The referendum question

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?

The proposed addition to the Constitution

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures."

The answer still should be NO - give Ockernese a chance for a really good old sob; see if he can outdo Bob Hawke's performance. Bob actually managed real tears plus snottygobbles. I can still see it. Oscar winning stuff.

Oh good - clarity at last. Perhaps you could help me because I'm struggling to have some issues clarified....

Will it be elected?
Who will be eligible to vote if it is elected.
Who will be eligible to contest the vote if it is elected.
How will the members will be appointed if its not elected.
Who will be eligible to sit if its appointed.
Who be doing the appointing - PM, Cabinet, House, Senate?
How will it be funded.
Who'll determine the level of funding.
How will the consensus 'Voice' will be determined.
How will the Voice be communicated to the Parliament eg via the PM or GG or directly.
How the staff of the Voice will be determined and paid.
Can the government of the day change the membership.
Who will audit and adjudicate on the funding of the Voice.

Just a few minor issues...</sarc>

The Voice will adhere to eight principles, Wirdi man and working group member Tony McAvoy, KC, said.

1. The Voice will give independent advice to parliament and government.
2. The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities.
3. The Voice will be representative of Indigenous communities, with a gender balance and youth.
4. The Voice will be empowering, community-led, inclusive, respectful, and culturally informed.
5. The Voice will be accountable and transparent.
6. The Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures.
7. The Voice will not have a program delivery function.
8. The Voice will not have a veto power.

Who does not know that the Aborigines have been here for a very long time ?
Who does not know that many Aborigines have been prevented from continuing their nomadic existence ?
Who does not know that Torres Strait islanders have not been displaced by Europeans but by South Pacific Islanders.
Who does not know that the two groups have been receiving compensation & all other dervices for a very long time.
Who does not know that there are now more people identifying as indigenous than who are actually indigenous.
Who does not know that two Wrongs will never make a Right !

"2. The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities."

So not elected. Well I don't think that's been agreed but good to see that icky things like democracy will be ignored.

I don't know why all the guff from certain extreme posters, who are trying their best to portray a "smoke screen of concern" attitude towards 'The Voice'. The fact is those of your extreme with your prejudice and bias against Aboriginal people would never allow yourselves to vote yes under any circumstance.

Why not be like the Redneck Cow Cocky Party and say from the outset "I'm voting NO! and that's all to it!"

Has Sobanese decided who will actually have a voice in this single-race abomination?

It must be clear who these people are. 100% blackfellas? 50%? 12.5%? 0.05%? Bruce Pascoe? Anyone who says he is a blackfella?

When Senator Alex Antic asked this question in senate estimates, he was told by an ALP boofhead that his question was "border racism"!

No matter how much Cancel Culture's favourite word, "racism", is tossed around, this is a question that must be answered.

If it is not, and the abomination succeeds, it will just be an instrument of privilege and advantage for any old liars and rorters to use.

1405

People are saying that they are voting NO, you dill.

your extreme with your prejudice and bias against Aboriginal people
Paul1405,
You're the one with so much hatred towards those calling you out ! You're the most vindictive poster here so, start looking at your own mentality first. There are people born in this country who aren't indigenous through no fault of theirs just as there are descendants of indigenous who were born after many non-indigenous. To try & malign someone because of their heritage is just as bad as perpetually claiming to be a victim when you're not a victim !
The Past may not suit you just as I am saddened by it but being stupid, nasty & hateful is not going to change this Past !
No Voice will change that !
We all acknowledge the Indigenous now so, what more can a pack of hateful activists achieve ?

Indyvidual

Well said. 1405 projects his own hatred onto to other people.

There is plenty of hatred around, but it is directed at white Australia by aboriginal activists and self-hating whites.

I hope people saw that disgusting exhibition by part aboriginal/part white Lidia Thorpe, crawling along the ground, dragging the flag she claims to be proud of through the muck; then screeching at the camera that she was "pulverised" (even though she still looked to be in one piece) and "assaulted" by police - who were protecting the speaker she was charging at.

On the front page of a news rag this morning: 'all or nothing to change the nation'.

Let's hope it is nothing. Australia, a democratic, egalitarian opportunities-for-everyone country does not need changing to a racially conscious, racially divided, hard left s..thole reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, or the same as the new Communist China.

We can no longer expect the Liberal Party to help protect the country, and the government is out of control under an extreme left PM.

We, the people, must vote NO

My mother was an orphan. We know all about her father, but the mother was never mentioned. They lived in the wilds of north western Victoria in the early 1900s, before the parents were killed, so perhaps she was aboriginal or part their of.

I had best get my claim in now, to join in the bonanza.

The Guardian, 24 March, provides useful info on:

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

"A bill containing the proposals will be introduced to federal parliament [ON Thursday 30th March]. It will be referred to a parliamentary committee, which will examine the wording of the bill.

The exact format and membership of the committee – which will run through April and May – has not yet been announced.

Asked [23rd March] if the proposed wording was final, Albanese said “of course it can be altered” through the committee, although he added: “I would take a lot of convincing before I would support any amendment.”

“This is quite clearly what we are going forward with,” he said.

The government hopes to pass the bill in June. Laws around referendums dictate that once a constitutional alteration bill is passed, the referendum must be held between three and six months later.

The government has already said it plans to hold the referendum between October and December, and it’s expected the vote will be held at the beginning of that period.""

More see http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/23/the-proposed-voice-to-parliament-question-has-been-revealed-what-happens-next

More from the Guardian, 24 March, article:

WHAT WILL THE VOICE LOOK LIKE?

The government maintains its longstanding position that many of the exact details of the voice – such as precisely how many members it will have – will be locked in after a successful referendum vote, after further consultation with Indigenous communities.

But on Thursday [23rd March], the working group – an advisory body of Indigenous leaders put together by the government – released a broad set of design principles.

Those include that:

* The voice’s membership would be chosen by Indigenous people in a way that suits local communities.

* It would be representative of geography and gender.

* It would have representatives from each state and territory, the Torres Strait Islands, remote areas and the mainland Torres Strait Islander population.

* It would be accountable and transparent.

* It would work alongside existing organisations, and not run any programs or have veto power.

* Uluru statement co-chair Prof Megan Davis, a referendum working group member and UNSW constitutional academic, said the voice would have “an extraordinary impact” on the government’s work because it could make proactive suggestions.

“It doesn’t have to wait to be engaged by the parliament, it doesn’t have to wait to be consulted, it can make representations on its own initiative … it’s a very powerful mechanism,” she told Radio National on Thursday.""

More see http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/23/the-proposed-voice-to-parliament-question-has-been-revealed-what-happens-next

MAV COMMENT

We'll see if the principles above pan out.

Hmmm, lot to argue about in this latest version.
It seems that multiple demands could be made on one issue.
One to the Speaker of the House, one to the PM and one to the Gov Gen.
Also another to the minister and another to various public servants !
I doubt it would get that bad, but several could be in the sights.
The one to the GG could be to dismiss the PM or a Minister.
If one of those refused to act as requested then a petition to
the High Court could be made.
As I understand it even to stop a declaration of war is possible.

However the fundamental question "Who is an Aborigine ?"
has not been answered. Foxy once said there are three definitions now
used by government.
Even Aborigines are unhappy about the Ticka-Boxers !

Note in California all blacks can be awarded $3 million because their
ancestor was a slave, even if he wasn't !
Look forward to something like that.

What would/could the Indigenous propose to Parliament with the Voice that they can't propose now ?

Indy,

Why are you such a hypocrite? When I told you I had Aboriginal heritage you then racially abused me, calling me a "CONCRETE JUNGLE BUNNY"! You have never posted one positive word about Aboriginal people on this forum, only negative. "You're the one with so much hatred towards those you call out" YOU, with your hatred of public servants demanding that 95% be sacked, for no other reason than YOU were dismissed, for mostly likely incompetence from the service yourself!

With your holier-than-thou attitude you criticise those on welfare, such as young folk, demanding that they be pressed ganged into some ridiculous 'Boot Camp' as a form of punishment, yet you are a welfare leach yourself, and have been most of your life in Australia!

Listening to a Constitutional lawyer last night he said the question is so vague it will affect every area of Government, as the Voice will have to be consulted on every Bill brought before Parliament if this goes ahead. This means that they have power over Government decisions and can go to the High Court if they disagree with decisions of Government.

Obviously Albanese has fallen under the spell of the elite aboriginals and is not confident in his decision, which is why he is shedding tears. He could not meet a delegation of dinkum aboriginals from Alice Springs whose concerns should be dealt with by the Voice. In other media reports I have seen of the welcoming of the Voice aboriginals were supporting the announcement with the black power salute.

Paul145,
As you're one those pushing for the VOICE it's enlightening & sobering for people to see what kind of Prejudice they'd be voting in with the YES vote !

