For the first time, the number of people polled that actively will vote against the "voice" gravy train outnumbered the voters for the yes vote.

Given the preponderance of undecided voters to vote against a referendum
it looks like this referendum is sinking faster than a lead balloon.

For all those for equal rights, this is good news.

This 'news' was posted two days ago. The yes vote has probably dropped further since then. Just vote NO. Let Albanese do the talking that is increasing the NO vote. Albanese is doing the NO campaigners' work for them. Given Albanese's performance on everything from lies about lowering electricity prices, to inflation and CPI, to mass immigration and lack of housing, he is the very last person to listen to about anything.

It's a real criminal shame that the resources squandered on this were denied to those who desperately need them, all because a handful of vengeful haters with unwarranted gripes !
Idealism by hangers-on is the Nr 1 denier of services to the needy !

I wouldn't get too carried away just yet.

The government, the ABC and the compliant media have yet to unleash the full force of their indoctrination powers and, as we saw during the so-called pandemic, there is little the average voter won't fall for when all the paraphernalia of state persuasion are unfurled.

At this stage, it seems to me, the biggest problem for "yes" is that they refuse to offer up any details as to how the whole thing will work. There are good reasons for that - namely that if they did give all the details, "yes" would crash and burn spectacularly. Given that, expect to see some details being fleshed out with palatable assertions, none of which will be acted upon once the legislation is enacted.

The left and the aboriginal industry have invested a lot in the referendum. I don't expect them to meekly allow a minor thing like the wishes of the people stand in their way.

I agree with mhaze on the need to restrain the excitement. The fat lady is still months away from singing, and who knows what the corrupt, big-bribing Albanese might come up with to win over generally hedonistic, government-dependent Australians. Let Albanese do all the talking. He is the NO case's biggest advantages. And remember, apart from a few hard cases, most of the Aboriginal diaspora is keeping quite, or saying they don't want it the Voice.

Linda Burney is the best advocate for the No Case, as when asked if the Voice would affect military decisions, she replied I can say it will not affect parking fines. She fails to answer the questions.

The racist, divisive Voice, has had the effect of taking people's minds of many other things that are going badly. I was reminded of this today by a leaflet in my regular pharmacy stating,

"You and your loved ones are at risk of prescription medicine shortages due to the Albanese Labor Government".

I have already experienced these shortages.

Getting the population angry, confused and divided is one of the first things that totalitarians do to 'change the country', as Albanese said he wanted to do before he got in with less than one third of the primary vote.

Everything about Albanese shouts TYRANT. Don’t be fooled by that silly grin and whiny voice, and talk about living in public housing with a single mother. He's out to change Australia alright; and the Voice would be just the beginning if he is allowed to get away with it.

I don't bother listening to Peter Dutton anymore, but if he is still yammering about 'lack of details', he should knock it off, because he could be seen - does seem - to be suggesting that some form of the Voice might be acceptable in the Constitution.

To hell with details! On principle the Voice is wrong, and it has no place in the Coalition - that's why the vote should be NO.

I agree, 100% TTBN - Our indigenous folk have more voices among those with real power than you, or I will ever have! I believe I had mentioned several times previously; When I was still in the job and relieving sergeant in the bush, I saw brand new homes erected at government expense, rendered uninhabitable, and trashed for no apparent reason. Then they would complain about some minor issue that caused them to embark upon their destructive behaviour, and more new housing was provided for their entertainment.

I wanted to charge several individuals, and I was quietly told by the area Inspector not to waste his or my time. Somebody in the area already had a loud, powerful voice and enormous influence. And now they want even more power with an additional 'voice' in Parliament? No way.

o sung wu.

It's always good to hear your experiences with the real world of aboriginality.

There is a train of thought among some commentators that Albanese has pinned his leadership credibility entirely on this divisive, race-based Voice - to the exclusion of things that are affecting most Australians - and that a NO vote will see the end of him as Prime Minister.

Albanese is also being reported as blaming the media for the downturn in support for the Voice.

Unbelievable!

Arguments against the Voice by Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine were 'causing confusion', he bleated to the ABC.

Unbelievable!

TTBN...You're right, on so many fronts - Our rudderless PM is so divisive, he'll be lucky to survive any sort of refererandum - Yes, no, or otherwise, don't know.

o sung wu

It's a pity that Labor under Rudd rigged it so that leaders could not be turfed out as Rudd himself was. I don't believe that all members of the Labor government are as unhinged and tyrannical as Albanese is.

Albanese is just a puppet of the aboriginal elite to enhance their agenda. The man that stands beside Albanese the author of the Voice is an avowed communist i.e. Thomas Mayor. He wants to remove all colonial rule and democratically elected representatives of the colonizing institutions and install elite elder's rule. He sees the opportunity to empower a black communist state, by using the power of the constitution as he has ideas based on the black power communist movement, to punish those that will not obey their requests. Albanese is happy with communism as he tries to hide its agenda, that only aboriginals' elders have power over land, water, and beaches.

Josephus

You think that the PM of Australia is a "puppet" of a motley crew thinking they represent about 800,000 people, many of whom wouldn't vote? Why would Albanese allow himself to be used in this way?

He would not allow himself to be used in this way. Evil he is, but he is not stupid. The Voice is all about Albanese, and his desire to make a name for himself, by doing something that has never been done before. If he is only the one-termer he should be, he would still be very, very proud of his echievment, and be blowing his bags until the day he dies, plus advising future governments as a great "statesman".

We should not be blaming a few feeble-minded, useful idiots and activists in the aboriginal elite, or white communists. It's all down to Albanese.

Lol.

What a bunch of sad sacks in a sad little echo chamber.

All lapping up the messaging of millions of mining magnate money being poured into the No campaign.

And for what? We are getting a Voice whether through the referendum or through legislation. It was a policy Albo took to the election and one he is honouring.

Strewth you lot really are brainless.

If it doesn't get up at the referendum it will vastly strengthen the push for a comprehensive treaty which is something Thorpe understands. Her influence will be greatly expanded as a result. You are playing directly into her hands.

As a current twitter meme relates (apologies to Ms Mackellar):

I love a timid country
A land of scare campaigns
Where mindless bogan slogans
Just overtake our brains
The stunted, short horizons
Of those who will not see
Who, presented with alternatives
Think only: me, me, me.

Hi Steele. Thank You for the poem.
I've been away for the past months in hospital.
and was allowed home today. It appears that not much has changed
on the Forum.

Good to see that you're still posting.

It will be interesting to see how Australians will vote
and the reasons they'll give. Hopefully we can be united
in this decision - wo long overdue.

Oops. Posted the original to the wrong thread.

Hi Foxy,

Welcome back.

Sorry to hear of your long convalescence. My visits to the big white house are unfortunately frequent but usually just overnight at the most. It is quite daunting to think of being there for months. Hopefully things are now on a more even keel.

I don't pop in too often to OLO now, bury with other things, but it is good to feed the chooks every now and again. They really are becoming entrenched in their curmudgeon ways aren't their. A little amusing to watch to be honest.

Steele is standing in the Echo chamber delighting in the sound of his own voice. He has not listened to the agenda behind the Voice. He trusts politicians, as we learn today that you cannot trust politicians.

This is the Voice we should be listening to, to be informed on the Voice.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/26/dont-let-low-bar-politics-hold-back-indigenous-voice-advocate-to-say-in-lingiari-lecture

Ignore the ABC and SBS voices, as they support yes voices.

Many people fear change. That's understandable.
However I suspect that should the Voice go through
we shall all be wondering what all the fuss was about
in a few years time. In any case we've been given a
choice with this current government - as we were with
same-sex marriage previously. It's now up to us which
way we are going to vote.

Welcome back Foxy, and wishing you a speedy recovery, the Forum has been bereft of decent comment in the forum of your wisdom for far too long. Steele pays too infrequent a visit with his decent comments. The old farts echo chamber has been working overtime, mostly attacking me, they've been in full cry, Nursy must have been withholding their chill pills, because they have all been very naughty boys. The Usual Suspect have mostly had the sand pit to themselves! If I read the words communists, kudos or bureaudroid (is that even a word), or read another boring post about how bad The Voice is, according to the forums redneck racists old bigots, what can I do, I say again welcome back.

Allowing our First Nations people to have input into
policies that affect only them won't change any one
else's lives but it may help solve some of the
problems of our Indigenous people. Also for those who do
fear any changes - surely the fact that control shall
remain with the government must be re-assuring?

I agree SR. If they don't get this via a referendum, then they can just legislate it anyway and end up with the same arrangement.

So, inquiring minds would ask, why are they going through the referendum process when the legislative process would achieve the same outcome. A shame we don't have too many inquiring mind, eh? Especially among the ABBAriginal fanboys.

Clearly they want a Voice that has constitutional backing since they think it will allow them to argue that it has more power than a merely legislated advisory group. They are trying to sell the idea that it is just an advisory group (and have hoodwinked many) but obviously it is more than that, or at least they hope to convince future courts and parliaments of that.

Dear Paul,

Thanks for the welcome back. It's going to take a while
for me to get back my health - but I'm glad to be home.
I'm sorry to hear that you've been under attack - you've
obviously struck a few nerves which always makes things
interesting. I'm hoping with all my heart that Australians
will do the right thing and vote YES in the upcoming
referendum. It's such a small step - but it will mean a
great deal to many of our Indigenous People.

Dear Steele,

I forgot to say - thanks for the welcome back.
I've missed the inter-action on the forum -
and the different views which at times can be
challenging.

The significance of the referendum is to give long overdue recognition of the unique and lasting place Aboriginal people have in both the pre European history of Australia, and their post 1788 sovereignty which was never extinguished by British colonisation. Sovereignty may have been usurped, but never destroyed, despite concerted European attempts in the past to eradicate all things Aboriginal, both the people and their culture. As Marcia Langton once famously said; "The miracle is as a people (Aboriginals) we are still here."

Dear mhaze,

You wondered: "So, inquiring minds would ask, why are they going through the referendum process when the legislative process would achieve the same outcome."

Well no, inquiring minds already know that your side of politics disbands indigenous representative bodies on a regular basis.

How long do you think a legislated Voice would last under Dutton?

Josephus,

Don't be a flog.

The Voice concept wasn't derived from politicians but rather extensively canvassed and formed by indigenous non-politicians. What other catch phrases do you have in your shallow little kit bag?

The "inquiring minds" already know that Albanese wants this garbage in the Constitution because it would be much harder, even impossible, to get rid of in the way Howard got rid of ATSIC.

Talking of the Voice and the stink of corruption that it already has about it, Gladys B and her boyfriend have been found by the enquiry to have been corrupt. It remains to be seen if they will now be referred to the DPP.

"How long do you think a legislated Voice would last under Dutton?"

But, but....it will be legislated no matter what. I thought you understood that but....alas.

If the referendum gets up we'll have a situation where a body will be constitutionally required but the nature of the body will be legislated. So if a future government wanted to hobble the Voice in the future, they couldn't erase it (unconstitutional) but they could change it so that it met once in a blue moon and was staffed by Fred from Upper-kumbakta West.

Unfortunately for the Voice fanboys, they haven't thought that far ahead. But they never do.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote: "So if a future government wanted to hobble the Voice in the future, they couldn't erase it (unconstitutional) but they could change it so that it met once in a blue moon and was staffed by Fred from Upper-kumbakta West."

Lol.

So what are your OLO minions all upset about then? Perfectly harmless by your inference. Why not stick it in as a constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians?

Welcome back, FOXY; I hope you're feeling much better after your stint in hospital; I know it's no fun being there, so I hope that's the end of it and you're well on the road to a full recovery.

As usual, I can't fault TTBN's argument and common sense. As with; INDYVIDUAL, SHADOWMINISTER, MHAZE, and JOSEPHUS. All provide legitimate reason(s) why the NO vote 'must 'prevail.

Interestingly, if ever we needed a No vote, one only needs to view our old friends from the Left and their imperious argument(s) for a vote of 'Yes'. Many indigenous folks I've had to deal with are happiest just sitting in some dry creekbed under the shade of a tree dozing, allowing life's rigours to pass them by.

And yet, those 'do-gooders' (all from the Left) come along, loudly declaring what our indigenous citizens want & need. Perhaps give them their own Party with generous representation in both Reps & the Senate. If not, it sure sounds like it. Give them one seat, and before long, it will be another and another - Please, let them decide their lives and aspirations without this constant meddling in their affairs by this horde of do-gooders.

Foxy,

Welcome back, your wide-eyed naivety is fresh air compared to SR's snide condescension and ad hominems.

SR,

Albozo promised a voice and is now trying to deliver apartheid. The referendum question is vague and gives a blank cheque to deliver wide-ranging racial discrimination infecting every level of government and giving a tiny group of activists an effective veto to just about everything.

Albozo has tried hectoring the electorate, demonising the opposition etc and is clearly using the government to push the voice at every turn. Still, you can't fool everyone all the time and it now looks as though voters are wise to his bait-and-switch ploy.

Strange that after failing every other promise to the electorate, Albozo is choosing this ditch to die in. I look forward to this referendum failing and Labor trying to legislate it anyway. Giving a huge FU to the electorate is a sure path to years in opposition.

"(Aboriginal people) are happiest just sitting in some dry creek under the shade of a tree dozing, allowing life's rigours to pass them by."

That is an inept and unrealistic view of modern day Aboriginal Australians, there are few if any that fit that outdated mould of the "good darkie" that some want to propagate, for whatever reasons. Again on this issue, like so many beforehand, the naysayers are resorting to their tried and true methods of lies and deception to counter a realistic proposal. One only has to look at recent history, on the gay marriage issue, the naysayers, the same mob who now oppose The Voice, then claimed the sky would fall in if gay marriage was legalised, sorry fellas it didn't happen, and to your eternal disappointment the sky will not fall in if The Voice is also successful.

Dear O Sung Wu and Shadow Minister,

Thank You for the welcome back.

I've learned a great deal from my recent hospital
experience. From the Emergency Departments, Surgery
and Ward Departments, Rehab Departments and their
Transition Care Program. I've witnessed High Care,
under-staffing, and learned not to judge others.
Each person has their own demons and problems and
it's so easy to make the wrong judgements until
you know their history and what they've been
through and/or are going through.

I had a lady who was suffering from dementia and used
to walk the hospital corridors at various times of the
day and night. She'd turn on other people's bedroom lights
in the early hours of the morning - (3 am) and stand in the
doorways. She was simply one of many in the high-care section
of the hospital.

Yesterday morning, my last day at the hospital - the lady
came into my room early in the morning and got into my
bed. I sat next to the bed, covered her up and comforted her
until I could get hold of a nurse. The kady gripped hold of my hand.
I sang her a lullaby softly and she fell asleep. I think in that
moment shw went back to her childhood and felt at home in my
bed and with my comforting her. I helf her hand the entire time.

I asked the nurse to let her sleep. Eventually she was taken back
to her room.

I think that it is hard to see things from another's point of view.
But sometimes we are given the opportunity to pay attention and
listen and learn.

I think I learned a great deal.

Sr wrote "So what are your OLO minions all upset about then? Perfectly harmless by your inference. Why not stick it in as a constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians?"

