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.