"We stand as one under this flag as Australians – whether we are from the first peoples of this country, whether we’re from those who came on the first fleet, and the settlers and the migrants that come to this country … We are one Australia.” (Jacinta Price, an aboriginal voice Albanese and his Leftist gang definitely do not want to listen to. They want to wreck one Australia).

What is it that makes some people believe that the wrongs of a now long-gone Past can somehow be rectified by justifying more wrong ?
Many past wrongs were due to ignorance, prejudice, plain greed, stupidity & in a lot of cases due to having drawn the shorter straw in life. Many of those perpetually bleating about the Past wrongs are now trying to rally sympathy by doing exactly the same with the same mindset.
I couldn't blame a victim for thinking that way but there are no more victims & the new perpetrators are the ones claiming rather opportunistically to be victims !

Jose,

What was the name of the constitutional lawyer, you were listening to last night, or is that another one of your anti Voice, anti Aboriginal fallacies you like to promote.

Indy,

No one is trying to rectify wrongs of the past, by perpetrating acts of murder and genocide today, because that is what took place in the past. Like the bloke above, name those people who "believe that the wrongs of a now long-gone Past can somehow be rectified by justifying more wrong" People like you are in denial, and don't want to recognise the past history of the injustices perpetrated against Aboriginal people. For you it should be swept under the carpet, not mentioned and not recognised as it was for 200 years. You only accept some perverted sanitised version of history when it comes to European colonialism and how it impacted Aboriginal people.

Jut as it's right to call out "Holocaust Deniers", it's equally right to call out "Aboriginal Murder and Genocide Deniers".

Warren Mundine says that Voice advocates are either ignorant of aboriginal culture, or they are deliberately ignoring it,

"No Aboriginal person can speak for another country, only their own"

The Voice won’t, and can’t, represent Indigenous people as a group. The idea is "absurd".

The Langton-Calma model is designed to vest the power of the Voice in a small group of mostly metropolitan activists. A decision-making process that actually respected Aboriginal culture would be simply unworkable.

"Everywhere you look, major difficulties loom".

Paul1405 is the kind of character the VOICE would be made up of ! Vindictive, opportunistic & plain inconsiderate towards those who toil for the benefit of all !

Anthony Albanese can shed tears for the failed Voice, but he cannot shed tears for those losing their houses for the economy. He could not meet a group from Alice Springs first nations people whom the Voice is supposed to represent. He is listening to an elite group with an agenda. He gave the power to those who stood with him on the platform who designed the voice, who are living in first world cities and seek Voice on decisions over represented members of Parliament.

The Constitutional lawyer was on Sky TV telling how the Voice will have to be consulted on everything before it becomes into effect. It virtually has control over all Government decisions. It becomes aboriginal government by stealth, you will not be able to do anything on the land without aboriginal approval.

The VOICE's secret agenda incorporates anything anti-Caucasian & it is that footing that could make it fail for itself !
To just say you want to close that Gap is meaningless if you have no intention of closing it because of the unwelcome responsibilities & reduction of benefits involved.

I am voting NO. Who else is voting NO?

It now appears the Voice will take ownership of all public land, which includes beaches, rivers, and waterways, beside National Parks and forests. It is the Voice's proposal that entry or use will have fees, royalties and leases imposed with funds going to First Nations people.

I am voting NO. Who else is voting NO?
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 25 March 2023 11:15:41 AM

The rednecks, racists and bigots of course. Does that answer your question.

Hi ttbn,

I would like to know what I am voting for. I have no intention signing a blank page based on vague reassurance, but that seems to be the extent of the reveal thus far.

"The rednecks, racists and bigots of course ..." says the site lunatic, probably thinking that such abuse will stop people from answering. Only a despicable and ignorant grub would think that.

Whether or not I am a 'redneck', a 'racist' or a 'bigot', I will still be voting NO, and I don't think other people will decide their vote on the pathetic attempt at cancelling by a moron like 1405.

Fester

If you are waiting for 'assurances', you will probably be voting NO. Thanks for answering the question. There who are posters here who like to argue and pontificate, but without saying where they stand. Fans of Peter Dutton, perhaps, lately described as a 'poodle' lacking the guts to come out and say that he and the Liberal Party will NOT be supporting this Voice garbage, which will change the way Australia is governed, forever, if it gets into the Constitution. Forever, for EVERYONE, not just a 3% racial group whose people are not all the same, and don't think the same - just like all other Australians who descend from the first inhabitants, the first settlers, from subsequent immigrants over more than two centuries, including the newly arrived. Everybody.

If the Voice gets up LIDIA THORPE, ever the opportunist (Remember!), will change tack and likely stand.

Lidia will be voted in by her Melbourne, radical, mostly white blood, "Aboriginal" followers.

Then Lidia, aided by retaining her Federal Senate dual-role, will be the LOUDEST VOICE of the Voice.

Can't wait. We'll all be sorry.

ttbn,

Its highly unlikely that the rednecks, racists and bigots in society will vote anything but "NO". However they are not a majority of voters in my opinion, but a majority may vote "NO". Besides the rednecks, racists and bigots I can't say who will vote "NO"....Oh!, there is you and a few others here who say they will also be voting "NO".

BTW, I was once reliably informed that by calling another a "MORON" on this site, as you have done, would lead to an automatic suspension, but don't worry old cock you're on the RIGHT side of the fence.

I'm at NO at this stage however, if they keep the white self-identified Indigenous out then I can be swayed into supporting a VOICE but not as it is now THE VOICE !

Hi ttbn,

The question I have is why the voice requires amending the Constitution? Couldn't it be legislated without changing the Constitution? Specifically, what laws might the voice be breaking?

Fester currently the NIAA with a federal budget of $4,000,000,000 does exactly what the Voice is supposed to do but fails.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/voice-to-parliament-constitutional-law-expert-greg-craven-slams-anthony-albanese/ar-AA190Vme?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=85cc5b9aa5144ce29bb3c2ac4dc16960&ei=32

Former Labor minister Gary Johns says Anthony Albanese’s final Voice referendum wording will “massively upend the way” we do “politics in Australia”.“It’s a crude grab by a group of people to have their voices privileged beyond every other Australian,”

A constitutional law expert has slammed Anthony Albanese's Voice to parliament as a 'fatally flawed ruthless con job'.

On Thursday, the PM finally released details of the referendum and the question Australians will vote on.

Mr Albanese appeared on the verge of tears on at least five occasions as he announced the question, while emotionally calling on Australians to 'get this done'.

However, Professor Greg Craven, a constitutional lawyer who was one of the experts behind the original proposal of an Indigenous Voice, has slammed Mr Albanese's proposal as a 'con job'.

He said: 'I think it's fatally flawed because what it does is retain the full range of review of executive action.

'This means the Voice can comment on everything from submarines to parking tickets.

'We will have regular judicial interventions,' he warned.

Paul has believed the lies and presents it as fact, without intelligent debate.

Opponents of the voice have listened to comments by a number of legal academics arguing the body could override the parliament.

Constitutional expert Greg Craven said the inclusion of the words "executive government" in the voice framework "actually takes the problems that people have identified with the preceding drafting and multiplies it".

Fester

According to the legal eagles, it does not need to be in the Constitution, and the Voice could be legislated any time. This has occurred in South Australia without so much as a by-your-leave to voters. The Minister at the front of this, incidently, claims to be part aboriginal himself, but so far, there is no evidence to show that he is. The woman ancestor he claimed to derive the aboriginality from has been found not to have any aboriginality; perhaps he made a mistake?

But, no. It does not need to be in the Constitution; but once it is, it's all over red rover unless another referendum overturns it.

1405

You have a cheek, complaining about name-calling: you do it in almost all of your toxic posts, you nasty, ignorant little man.

Indyvidual

I think that you will stick with NO. The more we hear, the worse it gets.

Labor has taken over NSW, with Joel Fitzgibbon saying it was because Minns used the Albanese method, or some such tosh. Probably not. The Liberals had it coming.

A map was put up with Australia all red, just like Communist China, apart from the tiny speck blue speck and that is Tasmania.

Hard times ahead, but we can lay the blame squarely at the feet of the Liberal Party for being stupid enough to think that emulating Labor would see them right.

The Voice can still be rejected though.

ttbn,

You can't see the fact the electorate has again comprehensively rejected conservative politics, how many times does it have to happen before you wake up. The millennial's and post-millennial's are solidly supporting progressive policy, there is no future for any political party or politician that is relying on the octogenarian vote, like the Liberals are, they are a dying minority, literally. Most folks of that old vintage have realistically one, possibly two, votes left in them.

You can't see the fact the electorate has again comprehensively rejected conservative politics,
Paul1405,
Yes and, as per usual they'll come to regret it again !

The Voice is nothing more than a power grab: an attempt to change the way we are governed. It will benefit only the aboriginal 'aristocracy', and do nothing for the 20 or so percent who could do with being pulled out of the mire.

Whatever is said here will not make any difference to what happens. All we get is one vote each, and nobody seems to have decided how they will vote, or they have been silenced by 1405, who calls anyone names whose opinions differ fom his Far Left ravings.