Not harmless. Harmful until it gets to the point where clearer heads put a stop to it.

OTOH why put it in the constitution at all? I've already explained the nefarious reason for that.

We can't have a system of merrily whacking things in the constitution just because someone down the track will be able to fix our errors.

If you want a recognition of what are laughingly called 'first peoples' then put it in the preamble. No special powers, just a note that people have been here for a long time. It'd sail through a referendum with flying colours like 1968.

But they don't want recognition, they want power. It seems they might get neither.

If it was remote aboriginals coming to Canberra asking to be heard the Voice might have some usefulness, but no, it is well educated and highly paid elite who proposed the Voice and they can see the that holding the hands of Government levers they gain power. Those like Linda Burney, Thomas Mayor, etc. do not need a Voice to government, they already have a voice in Government on a salary of $400,000 p/a.

Shadowminister,

Did you really complain about "snide condescension and ad hominems" then in the very next sentence refer to the prime minister as Albozo?

Lol.

Go away mate.

Many have expressed the view that the YES vote, if
successful, will help design better policy.

The argument given is that if the Voice referendum succeeds
we will become a nation where laws and policies about our
Indigenous people will no longer be made without them.
Instead it will be where they can have a say in the
decisions that affect them and where they can put forward
solutions for the many challenges they face.

To many, this is what the Voice is about.

It's been stated that win or lose, the lives of the NO
campaigners, those on the far right and ultra left won't be
affected much. We're told that the opponents of the Voice
stand to lose the least, but for many of our Indigenous
people, the referendum will be deeply personal.

It would be inspiring if we could as a nation bring our
country together and help design better policy.

The moral choice is ours to make.

The "YES" campaigners will not say what practical benefits the Voice will achieve. The elite are looking at land Rights and the control of land, water, and beaches as these are sacred to them as Mother Earth. For the elite British colonization has destroyed their land, forests, water, and beaches. These they are constantly reminded are aboriginal tribal lands, and they want control of them. These are the things that affect aboriginal socialist elite. The voice will divide intermarried aboriginal families, giving some members identifying as aboriginal double voice and dipping into government coffers.

Well perhaps the Oz population has not yet been sufficiently dumbed down yet for them to fall for this bit of lefty manipulation.

SR,

The brain-dead "yes" supporters are funnelling $ms of taxpayers' money to convince people that the gravy train will make life better for all Australians and that this referendum is just about "recognition".

This is of course complete bollocks. It is handing enormous power to a small cadre of unelected activists that purportedly represent 4% of the population that undoubtedly will use this power to rent seek on a grand scale.

The "yes" vote plummeting is voters waking up to this scam.

The YES crowd is doing exactly what the Democrat crowd has been doing, stuffing it up for all by promising to do away with all our problems which is them !

"The moral choice is ours to make."

Its not a moral choice....its a political choice. Its just that those who can't make the political argument want to turn it into a moral issue.

But even if all the utopian assertions about what the Voice will and won't do for so-called 'first peoples' were true, it still doesn't explain why that Voice needs to be ensconced in the constitution. The government has the power RIGHT NOW to legislate a Voice (which they'll have to do after the referendum anyway).

When you understand why they want it in the constitution rather than merely legislated by the current parliament, then you'll understand why it shouldn't be in the constitution.

mhaze

Well said. It is a political choice. The Left talking about 'morals' is hilarious

When you understand aboriginal culture and law, all items found on aboriginal land have legitimate use as food or to be used. There are no property boundaries as in British culture, as all identified tribal lands and what is found on it is available to them. Incarceration for petty theft and break and enter violates boundaries in our society but not in aboriginal culture. All these laws must go from being enforced on aboriginal youth. Because homes, farms and business are carried out on aboriginal land for which rent must be paid to the tribal owners.
"Always was always will be aboriginal lands". "Pay the Rent"

http://australian.museum/learn/first-nations/always-will-be-aboriginal-land/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-30/aboriginal-phrase-always-was-always-will-be-trademark-attempt/100107464

[Pay the Rent] represents a number calculating how much money the Australian government owes Aboriginal people — and that's just for the rent of the place. Because that is still our country. It always was, always will be Aboriginal land," Bell says.

STOLEN LAND
We live, work and play on land that was forcibly taken from Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander people. On this stolen land, systems & institutions have been built that are structured to exclude and oppress.

NO TREATY
There has been no Treaty with any First Nations Groups in so-called “Australia”. As yet, there has been no commitment from the government to justice, restitution or systemic change.

COLONISATION CONTINUES
The effects of colonisation continue to this day. We could wait for years for the government to begin this work. But we don’t want to just sit and wait.

ACT NOW
We could wait for years for the government to begin this work. But we don’t want to just sit and wait. We want to act now in solidarity with Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander people.

UTube pay the rent.
http://paytherent.net.au/
Saying sorry is not enough.
This is part of the YES campaign.

Currently every person identified as aboriginal has $46,000 p/a of NIAA money allocated and that is not enough. They want it and reparations enshrined in the constitution.
Property envy is part of the westernized educated aboriginals.

The following link clearly explains what the Voice is, where it came from, and what can it achieve:

http://theconversation.com/the-voice-what-is-it-where-did-it-come-from-and-what-can-it-achieve-202138

"The following link clearly explains what the Voice is, where it came from, and what can it achieve:"

But nowhere does it or any other apologia explain why it needs to be in the constitution or more precisely what are the differences between a federally legislated Voice and a federally legislated Voice with constitutional backing.

That's not explained. That's never explained. Why? Because explaining it would leave the referendum dead in the water.

Someone said Rumpelstiltskin one too many times and now she's back- protect your first born. At least Loudmouth's hairy ar** isn't coming back.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=21262#375213

" In 1967 we were counted. In 2017 we seek to be heard."
Uluru Statement From the Heart. May 2017.

Danny Gilbert writing for the Australian Financial Review
points out why we need an Indigenous "voice to the
Parliament." It can be read at the following:

http://afr.com/opinion/why-we-need-an-indigenous-voice-to-the-parliament-20180530-h10qgf

He tells us that:

"There are two standout reasons why constitutional recognition
must occur. The first is to give Indigenous people a real
say in how the nation engages with them. The second is to correct
the barefaced wrongs of the 1901 Constitution and the short
comings of the 1967 Referendum."

Danny Gilbert explains that:

"The Uluru Statement is a rejection of symbolism and a call by
grassroots voices for meaningful and respectful engagement.
This will require strong bipartisan leadership. We must
understand how Indigenous Australians see our history.
We must recognise the reality that Indigenous Australians
are unique as the descendents of people
who have lived here for 65,000 years. Until 1788 it was their
country. They have suffered collateral damage of nation
building like no others."

"Our first people have cultures and languages precious to
our nation. They have interests in vast tracks of our country.
The commonwealth needs the constitutional power to protect
and advance their interests. Indigenous people should be
accorded the respect of a constitutionally enshrined voice as
Parliament discharges this uniquely important facet of
Australian nationhood."

"I want this to happen because it is the right thing to do
for Indigenous Australians and I want it for me - a
non-Indigenous Australian."

This should not be a political issue. But a moral one. To
do the right thing.

because it is the right thing to do
for Indigenous Australians
Foxy,
How certain are you about that ? The ones who push it aren't representing the indigenous, they're representing the political power they can get by pretending to be in the interest of the indigenous ! Why haven't these pushers done anything thus far with all the possible help & aid available ?
If you were to check on the heritage of most of the pushers you more than likely would end up anywhere but Australia !

From the post Foxy made.
"The Voice will be a new body [to executive Government] that represents Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from across Australia to provide their input into the decisions, policies and laws that are made by the government and parliament.

This is consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which says Indigenous peoples have a RIGHT to participate in government decision-making in matters that affect their rights, through THEIR OWN POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS."
"The Voice has been proposed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the best solution to respond to their overwhelming feeling of disempowerment and structural disadvantage".

THE VOICE IS ABOUT EMPOWERING ABORIGINALS as stated in the post Foxy posted. It is about the struggle to overthrow Westminster Government laws and install socialist Eldership Rule. They want their own voice in government to make decisions on culture, laws, land, water, and beaches. If you are on aboriginal land, you will pay the rent.

Foxy is just a naive follower of ABC and Albanese and not a researcher on the truth of aboriginal voices. They believe the sovereignty of the Mother Earth is theirs and the British Crown stole it from them. There is no private property or crown land in their view, it all belongs to the tribes that identify with the areas. You are on aboriginal land and must be welcomed to country and abide by their culture and laws, giving respect to their worship of elders past and present [ancestral worship].

Well Mr Gilbert tells us why he thinks we need a Voice-like body but doesn't tell us why it needs to be enshrined in the constitution.

They never do explain that part. Never.

Enquiring minds ask why its never explained. Others just resolve to do as they're told.

This link gives another perspective on the subject:

http://sbs.com.au/nitv/article/opinion-depending-on-why-its-ok-to-oppose-the-voice/sr20y558k

They have been told they are downtrodden and must fight for their rights to own and make their own Government decisions. However, all those advocating the Voice are well established in Australian society both financially and socially. Being downtrodden is brainwashing by Elite who wants power.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2023/jun/19/this-is-big-for-us-aunty-pat-anderson-on-the-voice-bill-passing-parliament-video

AUNTY PAT ANDERSON: Leading the Fight for Indigenous Rights on LIVING BLACK. As the co-chair of the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart, Aunty Pat Anderson is at the forefront of advocating for a Voice to Parliament for Australia’s First Nations peoples.

The Australian Financial Review and Westpac listed Pat Anderson AO as one of the most influential women in Australia for her work in public policy. Ms Anderson told NITV she was honoured to receive the recognition along with other outstanding Australian women.

We all have our beliefs and will undoubtedly vote
according to them.

Fingers-crossed that the end result will unite our nation.

Minimal funds for Makarrata commission
The government has also committed $5.8 million to a Makarrata commission for a national truth telling process and pathway to treaty between Indigenous people and the government.

Some Indigenous leaders are concerned about the disparity between funding for the Voice and funding for the truth and treaty process.

Tasmanian Land Council chair and palawa man Michael Mansell says it's an indication of where the government priorities lie.

"Now that he's committed $75 million to the voice and talking about a referendum and only $5 million to the treaty, that raises even more doubt about his commitment to treaty and truth telling," he said.

"If he was serious about treaty, he'd be talking to Aboriginal people now.

"I wrote to the Prime Minister, and Pat Dodson, and Minister Linda Burney two months ago, and asked 'how do Aboriginal people become engaged with the federal government about progressing a treaty or a Makarrata?'

"I've never even received an acknowledgement of the letter, let alone a response."

Mr Mansell said he wanted the government to ensure that people who disagreed on the Voice weren't locked out of the Makarrata process.

"If the federal government insisted that the people outside the group who are running the Voice model are the ones who should be in control of the development of a treaty, we would have a change to grab a guernsey," he said.

"I do suspect it will be the same people who will control the treaty and truth telling in the same manner as they'd control the debate about the voice."

A constitutional law expert explains why we can't just
establish the Voice to parliament through legislation:

http://theconversation.com/why-cant-we-just-establish-the-voice-to-parliament-through-legislation-a-constitutional-law-expert-explains-203652

If you want to give away your equal rights to democratically elected representative voices in Government Vote "Yes" for the Voice and give unelected aboriginal voices power over your elected representative voices.

A constitutional law expert explains
Foxy,
Just another lawyer/academic who has never lived in communities. I'm waiting for the day someone can show me a business/enterprise/Council etc that is run solely by real indigenous without all infrastructure provided for free !

I'm not sure I fully understand the legal or constitutional rights of our first nation people, or our rights, for that matter however, but what I do know from my own empirical experience, together with many weeks of relieving duties in most areas of the State, much of it being the traditional stamping grounds of our indigenous people. I can only repeat what I've seen and learned from first-hand experience -

Most of them only wish to be left alone and have ample tucker, smokes, and booze if they can get it. Booze & drugs are where most of the trouble arises. That is an aside. Three square meals a day and have no interference from those who possess powers that might negatively affect their lifestyle(s). Above everything else, they do not want to have any hassles with officialdom or local police. They tend to fear being locked up, preferring instead to submit to tribal justice if possible rather than confront European jurisprudence.

They do NOT like being manipulated by do-gooders who claim to speak for them. And it's true; they'd much prefer just sitting under the shade of a tree without a care in the world. And, above all...being left alone!

It looks to me that the supporters of the Voice have lost the ability to see Right from Wrong !

Foxy,

All your links that claim to show how the voice works contain only homilies as to the effect of the voice and nothing on its actual workings. The devil is in the details, none of which Labor will release as it is sure to spook voters.

The reality is that the voice has a great chance of going pear-shaped in a spectacular way as did its first version. If it is legislated it can be fixed, in the constitution is will be a millstone around our children's necks.

Just saw a post on facebook where they spruik the comparison of how the Aborigines managed the land with how the Voice will work.
They didn't mention the absence of housing, welfare, schooling, travel etc and, last but definitely not least, money !
Do they mean that the Voice will work akin to their existence before being colonised ?
Please explain ?

Foxy believes the Voice will unite - as Jacinta Price does the Voice unite her family or cause conflict. Her family has Irish and aboriginal members. When struggling farmers must pay rent, they will resent aboriginal ownership as they have contributed nothing to them.

Indy,

I just put in a discussion about NAIDOC WEEK, then I read you, and though possibly even the most antipathetic person towards Aboriginal people can be redeemed. Well, we do live with the hope of a miracle, do we not!

I am finding it difficult to understand why some people
are finding it so hard to give our Indigenous people what they
are asking.

We are being given a rare chance to make a major positive
impact now and for future generations. Australia has been
considering constitutional recognition for some time now.
Our Indigenous people are asking that the form of recognition
come through a Voice to Parliament which will give advice on
law and policies that affect Indigenous people.

This is what the Australian people are now being asked to
decide. Should we recognize the Indigenous people in the
Constitution with a Voice?

Goodness me. This is not difficult. Our Indigenous people know
and understand the best way to deliver real and practical change
in their communities. When they have a say through a Voice they
can finally start to close the gap that still exists between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on issues like -
life expectancy, wducational outcomes, health, employment,
and many other issues.

That is why a YES vote is important.

Our Constitution is 122 years old and it still does not recognize
the unique and important xontribution of the 1st Australians.
It is time for that to change.

That is something that needs to be recognized by all political
parties. This should not be a time for point scoring. The issues
are far too important.

According to Salvatore Babones, we are now in the grip of "liberal authoritarianism", with the Voice a key factor.

Unlike the general population, which is steadily turning against the Voice, the political class (forget the brands) is in "absolute consensus" on the need for race-based policy.

Pathetic Pete might "quibble" over a few words and details, but, "only retired politicians have proved ready to openly oppose the idea of an organised indigenous voice. And they’re retired for a reason".

The Voice would not be democratic; it "is designed to be nakedly authoritarian". It would draw its legitimacy from the consensus of establishment institutions, not the consent of the governed.

It would have indigenous Australians be spoken for and spoken to, but it would not allow them to speak.

