquent argument for the Voice to be enshrined in the Constitution.

I'm going to definitely use it when advocating for a Yes vote in the referendum.

Thank you.

I ditto that!

Thank You Mavs!

If the Voice got into the Constitution, there would be no 'scrapping' of it. You don't have on your list the $30 billion still being wasted, and the 13 hundred or so quangos not 'scrapped'.

We all know where Lidia should 'go', along with her Treaty nonsense.

Look at New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi:

Part Maori activist, Casey Costello, says that that Treaty is a "... self-appointed, elitist minority advocating that they speak for all Maori, and the outcomes (promised) are not being achieved. In fact, some areas have gotten (sic) worse outcomes".

Failures to deliver are, of course, blamed on 'racism' and 'colonisation'.

The Voice - plus the inevitable Treaty - would be no different here.

Thorpe speak for a narrow group on the edge of the
debate. The campaign for the Voice will expand and voters
are being reminded by Green Party members and the Prime
Minister, and many others that Thorpe speaks for a very
small minority.

Most Australians do support The Voice!

It's Time!

If there's enough opposition and pushback, the referendum won't even go ahead anyway.
- Losing the referendum would jeopardise Albo's political future and set back a similar referendum for years and Albo knows it.
He's only likely to go ahead with it if he thinks there's a solid chance of success.
So likely he's probably going to spend a lot more of other peoples money promoting the cause (and doing deals with other pollies) until he thinks he's in that winning position.

- Democracy my left food.
Everythings rigged in a subtle kind of way.

Albo knows what he's doing.

And he will succeed - no ifs and buts. There's so
many door-knock appeals going on in my electorate
at the moment - I have no doubt the campaign will succeed.
They are starting early - and know what they are doing.
No ifs or buts.

Giday Steele and Foxy

Clearly you look forward to a RACIALLY divided Constitution.

The Voice will be yet another venue for ABBAriginals (ie. 7/8ths white guys & gals) to suck up to Albo for cash, while doing nothing for Aborigines who are hard up.

Regards

Another downside for Yes advocates is that a Voice in Parliament may well fail due to the Aboriginal cultural need for extended deliberations until Consensus is reached.

An example might have been Albo having to delay a decision

to fly to the Alice Springs Alcohol-Domestic Violence Crisis

until the Voice had reached Consensus or decided on some "we can manage our own affairs" Coverup approach.

Hi Maverick,

On the contrary - The Voice is not divisive at all.
It is inclusive. And the recognition of our First
Nations People in the Constitution is righting a
wrong of the past. It is finally being inclusive.
And about time.

Frankly I am totally surprised by your lack of
knowledge on this subject. Buying into misinformation
and fear-mongering does you no credit.

FOXY, OLO'S ONLY POLLYANNA & ONLY FEMALE

Hi Foxy-Polly aka Little Red Grannyhood

My "lack of knowledge"?

I bring sources and evidence to the argument, eg. newspaper article links and summaries.

All you bring is the legend of a 260 page "Statement of the Heart" book written years ago.

You are but a small "l" liberal Pollyanna*
sadly declining into Little Red Grannyhood.

+++++++++++

* Re Foxy being OLO's only Pollyanna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna_principle#Development

"The story of Pollyanna is about an orphaned little girl, who is sent to live with her Aunt Polly, who is known for being stiff, strict, and proper.

When thrown into this environment, Pollyanna seeks to keep and spread her optimism to others. This beloved literary character’s story shares the message that despite how hard things may seem, a sunny disposition can turn anyone and anything around."

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

You fail to be sufficiently cynical Foxy-Polly, Little Red Grannyhood!

There, I've said it, and feel better.

Cheers Mavo-Machiavelli

If it was not divisive, as one extremely dumb person believes, every culture in the country would be named in the Constitution. The Constitution is not meant to be used as a roll at all, but the fact that one culture only gets a guernsey, would make the Voice divisive.

As is usual with this particular person, ideology replaces common sense and knowledge. Ideologues - sheep, joiners, whatever you want to call them - allow others to make up their minds for them: in this case slippery Hard Leftist, Anthony Albanese, who has certainly fooled that class of person on this matter and many others. There will be a lot more confidence tricks from this bloke before the fools wake up - if they ever do.

Who says I don'ty inform you Foxy-Little Red GrannyHood, SteeleRectum and, I dare say, Paul?!

Here's a mind-boggling summary of your case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament

Starring, in order of Truth-Telling:

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinta_Nampijinpa_Price

Warren Mundine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Mundine

And, of course Foxy's mate, Lidia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidia_Thorpe

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

FOR THOSE WITH TIME, OR SOMETHING ELSE, IN THEIR HAND: Here is:

"Everything You Need to Know About the Uluru Statement from the Heart" Paperback – 1 June 2021
by Megan Davis (Author), George Williams (Author)

In 240 riveting pages, for anyone who questions Pro-Voice BIG BROTHER.

at http://www.amazon.com.au/Everything-About-Uluru-Statement-Heart/dp/1742237401

A service to OLO's Pro-Voice BIG BROTHER-Hoods

Mavs

I've got a little bit of Indigenous in me.
- But I'm not convinced this plan will have the intended result or the unity hoped for.
What if it just makes things worse and creates more animosity between the parties?
Animosity which will become entrenched in our constitution.

Beyond that does anyone truly believe Albo is the man to come up with a solution after all these years?
If we're going to follow this idea of 'putting the past behind us for the sake of unity' we better damn well make sure we get it right, not half-ass it.

When did our government ever get anything right, and with that in mind what's the chances that Albo's great plan will be the exception?

My wife fostered many children in the past but when she was given an aboriginal child she received extra money, this distressed her as she felt they should receive equally to all other children as she gave them the same love and care. The department discriminated in favor of aboriginal children with extra money.

Albo is doing the same, he is discriminating in favor of aboriginality over every other race [note I said RACE because he fosters racism] he believes they are unable to be equal in Western society, and the invaders have stolen their land. The goal will be a treaty and reparations of land as comrade Dan has in some parts of Victoria. Aboriginals had no sense of ownership of land until we started the constant mantra that we are standing on aboriginal country.

Albo wants to keep them as primitive tribes and not achieve equality to every other race who lives here. While they never assimilate into a modern society they will always be fed by the government. The Voice in the Constitution will ensure they will always be fed by the taxpayer, it is a Labor / Greens agenda to divide by race.

Dear Maverick,

You wrote: "Clearly you look forward to a RACIALLY divided Constitution."

What do you think we have now. It gave the government of the day the power to make raced based laws.

Are you advocating we take all racial references in the current constitution out of it?

Hi AC,

Albo is the only man who's come up with a solution.
He's done it by actually listening and consulting with our
Indigenous people and that's never been done before. He's
now trying to give them the self-determination they want.
Of course he'll succeed. Australians are fair people.

Hi Maverick,

Thank you for giving me so much of your attention.
Wow - I am flattered. Not sure if I deserve it though.

Here's something you might enjoy:

Farrah Fox is full of ideas
That wiggle around between her fox ears
Fear of failure is her allure
Mama Fox tells her that success is her cure

If she listens and learns and does u-turns and bends
She'll reach the success that nature intends
Glam-Gran is what she's now becoming
And as a Glam-Gran she's really looking quite stunning

She can't help being herself you see
She was born to be different with which we agree
She gladdens our hearts as a glamourous fox
Creating a world that for us simply rocks.

Albo is the only man who's come up with a solution.
Foxy,
Not a solution, a new problem of massive affordability proportion & social disharmony. Not thought out at all by sober thinking !

Anything to make you happy Foxy :)

And a stirring "Farrah Fox is full of ideas" poem, I must say.

Here's you with the world's most famous fox, Basil Brush http://youtu.be/E41yqUTDlR4?t=1m3s

You sing like a pro Foxy.

Cheers Mavs

Good Morning Mavs,

Thank you for the link. You have made me happy.

You're a classy guy.

Hi Mavs

You gave me a mention even before I've contributed. I am in favour of the 'Voice' I don't consider it racists and Aboriginal inclusion within the Constitution is overdue. The fact they were not considered in 1901 is simply a reflection of the white settler attitude that prevailed at the time, and things have changed in the last 122 years.

Lidia Thorpe is going beyond what is proposed by the 'Voice' referendum, and is talking Aboriginal "sovereignty", something that doesn't have majority support at the moment. One of the sticking points concerning the Treaty of Waitangi is the word "sovereignty" which was written into the English version whereas the Maori version used the word for "Governance" which has a different meaning. BTW if Australia should ever enter into a treaty with Aboriginal people we should never use The Treaty of Waitangi as a model, a treaty written in two days by men who had no knowledge of writing a treaty.

Hi Paul

I evoked your name even before you contributed because I know you bring important insights to debates. This is even if we are on opposing YES and NO sides.