My last few words on this shocking piece of totalitarianism called the Voice are: I will be voting NO, and I cannot understand how anyone could vote for such an appalling piece of legislation. But, if the Voice does get through, you will deserve everything it brings to you.

As the egregious ageist, 1405 says, I'm nearing the end of my life, and I am pleased about that. I really don't want to live in what this society is becoming.

Thanks ttbn,

If it is all legal then why not just pass the legislation and see how it goes? If it were up and running there could be consideration for constitutional change if the voice were seen to be effective, but then why would anyone want to dismantle a system that was working? I have trouble understanding why a referendum for the voice is being pushed for if it isn't needed.

Fester,
Exactly & ditto ttbn re the power grab !

The NIAA is supposed to doing everything that is claimed for the Voice, and it gets $4.5 billion every year. If the Voice were to allowed by the Australian people, the NIAA would not be disbanded and the aboriginal elite running put out of a job.

So, there is absolutely no reason for the Voice, which would be just as useless as the NIAA has been and continues to be.

The Voice is the vilest piece of political skulduggery ever threatened to be perpetrated on the Australian voters and taxpayers, who should say a resounding NO! to it and to the politicians and activists responsible for this attempted power grab with Communist Chinese characteristics.

Hi Fester

The reason the Voice involves Constitutional recognition (made possible by a future Yes vote in the Referendum)

is to prevent the Voice being abolished by the Government of the day as happened to ATSIC in 2004

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Commission#Abolition

The PROBLEM is if the Voice becomes as CORRUPT* as ATSIC THE Government of the day cannot abolish it.

Constituttional recognition means the existence of the Voice will be above ordinary law.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Commission#Corruption_investigations

Regards Mavs

Thank you for the explanation Maverick. I doesn't sound like a good reason for a referendum. With the woeful state of the coalition Labor could give the voice a good test run.

The Millenniums have been brained washed to believe Climate catastrophe.

Well, it is probably the best option that Labour won the election.
Together with the Feds they will first stuff up the energy system and
then the state will assist them to get the Voice through by hook or bye crook
and a population ground down by inflation, interest rates and farming
output falling due to loss of fertilisers, (see Sri Lanka & Holland).
All that just for starters.
If the Libs had won they would have tried to stop the decline but
they would have still been aiming for Zero 50 and it would have been
too late to save the energy system.

Better to have a quick crash, and a change of government to people
who have a better understanding and who will get it restarted.
All those at present in the field are too STUPID to understand how it
all works. They proved their STUPIDITY when they destroyed the coal
stations without getting the replacement generation in place first !

Anyone that STUPID should not be allowed near politics.
Someone said that there were no politicians that had ever had a small
business and most had only worked as trade union officials or political
office clerks.

Gawd Help Us !

The responses here are quite typical of the WASP boomer clique which are thankfully a diminishing breed in this country.

The Millennials whose numbers are increasing rapidly as a demographic will likely get this across the line if it succeeds.

They well understand the selfishness of the boomer generation grasping for tax perks and handouts at the expense of our young Australians.

I for one are proud of them and feel this country will be in good hands. The have helped dispatch the party of the boomers in all States except for one and the future looks bright.

Meanwhile the gum flappers of OLO chirp away into their Metamucil porridges and think the have relevance.

You really don't old chaps. Not one bit. Party's over boys.

Onya SteeleRectum

Go Lidia! The LOUDEST VOICE of the Voice.

What could go wrong?

One should be wary of people harping on about children being the light that leads us forwards. More a pied piper.

WHAT THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL IS PREVENTED FROM REVEALING

What the Albanese Government seeks to hide by refusing to release the Solicitor-General's assessment, centres on:

1. The Voice's ability to make representations to the "Executive" (which includes Cabinet and Albanese himself).

THE KICKER IS one reading of Constitutional implications is that the Executive would be required to publically give cause if and why it rejected Voice advice.

and

2. If the Voice was unhappy with the Executive rejecting its advice then the Voice could bring its disputes with Albanese

to that arbiter of Constitutional situations, the HIGH COURT

for judgement, potentially against Albanese's policies.

Why not have the Voice on three years probation ?

There seems to be misunderstanding of what is the function of the Constitution and how a referendum question should be framed to alter that Constitution. The High Count is charged with the responsibility to determine if a law, or action taken under a law, is in breach of the Constitution. The original document gave no consideration to the rights of First Nations peoples, in fact it failed to recognise them at all, it was simply a European piece, applying for the benefit of European settlers. Given the attitudes at the time its not surprising, regrettable now, but not surprising.

The Voice question, probably has had more input to its wording than any other constitutional question asked of the people in the past.

Hi Steele,

Thanks for your incisive posts as usual. Just a point, there are several groups of adults by age in our society. The latest group being Generation Alpha, or the "Hatchlings" yet to achieve adult status. Preceding the Hatchlings are Generation Z or the "Zoomers" many of those vote now, some are in their mid 20's. Preceding the Zoomers were the Millennial's, all of them vote now. Back in "medieval times" around the 1980's, before them were the stone age people, according to my 17 year old grand-daughter. She says she like doing things from the stone age, like playing 'Scrabble'. I said; :Yes, us men back then often played scrabble with our clubs to determine who got the women. "grunt" was a popular word in Scrabble in those days, in fact it was the only word." Anyway, before the Zoomers came the 'Aspros", aspirational people who had the crazy idea that they should have a roof over their heads, and what's more actually own that roof, crazy, just crazy! Before then, yes grand-daughter, time did exist before 1965, we didn't have clocks, but we could tell time by the Sun, there were the "Boomers" hatchlings born everywhere. Grand-daughter said; "mad, you guys parents were have sex all the time, wow!" The Boomers stretch back to 1946, that's AD not BC. Before then when the universe was in its infancy, there existed the 'Spatts and Straw Hats Brigade, some are still with us today discovered in archaeological digs and housed in museums. Before that last group are the 'Cemeterians' you can visit them, but can't see them.

Dear Maverick,

"Steelerectum"?

Lol. You lot really are getting more and more childish as you age. Mate it really is going to be okay. Things will work out fine and the sun will come up tomorrow if there is a non-binding indigenous voice to parliament.

There are plenty of things that need pushing back upon but this one isn't one of them. It will serve to right some of the wrongs we carry with us as a country, and one that our younger generation see much merit in helping to bring some resolution rather than it being an inherited and continuing burden.

Good on them.

What prevents me from YES is that the VOICE seems to not be about the betterment of conditions for the indigenous but for a power grab for a handful of revenge & anti White orientated activists who do not appear to actually care about "their people" !

A Constitution should not give advantage to any race, religion, or gender, it should be a neutral document that encompasses equality for all citizens.

Giving one race advantage in a Constitutional document is there forever and will lead to future conflict between citizens as differences of opinion have to be settled in the High Court. By putting one race with advantage means accepting beliefs and practices of the race on how it affects their rights, when Australia is a Multiracial nation where we believe all persons are equal. Do they want to practice their 60,000-year-old culture and rights as part of the national religion? Is this part of undermining Western Culture?

When the opposition to the NO campaign can only call names like childish and degrade others by age indicates their arguments uninformed and are weak.

The fact the people are loath to come out and say how they would vote, based on what we know now, anonymously, with just a bit of name-calling from a ratbag, speaks volumes about the timidity and fear of modern Australians.

ttbn,

As a ratbag you can stop calling me a MORON, fwit etc, and apply them to yourself. As for voting, I've made it clear in the past I will be voting "YES". Why is it of interest to you? How you are going to vote is of no interest what so ever to me.

A big yawn again. You seem to be taking over from that old battle axe that hasn't been posting for a while. Boring.

Hi Paul

I really appreciated your Boomers to Hatchlings comment. I'm a Boomer who can talk proper, beyond grunting.

I'm going to use your comment at a local community group I chair.

I'll attribute it to one "Paul"

Cheers Mavs

Hi Mavs,

In order of age there are in Aussie;

(1) Hatchlings
(2) Zoomers
(3) Millennial's
(4) Aspros
(5) Boomers (not to be confused with the Zoomers)
(6) Spats and Straw Hats
and finally (7) Cemeterians

That covers everyone between the ages of zero the Hatchlings to infinity, that's the Cemeterians.

If this race-based rubbish gets into the Constitution, we will have to accept an unelected advisory body of Indigenous academics and activists telling the federal government what to do. The potential for the Voice to run to the courts when it does not get its way all but guarantees it will have the last say on a limitless range of crucial decisions. Given the courts are also unelected, the vast majority of Australians will be effectively excluded from this stage of the proposed decision-making process. They will, rather ironically, be rendered voiceless.

ttbn,
We'll very likely get the first splatters when the crap hits the fan but the generation after us will cop the full deluge & the outcome will be a loss for all before the racists realise they can't manage without these bad conservatives & get run out everywhere.

"Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has conceded the voice to parliament and the executive will have the power to challenge government decisions in the High Court if it believes it has not been properly advised.

The concession cames as constitutional expert and voice proponent Frank Brennan prayed for a “Lazarus-style miracle” in his Sunday sermon, decrying the lack of process, transparency and public participation in the development of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Mr Dreyfus on Sunday said High Court challenges by the voice were a “possibility”

We have plenty of "two bob" lawyers on the Forum, who give their "learned" legal opinions, when they are not playing general in the Ukrainian War. Unfortunately they are nothing more than Dennis Denuto types, remember Dennis in court; "It’s Mabo. It’s justice, it’s law, It’s the vibe, yes it's the vibe". These "two bobbers" are giving constitutional law a bad name.

The Voice hopefully will pass, and deservedly become part of the Australian Constitution.

And we certainly have one too many village idiots on OLO, especially the fwit that knows nothing of law, economics, or anything else and so needs to make up bullsh1t or outright lies.

Hey SM,

Remember your forum famous 'Cry Baby' Porter legal opinion, I'll remind you; "Porter is in for $10 million plus in compensation, a grovelling apology from the ABC, and 100 ABC employees sacked to pay for it!" What a hoot was that one. Then there was the 'Beat Up' Bolt opinion; "An arrest is imminent, the cops have their man!", you couldn't see that Bolt staged managed the lot, and beat himself up. Whose is the Village Idiot when it comes to legal opinion? YOU!

Far from being clarified, the 'referendum question' is getting more confusing: all questions, no answers. More people who ARE legally qualified - even those who support the idea of a Voice - are saying, 'hang on a minute, this is not going to work out the way Albanese thinks it will'. Albanese has gone off half-cocked, and he is making a dog's breakfast of it.

Those of us who wonder why Dutton seems to be going along with the charade might have heard last night the suggestion that he is doing so only to prevent Albanese from having a new target to blame if - more likely when - the Voice blows up in his face. But, they are also saying that Dutton has only a couple of weeks come out against the nonsense. Who among us knows what anyone in the remote-from-reality political class will do these days?

"Not only do they want the divisive Voice to ride roughshod over Parliament, it would have a direct say over every decision made by the executive government.

And the Voice will have the power to challenge those decisions in the High Court." (Jacinta Price Website)

It has been revealed Albanese wanted different wording, which is why the tears, so he had to give in to the developers of the Voice. The Constant welcome to country is a forerunner to who owns the country, and the elected government does not speak for the land and its titles. We are being brainwashed to believe the Land belongs to aboriginal tribes that were stolen 250 years ago. No settlements and developments were agreed too and any future developments without approval and compensation must be put to the Voice for agreement and all occupied land will be subject to a rent tax payable to aboriginals. Like some areas already paying leases to aboriginals in Victoria.

Pauliar,

You are a LIAR and a FRAUD. You keep on repeating the same lie as if it will become true.

You are a complete scumbag.

A few weeks ago, on a separate thread, I suggested that the Voice could enable a small group of unelected activists to interfere with any legislation that was put forward by the parliament. Foxy claimed that this was not true and that Albozo had guaranteed that this would only be an advisory committee to parliament and would have no force of law and suggested I read the report. In doing so I discovered that the voice would have feelers extending to every parliament and every public service department in the country.

Attorney General Dreyfus was forced to concede that the "voice" would have the ability to challenge just about every piece of legislation and regulation brought to law. This would be an unmitigated disaster.

"The Prime Minister, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney are getting cranky, unable to answer questions as to how the voice will work, contradicting each other and forgetting or denying precedents for release of key legal advice or Labor’s policies.

As they move to play down the impact of the voice’s power to intervene on day-to-day government decisions, they are proposing more severe restrictions on Indigenous representatives’ intervention with new definitions that are not in the proposed referendum.

This ad-hoc redefinition, designed to placate fears of overreach from critics of the voice is already getting blowback from Indigenous supporters of the widest possible remit for intervention in making policies and laws.

Dreyfus has conceded that: voice representatives will have the power to go to the High Court claiming they have not been properly consulted; the governor-general would be subject to requests from the voice; and coverage would include tax, welfare, health, education and foreign policy."

A young Aboriginal AFL player for the Western Bulldogs, Jamarra Ugle-Hagan, has fallen victim once again to the ugly side of this country, being on the end of sickening racist taunts

I just received the above in an email,
Does anyone know what that sickening racist taunt was ? I've seen sinpets on the News but none of them state what was said !

Indy,

Me thinks he was called a "CONCRETE JUNGLE BUNNY!".

Dear Josephus,

You write:

"It has been revealed Albanese wanted different wording, which is why the tears, so he had to give in to the developers of the Voice."

What a load of utter made up rubbish. I don't know what cesspit of a fringe facebook group's post you pulled that idiotic statement from but it speaks both to your complete lack of respect for normal debate and your cultish devotion to imbecilic narratives which have little basis in reality.

Give it away.

SM,

With your cut and paste jobs, how about giving a reference as to where you get them from. The last bit of misinformation you lifted straight out of the 'Murdoch Gutter press' as per usual.

Me thinks he was called a "CONCRETE JUNGLE BUNNY!".
Paul1405,
If that's all it was he'd better get life. All this feigned indignation about some light-hearted joke is starting to wear.
You never did provide an explanation to a question I put on here regarding the names non-indigenous get called by indigenous ! Some of those names are proper insults not just some harmless light-hearted meant quips.
I bet you yourself are not offended until you can think of an excuse to feel offended ! Pi$$-poor show really considering that I'd meant a "Concrete Jungle Bunny" to be a city dweller, no racial heritage involved & it was you who opportunistically tried to make it a racial issue which it is not ! Time to change that broken record !

https://youtu.be/DeG6vsJZWCw

Indy,

What do you think of a person who says the murder of 51 innocent men, women and children in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, for no other reason than they were Muslims, if that person describes those sickening murders as an act of "retaliation", would you consider that person to be racists against Muslims.

What do you think of a person who says the murder of 51 innocent men, women and children
Paul1405,
They must be taken out of circulation just as those who detonate bombs that kill many innocent even of their own heritage !
No number of wrongs will ever right the wrongs of the past ! The scab tearers perhaps think they can !

Village idiot,

Finding the source copied from the mainstream media takes about 10 seconds as you have clearly shown which is why your request is idiotic especially since you almost never provide any references as you pull your posts from your arse.

Would you prefer quotes from other gutter press such as the guardian, the SMH, the ABC, etc.?

What about attacks and abuse on Muslims?
Foxy,
Considering the violence dished out by them in recent decades I'd be more inclined to call that retaliation rather than attacks !
-ADVERTISEMENT-
Posted by Indyvidual, Monday, 6 February 2023 3:35:15 PM

So you consider the Christchurch massacre carried by a white supremacist where 51 Muslims were murdered, men, women and children, as RETALIATION rather than an attack. And you're not a bigot, a hater and a racists. Forgive me for thinking otherwise.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 6 February 2023 6:49:36 PM

Another far right turd thinks Brenton Tarrant was wrongly convicted. He is also opposed to the Voice, I wonder why

Paul1405,
Don't try so hard to distort things and, yes many attacks on Muslims are reprisals !
That attack in Christchurch was as unwarranted or un-justified as most attacks on Westerners by Muslim Extremists. Muslims don't actually have a monopoly on such attacks but they do appear to be more active in that field. There certainly are times when it is quite understandable that people become extremist on all sides & in all societies !

Indy,

As I read your above post I see you getting yourself into a bit of knot there. You consider some attacks on innocent people as justified, you don't categorically condemn all attacks. You go on to mitigate those unjustified attacks by claiming there is "understandable" reasons individuals become extremists. In my opinion there is no justification for either attacks or retaliation, and there are no understandable reasons to justify extremism.

consider some attacks on innocent people as justified,
Paul1405,
Now you're totally off your trolley. Show me where I justified violence against innocent people !
You're one of the most tormented & vindictive sods I've ever encountered. There's no moral justification to be so warped & desperate as you are. You really need to talk to a shrink !

According to tweets by Anthony Albanese the Voice will follow the NZ model, which has in fact divided the nation on racial lines.
In 2020, now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stated he wanted Australia to follow New Zealand’s lead on Indigenous reconciliation.

The Institute of Public Affairs has undertaken a detailed analysis of New Zealand’s Maori Voice to Parliament, the Waitangi Tribunal, and how it might inform the operation of the proposed Voice to Parliament in Australia.

The Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975, to make recommendations to parliament about grievances arising from treaty.

The court held that: “If the Waitangi Tribunal finds merit in a claim and recommends redress, the Crown should grant at least some form of redress.

The advisory body was granted powers to interfere and demand changes in the law and public policy. Since then, the decisions of the Waitangi Tribunal have been driven by activists pushing race-based policies.

Some of the decisions of the Tribunal have included granting explicit Maori veto powers over legislation affecting land management and property rights.

