The three pillars of the Uluru statement are:
Voice,
Treaty,
Truth.

Albo has promised to implement the Uluru statement in full yet is trying to tell us that the voice has nothing to do with a treaty?

So Albo which version do you want us to believe.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Which version should we believe?

Certainly NOT the misinformation
that is being attempted by the Coalition and the
NO campaigners.

The Prime Minister is correct.

The "Uluru Statement From The Heart" calls for the
establishment of a "First Nations Voice" in the
Australian Constitution and for a "Makarrata Commission"
to supervise a process of "agreement-making" and
"truth-telling" between governments and Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Makarrata is a word from the language of the Yolngu people
in Arnhem Land and a Makarrata Commission would supervise a
process of agreement-making between governments and First
Nations peoples and the truth-telling about their history.

It's actually not that complicated to understand.
-

"

We shouldn't believe anything that Albanese says. How many lies does that man have to tell before Australia concludes that he is a liar.

On radio the other day, he denied saying something that he had said 30 seconds before.

Albanese is a disgrace and an embarrassment to Australia. Each PM since John Howard has turned out to be worse than the one before him.

In my lifetime every Labor Prime Minister has been a
nation-builder in some way - Hawke, Keating, Rudd, and
Gillard have all contributed something to public life
for the betterment of Australians. That is, they led the
country (and their governments) predominantly for the
people.

Medicare anyone? How's your Super going? Apology to the
Stolen Generation? And the list goes on.

The Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, is continuing the
Howard tradition of leading for the sake of holding power,
or in his case, leading the race to the bottom (to return
to power) and there is no lie he won't tell to get there.

The same goes for his Party supporters.

The First Nations People lost their lands to invaders.
Will they now lose their right to speak on issues that
affect them?

The idea is to give aboriginal tribes full rights over their lands, waterways, and beaches as proposed by the States, as the aboriginals claim the lands were stolen. This is done by Treaty and repatriations for loss of rights to the land, [pay the rent].

If the Voice is no more than an advisory body, as Foxy claims, that does not affect anyone else, it does not need to be in the Constitution as there are over three hundred aboriginal bodies already advising the Federal Government. It is not just an advisory body exclusive for aboriginal private issues, it is for closing the gap in returning the stolen lands. "It always was and always will be aboriginal tribal lands". Australia Post is the latest to identify tribal lands, and Victoria is naming streets in new developments by aboriginal names as identified by local elders.

The Voice is the initial program put into the Constitution by the Federal Albanese Labor Government, then it is up to the Labor States to introduce the laws that put in place treaty [as each State was established separately on local aboriginal tribal lands], and repatriations [pay the rent], as Australia is a federation of States.

South Australia, Western Australia have tried to introduce laws that were at the advice of local aboriginal elders. The WA government had to postpone their heritage laws because it was affecting their Yes case.

For over a hundred years, Australia fought to remove race from civic considerations. Yet now we are being asked to permanently divide the nation by entrenching an Indigenous Voice into our Constitution. 

Vote no.

Whatever Albanese says, the opposite will be true. He won't answer questions; nor will his Minister for Indigenous Affairs, who also will not debate Jacinta Price.

The sentiment is now 56% against the Voice. Both Albanese and Burney have seen to that; they are the leading advocates for the NO case but they are too stupid to see it.

Albanese wants to censor free speech because he cannot win a debate on his communistic ideas and propaganda, nor get people to forget his lies about power prices, and a treaty not being a big part of the Voice when he's got the Tshirt proclaiming that it is.

"The rotten history the Voice uses like a weapon is corrupt Left politics and a failure of academic standards. If the Voice is adopted, critical voices may expect to be further silenced, even legally silenced" (Michael Connor)

The Voice offers no possibility for forgiveness or reconciliation. Rather, it seeks to remedy past wrongs by subverting the Australian political system in favour of indigenous Australians

The International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1965, and entering into force in 1969. Article 1 defines racial discrimi-nation as:
... any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

There is provision for “special measures” to overcome disadvantage, but these must be temporary, intended to disappear once their objectives have been achieved.

If adopted, the Voice would be for keeps, permanently cemented into the Australian Constitution.