Well argued points count. There's nothing worse than many threads that consist of extremist Tweets, where even the initiator doesn't bother to provide details.

I feel that the Voice will be stacked with Politicians who just happen to be Aboriginal. This is because often a Western Uni education, and frequently legal, corporate or academic career paths are part of their makeup.

They are ambitious, like Lidia, who I suspect will see her way into the Voice, if it ever gets up, as yet another string to her career bow. She'll be in the Voice structure even while she maintains the advantage of a Senate position.

And yes Lidia's talk of "sovereignty" and Treaty is way ahead of what the public and mainstream politicians will wear.

Politics being a cynical business I advocate the age old My Enemy's (the Voice) main Enemy (Lidia) is my "friend".

Basically nothing turns people off the Voice more than a conflation with the scary image of Aboriginal Seperatist Lidia. Before Lidia was Michael Mansell, who did no end of damage to Aboriginal brand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mansell#Activism_and_commentary .

I see a change to the Constitution that favours one Race as a type of separatism, though short of Lidia's ambitions.

Where would Australia be if a future corrupt structure, arising from the Voice, like an ATSIC 2.0, could not be dissolved by the democratically elected Government?

It would then fall to the High Court to interpret the Constitutional position of the Voice. In that sense the High Court, a body not elected by the people, would back up Voice permanency.

As the Voice would represent about 900,000 people, it could by definition influence almost all legislation.

If the Voice represents 900.000 aboriginals, then the 27,000 who live in poor remote conditions will not get a look in to Government. The problems of remote communities will remain. The WA Government offered to rehouse those living in the bush so that health and education and town services could serve them, they refused. They did not want to move from their country. That is well and good, but they cannot expect town services in remote bush.

The 883,000 who live in towns and cities will be the ones from whom the voice representatives will come, and they are equal to every other Nationality living in Australia and they do not need a special Voice. Albo is out of touch with reality and the ultimate goal of radical half caste aboriginals who believe the land belongs to them. It was stolen as were the children.

Hi Mavs,

I always respect your thoughtful contributions on any subject. The founding fathers of this nation had no problem with racism in the Constitution, they wrote in many discriminatory clauses, mostly directed at Orientals. The FF's completely ignored Aboriginal people as if they didn't exist, that might have been appropriate for the time with the settler mentality, but today its a mistake. No feel good words added to the Constitutions Preamble will satisfy, its time to give true recognition of Aboriginal people within the Australian Constitution itself, not less will satisfy. I believe the Voice is a moderate preposition put foreword, not by white people, but mainstream Aboriginals themselves through the 'Uluru Statement From The Heart' in 2017. If someone has a viable alternative I would like to hear it, a treaty is not a viable alternative for me, maybe at sometime it will be, but it wont fly politically right now.

I just saw the silliest comment yet from an aboriginal activists - the referendum is 'just asking if aboriginals should be allowed to speak'!

Foxy offered three definitions of what is an aborigine.
As I see it there are a number of white women currently running around
and literally screaming about the voice and other constitutional matters.
They are perfectly entitled to do that, but they are saying it all
as aborigines. Will they be entitled to be appointed to the Voice ?

Will the Voice go on for generation after generation for ever ?
After how many generations will it still be possible to decide who
is an aborigine, or will it be decided by inheritance ?
Looks like we are generating a "Landed Gentry" of our own.
The Voice could look like the House of Lords.

That it is burned into the constitution that is the problem.

If the VOICE is against racism then it'll never let the racists get it off the ground !

One has to be sceptical of several old far right posters on the Forum, who before the last election were promoting a vote for the unashamedly racists political party One Nation. Now the same bigots are claiming a vote for 'The Voice' is a vote for racism. These old blokes would have some credibility if they weren't so blatantly racists themselves.

Bazz refers to "white women currently running around and literally screaming about the voice".

Black, white - the Socialists don't care; all they want are shameless people with big mouths to punt for for the racism of the Voice. Make enough noise in Australia, and you get to choose your colour.

If you can choose your sex, why not your colour!

"white women currently running around and literally screaming about the voice". Would that be Pauline Hanson by any chance, with ttbn waving his anti Aboriginal banner in the background.

The ABC reports that Phil Egan, CEO of the Murray Valley Aboriginal Cooperative in north-west Victoria from 2010 to 2012, footballer and author of the Hawthorn FC racism report has been arrested "as part of a historical fraud investigation at a Victorian Aboriginal organisation".

SR,

So you want to "fix" the racism in the constitution by installing a different form of racism?

So many aboriginal "voices" have failed due to corruption, yet the left whingers claim that let's do the same again but make it entrenched in the constitution and that'll fix it.

Lunacy!

Proud Boy Jose'

I can't find any government reference that says "extra funds when fostering an Aboriginal child". There are additional payments under certain circumstances, mostly based on age and location, older children entitled to higher payments, for good reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if you're not distorting the facts.

All I say is get your white bed sheet on, down to the polling booth and vote One Nation, as you said you are going to do.

Paul, You, will try to find opposition to the facts I give. My wife fostered 153 children when she was younger, now you are calling her a liar. She was offered extra money [$10 p/w during 70 - 80s] for fostering an aboriginal child - fact. She felt that was an insult based on race, as they would receive the same love and care that any child she fostered received.

Albo is preferencing one race over the many races that inhabit Australia as though they are inferior and need special attention. However, if they are suffering poverty and disadvantage, the Government already has a responsibility to deal with that issue no matter the race. Vote "No" to a racist Voice.

There aren't that "many races" inhabiting Australia: 73% of inhabitants hailing from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales - of the 27%: left, most are Caucasian hailing from Europe. Multiculturalism is a lie.

ttbn, that's amazing 73% of those living in Australia hail from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales and the other 27% mostly hailing from the rest of Europe, did they fall out of the sky like frozen ice. I must be an exception, cause I was born in Australia, and I hail from Australia. Any other Australians here?

Hail; as referring to place of origin. The phrasal verb hail from means to come from. "He hails from England". He comes from England.

Prod Boy Jose'

I'm not calling your wife a liar, I didn't realise you were referring to events of 50 years ago.

ttbn,
Australia must have a population of 130% migrants if 73% & 27% hail from Europe/England because there are at least 30% from Africa/Asia as well.

According to Britannica - today the population of Australia
consists of more than 270 ethnic groups. Until the mid
20th century Australian society was regarded in the wider
world as essentially British or at any rate Anglo-Celtic.

At the beginning of the 21st century nine tenths of Australia's
population is of European ancestry and more than one fifth is
foreign born. We're told that there's also a small but growing
Aboriginal population.

There's more at:

http://britannia.com/place/Australia/People

I'll try again:

http://www.britannica.com/place/Australia/People

"I must be an exception, cause I was born in Australia, and I hail from Australia. Any other Australians here?"

I'd agree with that.
How many generations does my paternal parent have to have lived here for me to say I'm simply 'Australian' and not of European descent?
How much indigenous blood do I need to have in me to say that I hail from this continent since the dawn of time?

My familys been here at least 10 maybe 12 generations, and I do have a little bit of indigenous in me, that can be proven.

I wish they'd stop trying to imply I'm European.
I'm Aussie, (not that there's a great deal to be proud of these days in saying so)

If you live in Sydney, you will find a large population of Asians, Chinese, Korean, Middle Eastern and Vietnamese in various suburbs. Many in these communities speak their native language and practice their own culture and food. None of these people are asking for a special voice in Government; though Muslims are granted Government funding to build cultural centers and we pay food tax to them. But their Voice in Parliament is by electorate vote, not enshrined in the Constitution. Vote No to a Racist Voice.

Indyvidual

You had better get in touch with the ABS and the Census people.

ttbn,

Are you a penguin hailing from Antarctica? Indy's got something right, Australia's ethnic population is now at 130%. Who wants to trust an idiot who doesn't know the meaning of hail, maybe he's confusing it with the "Sieg Heil" he gives his Fuhrer photo every morning, hail and heil, not the same word.

Anyway, ttbn tells me he off to the Furkaria Rug Company, where they are giving old farts like him 150% off for today only! Anyone remember the Furkaria Rug Company? He was forced by his wife to employ his brother-in-law, the son of spineless goat!

Foxy,

So Aus has 270 ethnic groups and only one that requires special treatment.

shadowminister,

Only one group is our First Nations People - the original owners
and people of this country. The rest of us are living on their
land without having asked them if we could. They are special -
we're not.

We're guests in their home.

A Voice to Parliament will give our Indigenous communities
a route to help[ inform policy and legal decisions that
impact on their lives. Giving people a say will lead to
more effective results.

Embedding a Voice in the Constitution would recognize the
special place of our Indigenous people in Australia's history
but importantly would also mean that it can't be shut down by
successive governments.

Vote YES. It's the right thing to do by our Indigenous people.
They deserve to be recognized as such and allowed to have a
say in decisions that effect them. To date decisions have been
made for them without any consultation.

