A belated thanks for your affirmation ttbn. I guess I differ from you in that I don't think the "no" argument need extend beyond the violation of equality, although the introduction of WA's heritage legislation could not have come at a worse time for the "yes" argument. It has been a complete mess and has seen WA Labor's popularity collapse as the stories have spread in the month since it took effect. A $2.5 million "fee" for a tree planting program? That doesn't leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling of reconciliation.

Dear Fester,

That's where you're wrong. The Voice will not affect
any other group. It will not affect the rest of us at
all. That is misinformation bandied about by the Murdoch,
News Corp. NO campaign - and unfortunately some people
like yourself believes it. A pity. A true shame.

The Voice is a simple proposition that boils down to ane
thing - ASVICE. Only.

It is nothing more than a group of Indigenous Australians
advising this government on how to best help Indigenous
Australians.

If you think that the Race clause should be removed from
the Constitution - then you should support the Voice to
allow self determination of our First Nations people.
We can't continue to keep making decisions for them.

They have invited us to give them this chance.

I for one cannot say NO - when this is their country.
And keep continuing to leave them out of things.

I've stayed out of the recent population debates here. But this caught my eye: "When population is too high, as it has been in the last 2000 years,..."

The population 2000 yrs ago was around 150 million. Remove 98% of humanity to get back to that?

For all of human history, the urge to have children has been governed by self-interest. Man had as many kids as their resources allows. Even more to the point people needed to kids who would be able to look after them as they aged. The more kids you had the better your older life would be by selling off the daughters or have sons to work the farm or make the next kill.

Now, in modern society, that is no longer the case. Modern man is so economically efficient that he no longer needs kids to ensure a comfortable 'retirement'. So we now find that in every (yes EVERY) modern first world society, birth rates have fallen below replacement levels.

The notion that this is due to contraception or female education confuses causes and symptoms. The cause is economic advancement. An advanced society can afford to educate its women. Educating women doesn't cause the society to advance, its a symptom of advancement. Contraception doesn't cause advancement, its a symptom of a family structure that no longer needs large numbers of kids.

Everywhere, throughout the first world, population levels are falling unless supplemented by immigration. I've written here before about how the Chinese population is falling much faster than the official figures claim.

The population bomb has already been defused. To be sure, there remain places where population continues to grow They are all economically backward. The solution for them isn't to educate the women of hand out contraceptives like M&M's. The solution is economic development and the result will naturally follow.

OTOH, we, raised to fear rising population levels (the Soylent-Green syndrome) shouldn't be too sanguine about the 21st century population decline. The greatest resource on the planet is the human brain. Having less of that resource is an existential threat to our survival.

Foxy, you are lying to yourself. The Uluru statement is Voice, Treaty, and repatriations. True it is advising the Government on how to implement this agenda.

The Albanese Government has appointed $5,4 million to a commission to bring this about. Get the facts right, it is leaving some of this program to State Governments as in WA heritage laws, which they had to abandon as it was affecting the Yes camp in WA.

Dear Josephus,
I will be happy to continue the discussion with you
when you get your facts right.

Do your research before you post.

You currently have no credibility.

Well we have a post that tells us "The Voice is a simple proposition that boils down to [o]ne thing - ADVICE. Only."

But it then also tells us that its about aboriginal "self determination" and is a way for us to stop " making decisions for them.".

Anyone else see the illogicality in that? If its just advice we (whoever 'we' are) will continue to make the decision. And how can you have self determination when others are making decisions for you?

Of course, this only makes sense if its not just 'advice'. That's just a sop to reel in the anxiously gullible. The only advice will be to do whatever the aboriginal elite want - ohh and keep the funds flowing.

And of course none of this explains why the Voice has to be in the constitution other than the need to elevate it above a mere advisory role.

I note the Albanese continues to dodge the question as to when the vote will be held. Just get it over with so we can move on to things that really matter.