Babones believes that the NO campaign, focused mainly on the divisiveness of inserting a race-based institution into the Australian Constitution, should be more concerned with the criminality of disenfranchising Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens.

Salvatore Babones, an American academic working in Australia, rightly says that it sometimes takes an outsider "to tell you the truth you already know about yourself".

And he tells us that the "the indigenous Voice on which you will soon vote is a dud", which would be an anti-democratic mechanism for authoritarian governance that will set a precedent for other forms of liberal authoritarianism to follow.

Thankfully, in Australia yea or nay on this racist and divisive tripe is up to the people. But, if politicians get to change our Constitution with our permission, that situation will not last much longer under a growing liberal authoritarianism

Foxy believes the Voice is equal to recognizing aboriginal occupation in the Constitution, it is no such thing, it is more than recognition it is empowering a Voice to control the future Governments of Australia. As more lands are handed over to Aboriginal control, Like Frazer Ireland and Goat Ireland in sydney Harbour, they will control who goes there use its beaches and charge fees to enter. Currently 53% of Australia is under aboriginal control, where they make decisions on what happens there.

The fundamental problem is that the aboriginal culture is stuck where
it was in 1788.
In all the 65,000 years they did not even invent the wheel.
It was inevitable that they would be jerked into the current time
period whether they liked it or not.
The problems and losses they suffered were the inevitable result of
their attitude of resisting change.
There is no point in blaming those that jerked them out of their slumber into reality.

Josephus,

You need to be better informed on the subject.

This link may help:

http://theconversation.com/a-voice-to-parliament-will-not-give-special-treatment-to-aborigine-and-torres-strait-islander-australians-heres-why-200650

Bazz,

You also need to be better informed on the subject.

This link is only one of many available on the web:

http://australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2015/03/aboriginal-australian-inventions/

Visiting a museum may also help you to become better educated
and informed.

"A constitutional law expert explains..."

As we saw during the great WuFlu scare, we have a massive army of people who are determined to subsume their opinions to so-called experts.

"You know, saying "trust the experts" to me makes no sense at all. Trusting the experts is a function of religion and totalitarianism. It is not a function of democracy. In a democracy, we question everybody."
RFK Jr

In a democracy, we question experts, we don’t defer to them.

Still for what its worth, these are the five excuses Foxy's expert gives for putting the Voice in the constitution....

1.The people who wrote the Uluru (Ayer's Rock?) statement wanted it.

So apparently we just have to give them what they want.

2. It gives the so-called 'first people' constitutional recognition.

Well so does whackying a sentence or two in the preamble which if done would receive almost universal support.

3. Putting it in the constitution gives it "security and certainty".

Translation, they don't want another ATSIC which got canned because it was so corrupt. Corrupt or not, the Vocie will survive .

4. " constitutional change will confer on the Voice a strong popular legitimacy that is not achievable through ordinary legislative change"

This is the real reason. They'll end arguing before a compliant High Court that it has special powers because its in the constitution. It will go way beyond the 'advisory' council they keep eluding to.

5.Some rambling claim it will make the Voice effective.

Why a legislated Voice can't be effective isn't explained. But then those who are looking to be led by the nose by 'experts' don't need explanations.

mhaze,

Sadly explanations seem to be beyond your understanding.
But never mind. You are entertaining.

Read your link Foxy, but they never got beyond the boomerang.
It seems they never even built a glider.
They never invented woven fabrics so they never invented a hang glider.
They never built a hand cart or wheelbarrow.
They never smelted metals, yet they had fire.
Did they know the world was round ?
Did they know the earth went around the sun ?
Or did they think the sun went around the earth ?
Did they ever ask the question ?
They must have surely watched cloud banks disappear over the horizon.
They were age old questions but the answers lay in the ability to
first ask the question and then produce the tools to answer the question.

No Foxy they were stuck and had no interest in understanding more or
it would have happened as it did everywhere else on earth.
There are a multitude of subjects that were commonly known everywhere
on earth except in Australia.

Bazz,

It's difficult to engage in a productive conversation with
people who are either misinformed or simply refuse to listen
when their view is wrong.

The best course of action is to politely decline to continue
the discussion.

Before I go here is another link that is worth a read. Not that I expect you to take any of this on board:

http://theconversation.com/how-we-collaborated-in-creating-the-first-inventors-to-celebrate-extraordinary-indigenous-peoples-knowledge-and-technologies-206666

It's like voting for gays to marry and we get transmen getting pregnant and trans women in women's sport, and a hundred genders or non-genders, or men marrying crocodiles. The Uluru agenda end is not revealed, and the vote will fail if it is. Does anyone aboriginal promoting the Voice in need of financial equality or is it they want power to govern over their identified tribal lands, waterways, and beaches? The ABC and SBS continually tell us we are on aboriginal tribal lands - they are promoting the YES case.

If you listen to Thomas Mayor who proposed the voice, he sees the voice as the first step in the Uluru program toward Marxist communism with elders ruling Australia. The Voice is just the beginning of aboriginal rule and their gaining of full sovereignty. The British system of Westminster Democratic government, is he believes, has destroyed the land and waters and not till aboriginal elders take control aboriginal sovereignty is not fully restored. Their fight to gain full control of their land has just begun. Always was and always will be aboriginal land.

It is unfortunate that people like Foxy did not live in aboriginal culture before 1788 and see all these amazing advantages she raves about. Aboriginals did not discover fire; humans universally have been using fire for thousands of years to melt rock and sand in construction of iron tools and glazing in buildings etc. They have been constructing houses out of cut stone for thousands of years. Aboriginals could not construct houses out of clay and straw which was available to them as the Africans did. Colonization has lifted the standard of their lives equal to any first world country. Yet they want to live in dust and smoke and paint themselves with clay as this represents a 60,000 year old culture.

Kemmerer Gazette, 9/7/20.

When the enemies of freedom come, they cannot devour an entire people by direct power. They must first divide before they can conquer. Division can be created in two ways: hatred and fear. 

Hatred is created by inventing ever-new categories of people, and setting them against one another. That’s the essence of identity politics.

Once stripped of unity, people are easier to manipulate with fear. 

Josephus,

Your posts are beginning to worry me.
A big part of Nazi ideology was to define the enemy
and those who posed a threat to the already
established white "superior" way of life.

Nazi propaganda was essential in promoting myths and
identifying those who should be excluded. A number of
groups were targeted as enemies.

The campaigns were particularly effective in inciting
hatred or cultivating indifference to it.
This is not something that any of us would want or should
encourage here. You need to stop posting nonsense.

History is clear that in 1939, Stalin and Hitler were
allies against the free people of Europe. They were both, by
then accomplished killers, even though Stalin led the
score in victims tortured, starved, and massacred.

Each created panic and chaos throughout Europe. Each produced
millions of refugees and homeless.
Each was expanding and building concentration
camps in which millions of innocent victims
would perish.
Both were set on their conquests. The two dictators used the same
methods to deal with their opposition - terror.

We, as a country can learn to raise the bar for all our people
and live in peace and ensure that no one is disadvantaged.
Especially our First People.

why some people
are finding it so hard to give our Indigenous people what they
are asking.
Foxy,
You haven't a clue what they're asking !

we do live with the hope of a miracle,
Paul1405,
Indeed for you to answer the question !

Hi Foxy,

In your absence I called out several Goebbelesk lies and distortions being peddled on the Forum by Proud Boy Jose'. His latest unsubstantiated claim is that due to 'The Voice', White Farmers will be paying a newly imposed "Aboriginal rent" for the land they farm. The bloke is a sad case of bigotry and racism.

According to another Forum racists since I support Aboriginal recognition through a voice to parliament, I must be an "Anglophobe". These guys are a joke, very old jokes at that.

since I support Aboriginal recognition through a voice to parliament,
Paul1405,
Supporting is vastly different to exploiting !

Foxy,

The problem "NO" voters have is that the deeper one looks into the "voice" the more it looks like a "VETO". Moreover, the VETO will extend to the parliament, every state parliament, every council and every single Australian public servant, and as nearly every single piece of legislation and regulation will affect some Aboriginals somewhere the reach of the VETO is virtually limitless.

Not a single link, article or Labor promise has shown that my analysis is wrong.

A YES vote is a vote for Australian apartheid.

If only foxy would listen to the voices behind the Voice like Thomas Mayor the proposer of the Voice, she just listens to the Media and Albanese. She believes I hold to Nazi beliefs; little does she know I have Orthodox Jewish relatives including Rabbi.

Her way of debating is to demonize the opposition, rather than putting up how the Voice will improve aboriginals in remote communities to make them equal to those intermarried living in the cities. It is a push by the elite to remove colonial rule and the crown who incarcerate wayward aboriginal youth. They want aboriginal culture and law where there is no such thing as personal boundary. You own nothing and you will be happy.

When you remember that 17 million or so Australians will be voting on this referendum, the arguments of a few posters here look even sillier and more futile than usual.

On the news last night. Chanel 7 made the mistake taking an overhead shot of rallying YES warriors. It showed how few people were there, belying the razzamatazz of the manipulative media, which is now a megaphone for the loony left and the dangerously loony Albanese government.

The next vision, in various places, was much tighter - a bit like snapshots of the family at a picnic - to hide the fact that very few people are interested in this racist referendum and, in this show of lack of strength, the yes case. The same would probably apply to the no case. Although, because of the non-stop whining from Albanese about the thing (to the detriment of real issues) and the shouting of activists and black communists, the no case warriors won't have to work to hard.

The 17 million registered voters will decide. And most of them will do it without the help of keyboard warriors and nut jobs milling around in parks like sheep.

Dear mhaze,

Did you really just quote JFK Jr? Strewth you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You are also going full blown on the anti-intellectual trope of the hard right. Distrust of any expert whose learned opinion doesn't align with your ideology. Really getting pretty tiresome now.

Josephus,

Marxist this and marxist that. Why are you borrowing hard right memes from the US and shoehorning them into issues we are contending with here? Get off facebook mate, it is doing your head in. You have ended up parroting garbage and you are just a caricature now, background noise.

shadowminister,

So an advisory body has become a veto power now has it? You really are a flog. Are you so afraid of this simple thing getting up you are prepared to tell whatever lie, employ whatever exaggeration, and stoke whatever fear you can just to stop an advisory body which will have zero impact on your life but hopefully will positively impact the lives of indigenous people in this country?

What a completely un-Christain thing to be engaged in.

Dear Bezza,

Just wondering what age you are because your 60s thinking is on display in spades. This country has moved past that thinking a long time ago. Why are you still stuck in that mindset?

Dear Paul,

In my absence I had forgotten how futile arguing with some
of the posters on this forum truly is. Thankfully, I like
to think that they are a minority and will not really matter
in the long term. At least that's what I am hoping. Australian
voters usually get it right in the end. We can only hope that
this will happen again this time.

Personally - what these old men here think really does not matter
in this country. They are not the future. They dwell in the
past, and like other relics will eventually be swept on the ash
heap of history. Their days are numbered. Few will miss them.
The country will survive despite their whingimg and wanting to
resurrect the "good old days," long gone.

Most people have moved on from the past and look towards having a
better future for all. The fact that these guys aren't willing
to do that - makes little difference to the general scheme of things.
Australians will unite and survive without them.

Enjoy NAIDOC Week. That's something worth celebrating.

NO, NO, and NO again
Some will get very rich, look at who is pushing for yes.
Some will get on the gravy train and do well out of yes.
Some poor old blackfella currently sitting under gum trees will still be sitting under gum trees in years to come.
Having seen the way the aboriginal industry works and acts over the last 50+ years and the money trail of who benefits there will be no change and it will keep costing the country millions, probably more millions than current. The waste over the years has to be seen and the latte sippers of the major cities and some yes pushers have no idea of the real world outside of their back yard. A good audit of all of the 3000? aboriginal organisations could be a great way to spend the $300 million voice cost but the major yes team would be well against that.

Dear gj123,

What an exceedingly clueless take.

The big money in this is already in plain sight. Mining money stoking the No campaign in their millions with Gina at the head of the list.

While the Voice will have absolutely no role in dispersing funds so your arguments on that score are completely false.

Look, you really do need to understand how your prejudices are being prompted by out billionaire class. You are being lead into thinking this will impact you and might take something out of your pocket. Meanwhile that very billionaire class, which is contributing one of the lowest rates per tonne of minerals to the rest of the country in comparison to other developed countries, has you out making their case for them.

Grow a brain.

Steele who spreads the already $4,500,000,000 billion p/a that the NIAA receives, equivalent to $46,000 per person p/a who identifies as aboriginal. That funding is allocated to aboriginals only not to other disadvantaged Australians.

Looking at programs of NAIDOC week it could not function without the advantages of Current western industrial developments introduced to aboriginals. Using instruments found on any stage, using food from the supermarkets not in previous aboriginal diets like flour, eggs and salt and sugar.
Bring aboriginals into our society and help them experience the equality they are given, rather than promote a backward racist section in Government. They have shared with us for over 200 years.

gj123

Spot on! When the Leftist cranks here try to insult you, you know you are on the right track.

Foxy wrote: "Sadly explanations seem to be beyond your understanding."

Well Foxy, I did expect that you'd dispute my fisking of the article that you so want to be true, but I didn't expect such a long, carefully thought out and brilliantly argued analysis of all the issues. <sarc off>

As I said, meekly deferring your opinion to that of those who assert they are experts isn't the act of a clear thinker, but that of a flying-monkey.

Of course, you're in good company with SR also asserting that we should subsume our thinking to anyone who claims expertise.

mhaze,

For someone who supports Trump - your arguments
at best continue to provide entertainment on this
forum.

Josephus,

So the NIAA manages grant funding including health spending much of which isn't over and above what other Australians get just via a different delivery system.

In the budget announcement "2023-24 Budget: Investing in a better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People" the treasurer spoke of "The 2023–24 Budget provides a series of measures to make a practical difference, help close the gap and deliver a better future, working together with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. These measures include a new investment to support the landmark plan for A Better, Safer Future for Central Australia."

The big line item was: "$3.5 billion to triple the bulk billing incentive to support more doctors to bulk bill consultations for children under the age of 16 and Commonwealth concession card holders. This will have a positive impact for the over 310,000 First Nations concession card holders."

http://www.niaa.gov.au/news-centre/indigenous-affairs/2023-24-budget-investing-better-future-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people

Of course right-wing drop kick pundits like yourself claimed it was billions of extra dollars going to indigenous Australians when it was directed at all Australians. The fact that concession card holders are a greater proportion in ingenious communities is a mark of their relative disadvantage.

But ungracious people like yourself would begrudge even that.

SR,

Don't be such a fraud. There is a real concern that parliament, state governments, councils etc will be unable to dismiss the representations of the unelected "voice" without facing legal challenges. The "Voice" is a defacto "VETO" without this ability.

This veto would essentially cripple every level of government and hold every Polly and public servant by the balls until they gave up concessions. Unless you can point to where this freedom to legislate without the permission of the "voice" is guaranteed your protestations are groundless.

Labor's record on doing what it promised is dismal and littered with toxic unintended consequences.