A lttle off track if you do not mind.
I saw a reference to a US politician as being of colour because he was
black.
I then realised that is a nonsense. If he is black he is not of colour.
Most of us Australians are of colour, myself I am a light cream colour
and those women I mentioned are a definite white colour.
Black is an absence of all colour.

So it is a bit like the unreality of what is a woman, what is colour ?
Oh well Paul & co can have fun with this at my expense, but that is the idea.

Hi Bazz,

The American reference to a person "of colour" is a common
expression for someone who's not white. It refers to African
Americans - and has been around for ages. Not a big deal over there.

Plus - when a person is referred to as being "white"
it also doesn't mean that they're white. Only that they are
light-skinned.

"We're guests in their home."

Are we?
Maybe,
- Maybe some are and some aren't?

That's how you think Foxy because you think of yourself as an immigrant, and have many stories from your family in Russia and Lithuania.
You see yourself as a guest, because you also see yourself as an immigrant, that's the reality of your identity through family history and stories handed down to you.

But that's you.

Well, my Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandfather Angus I've traced back to about 1814, but the records from those days become obscure and I couldn't figure any more to try to figure out how my family actually got here.
There may or may not be one more generation, as I can't remember if the records for my Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandfather Angus was a record of birth or marriage.
In any case I don't see myself as an immigrant, should I?

Just because you identify as an immigrant doesn't mean everyone else does.
And what about my grandfather who married a part indigenous woman, after WWII ended?
Am I permitted to identify or be recognised as being indigenous, despite being white?
I have all the indigenous stories from my grandmothers extensive family in a book, and that goes back to the early 1800's as well.
I can read the stories about what happened to them and understand a small part of where I came from, but I'm sure there's many more stories from many more people that probably came from many different places, in such an extensive Australian family history.

You seem to think everything is simple and clear cut.
- That it's the same for everyone as you think it is for you
Am I right or am I wrong?

Maybe you're a guest in MY home then?
Do you have any indigenous in your Aussie family history?
If you met me you'd think I'm white European, but I don't identify as that.
How many other people might you be wrong about?
How does it work exactly?

[Cont]
In order to consider myself a 'Guest' wouldn't I firstly have to be able to identify as 'immigrant'?
How can I identify as an immigrant if I have no idea how my family even got here?
- Apparently, the stories are that my distant relative was sent here as a convict for stealing a sheep.
But I couldn't seem to find my family name in any of the manifests for the first three fleets, so I'm just not exactly sure.

Things aren't as simple as you think they are, and I bet there's hundreds of thousands of other 'white' people with indigenous connections in their family tree getting around just like me.

... Just sayin

In a Democratic State a constitution should not isolate a distinct genetic trait, otherwise it is not upholding one person equals one vote. It gives preference to a race who has the listening ear of Government to enforce their agenda.

The aboriginals of the past never believed they owned the land; they saw themselves as part of the land. It is only recently that the likes of left wing woke have been pushing the concept of ownership. The woke ABC lovers who hate Australia and are willing to sell it out from those who have built this country - they call out the white supremist.

Bazz

Yep. A ridiculous expression for black people. People who use it are too precious, too Woke, to say BLACK. Nobody talks about POCLM - it's BLM.

On this absurd, racist/apartheid nonsense - described as 'Voice to parliament: Version 8.0' in a recent article, it is pointed out that there is no evidence that the Albanese government has bothered to observe the lessons of "previous, well-intentioned" but "failed attempts" to bring 'indigenous' people to the table: 7 times since 1973.

Billions of dollars wasted, but education, housing, domestic violence and health remain a national disgrace.

All this sanctimonious, virtue signalling and absurd yabber from whiteys is sick-making - against respected, actual people of aboriginal descent saying 'no thanks' and advising that the Voice won't do a damn thing for their people. The only people who would benefit are Blakticvists and the massive ego of Chairman Albanese.

Whitlams clumsy and gross attempt at apartheid back in 1973 received a big NO from black Senator Neville Bonner, who said: "To have a separate parliament and a separate electoral roll on which only Aboriginal people will be listed will divide the Aboriginal people not only among themselves but also from the rest of the Australian community. I give a warning here and now that this will cause a lot more trouble than people seem to realise.”

The same warning has again been given against the latest Socialist mob's apartheid by the clear voices of Bonner's modern counterparts.

Only 16% of the people identifying as aborigines bothered to vote in 1973.

Ideology and politics will not solve any problems arising from living in remote areas without jobs, without education, but with the curse of alcohol and domestic violence

"In a Democratic State a constitution should not isolate a distinct genetic trait, otherwise it is not upholding one person equals one vote. It gives preference to a race who has the listening ear of Government to enforce their agenda."

Hmm... that kinda sounds like 'The Chosen Ones'... doesn't it?

Armchair,
Convicts were transported for quite a long while after the
3rd fleet. many council libraries have passenger lists for the 1800s.
Some may have been put onto "civilian" ships and sent that way.
Are you certain he was a convict ?
ttbn;
Yes the use of "Coloured" instead of Black is to widen the coverage
and reduce the number of people who are not black, ie white.
Both my parents were born in Australia and two grandparents were born
in Australia.
I will bet quids that many "aborigines" are not as indigenous as I am !

Now isn't that an interesting thought, perhaps I should be a "Tickabox" !

To all the anti-voice proponents out there in cyber-space Forum:

By claiming that the Voice will divide Australia, you are implying that Australia isn't divided now.

What hogwash. Just reading the comments here is a clear demonstration that our nation is greatly divided. To say otherwise is a denial of the bleeding obvious.

So, how can we unite? One proposal is a generous offer to Australia to simply grant the original inhabitants of this land, a voice to be heard in the parliament. Many of you argue that such a voice is unnecessary. I disagree. Indigenous peoples were treated abysmally by European colonisers and they are still treated abysmally in many cases today. (There are a gazillion examples of this and I do not need to cite them here, although the willfully blind deniers will claim otherwise.)

Will a voice work? Personally I am not sure. There are so many examples (as quoted by Maverick early in this discussion not to mention the RC into Deaths in Custody or the Bringing them home report) where governments have failed, for 1 reason or another, to listen or take heed of indigenous voices.

I agree with the statement: "I don't listen to what you say, but rather watch what you do" when it comes to politicians. Unfortunately their collective track records at that is not encouraging. Having said that though, I am willing to give the Voice a go with all its human frailties and uncertainties and will enthusiastically vote "Yes" in the coming referendum. It is the best idea to come to light in my life time.

Aries54, have you heard of:
http://www.aboriginalaffairs.nsw.gov.au/
and
http://www.aboriginalaffairs.nsw.gov.au/grants/aboriginal-affairs-naidoc-grants-program/
Much better than a Voice already in place.
A Voice is just another talk fest with a public funded bureaucratic department.

josephus,

If the whites can have a well paid talkfest - why can't
our Indigenous people be given a say? After all this is their
land that we took.

Hi Aries54,

Thank you for your constructive comments.

To blame the Indigenous people for subsisting on
welfare and now trying for other so called - "benefits" like
asking for a Voice to Parliament has no justice. Unless we're
also willing to judge every white member of society by how
productive he or she is. Take individual by individual it's
likely that there's more idleness and abuse of government
favours among the whites (and the rich) than among the ranks of the
Indigenous who are more disadvantaged.

After all this is their
land that we took.
Foxy,
Yes. Don't forget though the price the non-indigenous have thus far & will forever be paying !
Non-indigenous who didn't take anything from indigenous.
To continue pointing the finger at the wrongs of past generations is as wrong as portraying oneself as a victim from generations ago.
Anyone who can argue that the Aborigines would now be better off if the British had not come here should state how they'd fare now !

indyvidual,

The price that the non-indigenous will be paying?
Like Gina Rineheart et al?

Please do your research on Indigenous people. And their
history. Don't embarrass yourself.

indyvidual,

Colonisation disrupted Aboriginal society and
economy. Restriction of Aboriginal people onto "reserves"
disrupted their ability to support themselves.
The loss of traditional culture and homelands, the spread
of disease, the forced removal of children, the denial
of citizenship rights, random shootings, massacres of
men, women and children by stockmen, ( Myall Creek).
Aborigines experienced extreme hardships, they lost lands
and their water resources, and food supplies - and the list
goes on. And you're questioning their rights?

Foxy,
we've all had enough lectures on things we can't change, what I would like is an answer to my question !
Surely you of all OLO'ers would be able to dig up a link on the Aborigines' belief as to where they'd be nowadays if the British hadn't arrived.

Oh gawd, Individual resorts to that hoary ole chestnut "What would their lives be like if the ( ... submit country of choice ... ) had arrived before the British.

That argument is as banal and stupid as arguing that it's a pity the Spanish Armada didn't win the battle. Just think, we could have been enjoying paella and tapas years ago instead of all that British stodge.