The ABC and SBS are all for Australia becoming an aboriginal Republic, and this can be a way of getting rid of the Westminster system of the Colonizers oppressive Powers. The makarrata commission is more than advisory, it is a war term meaning to cripple. When it is fully installed aboriginals will have self-determination over their tribal lands. The Federal Government must just get the Voice in the Constitution and the States will create the Treaty and repatriations.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/chaos-wa-labor-party-in-a-pile-of-pain-as-wa-heritage-laws-are-set-to-be-scrapped/ar-AA1eQvWi?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=cd18b8388dab4eedac3eb4f4de07dd0d&ei=150

A crazy concept I think. What is wrong with the concept of the law applying to people independently of their heritage?

So what could happen? In the case of police identifying indigenous people at risk of harm and abuse, could they act immediately, or would they first have to consult an officer of an indigenously elected Voice? It just seems like another layer of bureaucracy interfering with people at the coal face, as seems to be happening in Western Australia:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12304769/Perth-tree-planting-event-axed-Aboriginal-corp-demands-2-5M-approval.html

And the PM blames the "lies" of the "no" campaigners? Hoist with his own petard more like.

This has been explained heaps of times on this Forum
and some people still persist in scare tactics.
Hopefully they will not work with rational and decent
Australians.

Here's a link that explains:

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

The Voice must be protected in the Constitution through the
Uluru Statement From the Heart because of the request from
Indigenous Australians.

As the PM pointed out that:

"You can't say you want to listen to Indigenous Australians and
that you support a voice but then not listen to the very first
point in the form of recognition they want."

The PM stressed that the Voice would be governed by legislation.

Hopefully the scare tactics won't work.

I just read earlier on that Albo said if the Voice fails, the indigenous won't get recognised in the constitution. Why the hell not ??
They must be recognised no if's not but's ! It's the other part of the Voice, the power grabbing racial stuff by the hate consumed pretend-indigenous activists that causes all the division !
I was amazed at how many real indigenous are actually against that part of the Voice. Looks like they're awake to the morally bankrupt Woke manipulators !

Writer Michael Connor puts the start of the Voice at a conference in Townsville in 1981, where a group of Leftist activists produced the Mabo Case, and thrust the "stupidity and and confusion, freeholders and hoaxers and Bruce Pascoe into our present".

Among the activists was historian Henry Reynolds, who proposed that the conference recognise that the prerequisite for aboriginality is "cultural loyalty and not a false nineteenth-century genetic theory".

The motion was passed unanimously, and this led to the "white takeover" of aboriginality by 2011.

Race was out; "ethnic nationalism" was in. Reynolds wrote that race could be dispensed with by viewing aborigines as "either actual or potential nations".

No wonder the Left will not have a bar of DNA testing for people putting their hands out for special treatment and money.

Using Australian Research Council funding, the activist historian Reynolds fabricated evidence about our history: the result was a book called 'The Law of the Land'. His destruction of our history was accepted by academics, and used towards achieving their goals. It is also accepted by Minister Burney (who has added her own lie about aborigines being administered in accordance with the Fauna and Flora Act) who brings the rubbish into Parliament. It is also used to make school children hate their country.

And, the whole filthy, rotten plot would be revealed if the Voice got up. Too late then, of course.

As for 'recognition', that should be a big NO as well.

The Constitution is about governance and nothing else. As such, the term ‘constitutional recognition’ implies a distinct place in our governance, whether or not it is in a preamble or a chapter in the main body. So, nobody should be recognised in the Constitution, and certainly not Aborigines. The Constitution is an important part of our Westminster system and beliefs , to which Aboriginal culture and tradition have contributed nothing at all.

The likes of Tony Abbott and other 'conservative' types trying to trade the Voice for recognition is a pathetic attempt to show that they are not bad people for rejecting the Voice.

No Voice. No recognition.

Foxy,

The aboriginal word for a treaty is Makarrata.

Albozo is the one trying to pull the wool over the voters.

"A new poll shows the No vote for the Voice is ahead 56-44 per cent nationally, now leading in every state and territory, suggesting the referendum is on track for defeat."

According to some this "voice" is unsalvagable and the question now is whether labor will waste about $300m to run a referendum.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The Prime Minister intends to keep his election promise.
Lets not deal in hypotheticals." We've had polls wrong
in the past as you well know.

In any case the Opposition Leader and his Deputy were
both invited to the Garma Festival. They refused to
attend. They could have
discussed what problems they saw. It was a missed
opportunity.