In 2023 - 24 the Government allocated $4.5 billion for the "National Indigenous Australian Agency" which has a staff of 1,400. Their role is to advise Government on improving the lives of indigenous Australians.
If they cannot improve lives with the NIAA the Voice based in Canberra will not achieve any better outcomes.

By enshrining a Voice to represent one race in the Constitution it cannot be ignored, and it enshrines a form of apartheid forever. Because Labor's Voice is unlimited in scope - from advising the Reserve Bank, Centrelink, and National security. This makes the elected Government dysfunctional if it must go to the High Court for conflicts.

shadowminister,

Look I know it isn't you who is making this trash up because you don't have the imagination for it.

To the baseless and scurrilous notion the Voice will have veto powers, defacto or otherwise.

Former chief justice Robert French:

“No substance in it ... That would be no more than advice and it certainly wouldn’t bind anybody and it wouldn’t be a veto. What is a de facto veto? … I’m still at a bit of a loss. ... If I were confronted with this provision as a judge … it’s a big thing, to draw a constitutional implication and the implications which have been suggested are not supported by the text and will be inconsistent with it."

The former high court justice Kenneth Hayne:

Said that he couldn’t see “anything in those drafts that comes anywhere near providing anything like a veto”.

Constitutional barrister Bret Walker:

Said it was “bizarre” to suggest the inclusion of a reference to “executive government” would bring in court cases.

Go back to your little racist kitbag and drag out some other poisonous trifle to inflict us with because this one has absolutely no basis.

Australia's chief legal counsel, Solicitor General
Dr Stephen Donaghue KC has stated the constitutional
amendment for the Voice does "not pose an threat" to
Australia's system of representative government.

In his advice on the Voice Dr Donaghue KC said the
Voice would have no power to make laws, to develop, or
administer policies or to decide disputes. He said the
Voice would operate only as an advisory body to parliament
and government and clearly has no power of veto.

Also The Constitutional Expert Group comprising senior
legal experts who provided advice to the government on
the Voice process said quite clearly in a communique
last year that the Voice would have no veto power.

Any one falling for misinformation is simply stirring and
should do their research.

This talk from John Anderson is a nice summary of the reason why clear-headed thinkers are opposed to the Voice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH4Qx-QNaPg&t=91s

There's much in this that the unthinking 'Yes' supporters will find surprising and, if they watch it with an open mind, unsettling. But that, of course won't apply to our little band on pro-'Yes' flying-monkeys.

I found this observation most insightful....The Voice won't "achieve anything positive beyond the short-lived rush of joy for those in favour of it".

The rush of joy is, after all, what, for many, is the point.

And what has been achieved by our governments thus far
for our Indigenous people?

Perhaps listening to their advice might produce better results
than what has been attempted.

You think?

If we keep doing what we've done thus far - we'll
keep getting the same results.

Trying something new just may be worth it.

"Perhaps listening to their advice might produce better results
than what has been attempted."

So, obviously you didn't watch the Anderson talk which addressed that very issue. Pretty much what I expected.

SR,

Don't be such a racist idiot. Justice Callinan has aligned himself with those who are arguing against the current wording for the Voice referendum because they see potential overreach. So has ex-chief Justice Brennan.

I know that you lack the IQ to understand this, but the proposed wording for the referendum is sufficiently vague to completely screw up the government for generations.

This is a huge overreach from a PM that has already lied to the voters

Can those of you who are so against the Voice tell us
how will the Voice impact adversely on your lives?
In what way will your lives be badly affected?

What have you guys got to lose if the Voice goes through?

What an exceedingly clueless take.
SteeleRedux,
No, he just hit your nerve dead-on !

In what way will your lives be badly affected?
Foxy,
Not just ours, yours too ! I'm dumbfounded you can even ask that question.
Have you really had such a sheltered life that you're so blind to reality ?
For your & your family's sake I hope you come to your senses before December !

Dear Individual,

How about answering my questions?

Be specific.

When apartheid was in full swing, the white rulers explained that their system was the best way to look after everyone. Looking at the economic mess that South Africa is today, that might well have been true, but I doubt that anyone would re-embrace apartheid, no matter how much prosperity was on offer.

A system that treats one citizen differently from another on the basis of race or heritage, regardless of how benevolently it may be intended, will always be a hard sell, especially those who would be disadvantaged. Personally, I am shocked and aghast that such and idea is being advocated by the highest level of government in Australia. I take great pride in the democratic and legal equality of all Australians. The Voice would destroy that equality.

shadowminister,

Just to be clear Callinan is a former justice of the High Court. He was a Howard appointee and is from Queensland.

He said of the Voice "“Stretching my imagination only a little, I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of a voice whether constitutionally entrenched or not.”

However he was a little more circumspect in his submission to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum.

"Proponents say that all that the Voice demands is that Indigenous Australians have the right to make representations [only] to both the executive government and the parliament. But yet there would hardly be a lawyer, or any interested member of the community who did not believe and expect that every representation had at least to be given consideration. In other words, already, one implication is universally being read into language which says nothing in terms of what is to happen when a representation is made. There is a real possibility that courts will in future read into a new s 129 further implications."

But in neither does he claim anything close to the Voice having even an implied veto power itself. Only that it could make representations as many others do that the Commonwealth exercise its veto powers. It is you who can't make that distinction.

Stop spreading mistruths.

Dear Fester,

John Howard used the race powers in the Australian Constitution to give validity to his Intervention.

He has to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to do it.

You may well claim to: "take great pride in the democratic and legal equality of all Australians" but where was your pride then? Did you protest? Did you use the word apartheid to describe it?

Or it is really just come down to the fact you see yourself as one who might be "disadvantaged" in some minute way by the Voice and that is the reason for your hue and cry?

"A system that treats one citizen differently from another on the basis of race or heritage, regardless of how benevolently it may be intended, will always be a hard sell, especially those who would be disadvantaged."

I'm looking at France right now and I wonder just how good multiculturalism and immigration policies really are.
You let all these immigrants in, and sometimes it's not the ones you let in but the next generation or even the next;
And then you have all these foreign ethnicity youths, who hate the country, and expect everything as an entitlement and they run smashing burning and looting everything they possibly can.

That will be our country soon.

"Can those of you who are so against the Voice tell us
how will the Voice impact adversely on your lives?"

There's no fine print Foxy, it's a blank cheque.
Like all the other pc bullcrap, once they get a toe in the door, they'll shift the goalposts.

I intend to vote no.
The government wants to manipulate us with emotion.
Which is why I'll stay true to myself, and consider with reason.

I don't think it's a good idea to give one lot of people different rights to the others.
As a white Australian (with a little indigenous) with (white) history on this continent for generations I'm already spat upon as compared to some brown faced immigrant who was here 10 mins, and who gets all the nations benefits and handouts.

If I were to weigh up what I stood to gain from 'The voice', and what I stood to lose, then it's obvious I stand to potentially lose far more than anything I stand to gain.
Why would I support something that doesn't benefit me?

This country has become racist against whites, with ethnic quotas, championing immigrants (corporations fear supporting whites) and mass handouts while white Aussies sleep in cars and tents with kids, but the government can always find another 100 million for Ukraine or some other stupid gay / immigrant cause.

You want to dress in drag and read stories to primary school kids FUNDED
16 year old Johnny has been groomed by queers and thinks he's a girl and wants his penis amputated FUNDED

Victim of government policies and youth crime, cost of living, and housing shortage TOO BAD
We gave all the money to foreigners, the immigrants kids broke into your house stole and wrecked your car, the high cost of everything has spiraled out of control because the government kept spending what it didn't even have, and there's no social housing because refugees / immigrants get a higher priority.

Ultimately I don't care too much though, because the country's already wrecked because of our (bent over pulling their cheeks apart) grovelling 'woke' leaders.

I never voted to support any of this woke crap.

How about answering my questions?
Foxy,
Don't you listen to Mayo, Burney, Thorpe, Dodson etc ?

SR,

In the wording "But yet there would hardly be a lawyer, or any interested member of the community who did not believe and expect that every representation had at least to be given consideration"

This would mean that every single piece of legislation or regulation at any level of government or public service would have to show that they had given due consideration to the "voice". That is why councils are taking 2 years to approve building consents etc. That is a close to a veto as one can get.

I just heard some Fiona woman carrying on about how unacceptable she thinks a No Vote would be in her home state of WA.
She sounded like a spoiled git & I'd like to ask her how acceptable she thinks a Yes vote would be if she had to work for a living ?

Dear individual,

I'm aware of the various opinions.

I'm still waiting to hear yours and how you think it will
affect your life.

No person can climb Uluru because it is sacred and now, They have made the Glass house Mountains sacred, and you are not able to climb them. The QLD police have been placed at the entrance to ensure no person attempts to climb up The Glass house Mountains.

Nonindigenous persons are being restricted entering Identified tribal lands and this will increase as they gain administrative powers such as Uluru and Arnhem, Frazer Ireland etc. They want administrative powers over their tribal lands and anyone entering pays the rent.

Have a look at all those proposing the Voice and observe their social disadvantage. Not one of them income is below the poverty line and their voices already sounding to the Elected Government. They are hoping the Voice will give them Constitutional control over Governments and it cannot be removed like previous corrupt aboriginal programs.

VOTE NO TO APARTHIED.

Yawn. The people who will decide are not on OLO; they don't care about politics; they do care about the increases in power prices; they care about inflation; they care about surging food prices; that care about their mortgages; they care about rents; they care about not being able to afford to buy a house or even find a place to rent; they care about mass immigration and its effect on all of these things - none of which the Albanese government is interested in, in their efforts to divide and rule.

Many of these frustrated people will vote NO to punish Albanese. What they think about the Voice won't come into it.

The less than half a dozen posters arguing with each other here would be better off doing crosswords to pass the time, or just staring at the wall, for all the difference their twaddle is going to make to the referendum results.

Foxy,
We're already very constricted up on Cape York & have been told in no uncertain terms, more will come.
One so-called indigenous (self-proclaimed but Samoa heritage) reckons he's appalled at "the standard of housing provided".
Homes that cost a million Dollars to build, free schooling & free travel at every school holiday is apparently discriminatory provided by people who work every day, buy their own homes & pay for wherever they travel.
You really should be able to work the rest out for yourself.

Dear individual,

I guess we can only speak from our own biases or I should say -
life experiences. Seeing as my experiences with our Indigenous
people is very limited to say the least - I have to rely on
research. And from what I have read and listened to - I have
formed my opinion. As I guess we all have. Whether this
Referendum succeeds depends on how the majority will decide to
vote.

We should know the results by the end of the year.

The outcomes in time will speak for themselves.
I'm hoping that they will be positive instead of negative.

I am optimistic about my fellow countrymen. I firmly believe
that they will do the right thing in the end.

During many conversations now on this subject I have come to the distinct conclusion that the YES voters vote for the wrong reason & the NO voters vote for the wrong reasons !
Hardly any of them use integrity & common sense as basis to form their opinion !

Foxy..."Can those of you who are so against the Voice tell us how will the Voice impact adversely on your lives? In what way will your lives be badly affected?"

You know, Foxy, not all decisions need to be based on personal benefit. Its one of the problems with our current society that so many people (such as yourself) see all issues through the prism of their own advantage. In better days, decisions were made based on what was good for the nation as a whole.

So the Voice won't affect me personally other than become just another place where good money is thrown after bad - but there are so many such projects in the governmental sphere these days that it hardly matters.

OTOH, since it won't solve the issue of so-called aboriginal disadvantage, it will be to the detriment of the nation that another pressing issue is kicked down the road.

Of course, the other question is how a constitutional Voice will benefit anyone as against a legislated Voice. But the pro-Yes case hasn't and won't address that since the answer (see my previous post) would doom the campaign to certain failure.

Foxy,

Suppose this "voice" turns out to be the rent-seeking gravy train I believe it will. In that case, it will be a colossal drain on taxpayers that affects everyone and probably will not deliver one iota of benefit to the indigenous in the country.

I currently go to a doctor that gives preference to aboriginal and Torres Straight Irelanders, as he receives extra benefits for attending to them.

All non aboriginals will become second class citizen health under those that have say in the Voice. The Waitangi treaty demonstrates that all non Maroi are given second preference to medical treatment.

All landowners will pay a land rent charge to aboriginals for carrying out living or doing business on identified aboriginal lands. It is part of the Uluru statement.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/campaign-calls-on-weekly-rent-payment-to-indigenous-people/news-story/c1261e085f6409d0cbc60b2327cc9c10

http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/prominent-voice-campaigners-vision-for-aussies-to-pay-the-rent-resurfaces/news-story/f2177ff4eecca37234fa49e8d6d0f3d9

Pay the rent initiatives which are at their core about strengthening the mob and dismantling the colony.
THE PROJECT OF THE VOICE IS ULTIMATELY DISMANTLE WESTMINSTER GOVERNMENT RULE AND INSTALL ABORIGINAL ELDERS RULE

Quoted, "A leading “Yes” campaigner for the Voice to Parliament hopes it will be a step towards getting non-Indigenous Aussies to “pay the rent” for living on Australian land.

In a series of unearthed tweets from 2020, Thomas Mayo – who was a signatory of the Uluru Statement from the Heart – shared his vision of a new life if the Yes vote passes.

He said a “Blak rep body” enshrined in the Constitution – as called for in the Uluru Statement – would have the “resources & structure needed to unite on the priorities we collectively determine.”

“Reparations, land back, abolishing harmful colonial institutions, getting ALL our kids out of prisons & in to care, respect & integration of our laws & lore, speaking language, wages back – all the things we imagine when we demand,” he wrote.

In response to someone calling for non-Indigenous Australians to “pay rent”, Mr Mayo said the way to do this was through a constitutionally enshrined representative body “that the politicians cannot ignore”.

“Paying the rent must be more than your donations to struggling mob – which is important. It must be negotiated with the Commonwealth: reparations, land back etc,” he said.

Thomas Mayo stands by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s side as the official wording of the referendum question was announced in March.
Thomas Mayo stands by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s side as the official wording of the referendum question was announced in March.
The Pay The Rent initiative proposes a weekly payment from non-Indigenous homeowners to a “Sovereign Body of First Nations people” who will decide where the money is allocated without government input.

The body, which is driven by the motto “saying sorry isn’t enough”, hopes to turn the scheme into an organisation that encourages all Australians to “honour the legacy of the Elders” by giving back to the land through monetary donations.

Mr Mayo’s old tweets are not his only comments about Pay The Rent resurfacing and drawing attention this week in discussions about the upcoming referendum".

http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/prominent-voice-campaigners-vision-for-aussies-to-pay-the-rent-resurfaces/news-story/f2177ff4eecca37234fa49e8d6d0f3d9

Decolonize
http://www.spectator.com.au/2023/02/a-race-based-tax-is-utterly-unjust/

Josephus,

Why do you persist in giving links from extremers and
people who have fundamentaly nothing to do with
the Voice or what is being proposed by the government.
These people have no bearing on the case and possess no
influence or input into what the government and theVoice is going to do.

They're merely stirring, as are you by posting their misinformation.

Stop behaving like a bottom-feeder. It is pathetic! They are aminority - and should be ignored.