The Tribunal has involved itself in everything from international trade agreements to Covid-19 policies demanding Maoris get priority to vaccines rather than those who are in medical need, and to electoral laws allowing prisoners to vote to increase Maori electoral participation.

Some decisions have been downright dangerous to reduce Maori incarceration rates, justice department officials must learn “Treaty-based thinking”.

Once something is inserted into our constitution, it is the High Court that will determine its powers. All control is taken out of the hands of the Australian people. Warned, former Australian High Court justice Ian Callinan.

In an attempt to divert attention away from addressing critical questions, supporters have stated its nothing more than a “modest request” in the name of reconciliation.

The great majority of Australians enthusiastically want a better life for our Indigenous communities, however, by refusing to be open and honest about the consequences of the Voice, its proponents may well end up being the biggest threat to reconciliation this century.

The Forums out of touch brigade continue to prattle on about how diabolical the Voice is. The reality is these old blokes are clueless and driven by bigotry and their resentment of Aboriginal people, there's no other reason why they oppose.

Jose, what absolute nonsense is that last post from you, pathetically clutching at straws in yet another attempts to ridicule the Voice.

The forums village idiots are barracking for racism, bigotry and rent-seeking to be inserted into the constitution.

clueless and driven by bigotry and their resentment of Aboriginal people,

Paul1405,
So, it's got nothing to do with the hypocritical mentality of those who are as white as my butt but call themselves Aboriginal ?

paul has no intelligent debate for "yes", just name calling which is a tactic of the extreme green left to cover for their ignorance. I report on the example Albanese is following in NZ and he calls the NZ Voice nonsense. Shows his ignorance of fact.

Indy,

Why do you demand Aboriginal people prove their BLACKNESS? Do they demand you show your white arse down at 'Centrestink' to prove your WHITENESS, before they dish out your welfare payment?

I thought that recognising all human beings as equal an achievement of civilisation. How does a race based electoral system build on this? If I wanted to choose the most capable person to do a job I would not be excluding 99% of people based on race. Treating all people equally will generally increase the chance of better outcomes.

1405 is still insulting "old blokes", after admitting that he is married to a 73 year old woman. As a crude, name-calling ageist he can't admit his own age but it's a fair bet that he is well into his 70s, and pretending that he is still young with childish Green politics. The bloke, if he is a bloke, is a total fraud.

demand Aboriginal people prove their BLACKNESS?
Paul1405,
Yes ! If they're white that is !

Paul1405,
To claim heritage can not be taken at face value when the bureaudroids can't differentiate between an Australian indigenous * a Pacific Islander or even an African or as I once witnessed, a Maltese. I also remember & still know Malays & Filipinos, Japanese etc before they identified as Indigenous Australians.
So, you can see why I think such identifying is in need of proof !

If the yes vote gets up everybody born in Australia can claim aboriginality. We are part of the soil, plant and flesh nurtured on Australian land. Our voices deserve to be equally heard by those administering services on our behalf. It is our forefathers and mothers who have built this society from bush and raised cities. It is they who are our elders to whom we give respect, it is they who have given their lives for our benefit. Vote No to a single racial Voice that disregards the sacrifice of our elders, elders who have attempted to give equality to all regardless of race.

If the yes vote gets up everybody born in Australia can claim aboriginality.
Josephus,
The anti-white brigade would ensure that can't happen because all the academic hanger-on experts have already sold us out !

It seems to me there are a great many 'opinions' here based mainly on emotion.
Facts are not only succinct, they are almost inviolable.
So shall we stick to facts?
Work out what is real and what is misleading.
I do think authorities are 'glossing over' certain issues.
This is partly because they have not thought them through properly.
As a result, even if they are wrong, they almost believe what they are saying.
And if they then get the bit between their collective teeth....

The title of this post is inaccurate to start with. There is no "clarity" about the Voice: it just gets more confusing every day as the lies flow from proponents of this dreadful assault on our Constitution.

Just one quick example:-

At press conference, Albanese made these two statements - "It's a modest request".

Almost in the same breath, he said "I'm here to change the country".

And that was early in the piece. Since then, lawyers - even those supporting the Voice - have said that the Voice would NOT work the way Albanese claims; and it certainly would change the country, how it is governed and even democracy as we now enjoy it, forever. It would turn Australia into an activist judges Paradise.

VOTE NO.

ttbn,

See if you can find yourself arguing with the rhetoric in this link

https://youtu.be/TVuga1qNQ2A

I heard a comment the other day which conclusively means that the
Voice should not be entered into the Constitution, but should be done
by legislation.
Once in the constitution it is there forever !
Does this mean that it is considered that the indigenous people all
down through their generations will be disadvantaged ?

If they expect that to be so, why is it so ?

Just so you know I am Bazz, but in trying to get access I had to generate a new account and I mistyped Bazza as Bezza.
I could not use Bazz because the old accounts had that nickname.
My normal account has become corrupted somehow and I no longer receive
notifications, I cannot cancel or edit the old accounts and it appears that Graham cannot edit that part of the system either.

Bazz

My old fingers and noggin do peculiar things too these days. Have you asked Graham if he can get you back to what you were?

I hate mobile phones and have a 3G dumbphone just for emergencies. I like to walk, and I might keel over and need help or I wouldn't have the bloody thing. 3G is being phased out next year, and my daughters think I should get a smart phone. Nuh. I've reached my limit on technology and will stick to what is politely called a 'good for seniors' phone - talk and message, and that's it. I understand even some of the youngsters want to 'detox' and get rid of their smartphone, which are an addiction for most of them.

Heard a couple of interesting comments on the ABC this morning. One was that it was okay to have a racist amendment to the Constitution as it already had racist passages. Another was that it was racist to discuss how voters for the Voice might be selected: Well of course it is. How else can a race based electoral system be made to work other than with carefully honed racism?

Just being white is racist according to the Socialist elite !

Like their cousins in the 'Cow Cocky' Party, its no surprise, the other half of the 'Noalition' is opposing the Voice, well the majority are. There are about 6 Liberals in favour, Dud Dutton has demanded his motley crew of fronbenchers fall into line or resign. Given Dutton's very shaky leadership position this move could be the death knell of his fractured position.

Too bad the Libs and Nats will triumph in a big N. O. to a Voice of mainly white ABBAriginals...

Dutton and the Liberals have gone some way to redeeming themselves on the Voice (apart from 5 of them) by rejecting a constitutionally enshrined race-based body.

Dutton now says that they will actively campaign against the racist rubbish.

Senator Jacinta Price - aboriginal on her well-known mother's side - continues to point out that it is NOT racist to vote NO to the Albanese/Blakticvist proposal, which is definitely racist.

The hypocrites are not interested in Senator Price's Voice, but the rest of us who have been lied to about aborigines not already having a Voice should take notice.

While a complete change towards the plight of about 20% of those Australians who identify as Aboriginal must occur, it will not, and should not, occur via a permanent and dangerous change to our Constitution. The Socialist/Blacktivist Voice is not about kindness or benefit to the downtrodden, it is about raw power for a few Australians and activist High Court judges.

Auditing of the too many, too incompetent, too expensive and self-serving quangos already in existence should be the first step towards helping people actually needing help.

I just watched the News & Albanese was flanked by Indigenous all of whom were of lighter complexion than I & then a video clip of real & quite black Aborigines somewhere in Northern Australia was shown.
But these northern indigenous didn't get to have a say on the VOICE !
A definite preview of the future !

I had a thought.
Let us ditch the monarchy, and install the 'first-australians' as a new royal family.
They more or less control everything now, so there wouldn't be much of a difference?
But seriously....
I agree that the libs have gone part of the way towards the light.
Now they need to gather their courage, and step out boldly the rest of the way.
Give the public good reasons why we shouldn't put back in to the constitution clauses which divide people in to racial groups.
That shouldn't be too hard.
The public are reasonable.
Give them common sense arguments, and they will be amenable.
And stop worrying about what the rest of the world thinks.
The rest of the world doesn't live here.
We do.

I have a question for the YES group. If this VOICE is an "Advisory" body, what do you envisage the outcome to be when advise is not heeded for genuine economic reasons ?
Will such a decision be accepted or will it be a reason to burr up & cause more strife than it's worth ?
What if advise is unreasonable etc etc !

I see the news are deliberately misrepresenting the liberal/ nationals' stance to create anger and hope to control the Australian minds to vote yes. The ABC interview with a Liberal yes decenter said at least we have him on side. Since when in the ABC holding sides on this? they are supposed to be neutral reporters without agenda.

Josephus,
The ABC should have funding reduced until they prove to be unbiased !

TTBN, yes I have asked Graham to delete my other profiles which got
setup when trying to fix no notifications. I do not think he is able
to do that. There was a suspicion that a known Telstra problem might
be involved it turns out to not be the problem.
I tried a different email address, but same result.
It appears to be a bug in the software running OLO.