Your point is ridiculous Individual.

Hi Aries54,

Thank you for your comments.

indyvidual,

You should already have the answer to your questions as to
how our Indigenous people would have lived if colonisation
had not taken place.

They would have retained their culture and traditions, and languages.
Their population would have grown not decreased. They would
have their own land and territories and water resources. They
would have been able to support themsleves. There would not
have been the spread of diseases.

They would have been able to live as distinct societies
each having their own territorial boundaries,
teaching how to live in harmony with the land they inhabited.
Languages, customs and belief systems, including education
systems, governance would have been their own. They would have
had a common identity.

Their customs and culture had survived over the decades - making
them custodians of the world's oldest living culture.

Prior to British settlement more than 500 First Nations groups
inhabited the country speaking over 200 Aboriginal languages.
What a loss that has been - and can't be replaced.

Colonisation has a lot to answer.

Dear oh dear. All the things that were lost to these poor, hard done by people after 1788. Ideally, those of us with no claims to aboriginality could go back from whence we came - after returning the country to what it was 235 years ago; the British Isles and Europe could send all their non-British, non-European citizens back to the countries their ancestors came from, and we could all live happily ever after.

Or alternatively, we could try decolonisation - and give
some of what rightfully belongs to our First Nations people
back to them. That would make sense. Trying to correct some
of the mistakes made that were down right cruel and unfair.

Just a thought.

All those in favour raise your hands.

Hi Foxy

Who needs a Voice when the miraculously growing numbers of increasingly white looking big city "Aborigines" can have a whole island!

I've had my voice with Albo and he reckons Tasmania should be declared a First Nations Socialist Peoples Democratic Republic, with full "BlaK" sovereignty, naturally. A North Korean style government could serve as a model.

Once the revolutionary elections are over, President For Life Lidia, will organize a "BlaK" Parliament to rubber stamp her edicts.

See http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/audio/2023/feb/14/lidia-thorpe-on-blak-sovereignty-and-leaving-the-greens

Cheers Mavs

Hi again Foxy

Off Topic, how do like me improved rendering of A Bicycle Built for Two?

Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.
I’m half crazy, all for the love of you.
You can be My cheap Wenchie
Because I can’t afford a Frenchie.
Then we will sleep
Between the sheets
Of a knocking shop built for two.

Your Umble "poet" :)

WHAT DOES THE ABORIGINAL GUILT COST TAX-PAYERS?
How would you feel if I told you that $39.5’billion is how much Australian taxpayers spend on direct government support for Indigenous communities?
That’s $39.5 billion of direct government expenditure a year1.
That’s more than we spend on the NDIS ($35.5 billion), Medicare ($31.3 billion) or defense ($38 billion).

Now Foxy wants to give them Australia, which believes is theirs.

They are not listening, Josephus. They know of the ridiculous costs involved in doing absolutely nothing for the people they are using to spread their Socialist ideology. They are not interested in people or Australia - only in spreading Socialist totalitarianism with an Ockernese flavour.

You of course, won't listen to me, either. People wish only to state their own beliefs, and are not interested in the beliefs of others, no matter what they say, and how 'tolerant' they claim to be.

Hi Maverick,

Interesting times ahead with Lidia Thorpe. She just may
turn out to be Australia's "Malcolm X".

Here's my version of "A Bicycle Built For Two":

Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do
I'm half crazy wondering about you
You've got to simply tell me
Which way you're going to swing
To me it is important
Which way you're going to spring

Your vote really matters
You surely have to see
That voting YES is definitely
The right place in which to be
So Daisy, Daisy, just get on your bike
Ride down to the voting booths
And do what's simply right!

______________________________________________________________

josephus,

Foxy does not want to give them Australia.
Foxy wants to give them a Voice to Parliament.
There's a difference.

Warren Mundine gave the quote of $30 billion on 500,000
people back in August 29, 2016 - on Q and A.

However the quote does not quite cover the full story.
It doesn't get across the fact that only a really
small amount of the overall Indigenous spending is
on Indigenous-specific programs. Most is on mainstream
programs nothing to do with Indigenous peoples (defence,
foreign affairs, and industry assistance).

Also 1 in 5 Indigenous Australians live in remote areas
where the cost of providing many services is significantly
so much higher. Much of the spending is to try to achieve
the same level of service that others are accustomed to.
Though it fails to do so.

I wonder who said, "give some of what rightfully belongs to our First Nations people back to them".
We already have Land Councils and pending claims. It does not need a Voice to establish. Vote NO! For unity and equality.

josephus,

What is wrong with having an advisory body on their
behalf to parliament on policies and programs that
affect only them. Wouldn't this be more effective
than making decisions for them? So far this hasn't
worked.

Your point is ridiculous Individual.
Aries54,
Perhaps as ridiculous as the demands of the indigenous to be entitled to the latest non-indigenous technology & commodities ? Why do do they bleat discrimination if they have to wait if they were so happy in their existence before the British ?
I think your quip is way more ridiculous !

Foxy,

All legislation applies to everyone; thus this voice will have some veto power over all legislation.

SM,

There is no proposal for 'The Voice' to have veto powers over legislation WHAT SO EVER! You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. You like Dutton are scratching around looking for any excuse to oppose. Dutton with his "I must have answers before I commit" is the known racists trying to find an excuse.

A problem Foxy and Paul might instantly dismiss:

This is the Need to alter the current Referendum Wording. Or an expert lawyer advising the [Voice Referendum Labor picked] committee advises "THE REFERENDUM WILL BE LOST"

See below

The ABC reports 16 Feb 2023 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-16/voice-working-group-at-odds-over-referendum-wording/101984466

"...The words "executive government" are proving a sticking point in the proposed constitutional amendment to recognise and create a Voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

The [mainly Labor leaning] referendum working group, the government’s main advisory body, met on Thursday to consider what advice it would give to the federal government on the wording of the question and constitutional amendment for a referendum.

One expert lawyer advising the committee has recommended removing the wording "executive government" altogether, and is understood to have said if those words remain the referendum will be lost..."

Hi Maverick,

Thank you for the link.

It's a shame that the Coalition appears to be trying
to damage the process.

It's clear that the removal of "executive government" from
the proposed wording would significantly weaken the power
and scope of the Voice. It's crucial that the Voice does have
the power to advice government at the highest level including
advising bureaucrats working on laws and policies.

The given link makes that abundently clear.

Hi Mavs,

Thanks for the link, I see no problem with what is a "work in progress" from the 'Referendum Working Group', naturally there is debate and expert opinion on legal matters concerning draft recommendations to consider. Getting the wording correct is a necessity, and changers are certain until the wording is acceptable. People like the racists Dutton have their guns at the ready to shoot down this referendum at any opportunity. .

We are assuming that aboriginals have no voice in government and foxy perpetuates this lie. There are many voices already in parliament, but Albo is too ignorant to listen to them. He wants his appointed Voice. This is more than an advisory body as advisory bodies already exist. It is a body that will give direction to the Government on things like Treaty and repatriations.

"What is wrong with having an advisory body on their
behalf to parliament on policies and programs that
affect only them. Wouldn't this be more effective
than making decisions for them? So far this hasn't
worked.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday,

josephus,

" Representation is an essential first step towards
reconciliation. While there are some forms of
representative bodies in Australia such as land councils,
First Peoples Assembly of Victoria and the Torres Strait
Regional Authority the totality of Indigenous representation
remains fragmented".

"This is why we need to support a Constitutional
Amendment to enshrine a First Nations Voice which is an
essential part of recognition, representation, and
reconciliation".

"Further, the referendum should support an amendment to
recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as
Australia's First People thus marking a first towards
recognition and truth-telling about Australian history".

Proud Boy Jose'

"It is a body that will give direction to the Government on things like Treaty and repatriations." Are you willing to admit that 'The Voice' will give non binding advice to government on matters affecting Aboriginal people. It will not be a third chamber, it will not enact laws, so what's ya problem!

Thanks Foxy and Paul

For your well reasoned replies this morning to my Referendum wording post.

I agree "there is debate and expert opinion on legal matters concerning draft recommendations to consider".

I think many word changes will occur before the Referendum is held in Sept or Oct this year.

Cheers Mavs

Communist death cults could take over Australia by Aboriginal proxy

Often communist ideology seem to use proxy tactics as in the Vietnam War.

Just remember extremist communism doesn't work no matter how often they will try and re-educate you in their gulags or their "town square hearings". 60 million people died being re-educated in China- 100 million dead under communism world wide- and still the madhouse is in charge over a large proportion of the planets land area. These mad need to be removed in a world of extreme migration pressures. It's amusing when the Socialists stumble over the concept of being complicit in Maoism and it's deaths- not to mention the capitalist overlay of Deng-ism- but sadly the deaths aren't amusing- redistributing wealth to extremist supporters of communism- I remember in one discussion during the Hong Kong protests a woman in a Socialist T-shirt piped up and said "actually I'm a communist".