Foxy stop lying to yourself. Thomas Mayo is a major player in the Voice as he stands beside Anthony Albanese when the Voice referendum was proposed. You are blind to the hand back of Australia to indigenous tribes. It is he who proposed the Uluru Statement and its Truth telling and Treaty. Open your ears to the truth. He authored the book on the Voice.

http://www.bigw.com.au/product/the-voice-to-parliament-handbook-by-thomas-mayo-kerry-o-brien/p/289432

As i have stated several times already, acknowledgement of Indigenous Australians is a no-brainer.
The rest is simply about power & money for a few activists & preserving the immoral salaries of tens of thousands of Peter Principal career bureaucrats who have no inclination to earn their money by working for the betterment of our society.
Indigenous living in remote communities will continue to be an excuse for syphoning Millions away from the destined projects to help indigenous.

Josephus,

Yup, another racist token out of your kit bag as flagged.

"No person can climb Uluru because it is sacred".

Well parts of it are sacred but the principal reason given was the responsibility felt for each death that occurred on Uluru by the traditional owners. They regarded it their duty to look after visitors. So the restriction applies to them as well. Why are you screaming apartheid over this? Answer, because you are a racist twerp crying wolf.

Give it a miss.

Josephus,

I have just been reading some of the other rubbish you have been posting.

Firstly this: "I currently go to a doctor that gives preference to aboriginal and Torres Straight Irelanders, as he receives extra benefits for attending to them." Utter garbage. Didn't happen.

Next: "All non aboriginals will become second class citizen health under those that have say in the Voice. The Waitangi treaty demonstrates that all non Maroi are given second preference to medical treatment."

What a pile of rot.

Indigenous people, especially in remote communities, have some of the poorest health outcomes in the Western world. Trachoma is rife here and we are the only Western nation where this disease from poor living conditions is endemic.

You are so scared of giving a single inch. How utterly pathetic. Nasty and un-Christian in the extreme.

You should be ashamed.

While he is bleating and bullying for approval to have an EXTRA Voice for 3% of the population, Albanese is preparing to introduce a bill to require social media operators to RETARD the voices of the other 97% by empowering the ACMA to force operators to censor 'misinformation' or 'disinformation'. Who decides what misinformation or disinformation is? Who knows? A good guess would be: whatever doesn't suit the Albanese government or Leftist activists. Failure to obey Comrade Albanese's attack dogs will result in fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Thanks Steele, this bloke needs to be called out for the bigoted raciest he is. These totally false claims he makes are pathetic!. Even claimed "aboriginals" living in his country town were treated as equals in the 1960's. Said there were town "social event", when asked how many non-whites attended these events he went silent! His modus operandi is to make an unsubstantiated negative claim about Aboriginal people, then when challenged move on to another equally outrageous claim!

Utter garbage. Didn't happen.
SteeleRedux,
Have you been living under a rock over the past 40 years or so ?

I think that it's clear that Albozo and his 40 thieves are not fooling anyone. After breaking all his election promises so far this one is also going to be a bust.

"Support for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament has slumped once again according to a new poll.

Despite the ‘Yes’ campaign hosting community events nationwide on the weekend, polling by ACM reveals just 38 per cent of respondents will vote Yes, compared to 55 per cent voting ‘No’.

The survey of 10,000 voters also shows 72 per cent feel the Albanese government has not done enough to explain the Voice."

http://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/voice-to-parliament/support-falls-again-for-voice-to-parliament-as-new-data-highlights-lack-of-explanation/video/1d050b3b4733a2d418fcf5aed4e2a22a

Can the naysayers explain why at the time of British colonisation Aboriginal adults were living 10 to 20 years longer than the average working class Britain. Aboriginals enjoyed a healthy diet and were free from poxy European diseases such as Small Pox, Influenza and Measles, all introduced by the foreigner in 1788. The result of these British introduced diseases has seen the Indigenous live on average 10 years less than the European for the past 230 plus years, maybe 'The Voice' will give a new approach to solving the many European introduced problems Indigenous people suffer from.

"Can the naysayers explain why at the time of British colonisation Aboriginal adults were living 10 to 20 years longer than the average working class Britain."

Well Paul, I'll address that issue when you provide the evidence your claim is based on.

mhaze,
You'll find Paul1405 is alluding to the indigenous healthcare system of the days which meant leaving the sick to perish making it easy for the few in the clan sorry, Nation to look after themselves !

Paul,

Indigenous lived 10-20 years longer than those in Britain. Really

Do you have real proof of this? I call bollocks.

I do not bother to listen to Paul, Steele, and Foxy as they have no input to the Voice and what is proposed by those elite aboriginals pushing the Voice to be in the constitution. Linda Burney upholds that the Voice will make recommendations on health, education, and employment. When asked in Parliament, she said it will not be about parking fines - which is State government. She is not across her indigenous Ministerial position and is hiding the Uluru program.

Josephus,

Evidence please or go away.

As we know - the YES campaign has kicked off and is
gaining momentum despite the Nay sayers and misinformation.

We need to look closely at precisely what it hopes to
achieve and what do the critics say - and what are the
next steps.

http://smh.com.au/politics/federal/with-the-yes-campaign-set-to-officially-begin-why-is-the-voice-referendum-on-a-knife-edge-20230627-p5djx6.html

Foxy, from your link:

"Pretty much all the detail about how it would operate, who would participate and how it would make its views known will be finalised and then legislated only if the referendum succeeds"

Nar, it doesn't work like that...

You don't buy a house, and then they tell you the price and interest rate after you signed on the dotted line.
- Only an idiot would entertain this kind of a process.

I want all the information fully detailed first.
Then I will decide, otherwise it's an automatic NO.
It's not even something that can be considered or voted on, if they wish to lay out the fine print afterwards.

The answer is 'no', but no just ANY 'no'.
It's a 'no' that is the absolute end of the question,
Treated with contempt, like it's ridiculous even asking;

If you don't want to lay out the details before I sign,
- Then it's an automatic 'no', end of story.

The government should stop wasting everyones time and money.

Dear Armchair Critic,

In answer to - Do Australians have enough detail to vote
at the referendum?

Law experts explain that:

There are TWO typed of detail.

The first is the detail about the constitutional
change. This is the bit Australians are being asked to vote
on and the bit that is "permanent." Subject to a future
referendum. There is heaps of detail in relation to the
constitutional change including the wording of the amendment,
the referendum question. The explanatory memorandum to the
amendment, a parliamentary report and the government has
even taken the extraordinary route of releasing the
solicitor general's advice on the legal soundness of the
amendment.

The 2nd is the detail about the legislation establishing the
"nuts and bolts" of the Voice. The detail is not part of the
constitutional amendment and it is entirely normal
for constitutions to leave this type of detail
to be worked out in the future by the parliament.

It would be misleading to release final detail of the Voice
because this detail would need to be passed through parliament
and would be subject to future change.

However, there is some detail what the Voice will look like.
The government has taken the sensible option of indicating
what it will do following a successful referendum, and
how it will go about setting up the Voice.

It has worked with the Referendum Working Group to finalise a
set of design principles that provide the outline and what
the Voice will look like, who it will represent Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people across the country
and what functions it will have and how it
will be accountable.

Good speech at the National Press Club today by Linda Burney. As the Minister for Indigenous Australians, she called out the racists and bigots who are trying to introduce Trump style politics into the 'No' campaign. There is no doubt the lies and deception being propagated by the likes of the racists Dutton are having an effect, as he scares Australians into voting 'No'.

Still no explanation as to what is an aborigine ?
Will someone with 1/256th part aborigine get to vote in the Voice
organisation with the same power as a 100% aborigine ?

An Australian Community Media poll reveals that the rural and regional overall vote on the race-based Voice stands at NO 55%, YES 38% and 7% undecided in rural areas.

In regional areas the NO vote was 57%, YES 38%, and undecided 8%.

The area polled covered Canberra, Newcastle, Wollongong, Tamworth, Orange, Albury, and Wagga Wagga in New South Wales. It also covered Ballarat, Bendigo, and Warrnambool in Victoria, as well as Launceston and Burnie in Tasmania.

72% of respondents also believed the federal government had not adequately explained the Indigenous Voice and its functionality.

In the meantime, the '5,000' YES voters who made fools of themselves on Sunday turned out to be an actual 700 to 800, with some estimates as low as 500. The overhead footage seen on TV certainly favoured the very much lower estimates.

The Leftists Council said that the footage was taken after most people went home, but Australians these days understandably don't believe amateur politicians any more than they believe real ones.

Will someone with 1/256th part aborigine get to vote in the Voice
organisation with the same power as a 100% aborigine ?
Bezza,
The whole point is that if it's in support of the Yes agenda, it doesn't matter what heritage a voter is.
The whole point of the No vote is to prevent the greatest social & economic disaster to ever strike Australia by given a handful of vengeful & incompetent activist a chance to achieve that.
I'v said before that the Indigenous Australians are part of Australia & that's it. To make them out to be something they're not is deception & that is what the VOICE is all about.
We already have so many bureaucracies working against society from every angle & the Voice would be the nail in the coffin for this Nation. Why ? Because I have yet to see any of these confused heritage vengeful activists displaying genuine integrity let alone give a damn about the people in the remote communities !

This is really getting to be beyond the pale.

You guys need to stop spreading the lies and
misinformation.

Shame on all of you. Disgusting behaviour.

Any rational person should believe that every person has a
right to participate in the decisions that affect them.
Too often First Australians are denied this right.

And lets get the facts straight.
The Uluru Statement From The Heart is the culmination of
13 Regional Dialogues with First Nations People which
arrived at a consensus about what constitutional
recognition should look like.

More than 1,200 Indigenous Leaders representing 13 First
Nations Regional Dialogues were part of the process.

The Uluru Statement is an invitation from our 1st Nations
people to ALL Australians.

If anybody turns down this invitation - they are not a
true Australian. Australians believe in egalitarianism and
a "fair go" voting NO goes against Australian values
and beliefs and those people who intend to vote NO should
go live elsewhere. They do not belong in this country!

When you understand Makarrata - Uluru Statement from the Heart it means cripple your opponent in the legs, so his ability is hobbled. Who oppresses elite aboriginals who proposed the Voice?

Linda Burney is the greatest asset for the "No" case as she claimed at the Press Club that she wants to hear about health, education, housing, and employment for aboriginals. That is her current portfolio as Minister already and if she is incapable of dealing with it now, she must be removed and put someone into the position who fulfils her role. SHE IS INCOMPENTENT TO HELP ABORIGINALS, EVEN ON $400,000 PER ANNUM.


The Voice according to others will have access to the Reserve Bank, National security, and natural resources etc. There will be nothing the Voice cannot make positions about as it is their Country.

You guys need to stop spreading the lies and
misinformation.
Foxy,
Wrong, you need to stop being so gullible ! You really would benefit greatly if you learnt how to think for yourself occasionally !

Dear individual,

My knowledge is based on facts.

Yours unfortunately is not.

There has been a setback to Left racist policies in America, where the Supreme court has found in favour of Students for Fair Admissions.

Ironically, it was Asians, not whites, who objected to the practice of using race as a factor in university admissions, claiming that they had been denied entry because of their race.

US universities were giving preference to blacks and Hispanics.

Meritocracy and the core principle of equality under the law has been restored, in the tertiary education sector, at least.

Australian universities have special entry programs for members of underrepresented groups, particularly indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

On top of that, we are now threatened with the race-based Voice.

Foxy's facts are as Albanese told her to believe, not how those aboriginals at ULURU intended for the Voice.
Listen to the proposer of the Voice to Parliament’s “Yes” campaign has already hit turbulence following revelations one of its chief campaigners, Thomas Mayo, has strong communist sympathies.

This week, videos were unearthed of Mayo speaking at online forums of the Search Foundation, established in 1990 as the successor to the Communist Party of Australia, as well as at in-person Invasion Day and Black Lives Matter rallies.

In one such clip, the union official and self-described “militant” pays his respects to “the elders of the Communist Party who I think without a doubt have played a very important role in our activism”.

“Tear Down the Institutions”
At a May Day rally held last month in Port Kembla, Mayo told those gathered, “Every time, comrades, that we have established a voice as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the bastards have taken it away from us.”

Mayo singled out former Australian Prime Minister John Howard as one of those “bastards”, according to The Australian.

In other footage, using classically Marxist language, Mayo states his intention to “change the system and tear down the colonizers institutions that harm our people”.

He also said that the power of the Voice would be its ability to “punish politicians that ignore our advice” on legislation and funding.
Mayo, a Darling of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese
Thomas Mayo is a signatory of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. He was chosen by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to sit on the Referendum Working Group, which drafted the referendum question, and was invited to stand by the PM’s side when the referendum wording was unveiled.

Mayo has also co-authored The Voice to Parliament Handbook with veteran journalist Kerry O’Brien.

Mayo’s vision for the Voice directly contradicts Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s claim that the referendum proposal is “modest”, and one that will merely help Australia’s most vulnerable and unify the nation.

Quoted: "Thomas Mayo (aka Thomas Mayor) was a protege of Brian Manning, a MUA activist working on the Darwin wharves when young Thomas put his hand up to be an Organiser for the Maritime Union of Australia, NT Branch.

Brian Manning was an out and out Communist, joining the CPA in Darwin in 1959. The following year, he was elected delegate to attend the congress of the Communist Party of Australia .

"An ASIO document in 1962 reported in great detail the so-called ``penetration’‘ of Aboriginal organisations by Communists and detailed that in Darwin, communists George Gibbs and Brian Manning had helped establish `the NT Aboriginal Rights Council in 1962'’ [in fact, according to Manning, the NT Council for Aboriginal Rights was formed in December 1961] and were on its council, while every member of its executive was ``a full-blood aboriginal’‘."

"The focus of the struggle again shifted to independent activity of the Indigenous people themselves, and again the Communist Party of Australia (CPA), left-wing trade unionists and the socialist left offered vital support. The NT Council for Aboriginal Rights (NTCAR), in which communists George Gibbs and Brian Manning were leading members, played a crucial role. Gibbs was secretary of the NAWU’s militant waterside workers’ section, whose executive had a CPA majority. Manning was a wharfie and secretary of the CPA branch. The Darwin waterside workers had maintained their strong support for Aboriginal people’s rights that began in the 1920s"
.

http://indigenousx.com.au/thomas-mayor-we-wont-give-up-on-the-uluru-statement/
Sovereignty has not and never will be ceded by First Nations. White man’s law cannot remove sovereignty, but white man law does oppress – so long as we are not organised to affect it, and so long as our cultural authority is not written into the rule books.

The aboriginal Referendum Council conducted 45 days of dialogues involving more than 100 First Nations. The more than 1300 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants from across our vast continent poured their hearts and souls into the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Rather than being ostriches with our heads in
the sand, or buying into the narrow-minded false
summations from fanatical christian websites like the
Canberra Declaration it would be more beneficial to
be noisy emus and investigate with open hearts and
minds what the Voice to Parliament means for our country
and why it is important to vote YES.

This would make practical sense of what some are seeking
to demonize and politicize.