Paul,
do the aborigines expect to be disadvantaged forever ?
Surely not ! So why is a permanent forever Voice needed ?
Lets simplify the whole argument and reconstruct the present
organisation, whose name I forget,which has the same functions as the
proposed Voice.
As those running it have been totally hopeless sack the lot and restock it.

Let's look at the facts.
A small group in Australia wants something.
To get it they need a majority of Australians to agree to it.
So surely they should explain their needs clearly.
Give us reasons which will convince us of the validity of those needs?
Then Australia can examine their reasons, and decide if they have a case?
After discussion, Australia will decide what it must do.
But this is not happening.
And that is because the 'Yes Camp' is not making its case.
They need to give us a series of logical 'Yes' reasons, and we are not getting them.
So the rest of Australia has nothing to work with.
Except an impassioned plea by the prime minister to grant his seemingly wondrous request.
Are we to take him at his word?
The whole thing is beginning to sound very much like a CON.
No good reason for it: just trust us and it will all work out.
So the situation right now is....
Were 'the voice' vote to succeed, we would have put back in to the constitution wording which discriminates on the basis of racial background.
I thought we voted to get rid of that back in the 1960's?

"Dutton now says that they will actively campaign against the racist rubbish." Every state Liberal leader is in favour of a YES vote, with several saying they will advise their state constituencies to vote that way .

Ken Wyatt, a 12 year MP and Liberal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has told them to "shove it" and resigned from the party of bigots and racists. "Former Coalition senator Sam McMahon has called her former colleagues’ decision “stupid” and claimed Dutton had been “misled”, while Malcolm Turnbull has again stated he will back the referendum."

Bezza,

I support Constitutional recognition of First nations people as a unique group within Australian society. I do believe this referendum goes some way towards that goal. Its not all about disadvantage, its very much about recognition as well. I also believe Parliament is the ultimate law making authority, and always should be, that's why I support the Voice as an advisory body only.

I think many people like Dutton, that under their thin veneer of "concern" for Aboriginal people lies bigotry and racism. I hope I'm wrong, but past evidence shows them to be that type of people. In government the Noalition had ample opportunity to bring forth their own proposal for constitutional recognition, but never did. Why is that?

I read Paul's hate rant and it is obvious he does nor understand the wording of the Voice not the No case for a better way,

Proud Boy Jose'

You have earned that title from me with your ever predictable posts on the forum about Aboriginal people etc. Like several others here you feign concern for Aboriginals, while at the same time denigrating those very people at every opportunity. You have nothing positive to say, just a diatribe of negativity.

Since it's Good Friday, and as the phoney christian you are, is there any chance we can nail you to cross somewhere?

Bazz

It seems that you will be Bezza evermore. I shall continue to call you Bazz.

You mention Telstra. After a lifetime as a Telstra customer, I'm giving them the flick. I mentioned mobile phones. Well, I went to a Telstra shop to replace my old dumbphone and was told by a person with an accent I could barely understand that they sell only 'large, expensive 'phones. My wife rang Telstra, went through a lot of button pressing, and was told by a robot voice to leave her number and they would ring back. They never did. Telstra sucks. I'll be selling my shares before they collapse.

When it comes to racism Paul1405 is always in Top Gear with his.
This VOICE has nothing to do with helping the Indigenous, it's a blatant agenda to gain power over white people whom these white Aborigines are so terribly jealous of !
Noticed how Noel Pearson is gradually training his manner of speaking on the same manner as Jeffery Robertson the Git Lawyer. Sad part is that is it just way too put on & lacks any sincerity whatsoever !

Note paul's hate as he prefers to crucify people rather than debate ideas which is paramount in a democracy, indicates his power grab for the yes vote. If you cannot win on an idea, crucify, or incarcerate your opponent the tactic of a totalitarian mind.

One cannot question the essential RACISM of the Voice Proposal without being branded a racist, AYE?!

The Voice will sideline the voices of the average Australian, as representatives of aboriginals no matter how radical will have say over Government decisions. The next Voice to arise will be immigrant non-citizens as they are not catered for in the Constitution. Their language and culture are not recognized.

This wording of the Voice holds power over the executive government, what is needed is local voices working locally to change the welfare locally, not a Canberra based power Voice telling the grass roots what to do. This Voice gives Constitutional recognition of NIAA who fail to make improvements to aboriginal welfare even with an annual budget of $4.500,000,000 [four and a half billion dollars]. Paul cannot understand that and operates on feeling good sentiments.

Paul, any reason to recognise aborigines as a separate people and only
because they were here 2nd and before "us" will with the nature of things fade into the past and irrelevance.
The Voice would leave a group of people who could claim some special
constitutional privilege.
They will be indistinguishable from the rest of us unless very deep
examination of their DNA was performed.
That is not something we should dump onto the people of the future.

Paul what I just said;
The Voice would leave a group of people who could claim some special
constitutional privilege.

I should have said;
The Voice would leave a an increasing number of people who could claim
that special constitutional privilege.
Ultimately, it would mean everybody !
Is that really what you want ?

The village idiot is a troll of the racist and bigoted green party what else would you expect?

These racists want to insert racism back into the Constitution after it was removed 5 decades ago and these morons call themselves progressive?

I bet that none of the YES brigade would hand over 50 Bucks when asked & then told that it'll be sorted out after the money having been handed over yet they expect Australians to write a cheque for Billions on the premise of "it'll all be made clear eventually" !
Personally, I'm just too cagey about the VOICE being nothing more than an irreversible ATSIC !

IN 1967 AUSTRALIA REMOVED RACE FROM THE CONSTITUTION NOW ALBANESE WANTS TO PUT IT BACK. We gave everyone equality under the Constitution now He wants a YES to give nonindigenous inequality. If you believe in equality VOTE NO!

No group of people should be mentioned in the Constitution, which is a 'rule book' for running the country. Dutton's 'recognition' would also be out of place, as would Tony Abbott's waffling preamble; aboriginals do not need to be recognised any more than anyone else does. But, the main thing to remember is that, while a small minority of aborigines and and an even smaller number of people with some aboriginal heritage might need help, this Voice nonsense would not provide it.

Dutton’s idea of getting out and listening to people in the regions has merit. But, we all know that years of spending billions of dollars via useless quangos just providing jobs for city aboriginals, have done bugger all for for people in remote areas.

Nothing has been said or done recently that indicates that the situation will ever change.

Those who run on emotion will probably vote yes.
Such persons are easily swayed.
Those who think it through will vote no.
When you look at the facts, no is the only response you can have.

The sad thing is that all the yes campaigners were about to pitch their tents outside the Russian embassy and commence a protest vigil against an unprovoked war in Ukraine. Instead, thanks to the recalcitrant Voldemort, they will have to devote another six months of their precious time to the yes campaign. That is a pity, but I heartily agree that establishing a race based electoral system in Australia is of far more importance than the killing of hundreds of thousands of people in an unprovoked war on the other side of the Earth.

I'll vote NO for the sake of integrity !

Don't worry Indy, if the yes vote gets up, the sun will still come up the next day, and you'll still have your snout in the welfare trough sucking off us taxpayers. All's good!

Paul1405,
I'm getting paid dividends from 52 years of working & paying Tax ! What are you living off ?

Hi Indy,

If as you say you have worked 52 years in this Country, then I humbly apologise for the insult "snout in the trough" indeed, most unworthy of a bloke who put in such an effort. I like your worked from the age of 17, put myself through "night school" for 8 years and worked till 65. I did run a small design and consultancy business for 3 years. At 50 I had a change of life after 30 years in Engineering, found another calling in an entirely different field. Yes I made some investments that paid off, but only to a degree, low interest rates did hurt some, but we have property that has more than made up for it. We still help the kids, although with the youngest being 35, you would think 'help time' might have ended some years ago, but not so. I estimate since retirement we have give the kids $100k, for mostly the grandchildren, before retirement another $100k. If we end up old and broke I say to the wife; "I don't know who'll be looking after us, but I bet it wont be the "kids".

Why is Peter Dutton lying through his teeth when it comes to the Voice. Is if because he is a racists bigot, or is he a simple flat footed ex-copper who can't comprehend the concept? If the reason is he's a racist bigot, then we don't want him as Prime Minister of Australia. If it is because he's a dumb arse ex-copper, then we don't want him as Prime Minister of Australia.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/07/peter-dutton-and-the-voice-what-the-liberal-party-has-

Paul1405,
My parents couldn't afford to send me to further education. Eight years of Primary School & that was it. Apprenticeship at 14, tradesman by 17. To Australia before 20 & it's been work & Tax ever since !
Four cars stolen & three break-ins & a major theft stalled me financially for years. Police & Law dismissed my enquiries to pursue a couple of those incidents. Civil Libertarians just said sorry Mate, can't help you, we're batting for the other team.
I think that should just about explain my aversion to people in Authority !

Pauliar,

It's you that are lying through your teeth because you are a racist and a bigot.