BA Santa Maria came to see the Communist Party of Australia, which in the 1940s made great advances in the Australian trade union movement, as the main enemy. BA Santa Maria's "Groupers" expelled from the Labor Party formed a new party, the Democratic Labor Party (DLP), dedicated to opposing both Communism and the Labor Party, which they said was controlled by Communist sympathisers. Santamaria never joined the DLP but was one of its guiding influences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._A._Santamaria

If the Labor party was communist in the 1940's imagine how extreme they are now- eighty years later.

Author Dostoevsky predicted the disaster of communism in the 1860's in his books "The Idiot" and "The Possessed Devils"- and Solzhenitsyn talked about his experience in "The Gulag Archipelago". Bezmenov gave his famous Harvard speech on the dangers of communism.

Don't let communist death cults take over Australia by proxy

"Communist death cults could take over Australia by Aboriginal proxy"

I didn't read on, obviously the work of a nut job, or a member of the KKK, make a choice, they'll all bad.

Paul,

The problem is that many people don't trust Labor or the greens to use the referendum to implement that 'The Voice' will give non-binding advice to the government on matters affecting Aboriginal people.

Remember Juliar's iron-clad promise that there would be no carbon tax!

Albanese stated that The Voice is the same idea based on the NZ model, i.e. to give treaty and rights to aboriginal people to govern their own affairs and law.

Aboriginals do not accept Australian justice and imprisonment for what we consider crimes. They do not have the same moral mores as Western society. Belting up one's wife is acceptable in aboriginal culture; in Western culture it is a criminal offense. Currently leads to imprisonment of aboriginal men. Taking other people's unattended property is acceptable in aboriginal culture but is a criminal offense under Australian law.

josephus,

The Voice is merely going to be an advisory body to
parliament regarding policies and laws that parliament
makes regarding only them. And they have no right of veto.
Parliament makes the final decisions. So what you're
stating really has no bearing or relevance on the matter.
I can't understand why you keep on blabbering about it.

Hi Maverick,

I also agree, I think there will be many changes made
before the Referendum in September/October of this year. It's still
early days yet. Hopefully things can be negotiated to the
satisfaction of all.

There are always the complicit apologist "nut jobs" for the communist death cults and their ideas. 100 million dead/ mass graves still not uncovered- we can see their questionable standards.

Don't worry peaceful OLO commenters, dark web trolling extremist pseudonyms on this thread likely enjoy the status "known to police".

Recommendations to Executive Government doesn't sound like Parliament.
That could be Cabinet or the Public Servants.
Some suggested that might mean they could make recommendations directly
to cabinet. Would they speak in cabinet meetings ?

NO NO No

nothing else much to say after living with and around Aboriginal systems for 50+ years.
Plenty of pseudo Aboriginals getting rich looking after families and "lations" many who have never seen the outback needy areas.
Do an audit of the organisations formed to look after people and see who is employed and what they have achieved over the years as a starter. Do an audit of the housing built around the country and wrecked. No way in the world can a group of 30 odd people sitting in a flash office in Canberra or where ever at great cost, suggest what the Government should do for the 300+ groups of Aboriginals around Australia. There are enough fights and disagreements now among the tribes over the various ways money can be obtained.
The Aboriginal industry keeps the NT going and has for years, plenty of families have done very well while the poor old chap sitting under the gum tree still has nothing.

No NO NO and NO again is the only answer.

Maybe the poor old chap sitting under the gum-tree
would get more if he had a Voice to Parliament?
If someone actually asked him what he wanted?

I didn't actually consider Maverick one of the extremists- there you go- bit early to tell- but it's notable that they often put up their own hands. I liked the list of First Nations Voices to Parliament. I'll have to parse the thread for commun-ism's.

Yeah you Fox you :)

After 10 earlier Voice like bodies advising government in Canberra since the 1970s...

Maybe yet another Voice of mostly white blood Voice politicians, living in Canberra

can:

Send an SMS or Tweet promising change,

via Aboriginal Corporations, staffed by the same old group of mainly white blood fly-in/fly-out officials

to that "poor old chap sitting under the gum-tree"

An interesting Guardian article of 20th Feb http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/20/voice-referendum-whos-behind-the-yes-and-no-campaigns-and-how-do-they-plan-to-convince-australia

TITLE: "Voice referendum: who’s behind the yes and no campaigns and how do they plan to convince Australia?"

As for Maverick's comment about "peaceful OLO commenters"- since when is pointing out ideological violence a violent act? Is this victim blaming by implication?

Taking the generous interpretation...

There are those seeking the middle ground that find themselves dragged further to the far left- but that's just what I've learned from hard experience. The Left label Traditionalist views as far right or extremist- when they were the original moderate position held even by the ALP before the split. It's a framing trick designed to bias the debate in favour of the far left. But not everyone is smart enough to recognize it or they have a perceived vested interest in the bias. Read up on the Overton Window and Negotiating Tactics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
http://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/10-hardball-tactics-in-negotiation/

One common Communist tactic appears to be "possibility is probability"- this seems to have been used in the gay marriage "debate"- which wasn't a debate because one side wasn't allowed to express their viewpoint. In business it's considered important for all stakeholders to be able to express their opinion. Governments and businesses that fail to recognize the underlying interests of the stakeholders are likely to experience later failures.

In my view Aboriginals are never going to be happy. It's a no win scenario. Already Aboriginal's get more than British Australian's and other out groups. Aboriginal's don't seem to want self governed territories (this would be my preference) and they don't seem capable of sustaining such an autonomous territory. It seems it's simply a shakedown so that they can drink themselves to death at British Australian expense and then blame it all on the British Australian's. We don't force Aboriginals to drink the alcohol and sniff petrol- we don't force Aboriginal's to engage in the behavior that we find appalling.

The left seem to be exploiting this situation for their own benefit- proxy war. At least some of these lefties have some Aboriginal genetics and are showing some entrepreneurial acumen. But I wouldn't compare Lidia Thorpe with Ernie Dingo.

The Aboriginal's should pay the British a number of debt's too- personally I feel that most of the debt is on the Aboriginal side- but it's complicated.

One way to win in politics I suppose is to find landscape too extreme for the opposition to follow- then call the opposition extreme.

Hi Maverick,

Thanks for keeping us informed.

Interesting times ahead - and the results will be even
more interesting. Voters usually get it right in the
end. We'll have to wait and see how this all pans out.

In the meantime, the better informed we are - the better our
decisions will be - hopefully. But from what you've been
presenting her - it's not going to be an easy call to make.
I'm starting to see that.

Hi Maverick,

The First Nations organisation "From the Heart" is
launching its "YES" campaign this evening (23/02/2023),
at the Tandanya National Aboriginal Cultural Centre in
Adelaide.

The Referendum is expected to be held between October and
December this year.

Interesting times ahead.

Those speaking to the aboriginals in Alice Springs, say they have not heard of Langton and other aboriginals in the Government, except for Jacinta Price. That the Government is not listening to them as they lifted the alcohol restrictions and the cashless card. For them they say the Voice will mean nothing as the Government is not currently listening.

josephus

This is not true. The communities have been consulted
throughout this process and will continue to be
consulted.

"Those speaking to the aboriginals in Alice Springs, say..." Is it not amazing how these rednecks have all this inside contact with unnamed informants, and its all bad. It must be the white bed sheet he's wearing along with his burning cross at the time that attracts them.

Hi Paul,

Josephus is making mischief again.
On my discussion about racism he's trying to associate
Prof. Langton, and the Voice, with the High Court.

Not sure where he gets his mis- information from.
But Prof. Langton has made it very clear that the Voice
has the responsibility to advise the Australian Parliament
and Government on national matters of significance to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. But that
all elements would be non-justiciable. Meaning that there
could not be a court challenge and that no law could
be invalidated based on this consultation.

Langton said, unless decisions made could not be challenged in the High Court the Voice will be meaningless.

Here again is the real Marcia Langton who believes aboriginals are not a race, that they are living of fear of genocide. Well Lydia Thorpe has heard Marcia's message, "They are killing our children, and raping our women. This is war" The Voice has been motivated by fear, rather than inclusion.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/marcia-langton-says-details-on-the-voice-to-parliament/13993960

Professor Greg Craven, a staunch supporter of the Voice and adviser to the referendum working group, has decided that, yes, indeed, by including advice not just to Parliament but to the executive government as well, there is an undoubted potential for litigation: Craven writes (paywalled)

The concept of the voice has always centred upon legislation, which could never be obstructed by views from the voice. That is why it usually is called the “voice to parliament”. But it does include executive action as well. This has become a problem.