With that in mind there is a book now available by Charles
Prouse - "On the Voice to Parliament," where Kimberley
born Indigenous business leader Charles Prouse has spent
30 years working in Indigenous affairs across the
corporative, government, and non-profit sectors.

He's been asked many times how to fix "the Aboriginal
situation." He's also been asked about the Voice to Parliament.

It can be complex questions to answer but it can also be as
simple as listening, having compassion, and trusting that
together we can do this.

The book doesn't explain every single challenge and every
single solution - there are websites and factsheets for that.
The book gives us the human perspective.

The book is a breath of fresh air. It is a must-read conversation
of being informed about the YES vote and why the time has
come to start the journey for change.

Charles Prouse is a Nyikina man from the Kimberley,
WA, with as stated earlier 30 years experience in Indigenous affairs
across Australia. He holds a Masters in Public Administration
from Harvard University and a Bachelor of Science from the
University of WA.

The book is very readable.

My knowledge is based on facts
Foxy,
For all our sake please try to wake up, this is too time-wasting trying to get you to open your eyes & mind !

Dear Indyvidual,

Mate, I've done a quick run through of your contributions to this thread. You haven't uttered a single fact, just spewed out thought bubbles and slogans.

You really don't get to tell other people to open their minds and wake up.

Josephus,

You really need to get a life. Your ranting toxicity is pathetic. You really don't need to scrape every facebook meme or posts from right wing unChristian blog sites and then print them here unattributed as your own.

We are well aware you don't have too many original thoughts but it might just be worth taking a breather and think about your role in this

Why is the creation of racially based democratic inequality seen as a prerequisite for improving the lot for indigenous Australians? Why can't the problems of indigenous Australians be addressed in an Australia where all Australians are equal? I think that the principle of one Australian one vote should not be messed with.

You really don't get to tell other people to open their minds and wake up.
SteeleRedux,
Oh yes, I have to because you lot are not honest about the real agenda. You rely very heavily on the gullible Foxies of society when those with foresight are getting too close to exposing your ultimate goal.
You accuse those who can forsee of spewing out thought bubbles & slogans yet this is exactly what you are doing for your divisive & racist agenda.
Going by some of the British heritage bogans whose antics I have witnessed i can appreciate your vengeful agenda mentality but let me assure you that two Wrongs will never make a Right no matter how twisted an ideology you subscribe to !

Dear indyvidual,

So you have delivered a conga line of slogans to prove my point.

Real agenda, racist agenda, and vengeful agenda all in the one post.

How about just explaining in as clear language as you can, what this agenda is suppose to be.

Dear Fester,

Did you support Howard's Intervention or did you see it as racially based democratic inequality?

I am still to hear just who it is wants the change.
Names? Numbers?
I have yet to hear just one valid reason for a change.
All I hear is a lot of fluffy words saying how wonderful it would be.
All sounds a bit suss to me.
Somebody has organised a 'snow-job'?
What they are really after is power and control.
Everybody has a parliamentary representative.
Why cannot those who want to, or need to, bring their legitimate grievances to parliament that way?
They can.
They are just making excuses.

"Why is the creation of racially based democratic inequality seen as a prerequisite for improving the lot for indigenous Australians?"
- Maybe it's the only way they can 'close the gap' and create 'equality of outcome' for indigenous people.

Maybe they think if they can throw enough money at it, it will stop them drinking, fighting, hating and living as they do because of it.

They refer to all the 'statistics' and the statistics say, indigenous lead shorter lives, are imprisoned at a greater percentage than other groups etc, but everyone's too pc to say 'that's because they don't look after their health' 'drink too much' and 'commit crimes at a greater rate than other groups'.

How does one close that gap?

Dear Steele,

If the Howard Government did the same thing, then what racial or heritage group has greater democratic rights than other Australian citizens? I like the idea of democratic equality regardless of your ancestry or the time you have been an Australian citizen.

Real agenda, racist agenda, and vengeful agenda all in the one post.
SteeleRedux,
It's standard to ridicule when inconvenient evidence is presented. Mayo et al have made their direction abundantly clear in recent comments.

Steele, I have a very good life and I am not going to be bullied by Communists. I just quote their rantings to demonstrate who proposed the Voice which you gullibly accept as good policy.

For anybody really interested in myth-busting and truth
telling, the following link explains:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/18/kerry-obrien-and-thomas-mayo-join-forces-on-truth-telling-and-myth-busting-voice-guide

SR wrote: " and then print them here unattributed as your own."

For a moment I thought he was talking to/about Foxy. But it was indeed Josephus. But looking back through his posts, Josephus seems to be quite diligent in placing quotes ("") around those things he's, ahem...quoting. Unlike some.

But its true he doesn't always show the source of the quote or information. But then we see that a lot - for example claiming to have information from Spectator and then refusing to show its providence.

The more information that comes out about the Voice, the less likely it is to pass. But it reveals why the promoters of the referendum have been quite diligent and adamant that they won't reveal all the details. If they did reveal everything the referendum wouldn't stand a chance, unless they diluted its purpose beyond recognition.

Its been the problem for the government from day one. They need to walk a tight-rope between keeping the radical pro-Yes segments in the tent by holding out hope that their aims can be achieved while at the same time keeping those aims and the attempt to implement them secret from the voters. I think they're falling off the tight-rope.

Some people just don't get it.

No matter what explanations are provided (concerning
details on page 25) they will like Tony Abbott last
night on the 7.30 Report, they prefer to remain clueless.

Best to simply walk away. Hopefully the majority of
Australians have a greater capacity to sift the sheep from the
goats.

Those that don't have the capacity - generally won't
really matter in the sweep of history.

Reasons for voting YES:

. Ignorance of the consequences

. Deceitfulness about the consequences

. Feathering one's own nest

. Useful idiocy

Hi Foxy,

Its difficult to determine those few who are genuinely concerned, and are advocating a 'No' vote on that basis. from those like some on this Forum, who are simply driven by their own bigotry and racism, and will also vote 'No' because of that.

Dear Paul,

That's what I can't understand. The truth is out
there. All they need to do is walk into any book shop or
library and get the answers. The research is available.
Instead of simply repeating the lies and misinformation.

Can somebody PLEASE give me just ONE good and valid reason why we should put race related division back in to the constitution?
The so called 'reasons' put forward so far become empty nothingness when examined in the light of day.

Foxy,

You have been more than a little disingenuous and spreading misinformation.

The mafia supporting the YES vote has failed to clarify the following:
1 Why if Aboriginals occupy 5% of the seats in parliament with 2-4% of the population not heard in parliament?
2 Why the voice to parliament now must be included at every government and public service level.
3 Why the Labor won't release the exact changes they intend to make to the Constitution?
4 What protections are in place to prevent the "voice" from tying up every single piece of legislation in the courts?
5 How much will this voice cost the taxpayers?
6 Why is the government using the taxpayers' money to push only one side of this debate?
7 Finally why introducing racist clauses into the constitution is OK?

The "yes" bully boys only real

Dear Shadow Minister,

Our nation was built on a silent quicksand of wrongs.
Despite the sneers at the "black armband view of
history" most of us admit that terrible deeds were
done, then hidden.

Government apologies elated almost everyone. The shrill
massacre and wrong doing denials by so called "historians"
are slowly losing their momentum.

And there is one truth that is still hard to face is that
many Australians owe their comfortable living to the fact
that Indigenous people used to own the precious land, and
now we do.

None of us are guilty of the old wrongs, but we have
benefited enormously from them.

Unknowingly and reluctant to probe too deeply many of us have
lived and thrived on the proceeds of crime.

Now, we have been given an opportunity to get out those
black armbands and above all, not only to listen but take
action by voting YES at the referendum.

http://newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/new-evidence-reveals-aboriginal-massacres-committed-on-extensive-scale

It is quotes by Foxy like this that is misinformation
"And there is one truth that is still hard to face is that
many Australians owe their comfortable living to the fact
that Indigenous people used to own the precious land, and
now we do."
Foxy is ignorant that aboriginals own over 53% of Australia and own businesses funded by Australian Taxpayers. She is unaware that 90% of aboriginals live equally in our society and own their own homes. We do not owe them for crimes committed 240 years ago. These are lies promoted by Communist sympathizers.
I listened to The Mayor Voice Book on UTube and it is soft propaganda. This is a foothold for Communism to enter our Democrasy in the mind of Thomas Mayor. I've listened to aboriginal artists in Redfern paying rent and they are excited for the prospect of Yes when they will no longer have to rent but will instead be receiving money rent.

How we vote at the upcoming referendum will be
telling - are we mature enough as a nation to begin
to deal with the unfinished business of the past in order
to move forward towards peace and justice?
Or are we childishly looking for any lame excuses to justify
not doing so?

Personally, I encourage each and everyone of you to please
inform yourself leading up to the referendum with an open
mind and heart.

It's going to be up to you to sort out the facts from
the misinformation.

But, when you walk into the polling booth on referendum day,
you will have to make a decision that you and your
conscience are satisfied with.

See you on another discussion.

make a decision that you and your conscience are satisfied with.
Foxy,
I'm at ease with my decision which I base on moral & integrity. It's your decision which is clearly swayed by deceit & misinformation that I'm not comfortable with !

Dear individual,

My decision is based on information corroborated
by reliable sources. Yours is based on bias and
bigotry, inaccuracy, and taken from sources that
have twisted the truth for their own gains.

Big difference. Your conscience is skewed.

"my decision which I base on moral & integrity" haaaaaaaaaaaaa! This coming from a bigoted racists who calls others 'Concrete Jungle Bunnies"! Foxy you gotta laugh at some other peoples delusional thinking, its not a joke, Indy actually thinks that he got some kind of moral integrity.

Looking again at Foxy's posts she believes we owe aboriginals rent, it being their land. If you put the rent two 2 cents in the Dollar at the unimproved value of the land per annum, currently blocks in the new housing area I see on TV are listed from $450,000 means we pay $4,500 per annum for living on aboriginal land. This is equal to non-Islamists tax for living in a Muslim country.

"The jizyah is described in the Qur&#702;&#257;n as a tax that is imposed on a certain erring faction from among the People of the Book (Ahl al-Kit&#257;b; non-Muslim groups such as Christians and Jews recognized in the Qur&#702;&#257;n as possessing a divine scripture) who violate their own religious and ethical principles (9:29)"

http://paytherent.net.au/formob/
"All decisions about how Rent is spent and administered are made by a Sovereign Body and the Pay the Rent Sovereign Body is only accountable to mob. We will have regular meetings to report back to the Aboriginal community about initiatives funded and support provided. The first meeting was held in February 2020 at the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service.
Pay the Rent is not accountable to rent payers in relation to how Rent is paid.

Rent money is spent on both community survival needs and the fight for justice.
Any inquiries – please comtact Pay the Rent Executive Officer executiveofficer@paytherent.net.au

THIS PUTS NON-ABORIGINALS AS SECOND CLASS CITIENS IN LAND OUR PARENTS FOUGHT TO PROTECT IN WW2 AGAINST INVASION.

Josephus,

I wish that you would stop telling people what I
believe. And speaking on my behalf. Your views,
assumptions, or interpretations of my opinions
are yours - not mine. Speak for yourself - not me.

Foxy,

The "old" wrongs done long ago before our time are not fixed by creating new wrongs today. There is either racial equality under the law or there is not. The "new" apartheid proposed by the "voice"

Racial equality is a foreign concept to supporters of the "voice/veto"

I cannot understand how making people democratically privileged on a heritage/racial basis is fundamental to improving the lot of indigenous Australians. I think that Albanese is employing Stanley Milgram's psychology in trying to push the "Yes" vote through. The catch for him is that there are authority figures of a differing opinion.

A "no" vote is a violation of the principles of democracy.

"2. Equality

It is not only important but necessary that all people are treated equally in a democracy. This means that they are not discriminated against because of their ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation. It also means that people have equal access to the free enjoyment of their rights – for example, equal access to the voting booth. And when it does come time to vote, it means that every vote counts the same – your vote is just as valuable and counts just as much as the wealthiest or most powerful person in your country. That’s the most fundamental element of equality in a democracy. "

https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/principles-of-democracy/44151

Again, Foxy speaks with forked Tongue, says one thing [It is aboriginal land from which we gained benefit] then assumes she means something else {Well I do not mean we pay for our benefits from living on aboriginal land}. She is one of the best advocates for voting NO as she is not honest toward her opinions. Say one thing and mean another.

If you believe it is aboriginal land, it is assumed you believe we owe rent, if you believe it is freehold land and you brought it no land rent to anyone is payable.

We have a community garden next to identified aboriginal tribal land, we have offered to help them develop a bush tucker garden and orchard, they are not interested as they would have to attend to the plants.

This morning, talking heads advised that both Dutton and Albanese want a Voice: and the are "not that far apart". Dutton wants a legislated Voice and Albanese wants his in the Constitution.

Once again, there is not much difference between the major parties (the vote in Parliament to hold the referendum was 59 for and only 19 against) and we are now a virtual one-party state which allows the people a token say only every three years.

This referendum is a wonderful opportunity for voters to say, 'Up yours' to the Coalition and Labor; and give serious thought to putting the Coalition, Labor and the Greens at the bottom at the next election and every election thereafter.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The Voice to Parliament is a question of equity.
It has no power of veto. It will not create new
wrongs. It will give our Indigenous People an
opportunity to try to find solutions and not
repeat old wrongs.

We're being asked to give them this opportunity.
Nothing else has worked. We can't refuse their
request. That is what I strongly believe.

Australia now risks a Brexit-style social and
political polarisation and setting back progress on
reconciliation and overcoming Indigenous disadvantage.

I hope that the Coalition will eventually choose to
support the Voice. There's so many good people
within their ranks who already do. Senators like
James Paterson amongst others.

Dear Foxy,

A catch cry of the French Revolution (1789) was "Liberty, Equality Fraternity", not "Liberty, Equity, Fraternity".

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/coming-to-france/france-facts/symbols-of-the-republic/article/liberty-equality-fraternity

Believing that removing a fundamental basis of democracy is essential for improving the lot of indigenous Australians sounds nonsensical to me.

Dear Fester,

That reminds me of the golden oldie:

"Don't throw a boomerang at his head,
his IQ will double!"

Then there's the Gettysburg Address, which begins, "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

Advocates of the "Yes" vote need to explain why Australia needs to abandon a foundation of democracy in order to help indigenous Australians.

Dear Fester,

The following link may help:

http://welcometocountry.org/australias-brutal-treatment-of-aboriginal-people/

I see Foxy supports the line -"there is no denying the brutal treatment of Aboriginal people in Australia that continues on today.' She deliberately pushes lies to place untold guilt on non-aboriginals. There is NO violence against aboriginals as she claims. If such is happening, she has a social responsibility to notify the police.

We owe them their Voice of which currently there are 300 aboriginal voices speaking to Government. They have control of THEIR Country. Yet she says we went to war with them, if such is the case, we won the war, and their sovereignty is extinguished.