Better an ex-copper who's made millions as a businessman than a failed engineer and ex-con.

It is essential that local people become responsible for their lives in their locality, not a Voice in Canberra. That has been the problem all along even NIAA with its $4.5 Billion has not been able to solve the problems as it is already advising the Government. The locals will have to step up and solve their local problems, which is the way society works. If it is water demonstrate how to find water, if it is food develop ways to have local income or farming.

Sm,

Like Howard and Menzies before him, the Liberal Party needs to sanitise and deodorise Dud Dutton's past history, particularly his employment history. The Dud left high school and joined the Queensland coppers as Constable Dud, almost 10 years later in 1999 he was booted as Sn Constable Dud, claiming he could no longer drive a patrol car. he then tried to sue for $128K in compo. After exiting the coppers Dutton went to work for his Old Mans construction business for about 2 years, before entering Federal politics as a LNP member in 2001. Dud wife did make a lot of money through a child care business operated during the LNP's one term in office in Queensland.

If Dutton made millions as you claim, it must have either been during his time as a copper, or during the 20 odd years he has been a federal MP. What do you say.

On his record I wouldn't trust Dutton to run a bath, let alone the country. I don't know of any failed engineer and ex-con who wants to be PM, only that jerk off who never made it anyway.

Paul the spiteful little mind- Peter Dutton is only one member of a Party that is intelligent enough to recognize we are being conned by Albanese and an elite group of well of aboriginals living in first world conditions to relinquish power in decision making to them. This will achieve the same as NIAA, except control Government thinking.

Proud Boy Jose'

You call me a "spiteful little mind" yet YOU SIR as you have clearly demonstrated by your continual negative posts towards Aboriginal people your hateful racism and bigotry. End of story!

Hi Paul

I'm missing Foxy.

Is she still kicking?

Cheers Mavs

Pauliar,

Clearly, you have bugger all on Dutton, so like the weasel you are, you use innuendo and slander.

As for the gangreens, they all do stuff and have their noses firmly in the trough. SHY was a bank teller with the IQ of a squid and uses taxpayer money for joy rides.

Albozo uses the jet to go to a footy game.

If there is corruption to find, look in your backyard.

Stormyminister,

Other than pre school/school 18 years , coppers about 10 years and politics 22 years. Dutton is aged 52, there is a 2 year period in Dutton's adult life when he was neither a copper, or a politician. You say "Dutton made millions" well if it wasn't in those short 2 years, between being a copper and a politician, then was it when he was a copper, maybe he was in the drug squad, or when he was a politician, maybe he was the minister for printing money. YOU TELL ME?

Dutton jr joined the family construction business which Dutton sn had set up 30 years beforehand. When good old Pete joined the business Dutton Holding came into existence in 2000, it soon operated under 6 different registered names. The Dutton's business was one of taking cheap old buildings, and based on the Old Mans building knowledge revamping them, and on selling them for a very handsome profit as quickly registered child care centres going concerns. As Dutton was a federal MP, his wife was the main beneficiary from Dutton Holdings as far as he was concerned. The LNP was in power in Qld 2012/15.

BTW, I was incorrect, on leaving the coppers Peter Dutton sued for $250k not $128 as I said.

Hi Mavs,

I know nothing of Foxy, and why she no longer posts on this Forum, she being one of the few long term regular contributors with alternate opinion. A very sensitive person who took abusive comment to heart, I told her to apply 'The Armadillo Principle' more than once over the years. Unfortunately most of the good contributors have left, and the forum has become nothing more than a boring and predictable drain for the regular "Old Farts" to vent their spleens down.

There seems to be a lot of doubtful language floating around in the posts.
Is it really necessary?
I suppose it helps people to 'let off steam'?

And there is one thing to be said for the libs.
They are the only major organisation which opposes the 'yes' vote?
For that I take my hat off to them.

However, I still want to know EXACTLY who wants the 'yes' vote.
And I still want them to tell me EXACTLY why they want it.
They, whoever they are, are not doing a very good job when explaining it.
So do they really understand what they are asking for?

That circumstance alone should lead any sane person to a 'no' vote.

EXACTLY who wants the 'yes' vote.
Ipso fatso,
Those privileged who try so damn hard to be seen as discriminated against & those brainwashed who believe them !
Normal thinking, decent people can see the power-crazed connivery behind it all !
Those who demand compensation for what their own ancestors did to their ancestors !

IF,

By definition are you claiming those who vote 'YES' are insane? From the latest opinion polls that's the majority of voters. A 'YES' vote may not succeed, should that be the outcome it wont be the end for the struggle of Aboriginal people, they have struggled and suffered at the hands of Europeans for 235 years. No previous referendum has had so much debate, so much consultation, so many answers than this one, yet some are still demanding more, and will do so for ever and a day. The certainty and clarity of what is proposed is abundantly clear to me, and to many others, yet there are those who are deliberately being obtuse and demanding more. I suspect many making these demands are not "thick as some" and are deliberately trying to muddy the waters for ulterior motives, the 'Cow Cocky' Party is a prime example of that. Dutton knows what it's all about, he is deliberately trying to politicise it for his own selfish reasons, hoping to raise his own disastrous political stocks, which are presently at rock bottom. Dutton's past record shows him, if not a racist, certainly a bigot when it comes to Aboriginal people.

Paul1405,
As I stated here before, I'd be in favour of YES if the proposed organisation in charge were made up of well-meaning, decent people. Because I don't see such people supporting YES I am hesitant to give my support. I have lived & worked among people who are more interested in perpetuating disharmony rather than promoting it.
If someone from the YES camp can show us how they will not make this an ATSIC Mk2 or is manned by ATSIC Mk1 character type people then I could be swayed. You see, my problem in this are not the indigenous because they won't see a Cent or get any sensible benefits, my problem is to already know that it'll be a very, very light-coloured sea of bureaudroids & consultants congesting at the various troughs !
Show me a better picture & I'm with you !

Paul, you cannot see the present status of aboriginals as you continually post history, a history of many "sorrys". " A 'YES' vote may not succeed, should that be the outcome it won't be the end for the struggle of Aboriginal people, they have struggled and suffered at the hands of Europeans for 235 years."
WHAT IS THEIR STRUGGLE? Remove all European settlement?
NONSENSE!
They have equality with any citizen, and many are wealthy above the average citizen. Where is the current suffering at the hands of Europeans? They suffer more at the hands of their own people. Is that the only reason you can think of to give them a power advantage in the constitution?

Those living remotely cannot expect the same services as those in the towns and cities, the same as any non-aboriginal person living remotely

Remove all European settlement?
Josephus,
Europeans are tolerated as a necessary evil by most non-Europeans. That is blatantly evident when you see where the all non-Caucasian refugees are headed & to whom their hands are automatically extended to receive ! But, when a Caucasian has to disturb the environment in order to get the materials for which those hands are extended, he/she is branded a reckless racist !

Instead of wasting all the funding & ruining all the good will, simply acknowledge the Aborigines in the Constitution !
The rest has already been addressed for many decades & by Billions in funding of facilities & services !

BAD DAY FOR DUTTZ TODAY:

"Shadow Attorney-General and Indigenous Australians spokesman Julian Leeser has quit the Liberal frontbench, making way for him to campaign for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

[AND CONFUSINGLY - DUTTON'S] position is for recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the constitution but not a Voice to Parliament. It supports regional and local voices but doesn't want them enshrined in the constitution."

GO FIGURE. MORE SEE:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-11/liberal-frontbencher-julian-leeser-voice-to-parliament/102207614

But we are all Australians.
Should we then not all be acknowledged in the Constitution?
Why introduce race-based wording for a few?
And what real advantage is the suggested 'acknowledgement'?
Relieving hurt feelings?
My suggestion for that is: 'it is time to grow up'.
And stop being a 'wuss' too.
There are far more important things in life.
Australia needs positive thought.
Australia needs positive contributions.
Australia needs YOU to pull your socks up.
You are starting to look like an untidy rabble.
Step forward (boldly?), and keep Australia level and progressive.

And regarding Mr Julian...
It appears he only likes democracy when it agrees with him.
He forgets he will not always be on the 'winning' side.
However, a democratic decision IS the best way to go.

Without all the drama, he could simply have voted against the party.
Or quietly abstained.
That is his right, on behalf of his electorate.
But he would need to explain to his electorate why he voted that way?

Hi Mavs,

You mentioned Dutton's position. Is there any truth to the rumour that The Dud will be shooting off to the good old US of A shortly, to get advice on the Voice from Dangerous Doctor Donald. Whilst there The Dud will be assuming the Stormy Daniels position with Donald for a intensive all night session. Is it true? Cause The Dud has taken every other position on the Voice thus far, why not the Stormy Daniels position.

The VOICE is not a moral question, it's a political & power based & focussed issue.
Morally, Australians have already bent ar$e over backwards in aid of it's indigenous.
The desired power grab & political opportunism are not a moral issue.