During the past few months, there have been suggestions that executive action could be challenged through the voice. Notably, two eminent former High Court judges with very different views of the voice – Ken Hayne and Ian Callinan – have each suggested executive action might be open to attack. Right or wrong, the issue has been launched.

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/the-voice/2023/02/thank-you-marcia-langton-for-your-candour/

Hi Foxy,

Just like with the gay marriage plebiscite, the same old irrelevant wingers like Proud Boy Jose' will tells us a "yes" vote will see the sky fall in. Like then, he and those of his ilk will peddle lies and misinformation, they have no argument, just a line of bigoted and racists deceitfulness. This bloke like others here claim concern for aboriginal people, nothing could be further from the truth.

BTW, there are those who do have genuine concerns, and do require additional information, which will be forthcoming in the next week or two, before they can commit to a "yes" vote, but they are a minority within the minority. Like the Cow Cocky Party, Dutton is not one of them, he's looking for an "out", the fliest of reasons to oppose, and we'll soon see his true colours.

Most Australians do support The Voice!
Foxy,
Most Australians can't foresee & to set something that has the high potential of becoming a very divisive social & economic failure in stone is as unwise as most previous decisions in that field.
If the incumbent activists were not to be involved then yes, the Voice could be beneficial, alas !

Hi Paul,

If only people could see that this needs to be given a chance.
And that this will evolve with time. This is early days
and we need to give it a chance. Our Indigenous people deserve
it as does our nation.

indyvidual,

Things can improve and change if we give it a chance.
We're voting for an advisory body here. And that is
something our Indigenous deserve and so does our nation.
You can't be that small-minded or greedy and just thinking
of yourself. They told us what they want from their hearts
we need to give them a chance from ours.

Dear Paul,

We know that in July 2021 the Indigenous Voice
Co-Design Process Panel released its final report.

It proposed that the Voice "have a responsibility and
right to ADVISE the Australian parliament and government
on national matters of significance to Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people".

The Voice would be able to table formal
advice to parliament and a parliamentary committee would
CONSIDER that advice.

But all elements would be non-justiciable, meaning that
there could NOT be a court challenge and NO law could be
invalidated based on this consultation.

Foxy, give us evidence there will be no High Court Challenges to Governments. It is easy to say these words but hear what the founders mean by the Voice, not what Albanese says. They ultimately want treaty and sovereignty, and the ABC and SBS are supporting them in this. With the claim this is aboriginal land stolen from them by war

Josephus,

Read the report presented to parliament.
The details are in it.

Foxy,

I have read the report and there is nothing in there to protect against activist Judges

"They ultimately want treaty and sovereignty, and the ABC and SBS are supporting them in this."
- They probably want rent, reparations and veto power on any policy we make or where we can and can't build things as well.

Truthfully, I'm not sure their collective resentment will ever be satisfied until what was done to them decades ago, is repaid in kind and done to us.
- But honestly that 'collective resentment' they hold, was it not us that started it?
(By that I mean the British 200 years ago, not the 'us' of today)

"With the claim this is aboriginal land stolen from them by war"

- Their claim? What about yours?
- Are you 'claiming' that's untrue and it didn't happen?
- Are you 'claiming' that we came here first, and that they came here afterwards, and are making false 'claims'?
Are you 'claiming' we didn't take their aboriginal land?
Are you 'claiming' the Frontier Wars didn't happen?
Are you 'claiming' we always treated them with the utmost respect, decency and dignity?

Who's responsible for their suffering?
Was it you or me?

I think the right path must recognise the wrongs of the past and that what was done to them was unfair.
- But I think it should also recognise the new realities as they now exist today.

I don't support the idea of a 'chosen people'
We should stick to '1 person, 1 vote - Equal rights for all'
- I don't think they should be afforded any permanent special treatment, but maybe there is a need for a 'final settlement', and better regional services.
Right now, no-one is actually stopping them from organising their own representative group to speak on their behalf or to have a say on matters that are in their best interests.
They need to DO THIS themselves, FOR themselves.
- Not have a right to special treatment enshrined in the constitution.

SM,

All 272 pages have you. Pray tell what part of the report brought you to the conclusion that we were not protected from these "activist judges". page 137, or was it on page 226? Hummmmmmmmm.

BTW, who are these "activist judges" you refer to?

shadowminister,

Have you really read the report? Or do you mean you've
read "The Spectator?"

Because had you read the report you would have read the
explanation that the Indigenous Voice is part of an
integrated system and it will work within the established
boundaries regarding consultation and engagement.

This post is a fortnight old. Yawn.

Foxy,

I have read the report including all the tedious waffle that you quoted.

Perhaps you can provide the section which guarantees that this cannot be used by activists to extend the impact far beyond the homilies given by Labor?

shadowminister,

I'm not going to argue any further. To me the
report is quite clear in the boundaries set.
You obviously have made up your mind. Fair
enough. I won't waste any more time trying to
change it.

Foxy,

Either you haven't read the document or you cannot find any protections against activist judges.

This is where the referendum should include the exact changes to the constitution rather than flowery words and intentions.

shadowminister,

The following link will clarify things for you:

http://theconversation.com/no-the-voice-isnt-a-radical-change-to-our-constitution-200056

Hi Foxy,

Don't fall for this guys three card trick. First he claims to have read the entire report and all the attachments, highly unlikely. Then he demands you provide evidence that something that is not in the report is not actually there. What we do know is the guy has a racial bent that will never agree with any kind of equality for Aboriginal people, don't need a report for that!

SM, name those you claim are ""activist judges" and provide evidence they are as you say.

Hi Paul,

The link I gave to shadowminister explains away the concerns
he may have.

It explains them very well.

They have not yet decided on the statement to be included in the Constitution. There are distinct positions on the wording, is the executive government the body to which they report or the Parliament?

There is no clear wording on the Voice and it is still being developed, there are those that want powers enshrined, though Albanese hides these voices.

Foxy,

Why would an opinion piece in the conversation about a constitutional change that has yet to be defined, by a person that is not directly involved put my mind at rest?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The report and every document on the issue are just good intentions. It is like going to buy a car and the seller tells you it is a good car at a good price but won't tell you the make or condition of the car or the price.

shadowminister,

To me the piece in "The Conversation," I thought explained
things rather well. Obviously you want more information.
I feel that we have different concepts of what all this is
about and therefore different expectations.

I shall leave it there. I don't think anything productive
can be achieved in continuing this conversation with you.

Your mind appears to be made up. As is mine.
And never the twain shall meet.

I see that Loopy Lidia was booed and jeered at by the crowd at the poofs parade for her stupid stunt with a truck.

Hi Foxy

Off topic, part of enriching the lives of dementia sufferers is singing songs with them that slightly improves their memories of the past.

I consulted my old mate Sister Maria of the Sisters of St. Joseph for a better rendition of "Bicycle Built for Two".

She sung thusly:

"Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.
I’m half crazy, all for the love of you.
It won't be a stylish Entry
I can't afford a Frenchie
But we'll be sweet
Between the sheets
Of a waterbed built for two."

If nothing else comes from this thread, with Voice Referendum arguments ending in perhaps October 2023, at least there is fine poetry.

Cheers Mavs

Hi Mavs and Foxy,

So many older folk get total enjoyment from the 'Esk Bush Bashers' here in Queensland, they put on a terrific 2 hours show every fortnight, sandwiches and tea/coffee provided, at the Esk Anglican Church Hall. With all those old time favourites 'Roll Out The Barrel', 'Its A Long Way To Tipperary etc, and plenty of Aussie favourites like 'The Wild Colonial Boy', 'Click Goes The Shears', 'Waltzing Matilda' etc, and with lots of audience participation, a jolly good sing-a-long, story telling, poetry, jokes, all dressed the part. The wife went along with a bus load a few weeks back, good time had by all. All proceeds are used to help disaffected youth in the area, the old helping the young.

p/s Looking at the video, me thinks the wife's 'largerphone' had to be seen to be believed, there she was at 73 leading the parade up and down, around and around, singing and dancing.

Hi Maverick,

Thanks for the song. It reminds me of Sister Mary Virgilius
giving her famous speech to us girls in the assembly hall
as she did every Wednesday. Her usual sex talk. "Remember girls'
for an hour's worth of pleasure, you'll end up burning in hell!"

A young voice called out from the back of the hall:

"Sister, how do you make it last an hour?"

Talking about singing and dementia. My mum was diagnosed with
dementia. She loved to sing and belonged to a choir for many years.
The members of the choir would visit her on special occasions -
Christmas, Easter. And they'd invite her to sing with them at the
concerts they'd perform in the aged care facility that she was in.

Well, it was lovely to watch. She'd light up with sheer joy.
And she remembered the songs.

Hi Paul,

Your wife sound incredible. Give her my love. I envy her energy.
Singing and dancing - Wow! I'm struggling with just walking.