If their NO campaign succeeds and the Referendum fails
this would represent repudiation
and would kill off the closing of the gap
in education, health, housing, and so many other
problems for the First Nations people.

It would also be a disaster for the Liberal Party.
They would have to account for their actions
as to why they were against something that would be
governed by legislation. And why saying they were
prepared to listen to Indigenous Australians -
but then not listen to the very first point in the
form of recognition they want.

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

A NO majority in all states now.

The Indigenous Voice to Parliament is far from lost.

Don't believe - Sky News, Rowan Dean, et al, News Corp,
or ANY of the Murdoch media and its supporters.

According to The Australian Financial Review polling shows
that a quarter of voters are undecided and could be wooed
by a short, sharp campaign.

Third Party polling by The Australian Financial Review as
well as research conducted by Federal Labor and YES23
campaign - all come to the same conclusion - the outcome
is still too hard to predict.

Fingers-crossed that's true.

Just to jog some memories:

1993 - was the "unlosable" election for the Libs.
And 2019 - for Labor.

This highlights how voter opinions can shift to
produce a result few would have predicted in
the polls.

Dear Foxy,

It isn't the no campaigners who will sink the referendum, so give credit where it is due. Look instead at Western Australia's heritage legislation. If word gets out that that an indigenous corporation demanded a $2.5 million approval fee for a land care group to plant 5500 trees along a Perth river, I think that the yes vote will be lucky to break 30%.

Foxy, this referendum is not about Party politics, it is about what governs Government for all people. You attempt to woo voters is not giving then intelligent information to decide. This cannot be decided on vibe emotion, it must demonstrate positive outcomes. Currently The government has the ears of many aboriginal lobby groups, and a Minister who has responsibility for aboriginal affairs. The Voice will not achieve anything more than is currently being done by Labor. Sack Linda Burney and put in place a fighter for disadvantaged aboriginals.

Reading the reports of Albanese at Garma, he believes this primitive culture should be adopted by all Australians and by that we will all be united. Aboriginals can celebrate their culture, the same as any other culture can celebrate theirs, but we do not expect everyone to celebrate one culture: especially in smoke, clay, dust, lap-lap, with spears in hand.

Had Bunnybanese held a constitutional convention before leaping into this con job, much money and angst could have been saved; and he would not now be looking more deceitful and unhinged by the day.

Josephus writes: "this referendum is not about Party politics".

This has to be the most inane thing written on this forum for a very long time.

Of course it is about politics. It shouldn't be though. The Coalition was responsible for advancing the referendum. It was under their Indigenous Affairs Minister that the co-designed report was commissioned and delivered laying out the proposed mechanisms for the Voice. Their own treasurer Frydenburg set aside money for the referendum in his budget.

But when they lost the election. Now it is full blown political savagery with the AFR reporting a coalition MP recently texting "We can't win the election unless we defeat the Voice solidly, ie we need to defeat it to get to the election starting line."

Dear Steele,

Thank You.

I don't understand why rational people would continue
to fall for the nonsense being spouted by the NO
campaigners. The Voice will be governed by legislation.
There's only one model on the table for us to consider
at the referendum.

People need to stop bringing other things into it.
Stop dealing with hypotheticals and nonsense.

I see Steele has lost his comprehension powers. I said a referendum is not about party politics, and he tries to prove it is. The Constitution is the non-Party document that governs Australia and has no party allegiance envisaged. Of course, Foxy jumps to Steele's support so obviously she believes we put things in the Constitution that supports a Political Party. No wonder they support "Yes" for racial apartheid and giving the powers to govern decisions on stolen land back to aboriginals.

I shall repeat what I posted on another discussion
for those who have difficulty understanding:

As Australians, we pride ourselves on our diverse and
vibrant society. One important piece of our history has
not yet been recognised in our Constitution and that is
the 65,000 years of continuous cultural connection to
this land by Indigenous Australians, the Aborigines and
Torres Strait Islander people.

By voting YES in the referendum we create a pathway for
Indigenous Australians to speak directly to the government
of the day about things that work on the ground of their
communities. This will mean fewer misdirected resources
and real results for Indigenous Australians.

From SBS< http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/explainer-what-is-a-treaty/p2h2mr5ym

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-does-a-treaty-with-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people-mean/579c2xnkj

"The 2017 Uluru Statement From the Heart calls for Voice-Truth-Treaty, in that order.