Is there any truth in the rumour that Adam Bent is going to visit his mate Jono Doig? to discuss racism and other illegal activities?

Hey SM,

The way the Noalition under Dud Dutton is going, with infighting and resignations, there will be no Opposition shortly to mount an opposition to the VOICE. Dutton and co like the Cow Cocky Party, are so far out in right field on this, no one is taking them seriously.

no one is taking them seriously.
Paul1405,
Only those with a sense of responsibility & fairness !

Lesser has left the "No" case as he believes he can make changes to the "Yes" case by joining them. I Listened to his speech at the Press Club Lunch, and he holds exactly what the Liberals believe "equality for all", and regional voices set up by legislation, not a Voice in the Constitution. Aboriginal recognition in the Constitution as first Nation people but not a Voice to executive Government. That would grow to be disastrous in running the Country as activists take control.

I have a sense that people are tired of all the discussion about 'the voice'.
But it is a real problem, and just 'ducking for cover' won't solve it.
It seems to me it must be faced head-on.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-12/voice-to-parliament-remote-communities-nt-wa-warakurna-cosmo-/102196748

I must draw attention to this article.
I could quote from it, but I know you can read.
It is clear that many remain ill-informed, and need to know more.
We too need to know what's going on.
So I ask again.
Does anybody know EXACTLY who is asking for 'a voice'?
Does anybody know EXACTLY why they want it?
Surely whoever is asking should identify themselves, and should then explain their position?
It appears that people who might be most concerned with it don't know either.
Is it time to scrap this nonsensical idea?

Hi Paul

Yes. There is thruth to what can be wildly dignified as Duttzi's "thinking".

Indeed, Duttzi will enjoy Führer Donald by bending over and assuming the Position.

DUTTON'S POSITION ON THE VOICE versus LABOR'S, FOLLOWS:

"Despite the political acrimony over the Voice referendum, what’s most striking is the similarities between the positions of the Coalition and the Labor government.

Both agree Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be recognised in the Constitution.

Both agree practical outcomes are needed to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians.

Both agree parliament and the executive government need to be better informed about the laws and policies they make, and that they need to hear the voices of those on the ground who are affected by those laws and policies.

Given this agreement about what needs to be done, why is there disagreement about the referendum?

RECOGNITION AND PRACTICAL OUTCOMES

The key sticking point seems to be the relationship between constitutional recognition and achieving practical outcomes. The Albanese government proposes to achieve practical outcomes by establishing a constitutional means by which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can influence the laws and policies that affect them.

...In contrast, the Coalition proposes that constitutional recognition be split from practical outcomes. It would instead legislate to establish local and regional Voices, but not a national Voice.

It’s unclear what kind of constitutional recognition the Coalition proposes. But it would appear to be symbolic recognition, such as a reference in a preamble. This could be in either the existing preamble in the British Act that contains the Australian Constitution, or in a new preamble inserted in the Constitution itself..."

More at http://theconversation.com/how-does-the-liberal-partys-voice-policy-stack-up-against-the-proposed-referendum-203352 of April 6, 2023

Prolific OLO author (up to 2018) BRUCE HAIGH sadly passed away on April 7, 2023

Bruce's collected OLO Articles and a mini-biography are at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4504

His OLO biography reads:

"Bruce Haigh is a retired Australian diplomat. He worked on Indonesian affairs and has written many articles, papers and a book on issues relating to Indonesia. He comments on international and domestic issues and farms olives and grapes at Mudgee, New South Wales.

Bruce Haigh has 35 years experience in foreign policy and security analysis. He served in South Africa from 1976-79 and ran a training program for black South Africans in Australia from 1990-93 and recently gave his extensive black South African art collection back to the nation. Bruce Haigh served twice in Pakistan and Afghanistan and also in Iran and Saudi Arabia. He was a friend of Benazir Bhutto. His grandfather served as a soldier on the NW Frontier of India based in Quetta, Peshawar and Rawalpindi in 1904-05."

Bruce was also published frequently by the Canberra Times and other fine newspapers.

A fond Tribute "Bruce Haigh: a farewell" was written by Julian Cribb, dated April 9, 2023, at http://johnmenadue.com/bruce-haigh-a-farewell/

Bruce's collected essays, all but one written after his OLO career, are at http://johnmenadue.com/author/bruce-haigh/page/2/

Goodbye Bruce. You were a great humanitarian bloke and a stirring OLO author.

Mavs

Hi Mavs,

Thanks for that short critique of the "Dutton Doctrine" on "The Voice". I demand answers before I could support that doctrine! Where and how in the Constitution does he propose recognition of First Nations people appears. I suspect he wants some meaningless soft soap nonsense in the preamble. How would the voice of those in the far flung communities be transmitted to The Dud and those of his ilk in Canberra?

I'm somewhat sceptical about the sincerity of the claims of Dutton that he wants improvement through practical outcomes for Aboriginal people, when The Dud and co sat on their hands for 10 years whilst in office.

Another LIBERAL in the form of SIMON BIRMINGHAM is about to jump ship, he has told Dutton he wont campaign against The Voice referendum, and has give The Dud a week to find a compromise. Hardliners are demanding Birmingham resign.

Good to see Ken Wyatt (ex-liberal party minister and member) out and about with Linda Burney campaigning for the 'YES' vote.

The Voice will divide intermarried aboriginal families and give those with aboriginal DNA preference over their cousins of non-indigenous heritage. This is a travesty of equality promoted by the Yes case for a voice. Dividing cousins by race is not the Australian way nor is it Christian as all persons deserve equality of opportunity under our laws.

Singling out a race or a religion or sexual preference as a basis of special treatment is third World politics and can lead to dictatorships. This happened under Hitler who singled out white Caucasians for preference over Jews.
To be true to equal justice - VOTE NO.

Proud Boy Jose'

Once again trying to associate those supporting the 'YES' vote with Hitler. Typical of YOU! Just as you claimed gay marriage would lead to wholesale instances of people wanting to marry animals, among other ridiculous claims, remember those outrageous claims of yours. Since none of them eventuated you will deny them now. Deja vu, as you peddle more of your nonsensical exaggerated claims this time about 'The Voice'. A third house of parliament, aboriginals making laws over us all, etc, all a load of tripe.

There are genuine people who will vote YES!
There are genuine people who will vote NO!
Then there is the likes of YOU!

Hi Paul

Don't worry about the extremists, over-represented on OLO.

There limited worldview is populated by:

Stalin/Mao vs Hitler

Bad Blacks/Muslims vs Noble White Christians

with no subtle shades, humanitarianism or individuality in between.

Mavs

Maverick,

Your bum chum Paul is the one that brings up Hitler and nazis nearly all the time on OLO. Not only does he have a Nazi fetish, but he is deep into conspiracy theories and lies continuously.

The difference between labor and liberal is that the liberals are happy to have a voice to parliament, while Labor's version is dangerously close to being a veto in national parliament, state parliaments and every level of bureaucracy.

Hi Mavs,

I know what you mean by the extremists on the forum, Stormyminists is a extreme Trumpster, and a claimed 'man of legal letters' well known here for his tutty-frutty legal opinions.

Paul lives in a Leftist bubble not aware of the real world, I never made a claim of people marrying animals, yet the fact is people are marrying animals. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_piS8r-zw5U

India is an example of Hindu preference over other religions for employment, and the Muslim world excludes others as second-class citizens. Communism downgrades people of faith as outcasts. Paul is to be identified as not holding to Western values where all people have equality. He holds to some sections of community having preference over others as in NZ.

Village idiot,

You are Lying through your teeth again.

Are you allowed near schools?

shadow minister,

We have time and time again established your predilection for aggressive projection so terms like "bum chum" and keeping away from schools just reinforces what we know are the dark thoughts swirling around that indented noggin of yours.

Time to give it away.

SR,

You are the pot calling the kettle black. You are very quick to apply insults and ad-hominems. Paul is happy to dish out insults and outright lies and needs no provocation. Your defence of this cockroach does you no favours.

SM,

I can not find any particularly insulting references from ME directed at YOU on this thread. Your constantly referencing to pedogreens, me keeping away from schools, Adam Bum Bandit, etc etc. You have a fixation with paedophilia, and trying to infer I, and others are paedophiles. BUT the greatest absurdity from you has to be your claim you run a $100 million business, saved the company $30 million, all while twiddling with your mobile phone at 2.30 in the afternoon on a Tuesday at a team meeting. What's your position in the team, Left Right Out? How ridiculous was that claim!

Paul,

You constantly lie and insult, so if your vitriol and lies have been focused more on someone else in this thread this doesn't make up for all your bullsh1t over the years. For example, you claim that I constantly use the term pedogreens yet the last time I used it was last June nearly a year ago, another lie from you.

Once again you are lying about what I said. Read what I said before you make a complete arse of yourself again. Because you are too stupid to use voice dictation software doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You can get free versions from Microsoft or a plethora of other companies.