Albo's Voice will fail because the government cannot listen to the aboriginal needs now, therefore they will not listen in the future. The Voice is a sham to make Albo permanently remembered in history, it does nothing more than the Labour Government has done about aboriginal issues in remote communities even in Alice Springs. NOTHING!

josephus,

First and foremost is the fact that Labor wants to have
a referendum on a Voice to Parliament enshrined in the
Constitution by 2025. By putting a nation changing Indigenous
Policy front and centre of its election campaign Labor showed
how serious it was about First Nations issues.

It was in stark contrast to the Liberal National Party which
did not even have a First Nations platform listed on the party
website.

Foxy be real, it was Labor that abandoned the alcohol dry communities and the cashless card on the advice of some aboriginal leaders who spoke on behalf of some and said it was discriminatory. Other communities now suffer because the Government believed the advice. The Voice to Government is not the answer. Because whose Voice does Government follow? Ultimately, it will give power to some with loud voices to hold others to ransom.

josephus,

It was the Morrison government which approved the
removal of Alice Springs alcohol bans in a written
letter to the NT government in 2022. Sky News has a copy
of the letter. The Labor government has re-instated the
bans and communities and towns have an opportunity
as to whether they want the bans in place . However if they
don't want the bans then they are required to have an
Alcohol Management plan approved.

The cashless card was discriminatory and diminished people's
self-worth. It was a piece of technology that was used by a
private organisation for profit.

The structure and role of the Voice is going to be decided by
Parliament through legislation with members chosen by First
Nations people. Parliament as you've been told many times -
has the power and control. And according to constitutional
experts the Voice is not in any way a threat - but simply
an advisory body.

Listen to the aboriginal conflict with the regional aboriginal rugby players excluded from playing in Alice Springs because of the conflict between tribes. There are conflicting voices in aboriginal voices so whose voice do you follow?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-01/alice-springs-council-withdraw-support-bush-football-competition/102034688

http://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/other/calls-for-more-remote-sporting-infrastructure-amid-alice-springs-community-football-league-ban/ar-AA186L8B

josephus,

There is only one formal the one whose structure and role
is decided by Parliament through legislation.

Hi Foxy and Paul

I've got to admit that the real rememberer of:

"...It won't be a stylish Entry
I can't afford a Frenchie..."

Is not a Nun, but my Mum, with dimentia.

She remembers, from her girlhood, the naughty parodies of love songs, but not what we were talking about 10 minutes ago...

ANYWAYS

I was going to say the following Video opens a new Chapter in the Aussie Government's SAS/Commando Judicial Inquiries plural http://youtu.be/gHLBGG6IL48

But no, they're our troops spending time in Afgh, spraying Democracy Inc. via machineguns and automatic grenade launchers

...and the rest is a $2.5 Trillion US/NATO/Aussie/NZ money spent balls-up.

RIP Afghanistan and our soldiers who died in it: 2001-2021.

Cheers Mavs

Hi Maverick,

2 Y'S U R
2 Y'S U B
ICUR 2 Y'S 4 me.

( Translation:
Too wise you are
Too wise you be
I see you are
Too wise for me).

Well Foxy

I humbly accept your accolades.

But you are braver.

Being the only recognisably female commenter on OLO takes guts.
Given its a beat of too many Sky News males.

Cheers Mavs
(Of the rare centre, with gobs of
elusive unmentionable experience)

Proud Boy Jose'

You claim not to be a racists, but you post every little negative thing you can about Aboriginal people, not a positive word ever comes form you. You showed your hand with your support of the Washington Capitol riots in 2021.

Hi Maverick,

Thanks for your appreciation.

There are quite a few females on the forum.
All capable of more than anyone can imagine.
As for experience? It's what you do with it that
matters.

Lawyer and journalist, Chris Merritt, reveals that the basis for the racist Voice is not home-grown: it was imported from a 1975 judgement concerning the Republic of Zaire. It is an African concept.

The Uluru Statement is almost a word-for-word copy of the Zaire original, with aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders inserted.

Uluru is not a 'statement from the heart' of locals: it is out of Africa.

The Aboriginal Voice Concept is an honest outgrowth of post-WW2 international sovereignty/independence thinking, which included WESTERN SAHARA
and many other nations, especially those in Africa and Asia.

Certainly Australian Aboriginal sovereignty thinking was part of that international trend of peoples rejecting the notion whites could claim vast land areas (eg. the Australian continent) through RE-discovery and/or Conquest.

White-men presumed no one owned the land prior to their white "discovery" or conquest. More accurately tribes had owned the land for 10,000s years before whites re-discovery/conquest of land later labeled Australia.

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

More detail including WESTERN SAHARA.

In one paragraph of a briefing from the Australian Parliamentary Library research team:

titled "An unsettling decision: a legal and social history of native title and the Mabo decision"

of 5 December 2022

at http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Mabo

advises:

"Throughout the 1970s, in response to civil and indigenous rights activism of the era, many nations revisited their colonial histories and policies of assimilation.

In the US, the Nixon Government overturned the ‘termination’ policy[69] in favour of supporting tribal self-government.[70]

In New Zealand, after many years of considering the Treaty of Waitangi a ‘nullity’, continued campaigning by Maori for the Treaty to be respected led to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 (NZ), which established a permanent commission of inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal. The Tribunal investigates claims made by Maori against the Crown under the treaty and makes recommendations on applying the Treaty’s principles.[71]

[now coming to WESTERN SAHARA]

In a parallel development in international law, in 1975 the International Court of Justice issued an advisory but influential ruling on the status of the WESTERN SAHARA that rejected doctrines of sovereignty-by-discovery and terra nullius in favour of the self‑determination rights of the tribes of the WESTERN SAHARA territory.[72]"

Just read the same report, and it is about first nations sovereignty.

"According to Legal Affairs Contributor at the Australian Chris Merritt, the Uluru statement "From the Heart" may have been “plugged in and imported” from the Republic of Zaire.
“It’s been presented to the pope, it has been endorsed by the Labor party, it’s being taught in some schools, but when you look at it … it didn’t come out of Uluru originally.

“It came out of a judgement of the International Court of Justice that was put forward by the representative of the Republic of Zaire.”

Yes Josephus

The Uluru Statement is an Australian movement based on broader international trends.

Like you and Neo-Fascism.

Does that diminish the validity of the contrasting philosophies of Aborigines and your dear self?

Your Führer Mavs

Hi Mavs,

I have spent much time "researching" the 'Treaty of Waitangi' over the years, just as an interest. Things I have learnt.

1. It was written by men of good intent, but having no experience in treaty writing and little time, 2 days, it was doomed to be totally inadequate, and it is.

2. The sticking point to this day concerns the words "sovereignty" as in the English version, and the Maori version which refers to "governance".

There is little doubt that the Maori signatories never intended to cede sovereignty to the British Crown, but rather believed a partnership between themselves and the British was possible, with British governance, and Maori still retaining sovereignty. As unworthy as it was the treaty was not respected by the Pakeha.

My opinion is Australia first needs to climb the hill that is 'The Voice', before entertaining any notions of a treaty, and attempting to climb that mountain with all its pitfalls. Good luck Lidia!

The Uluru Statement from the Heart was an invitation to
the Australian people from our Indigenous people. It was
a direct appeal. Whether the inspiration for this came
from Zaire or the moon - it is irrelevant. We get our ideas
from many sources. The fact remains it was an invitation to
the Australian people to walk with our Indigenous and provide
a means, a pathway for them to be included.

What followed this invitation was the government report into
the Voice co-design process that was worked on by Prof. Marcia
Langton and Prof. Calma. This is the final report that was
presented to Parliament by Ken Wyatt. And this is the structure
and role of the Voice that is explained.

Well Paul got it right with the idea of Co-governance, they not only want representatives in parliament which they have they want unelected powers to advise the Executive Government.

Josephus,

Who are you running down now, the Maori people of Aoteaora, or was that another one of your crap on's concerning Aboriginal Australians?

You have no problem with government taking advice on a whole range of issues affecting varies sections of society. Example, if there are legislative changes proposed that affect the mining industry, then government does and should, consult widely with those affected.

You only seem to have a problem on consultation when it comes to government consulting with Black people. "Darkie needs to know his place in our pure white society", is that your view?

p/s It must gall you no end to know that not all are crusty old conservative white men sitting in the Australian Parliament.

paul you really are an ignoramus; I fully support representative Government and the aboriginal's representation in Government. I do not support an unelected Voice having direct powers over elected members. I believe in One Person One Vote, and we have 11 elected aboriginals to represent aboriginal issues. Government should listen to them, and their lobby groups already in existence.

Jose'

Those of Aboriginal heritage elected to parliament have not been elected as the representatives of Aboriginal people. Like any other MP they are there to represent all of their constituents, black and white. So we can put that nonsense to bed.

