"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.