THE VOICE IS ALL ABOUT PAYING REPERATIONS TO FAMILIES OF GRIEVED ANCESTORS. Foxy is a Biden supporter and sees families of former slaves being compensated.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you. In return, here is a link that might help your understanding of The Voice, and I can assure you that neither author has had an IQ enhancement with boomerang therapy.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/the-voice/2023/05/the-elites-ardent-advocacy-of-inequality/

Dear Fester,

Thank You for the Quadrant link. I used to read
Quadrant when Les Murray was the Literary Editor.
He passed on in 2019. Great poet and human being.

Being hit by a boomerang might have improved
Keith Windshuttle's IQ. I guess we shall never
know.

Here are some answers to key questions regarding
the Voice:

http://reporter.anu.edu.au/all-stories/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-voice

I have been reading the rambling explanations of the 'yes' campaign.
And yes, they are rambling.
As I expected, when one drills down in to them, they become meaningless nothingness.
But many persons are swayed by them, and convinced of their legitimacy?
If that is so, I am worried about the mental acuity of the australian population.
I am beginning to think it would believe that ice would survive in the hot desert sand if you said it would.
And I have yet to hear just ONE valid reason for the proposed change.
And I have yet to find out exactly who wants it.
Is that something known only to the wind, as it whistles its way round secretive, out of the way, corners?

Hi Ipso Fatso,

I think the referendum is about whether to ditch or keep the founding principle of equality in Australia's democracy.

A corollary of the equality principle is the idea of the importance of an argument over the person presenting it. I cannot help but notice that the proponents of the "Yes" vote are more preoccupied with the attributes of those arguing for the "No" vote (racist, bigoted, old and irrelevant, stupid, hit in the head with a boomerang as a few examples) than they seem to be with the arguments presented. I would not be surprised if they have little value for the principle and can understand why they might abandon it by voting "No".

Hi Foxy,

This is a good read as to why The Voice is important. It addresses the common concerns some have, and is a rebuff to those peddling lies and misinfomation.

http://www.anu.edu.au/about/strategic-planning/indigenous-voice-to-parliament?fbclid=IwAR3N-aj9h8vAiNJXc-EvzPigLg04jFBKQHnScA9dSGplNeSPZ5P805rTq

The "voice" referendum is about equity and how to destroy it.

Hi Paul,

Here are some contradictions from your own link:

"The Voice does not confer 'special' rights on anyone."

In explaining this point, the link states:

"Instead, the Voice would give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples an opportunity to make representations to the Parliament and the government. All Australians have the same opportunity. "

This is a contradictory statement as indigenous Australians will have the ability to make representations to parliament via the Voice in addition to the means available to make representations to parliament open to all Australians. This violates the democratic principle of equality.

"The Voice would constitutionally recognise the unique status and position that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples hold in Australia as the original occupiers of the Australian continent."

The above statement violates the democratic principle of equality as it would distinguish some Australian citizens from others.

"The Parliament can make laws that only affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples."

Again, this violates the democratic principle of equality as by the principle laws must apply equally to all citizens of a nation.

So, far from making me believe that I have been misled, your link supports my concern that a "Yes" vote will debase a foundation of our democracy.

Dear Paul,

I have nothing further to add to this discussion.
Australians will in the end make their own decisions.
Hopefully, they will get it right.

Enjoy your Sunday.

Hi Fester,

You object to Indigenous representation to parliament on the grounds that they would have some "special opportunity" not afforded to ordinary Australians. Do you also object to those individuals and vested interest group that now have "special opportunity" to make representation to government, individuals like 'Twiggy' Forrest, The Mining Council, ACTU, Employer organisations. They certainly have far more access to politicians and government than you or I. Put simply politicians/government need to be informed by others outside of politics, it leads to hopefully better government. Since there is no veto powers, or binding powers, I see nothing wrong with 'The Voice'.

If the referendum fails and there is every possibility it will, just as if it succeeds, it wont be the end of democracy in Australia.

Hi Paul,

Andrew Forest has recognition for his demonstrated ability, not his ancestry. Similarly, private organisations of citizens with common interests can make representations to parliament. This is an opportunity open to all Australians. What the referendum proposes is the recognition of a group of Australians on the basis of their heritage and creation of a public body that can make representations for them to parliament.

You might note that indigenous Australians already have a public body that makes representations of their interests to parliament. That body was established by a parliament that represents all Australians. I see no reason to change the status quo.

If you believe anyone born in Australia has lesser link to the land than whose ancestors once lived here 60,000 years ago is delusional. We borne here of ancestors born here have as much links to this country as any present generation. To divide the country on the basis of one's ancestry undermines unity and equality - democracy.

Some want to change Australia day, but do not recognize all new Citizens that have taken out citizenship do on the 26th January, and that day means a historical milestone in their journey.

Citizens that have taken out citizenship do on the 26th January, and that day means a historical milestone in their journey.
Josephus,
As if the racists would give a damn about that !

The Western Australian Government has introduced "The Cultural Heritage act" which means anyone doing groundwork on their land must employ an aboriginal elder at $160 per hour to ensure that it is not affecting cultural sensitivities. This includes farmers cultivating their land and fencing as well as mining. All the primary producers who supply food and products from mining are affected by this bill. If the Voice gets up it will be rolled out across the nation. VOTE NO TO STOP LABOUR DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY.

Josephus,

You really do come across as a lying miserable little git spreading the disinformation you are fed far and wide. A useful idiot for some of the most powerful in the country.

Your last post has you at it again.

You claim: "anyone doing groundwork on their land must employ an aboriginal elder at $160 per hour to ensure that it is not affecting cultural sensitivities."

No it isn't everyone is it. It only applies to those in already identified culturally sensitive areas. It is a sensible law which will hopefully stop mining companies blowing up significant site with gay abandon.

Most people support putting better controls in place to stop such egregious acts. However you aren't most people are you. You are little more than a regurgitator of crap.

This isn't facebook.

Give it a miss.

Thanks Steele,

Another one of Proud Boy Jose' lies! The blokes racism is such, he can't help himself.

"anyone doing groundwork on their land must employ an aboriginal elder at $160 per hour" that's the lie from the Forum Trumpster.

mining companies blowing up significant site with gay abandon.
SteeleRedux,
Those actions are unforgivable even if they're unofficially sanctioned.

Steele and Paul both ignore thousands of signatures from farmers as lies who are concerned for cultivation and fencing. Both typical dead heads.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-16/wa-aboriginal-cultural-heritage-act-confusion/102484134
"More than 17,000 people have signed a petition calling for the act to be delayed due to uncertainty. Gascoyne pastoralist Harry McKeough has spent the past month clearing fences and completing earthworks for erosion control and landcare at his property, Carey Downs.

"Building a shed, I hear, is a tier-3 job, but we still don't have enough information," Mr McKeough said.

"Western Australian farmers now require a permit in negotiation with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act if land is disturbed to a depth of 50mm.

“Everyday farming acts like scarifying, seeding, delving, deep ripping, shed building, drainage work, fencing, even pulling out a dead tree stump will require a permit to do so,”

It is a “tiny taste” of what it will be like if a Voice to Parliament is implemented".

The Australian, "New Aboriginal heritage laws ‘shut down’ tree planting event. A well-publicized event to plant trees at Wonthella Bush Reserve was cancelled due to confusion caused by WA’s new heritage legislation.

So the malignant lying twat Josephus is at it again.

Let's look at his post. He appears to be quoting from the ABC article he linked to.

And indeed his first two quotes are from the article, but the other two have been pulled from Sky News' Howard Dean even though they are made to look as though they are from the ABC piece.

Quote

"Western Australian farmers now require a permit in negotiation with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act if land is disturbed to a depth of 50mm.

“Everyday farming acts like scarifying, seeding, delving, deep ripping, shed building, drainage work, fencing, even pulling out a dead tree stump will require a permit to do so,”

End quote.

In actual fact the article paints a far different story and quotes a farmer who had attended the information meeting:

Quote

Chris King has identified Aboriginal heritage on his property and said he was relieved how he worked on his farm would not have to change.

"I was unsure about the depth that you would be able to work in a paddock but activity now says that we can go down to half a metre, which is a considerable depth," he said.

"Like for like was the words used today, and if you have been doing an activity you can continue to do it.

"I think a lot of people would take some reassurance from that."

End quote.

Linda Burney has rightly criticised some of the No campaign as using Trump style tactics to obfuscate and misinform. This is very much a shining example.

Do not take this bloke seriously. He is listening far more to the devil on his shoulder than any angel but to a large degree his is a mindless regurgitator of agenda driven lever pullers. He might try little sleights of hand like this attempt, but on the whole just recognise him for what he is.

Again, Steele ignores the 17,000 signatures of concerned farmers and assumes I am only making this story up.

Apparently, there are things that need to be done to improve outcomes for a particular group.
When I read about these things, I wonder: why cannot they be done now, if they are so important?
I doubt a non-binding requirement in the constitution would make any difference.
The whole idea of a 'voice' just doesn't make sense.
I still think it is a 'snow-job'.
I listened to a member of parliament who professes to speak for the yes campaign.
I have not heard such a disjointed and rambling 'explanation' for a long time.
And it said nothing of value.
It was all fluffy words without substance.
Do these persons think we don't notice?

Josephus,

The farmers want it delayed due to uncertainty about how it will work in practice, they are not saying it shouldn't happen, in fact there is wide support for getting rid of the loopholes which allowed the destruction of the cave by Rio Tinto.

It seems that when they get a chance to have the thing explained to them they are far more at ease.

Why are you so at pains to link it to a No vote is the question and we both know the answer to that.

Dear Ipso facto,

Given the widespread consultation that went into the Uluru Statement from the Heart I am in little doubt that recognition in the form of a Voice to parliament is what a sizable proportion of our indigenous brothers and sisters want. As there real is no skin off my nose nor yours why not accede to an advisory body in our Constitution. With Australia being the only one of the three similar ex-colonial countries to give recognition and treaty to the original inhabitants.

It is time we moved forward as a nation.

How many of the proposed Voice Panel are actually indigenous ? There's no guarantee that they have any intention to work for the benefit of our society. To me it simply looks like a handful of revenge-obsessed looking for enough power to get revenge for discrimination that didn't even involve them !

One Teela Reid, a young aboriginal and an "amazing person" according to Albanese, makes no bones about what the Voice is all about; and we need to listen because she, like her mate Mayo, is "part of the framework" behind the planned assault on the Australian Constitution.

The Voice is the first step in the "redistribution of power" says this young lady, and "reparations for what 'first nations' people have lost". Reconciliation is "not enough" for her.

"It will be very difficult for a government to ignore this Voice". "It will be powerful".

Not quite what Albanese has been telling us!

Albanese also left out this person's desire to 'get back to the radical roots of the Communist Party'.

Not sure what she means by that. She is too young to understand anything about the Communists, and there are no such roots to get back to.

She looks to be a sweet little thing, and speaks ever so nicely, but what she says puts her in the dangerous lunatic class.

The video can be seen on the Fair Australia website today.

Indyvidual,

Good question.

ABS figures show an inrease in the aboriginal population of 73% between 2011 and 2021.

Well, there was a 73% increase in people CLAIMING to be aboriginal in censuses. Not quite the same thing!

If this 'growth' continues, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of Australia will overtake that of Australia as a whole within 80 years, even after mass immigration.

More bull: the 2021-22 Deaths in Custody report showing that the rate of indigenous deaths in custody has long been roughly HALF the rate for non-indigenous Australians has been removed from the website.

Teela Reid: PM’s Voice architect. along with radical activist and militant unionist Thomas Mayo – the PM “remarkable people” advising him on the Voice. Reid is a winner of the Marie Claire “Voice of Now” award at 2022 Women of the Year awards. Afterwards she modelled for the fashion magazine.

She was part of the ABC’s controversial coronation panel with Stan Grant and argued that Australia needs a “reckoning”, claiming that reconciliation “is not enough” Afterwards she criticized our nation on social media, saying that “racism is synonymous with Australia” and we are “a nation without a soul”.

Teela’s fight to abolish Australia Day since at least 2020.

The day after Indigenous Australians minister Linda Burney told Parliament the Voice won’t try to change the date of Australia Day, Reid hit back on Twitter:

“It is truly disingenuous to be claiming mob won’t be demanding to #AbolishAustralia day. “It really is disingenuous for an Indigenous Minister Linda Burney to pitch the potential limits of the Voice to try and make it more palatable. Aus Govs insistence to maintain #Australia Day really flies in the face of decades of Blak [sic] activism.”

“It might be the Australian Government ‘preference’ to keep things like Australia Day, but trying to limit the scope of what the people can advocate for to change is just stupid.”

In January, 2021, Reid told the SMH that Australia Day should be abolished “until we have an honest national conversation".

Teela on communism, ‘reparations and compensation’ and ‘demolishing the system’
Reid appeared alongside Thomas Mayo as guest speaker for the Search Foundation, the “successor organization of the Communist Party of Australia”. At the seminar, which was held to commemorate the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of Australia, she said:

“I think that what we need is to get back to these radical roots of the Communist Party.”

“In the discussions around treaty it is critical that we get our nation to the point of enshrining a First Nations Voice. Voice is about ensuring that all the First Nations have a seat at the treaty table.”

In 2020, she told the Search Foundation, that the Voice is “the first step in redistributing power”:
The Voice is the first step in redistributing power and enabling self-determination.”

In a speech posted on the Search Foundation’s Facebook page in February 2020, Reid said “First Nations want the power in their hands, that’s what the Voice is about” and “the Voice is a journey with all Australians to begin to demolish the systems that continue to oppress us”.

In March 2023, Teela told attendees at a Voice to Parliament forum held at Blackwood Uniting Church, “It’s going to be very difficult, once we succeed, for a government to ignore this Voice. It will be powerful.”

Like Thomas Mayo, Teela Reid also calls for “reparations and compensation” to be paid to Indigenous Australians. In a May 2023 interview about the Voice to Parliament with the Ethics Centre, she said:

“You know that there does need to be reparations here, there does need to be compensation, there does need to be these tough decisions and reparations for what First Nations people have lost.

In 2020, she wrote in the Griffith Review that “the struggle for a First Nations Voice” is about the fight for “compensation and reparations”:

“The struggle for a First Nations Voice has been 250 years coming, ever since Captain Cook landed uninvited in 1770. It is about the fight for land rights, water rights and the right to save our planet from the colonial structures that have attempted to destroy it. A constitutionally entrenched First Nations Voice is recognition that our sovereignty never was, never will be ceded.”

From Senator Jacinta Price.

Fair Australia

Note, Paul, Foxy, and Paul who are communist sympathizers will not be affected by Jacinta's report on the architects of the Yes campaign, as they want disruption to the Australian way of life and power given to elite communist elders. THE YES CAMPAIGN IS A VOTE FOR UNELECTED POWER.

Am I a communist?

Lets see.

My family fled their
country from communism. My family members were
brutally tortured and murdered for their Christian religious
beliefs, others were shipped to
Siberia. All by communists. My parents came to this country
fleeing from communism. And because I now support the YES
vote in the Voice to Parliament in this country - I am accused of being a communist - by a self-proclaimed Christian.

What should I call the accuser? Should I seek legal advice?
This is slander - and should not be allowed on a discussion
forum such as this one.