"I (Jose') do not support an unelected Voice having direct powers over elected members." You know as well as I do the Voice is to be a consultative body with NO direct powers over any elected members. You being of some intelligence, I can only assume your misrepresentation is not through ignorance of the facts but is racially motivated.

Be careful who you are calling an ignoramus, others have been suspended for the use of that same slur in the past. But I'm sure you're completely safe.

Paul,
"Voice is to be a consultative body with NO direct powers over any elected members." Then what is the point of the Voice? In that very fact of the Voice there is more power to influence decisions of executive Government than the elected representatives. You imply! In your view elected aboriginal members have less power than the unelected Voice. The Voice itself has power over decisions. Depends on Who is influencing the Voice - Warriors of Aboriginal Resistance?

Jose',

Like many in society that give advice/argument to government, on issues affecting them from their prospective, note its advice not commands, and this Voice is no different, except it will be enshrined in the Constitution. No one in parliament is in anyway duty bound to accept that advice. I think you know that, and are being purposely obtuse as you oppose any kind of Aboriginal recognition.

As for the 'Warriors of Aboriginal Resistance' (WAR) they are a fringe group with little to no standing in the Aboriginal community, no more than the right wing Neo-Nazie's of the “Liberal Ethnic Council”, known as the "Uglies", had within the Liberal Party. Although they were for a time very influential in NSW.

How, and to what extent, the Voice structure will advise the Executive remains an unknown. The how and to what extent cannot peempt Consitutional change wording.

Albo and many Voice advocates admit the following.

It is only AFTER the Referendum (permitting Constitutional change) passes that the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Voice can be decided by Parliament and maybe also by the High Court.

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

PARLIAMENT

A 29 July 2022 draft proposition is:

"The new provision in the constitution would have three sentences:

There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice."

see http://theconversation.com/albanese-releases-draft-wording-for-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-187933

Once or if, the Voice Referendum passes, in the form of 3 sentences like the above, it is only then "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice."

+++++++++++

HIGH COURT

The Voice, if it is unhappy with the way Parliament or the Executive is treating it, may well appeal to the High Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia#Role

The High Court, which interprets the meaning of the Constitution's wording, might revise major foundations of "the composition, functions, powers and procedures" of the Voice.

All very complicated and unfinished.

I take it the lack of response from Paul, Foxy and Jose means all agree with my God given truths above ;)

Burney is Minister for aboriginal affairs under Albanese and according to Foxy and Paul she is inept in dealing with aboriginal needs. She is an advocate for the Voice, yet she dresses in $1,200 dresses and shoes. What does she need a voice for aboriginal disadvantage when she does not experience disadvantage. She could share some of her advantages. Vote "No" to the elite.

I heard one legal opinion given today that the "Voice" could say
you cannot proceed with that legislation until we have formed an
opinion on it and if you do go ahead we will appeal to the High Court.Said that would be certain to generate an order to the Goverment to stop.

Hi Mavs,

Didn't comment as none of those things are a reality. The wording of the question to be put before the Australian people will be forthcoming shortly, until then we would only be discussing what is conjecture. The High Court rightfully has a roll to play in interpreting the meaning contained within the Constitution. Should the court grant leave for a party to appear before it, that's fine with me.

HI Proud Boy Jose'

You wouldn't have a clue as to the cost of Linda Burney's clothing, as a minister she receives a ministers salary. I don't see you complaining about the cost of white MP's dress, just one particular black member. AND YOU claim not to be RACISTS. Put your bed sheet back over your head!

Linda Burney did a fashion shoot on Channel 9 of her dresses and shoes.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=linda+burney+dresses&id=71B60B8EE4B92D4AC2024C4F4117552A329C326A&form=IQFRBA&first=1&disoverlay=1

Paul, I note you did not comment on your view that aboriginal politicians are inept to deal with aboriginal issues even if they are Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. That is why Linda Burney wants her Voice enshrined in the Constitution. Vote No to racism. Burney is equal to any Australian she does not need Constitutional advantage.

The voice will be a constitutional entrenched racially based rent-seeking body with no real purpose other than the self-enrichment of the voice members.

I have just read an article by a retired high level NSW beurocrat
on his study of the Langton report to the government.
I can now see why Albo does not want anyone to see the detail.
The connections between the 35 Voices that will be making
representations to Federal Government, Federal Parliament, State
Government, Federal Executive Government, State Executive Government
and to each and every local council is an absolute maze.

It will not just be one Voice but multiple voices for States and
local councils. All these connections will require a massive increase
in the staffing of the various departments and councils etc etc.
The block diagram that shows the connections between the various Voices
and the multitude of departments and councils is very complex.
I can see why it will slow down government business as everything that
will affect aborigines will require correspondence and/or conferences.
The author Kerry O'Neil is unknown to me.

Hi Bazz

For the good of this thread including my No vote advocacy regarding the Voice Referendum, do you have a link to the

"article by a retired high level NSW bureaucrat on his study of the Langton report to the government."?

On what page of that article is the "block diagram that shows the connections between the various Voices and the multitude of departments and councils"?

Which you rightly indicate "is very complex."

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

In the meantime pages 16 to 19 of the 272 page document:

"Indigenous Voice Co-design Process: Final Report to the Australian Government"

of July 2021

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

shows the INCREDIBLE COMPLEXITY and AMBITION of the Race-Based Voice Empire.

The Voice to Parliament will be just the 5% surface tip of the vastly expensive all-encompasing, racist, Voice iceberg.

Cheers Mavs

Jose',

"Paul, I (Jose') note you did not comment on your view that aboriginal politicians are inept to deal with aboriginal issues even if they are Minister for Aboriginal Affairs."

Now where did I post that view, its YOUR view and now you're trying to attribute it to me. No way Jose'.

You're a bloke who will try anything to discredit Aboriginal people, why is that?

Multiple choice

(A) You're a racists
(B) You're a racists
(C) You're a racists

What's your pick.

Paul, you said,"Those of Aboriginal heritage elected to parliament have not been elected as the representatives of Aboriginal people. Like any other MP they are there to represent all their constituents, black and white".
So, you believe even the Aboriginal Minister for Aboriginal affairs is inept to deal with aboriginal's needs even being the architect of the "Voice" advising Executive Government. If she is not capable of her appointment she should resign. She holds an executive position in Government, what advice is she not able to act upon?

Jose'

Clearly I didn't say what you first attributed to me. You extrapolated and misconstrued what I said. I did indeed say; "Those of Aboriginal heritage elected to parliament have not been elected as the representatives (exclusively) of Aboriginal people. Like any other MP they are there to represent all their constituents, black and white". I have now added the word exclusively for clarity.

I could have just as easily said those left handed people elected to parliament have not been elected as the representatives exclusively of left handed people. Like any other MP they are there to represent all their constituents, left, right and ambidextrous.

Hateful as you are towards Aboriginal people, what you are saying about Linda Burney Minister for Indigenous Australians, is rubbish. The woman performs her duties as a minister, and as a local member to the best of her ability. BTW; She is my sons local member, and he voted for her, and he has only half the Aboriginal blood I have. I suppose you hate my son for those two things.

It is all coming out bit by bit.
Latest heard today, the representatives to the various Voice bodies
will not be elected but appointed by various indigenous organisations.

Hmmm Jobs for the boys !

As Gary Johns says, it's the culture; all the problems lie with the people themselves; they are the only ones who can do anything about the problems. All efforts by do-gooders and activists have failed; so would the Voice fail.

What's more San Jose' translated "Saint Joseph".

The following song sung:

By a gal of dark HUE
Written by a Jew
Is dedicated to YOU!

http://youtu.be/jqWt49o7R-k

Suffer mate suffer :)

RIP the song writer, the late, great Burt Bacharach, who sadly died on February 8, 2023. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Bacharach

The singer, Dionne Warwick, is luckily still kicking.

A special public service announcement.
Brought to you by:

Mavaho the Navaho

Hi Mavs,

Burt Bacharach / Dionne Warwick, what an Old School combo. I'd rate Dionne Warwick with Aretha Franklin and Diana Ross as the outstanding Black female singers of that era.

Paul1405, for heaven's sake Linda Burney is Minister for aboriginal affairs and if her voice in executive government is not adequate now the Voice will only be a large taxpayer funded bureaucracy talkfest. If she is doing her job, there is no need of any other Voice. Vote No! to any other unelected Voice.

The aboriginal people of Alice Springs don't know that Burney is a government minister: they don't even know of her existence. Burney had one white parent, and was raised by a Scottish couple. She knows nothing about the lives of remote aborigines.

The "aborigines" of the Voice will be politicians of mostly white hue, but with Constitutional permanancy that will creat racial commotion unexpected in polite Australia.

With an Albo unexpecting the backblast that will see his political honeymoon end.

Its his gamble.

Go Lidia! "Aboriginal" Australia's Number 1 White woman http://probonoaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Lidia-Thorpe.jpg