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.