There are overseas examples of treaties with First Nations peoples, in countries such as New Zealand and Canada.
Just months from a vote on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, the Opposition is pressing Labor on the prospect of a treaty with First Nations Australians.

The Voice was first called for in the 2017 Uluru Statement From the Heart, which also flagged truth-telling about Australia's history, and a process for treaty with Indigenous people, to follow the Voice.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's first words on election night committed Labor to implementing the Uluru Statement "in full", but he has recently stressed this year's referendum is about the Voice only."
'
Albanese has recently stressed that, while the Commonwealth is focusing on the Voice, treaty processes are already in motion at a state level.

Pressed on whether he supports a treaty, he told ABC radio: "That's [already] occurring. That's like saying, do you support the sun coming up?"

It is up to the States to form a Treaty with the local tribes the State occupies.

THE STATES WILL MAKE A TREATY AFTER THE VOICE IS IN FORCE IN THE FEDERAL PARLIAMENT< ACCORDING TO ALBANESE

Incarcerated people (in prison) are not allowed to
vote. And so many in our jails are Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islander people. The law does not allow
them a vote. There are thousands of them.

They won't be able to have a say on a Voice to Parliament.

In the United States you can be charged with criminal
offences, be in jail and
run for President.

Wow!

The Constitution is not a document that will change the diverse cultures in Australia, they happen already and are not legislated. It is a Fantasy that a Voice will enhance aboriginal culture unless they are going to legislate aboriginal culture as compulsory for everyone. You can kick up dust and smoke all you want, and introduce aboriginal law, but it is not a culture that I identify with. It has only been in recent years that Western music has been adopted by aboriginals, even the didgeridoo only has records of 1,500 years when they discovered termites ate out the hardwood of saplings and they could blow through them and make noises.

Aboriginal culture, tribal customs, and laws.
Aboriginal tribal law is often seen as harsh and brutal, but it ensured order and discipline. Payback is the most known form of customary law. Payback is still practiced, conflicting with Western law.

Source: Tribal punishment, customary law & payback - Creative Spirits, retrieved from http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/law/tribal-punishment-customary-law-paybackboriginal LAW:

SELF DETERMINATION - THEIR CUSTOM IS PAYBACK AND THEY WANT TO ADMINISTER TRIBAL LAWS OF ABORIGINAL JUSTICE - DEATH FOR DEATH.

Dear Fester,

Again with: "If word gets out that that an indigenous corporation demanded a $2.5 million approval fee for a land care group to plant 5500 trees along a Perth river, I think that the yes vote will be lucky to break 30%."

It money wasn't to be allowed to plant trees, but rather attempting to resolve earlier funding promises. It was done in an injudicious manner by the CEO who within a couple of weeks was no longer employed by the organisation.

Dear Foxy, you are obviously well out of touch with the current aboriginal industry in Australia from many of your comments. NO, NO, NO .
50 plus years watching and seeing how it works it is nothing but frightening now, It will be a sad day for Australia should yes get up, the country will be changed for ever and not for the better unfortunately.

Dear GBC,

It will be changed for the better if this gets up and all the scare tactics from people like you will not be realised just like Mabo and the Apology. Every single assertion of the naysayers have failed to eventuate on those issues. This will be the same.

Every single assertion of the naysayers have failed to eventuate on those issues
SteeleRedux,
Are you absolutely sure ? You haven't been around much have You ?

Foxy,

The failure of the voice is entirely due to Albozo's hubris. Dutton offered him bipartisan support if he clearly limited the "voice" to parliament only and not the entire civil service. Albozo refused based on what he believed was an overwhelming majority for support.

As no referendum has ever succeeded without bipartisan support, the failure of the voice rests completely on his shoulders.

This sums it up

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/F25J0xkbkAAL-5D?format=jpg&name=small

Keeping on handing over money to a selected few will never equate to equality for peoples opportunities & living standards !
Only combined effort based on integrity rather than racist blathering can make this happen ! The Voice was not designed with effort in mind, only with blame !

Dear Steele,

A glitch perhaps, but the damage is done, and with the legislation being removed I am guessing that there was a bit more going on. Democratic privilege is problematic for me, but the prospect of an obfuscating layer of bureaucracy doesn't help either. Imagine the frustration of front line public employees. For example, would police require a cultural support officer present when dealing with indigenous Australians? That seems a bit silly to me, and unlike WA it would be very hard to reverse.

