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.