Surely no

For the undecided, look here for 50 reasons to vote NO:-

https://quadrant.org.au/

Nietzsche talked about the Knightly Code vs the Priestly Code.

Nietzsche equated Christianity with the Priestly Code and I expect that he would put Communism in a bucket that was even more priestly.

Perhaps Christianity contains elements of both the Knightly and Priestly codes. The Protestant ethic seems to be more Knightly than the Methodists.

Many Christian groups have moved to the communist side- even the assumed conservative Catholic Church.

A person can say they aren't a communist- but if they say the same things as a communist then you might doubt their view.

In modern times there are a number of biblical passages which have been used to justify a more communist way of looking at the world- but in such a vast body of knowledge- as is the law itself- you could interpret it in many ways

But the vision of Communism's Crystal Palace is different than the reality of Communist Leaders who just want total power- and are happy to destroy the principle of separation of powers in order to achieve it. Communism is a very ironic philosophy and can be compared to Taoism where you "do something by doing the opposite".

Yin Yang- Dragon and Lotus- Anger and calm- Jungian Archetypes
To appreciate life one must study death.
To get total power you must talk about total freedom.

Orwell- freedom is slavery. War is peace. Torture is love. Scarcity is plenty. Lies are truth

George Orwell also said:

The further a society drifts from truth
the more it will hate those who speak it.

Who control the past controls the future.
Who control the present controls the past.

The most effective way to destroy people
is to deny and obliterate their own understanding
of their history.

Foxy, exactly.
However, I never called you a communist, but you have communist sympathies. You prefer thought control rather than diverse opinions.

Josephus,

You called me a communist sympathizer who wants
disruption to the Australian way of life and
power given to communist elders.

That is not only insulting but hurtful. Spreading
lies and misinformation are tactics that communists
use to try to shut up their opponents. They don't
allow the truth of what they don't want to hear.
They are the ones who use methods for thought
control - like you are attempting to do here under
a supposed "patriotic guise". Stalin did the same with
the Ukrainian famine, and Putin is doing it today with
his invasion of the Ukraine.

Stalin and Hitler both used these tactics. And you are
following suit.

Please go away and pick on someone who enjoys
reading what you have to say. I am throwing you in
the bin of - "don't read or respond."
You've lost all of my respect.

Josephus,

You rubbish on with: "You prefer thought control rather than diverse opinions."

Diverse opinions? That's a laugh.

This from the regurgitator of the forum?

You don't present diverse opinions because you don't provide them. It is understandable that a Trumpian foreigner like CM might be fixated on communists but well over halve the times it has been used in this thread has been by you.

This is yet another likely vain call for you to think for yourself.

Isn't that what the Voice is supposed to for ? The NIAA is already operating !
Look it up.

Our vision
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are heard, recognised and empowered.

Our purpose
The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) works in genuine partnership to enable the self-determination and aspirations of First Nations communities. We lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.

Kudos Josephus. Foxy seems to enjoy playing the victim card.

Funny Steele, Paul and Foxy will not comment on Thomas Mayor, or Teela Reid who proposed the Voice and wrote the background work on the Voice which Albanese upholds as his special advisers. It is plain to see where the Voice is going, and it is not as presented, a modest recognition of aboriginal occupation in 1788, it is about future control. The reinstatement of culture and law, a spear in the leg to hobble the colonizers Government. The three stooges see it as unity and happy family.
[http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/law/tribal-punishment-customary-law-payback##What%20Is%20Payback? ]

Dear Canem Malum,

Lick my face and wag your tail.

There's a good dog.

As for the Voice?

The proposal for the Voice was formerly endorsed by
Indigenous leaders with the 2017 Uluru Statement From
The Heart delivered at the First Nations Constitutional
Convention. This has been explained many times in this
discussion. As for Thomas Mayo? He and Kerry O'Brien
have written a book explaining the Voice. It's available
at all good book-shops and libraries.
The Hear

Foxy,
What's your opinion on the workings of the NIAA ? To me & many others it seems it should be doing already what the Voice is proposing !
At least their Website states so !

Dear Individual,

The Voice will be an independent body, unlike the NIAA,
which is an internal government agency run by the
executive government.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency was established by an Executive Order signed by the Governor-General on 29 May 2019.

The Executive Order gives the NIAA a number of functions, including:

to lead and coordinate Commonwealth policy development, program design and implementation and service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
to provide advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians on whole-of-government priorities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia’s Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians; and
to lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation.
Foxy,
So, if the Voice becomes a reality do you think the NIAA should then be abolished ?

Dear Individual,

The following link may help towards understanding the
differences between the NIAA and the Voice:

http://rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/indigenous-australians-do-not-already-have-a-voice-to-parliament

Well according to Foxy's post, "ADVICE: the Voice will be able to advise parliament and the executive government, whereas the NIAA can only advise the latter.
ANU’s Professor Wood said that while public servants were "meant to give free and fearless advice", they were not, in a broad sense, "responsible for the decisions they make, because it's the minister, at the end of the day, who makes the final decision".

This means the Voice will have more voice power over executive Government decisions than the NIAA currently and have self-determination independent of Government. It gives them powers to administer aboriginal policy independent of the Government. Aboriginal affairs should be taken out of representative Government, which means the NIAA would morph into the Voice.

No other section of the community has this powerful Voice directly to executive Government. It will be overtaken by radicals and those in the future influencing aboriginal opinion - like Mayor and Reid. They already have a vision for the Voice.
.

Foxy,
that link confirms what's wrong with the the industry ! Morally & technically the Voce is lacking the integrity & vision needed to do what they're trying to make us believe but not what they really have planned !

Dear Individual,

I have no control over what you and others, choose to
believe. The facts have been presented so many times
in this discussion.

You have a choice - history is calling.
I see no further point in arguing. No matter what the
result will be nothing productive will be achieved by
arguing with people who continue to regurgitate lies
and misinformation.

The world will judge us. The measure of our society and
history is our fidelity to our principles. We must remind
our government and our people to remain faithful to those
principles or otherwise our society, like so many in the
past, will be swept on the ash heap of history.

Great to see Foxy has admitted her defeat with her intrenched opinion - "nothing productive will be achieved by arguing with people who continue to regurgitate lies and misinformation".

"We encourage ALL Australians to read reliable research
to make sure we're well informed about what the Voice is,
and what it is not. Don't get sucked in by myths like
the 10 we've debunked..."

"The Voice is nothing to be scared of. On the contrary we should
be proud of. Amending our constitution to give First Nations
people a Voice to Parliament would demonstrate we're a mature
nation, one that's ready to recognise the past injustices and
committed to building a better future in which the rights and
dignity of ALL Australians are protected equally."

There's more at:

http://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2023/02/27/1385518/voice-to-parliament-debunking-10-myths-and-misconcenptions

Voting YES to the Voice will save lives.
Voting no will invalidate them!

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2023/mar/23/australia-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-vote-yes-will-save-lives-no-will-invalidate-them

The facts have been presented so many times
in this discussion.
Foxy,
Yes, we know, we've been trying to get you see those facts but you steadfastly refuse to accept them !
You're such a sucker for ignorant academic self-serve dribble. You really need to re-read your posts because that 'd be the only chance you'll ever get to see sense. You keep rabbling on about facts, you wouldn't know fact if you fell over one let alone a fact that concerns the guilt industry.
Some have already started to look into Mayo's heritage & thus far found no indigenous connection apart that he grew up in communities but then, so did many other non-indigenous !

Dear Individual,

I believe in getting the facts right.

I believe in getting the facts right.
Foxy,
We all try to do that & base many on my own observations. How do you verify yours ? By reading self-serving guilt industry funded academic theses ?
Be very cautious of what these people present ! When a good amount of Dollars beckons, integrity takes a back seat !

Dear Individual,

Facts can be fact-checked. Information is available
in libraries, museums, archival records and documents
that one can access and learn through doing research.
Facts don't cease to exist because you don't accept
or understand them.

Every voice raised against racism chips away at its power.
We can't afford to stay silent.

Facts don't cease to exist because you don't accept
or understand them.
Foxy,
Finally, you're starting to understand !

Dear Individual,

You still don't understand.

Get your facts right. Until then there's no
point in continuing talking to you.
End of discussion.

Foxy's repetition of her evil doesn't make her holy.

It is absurd to divide people
into good and bad.
People are either charming or tedious.
(Oscar Wilde).

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
(Thomas Jefferson).

Dear Foxy,

'Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
(Thomas Jefferson)."

Yes, but you have to know the difference. Things we think unjust today, such as the evacuation of white women and children from Panang in the second world war, leaving the locals to the Japanese, was considered appropriate by allied commanders.

I believe that the reason people think the above example horrible today is because they better understand the principle of equality and its implications. The Voice does not fit with that ethos.

Dear Fester,

The law of karma will prevail.

Our job is to overcome evil with good.
We shall reap what we sow.

Foxy believes voting No is going to destroy lives - absolutely no factual proof. Voting Yes will save lives - again no factual proof.
Until aboriginal culture changes there is no possibility their lives will change. They want to hang on to a 60,000 culture of smoke, clay paint, gum leaves and dust, nothing will change.

Last year the NIAA spent the equivalent of $46,000 on each person identified as aboriginal, 1400 of those persons were administrators of the funds. Only 40% of those administrators identified as aboriginal.

We shall reap what we sow.
Foxy,
I hope you do but leave thinking folk out of it !

Dear Individual,

Think before you speak, read before you think.

Foxy,
Any chance of you ever following your own advice ?

Dear Individual,

I don't give advice unless I'm prepared
to follow it myself. I practice what I preach
or at least I try to. (smile).

The referendum for an Indigenous voice to parliament has suffered a collapse in support among women voters and in the regions as the referendum heads toward defeat, with just 41 per cent of voters now saying they will vote yes.

So it looks as though evil will not triumph.

shadowminister,
Evil will jump ship & continue the sinister agenda from the inside !

Hi All

What we've all been waiting for:

Here are the Voice Yes and No cases just published on the Australian Electoral Commission site today. These are the:

- "Yes" case in 13 poorly formatted (by Labor) pages http://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-no.pdf?v=1.1
All the gaps in the pages will likely have NICE PICTURES expensively funded by we Tax Payers.
Concerning the last page, remember children, if someone can hit a tennis ball well they are authorities on complex politico-legal issues.

and

- the perfectly reasonable "No" case in 7 pages http://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-no.pdf?v=1.1

Cheers Mavs

WHOOPSY CORRECTION! HAD YOUSE GOING THERE ;)

Hi All

What we've all been waiting for:

Here are the Voice Yes and No cases just published on the Australian Electoral Commission site today. These are the:

- "Yes" case in 13 unfortunately, poorly formatted (by Labor) pages http://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-yes.pdf?v=1.0

and

- the sound "No" case in 7 pages http://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-no.pdf?v=1.1

Cheers Mavs

Hi All,

Constitutional law experts should be the ones we need
to listen to. And most support the YES case and see no
problem with doing that.

The Australian Financial Review tells us that
"Leading Constitutional Law expert Greg Craven
will complain to the Australian Electoral Commission
after MPs against the Voice and against Indigenous
having a Voice to Parliament used his quotes in an essay
against the body.

These shameful tactics are now becoming the norm in
Australian politics.

Here's another link giving details of Constitutional law
experts and the legal tick they give to the Voice to
Parliament submission:

http://theguardian.com/world-news/2023/apr/14/constitutional-expert-gives-legal-tick-to-indigenous-voice-in-parliamentary-submission

Sorry for the typo. Here's the link again:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/14/constitutional-expert-gives-legal-tick-to-indigenous-voice-in-parliamentary-submission

Foxy, High-profile people are to be believed in what they say in public otherwise they are irrelevant.

No all of them. Some follow the party's dictates.
Others lie through their teeth.

The Constitutional Law Experts though - have to tell the truth.
Their reputations are at stake.

The debate is coming down to one side, the YES campaign, relying on honesty and integrity with their argument in favour of The Voice, whilst the NO campaign are resorting to lies and misinformation to hood-wink good people into voting their way.

We seen it with the Gay Marriage debate now the same mob are peddling lies about The Voice to parliament. Unfortunately this time they may well win out.

Paul, the NO case, sees the proposal and those behind the Yes case in the same position. Deception and lies and cover up of the real agenda. You just follow the party line in the belief to introduce the overthrow of colonialism.

None of those supporting the Uluru statement need the Voice as they are among the average Australian, from professors, politicians, and high profile half caste of mixed heritage.

Dear Paul,

I had the biggest blow-up with my younger brother yesterday.
He rang me (it was my birthday) and after a while began raving
on about how our Victorian Premier - Dan Andrews should be
hanged for cancelling the Commonwealth Games. Then my brother
got onto the YES Voice to Parliament - and asked me if I watched
Sky News? And how much respect he had for the commentators there.
And much more.

Finally when he began spouting how the ABC is totally under the
thumb of the Labor Party - I hung up on him.

My brother. I couldn't believe it.

Anyway, later that evening he rang up and apologized for upsetting
me which I thought was very decent of him. I rang him back this
morning and we talked for a while.

Politics can be controversial. Especially - this YES Voice to
Parliament which has a lot of people riled up.

My brother has always lived and worked in regional Australia.
He's lived amongst Aboriginal people. He's a teacher and was
a school principal before he retired. Today - he's part of the
"grey nomads" and is travelling with his wife around the
country - while they still can.

I love him dearly - and he's always been a great guy.

I was truly shocked to hear his political views.

I won't be discussing things with him any more.

In any case - it will be the Australian people who decide the
outcome of the Voice.

I've got my fingers crossed that the result will be positive
and that not many think like my brother does.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Dear Foxy,

You should not condemn your brother for holding different opinions to you. The fact that you think your brother a good person might suggest that being a good person is not dependent on holding a particular opinion on one subject or another.

Paul,

Gay marriage (which I supported) was about granting one section of society the same rights as the rest of the population in a way that would not adversely affect anyone else.

The voice is about granting one racial group rights over and above what the rest of the population has in a way that potentially will affect everyone else.

Luckily it looks as though this racial bigotry will lose.

Dear Fester,

Thank You for your kind words.

I love my brother dearly and he did send me a text
apologising for his heated words. I rang him back
and everything's good between us now. It wasn't
so much that he had a different opinion - it was the
insults he was hurling that hurt at the time.

But we've sorted things out. So it's all good.

Hi Foxy,

No need to have a blow up with your bro over these sorts of things, the cut and thrust of political discussion can have that effect. My older bro, 50 years a public high school teacher, is politically a far right nut job (in my opinion) and we've had many a "discussion" on all things political. A bit odd, as so many on here stereotype school teachers as raving lefties, seems not all.

Dear Paul,

My brother and I have a good relationship.
I've just learned not to discuss politics with
him.

Dear Foxy,

That is good to hear. My family is a political spectrum as well, and I observe plenty of no go areas. One of my nieces even banned her mum (my sister) from commenting on her blog.

Dear Fester,

Life is interesting isn't it?

And I like the quote - "It's easy to believe in
freedom of speech for those with whom we agree."

I'm trying to learn not to be too critical.
Trying is the key word. (smile).