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!