Victorian public servants could be pressured to do work for the race-based Voice, irrespective of their personal views on trashing the Constitution. Anyone who disagrees will "have their card marked".

I was just reading an ABC piece from Q & A and the aboriginal woman from Browerville was saying Voting YES will increase the life span of her young people who had died from alcohol and drugs. Besides, it would remove discrimination shown to aboriginal people. FALSE HOPE. We already have laws for discrimination, and if people choose drunkenness and drugs a Yes Vote will not increase their life span.

It appears that aboriginals are given false hope of a better life if they Vote Yes. The fact is only they can improve their life by taking steps of self-discipline. Many have entered a better life, like many of our athletes. Those with false hope believe they will be flooded with money from "pay the rent", if they vote yes and are on drugs - Hooray more drugs, more booze, Wonderful

Dear Josephus,

By voting YES in the referendum we create a pathway
for Indigenous Australians to speak directly to
the government of the day about things that work on
the ground of their communities. This will mean
fewer misdirected resources and real results for
Indigenous Australians.

They are asking for self determination, to take
responsibility - and I am pleased that you agree
with putting your money where your mouth is. I am
pleased that instead of consistently knocking them
down - you can see the opportunity here and approve
of giving it to them.

If the Voice promoters were not up to no good they could legislate all this stuff so everybody could see how it would work. If it did work well, then further steps could be considered, perhaps.

The fact that this approach hasn't been taken says it all. Albanese and company are so unsure of themselves and the value of their product that they don't want it tested. Straight into the Constitution where it would stay no matter how bad it turned out to be.

It blows the mind to think that there are people stupid enough to vote yes for this shady deal.

There is no "shady" deal here. Everything has been
explained many, many, times over - what the Voice is, and
how it will work, and so on. But, I guess some people
prefer fear-mongering and scare tactics. They did the same
thing with Mabo, and then same-sex marriage, and so it goes.
Always was and always will be.

And yet they will always blame others and never themselves.
Others will always be the "problem." And they will
happily blame others for being divisive. "No worries, we're
here for you(mostly)." "Hold my beer.

Everything has been explained many, many, times over - what the Voice is, and
how it will work, and so on.
Foxy,
How & where ? On Albo's 1 single A4 page or the 26 page version that is only available through FOI ?

Dear Indyvidual,

Where have you been during the discussions of this
issue? You obviously don't read the links provided.
That's your problem. You can't blame anyone else.
Information has been continuously provided.

You obviously don't read the links provided.
Foxy,
You only ever provide wishy-washy links of no substance & heavily biased in favour of the academic elite who don't have a clue.
How about offering some real stuff ?

Indyvidual

I have concluded that the only way to deal with stupid people is to ignore them. They are poison.

Foxy,
Ignorance is forgivable, not thinking is not ! All educated beyond their ability to comprehend make the same mistake, they've convinced themselves to be above others whilst in real terms they're part of the most brainwashed. To have lived & moved their entire life in a cocoon makes them more than ignorant, it has rendered them right-out stupid !
To make things worse than they should be, they become Leftist & vote Labor & say yes to anything that pretends to have a warm 'n fozzy feel about it !
Ridicule & lying are their only weapon !

Dear Indyvidual,

I am used to doing research and dealing with facts.
I use a wide variety of sources - and give links to
what I have found. It's up to people to make up their
own minds with the facts presented. I have no control
over how people will interpret things. All I do is
deal with what I've found. If anybody does not like
the facts I've found - they are under no obligation
to read what I present. Correcting someone's
misinformation is a professional habit.

I do not think I am superior. Simply trained in
sifting the truth from lies and presenting the evidence.

Indyvidual

It seems that you don't agree with my contention that it is best to ignore stupid people.

Fair enough. It took me a long time to realise that arguing with stupid people is wasteful and self-defeating (i.e doing what they want you to do).

You are right about the connection of stupidity to 'education'. Some of the most highly educated people are very stupid; while some of the lesser educated are far from stupid.

Stupidity is not an intellectual defect, but a moral one. Stupidity is acquired, not congenital. There is no defence against stupidity. Stupidity is more dangerous than deliberate evil. Avoiding stupid people altogether is the only way to go. You probably do that in real life; you can also do it online, and feel much better about yourself for doing so. Cheers.

So ignorance is bliss?

And, presenting facts and evidence is "stupid?" Better to
deal with hypotheticals, fear-mongering, conjecture, and
personal biases?

Kudos!

Indyvidual,

"The existence of a massive, contented low-information population is the ruling class’s supreme weapon."

A 'low-information population' is a polite metaphor for 'stupid population'.

Ask anyone in the street about digital currencies, social credit, personal data harvesting, fifteen-minute cities, the war on cash, the pandemic planning industry, the World Economic Forum and digital ID, and you are likely to get one of two responses:

'What'? or,
'Conspiracy theorist'!

In the meantime Albanese's threats to liberal values (including the the Voice) can be challenged if we wish to get up and do it. If the polls are to be believed, that seems to be happening,

The future course of history is never inevitable.

Thousands turn up for the Voice YES rallies all over
Australia.

What's to be done?
We have a government determined to entrench racism in the constitution.
It seeks to allow advantage for those of a different race?
That one fact alone should be sufficient for the proposition to be rejected.
All governmnets can and do already listen to the concerns of ALL citizens?
That is one of its many functions?
If they are not doing so, it is time to line up at the door of electorate offices?

I must comment on another 'sleight of hand' technique being used by supporters.
After we are born, we have passed on to us knowledge and infrastructure from previous generations.
This 'handing on' is short lived.
It is confined to the immediate needs of life, and to generations which are alive now.
It is not supervised by long dead persons.
It doesn't stretch over hundreds of generations.
A great grandmother from a thousand years ago is not here today handing us the necessities of life.

It seems to me people are tying themselves up in mental knots by believing so.
They are treating long dead generations as if they were alive today.
But they are not alive today.
They came and went.
The concept that we cannot touch or move that piece of rock because they might have looked at it, or sat on it, or painted something on it, etc, is absurd.
Rock is just rock. Sand is just sand. Trees are just trees.
You cannot imbue materials with some special or significant quality just by saying so.
Ask any ant or wallaby.

We need to use our resources wisely, not stand and look at them.
And how dare you use that water.
They might have drunk it or bathed in it or passed it.
Think of the latter the next time you are thirsty?
Hasn't this nonsense gone just a bit too far?
Let the dead stay dead.
Pretending otherwise is a ploy which works on some.
So it it being wielded like a scythe by those who have evil intent.

I find I simply cannot resist this comment.
People turn up at 'yes' rallies do they?
Surely they do this to keep their disgust fresh?

Not in the thousands.

It is wrong in principle, and it is wrong in fact.
So of course thousands will rally against it.
We don't want the world to laugh at us, do we?
Which would happen if we voted ourselves in to absurdity.
The world would scratch its head, and look the other way if we approached?
'There goes the country which voted to have racism in its constitution.'
We would never live it down.

Listening to celebrities talking at the Gama festival, they were moaning about the retreat of the WA cultural Heritage laws. They were hoping these laws would be adopted nationwide. One person being interviewed was hoping for the day they said, "When We have an Aboriginal Republic." There was only one flag being flown over Garma, as they want all Australians to unite under one Flag.

Foxy continues to talk that the Voice will unite all Australians, she knows the agenda and it is for land, waterways, and beaches to be controlled by the State aboriginal Voices, as in WA. Anything other than what aboriginals want for australia is secondary. Albanese is with the voice of the Garma festival, he has been given a spear to join the Garma tribe. Which is a weapon of war.

Ipso Fatso

"We have a government determined to entrench racism in the constitution."

So true! But that’s exactly what the yes voters want: division by race, apartheid, whatever, it is pure racism. The Albanese extremist government plus people who support this awfully divisive Voice are racists. The same people who call others racists!

And, it would be pay day for all the aboriginal Big Men of all the piddly little clans. Crooks like the not so dearly departed Galarrwuy Yunupingu, described on his death by Albanese as a 'great leader' a great Australian, when he was really a great crook.

All this Voice will achieve is giving corrupt people immunity at the taxpayers' expense !
The gullible will support that no matter what !

Check the Yunupingu exposè on Youtube. Make up your own mind as to its validity !

Indyvidual,

quadrant.org.au/magazine/2023/08-online/galarrwuy-yunupingu-lord-of-the-manor

The fact that the Voice will give a democratic privilege to one group of people over another is reason enough to reject it. So while there might be speculation as to what sort of world it will be, no amount of Orwellian doublespeak can convince me that I will be making Australians equal by creating inequality.

ttbn,
Get ready for Snouts-in-the-trough Flak !

Who is Thomas Mayo?
Thomas Mayo identifies as a person of Kaurareg Aboriginal and Kalkalgal Erubamle Torres Strait Islander descent who holds the position of National Indigenous Officer within the MUA (Maritime Union of Australia). There is no information about Thomas Mayo parents.

He played a significant role as a signatory of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and has been an influential advocate since its establishment in May 2017.

Additionally, he serves as the Chairperson of the Northern Territory Indigenous Labour Network and holds a directorship on the board of Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition.

A prominent advocate for the “Yes” campaign has expressed his vision for the post-introduction of a Voice in Parliament.

This includes measures including reparations for Indigenous people, the implementation of “rent” for living on Australian land, and the elimination of “harmful colonial institutions.”

Who Are Thomas Mayo Parents?
Who are Thomas Mayo Parents? There are few details about Thomas Mayo’s parents; unlike other well-known personalities, he keeps his personal details out of the media.

The detailed information regarding the author of the book “The Voice to Parliament Handbook: All the Essential Information”‘s parents and their occupations are unknown.

Furthermore, there is no information available about whether his parents are alive or deceased.

From ancestry sources his heritage is Filipino, Borneo, English, and Jewish. He has NO Aboriginal blood yet identifies as aboriginal. He changed his name from Mayor to Mayo to take an aboriginal identity.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/whole-thing-is-a-farce-dark-emu-exposed-investigate-labor-mp-s-indigenous-heritage/ar-AA1f0esn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=03d7c0baa064482c92cb54bbf5b0b850&ei=9

"In Australia, you have got the three-part rule – Dr Gordon Reid, he’s proud to be Aboriginal because he self-identifies and other people recognize him as such,”

The Voice proposal written by a Communist activist.
http://x4nz.jpp.org.in/questions/thomas-mayo-parents/
"Thomas Mayo's parents are Celestino and Thomas Mayo's parents are Celestino and Liz. Celestino is Filipino and Dayak (Borneo) and his Mother Liz is of Polish, Jewish and English ancestry. Thomas Mayo is not TI; 20 Jun 2023 12:15:34" [Tiwi Islander]

"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.

“Where’s the downside here?” Albanese has asked, in his support of the Yes campaign. “What are people risking here? From my perspective this is all upside.”

When questioned, Albanese has avoided all discussion of treaty, reparations, and the Land Back movement, which calls for an end to “colonial” occupation and the return of Australia to Indigenous governance — causes that Mayo vocally supports."

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/investigating-people-s-indigenous-heritage-only-begins-if-aboriginal-people-ask/ar-AA1f09xK?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=27cdf1ac930847578dd4c1fb7bc9f7fe&ei=11

Dear Fester,

The Voice does not confer special rights on anyone.

A group of leading constitutional lawyers, including
a former High Court Judge has considered this question.
They found that the Voice does not confer rights, let
alone "special rights," on anyone. 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. The Voice
would not change this. It would not change or take away
any right, power, or principle of anyone who is not
Indigenous.

There's more at:

http://anu.edu.au/about/strategic-planning/indigenous-voice-to-parliament#

Sorry Foxy, but your naivety has to be seen to be believed.

Fester, Foxy is delusional to believe the voice only applies to aboriginals. The Uluru statement from the heart summary is one page with twenty-five supporting pages written by Thomas Mayo.
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/labor-mp-and-nationals-senate-leader-clash-over-uluru-statement-from-the-heart/ar-AA1eZIie?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=0d4376e7db494ee58623e42a606a1e99&ei=28

Albanese does not want people to know what the supporting pages say on the Uluru Statement because his Aboriginal Voice would sink like a stone in water. It sees an aboriginal Republic where Australia is returned to aboriginal sovereignty and Rule.

The solutions to many of the complex problems facing
Indigenous communities already exist - but unfortunately
they don't have the power to change policy to implement
them.

It's important to have the opportunities that are going to
give Voice to Indigenous communities. One community is
not the same as another. They are not one homogenous group
and the problems of each community is different.

The truth is that Indigenous Australians are among the most
disadvantaged in the country.

AAAndrew Gee points out that the Voice is being weaponised
politically by the Coalition. Obviously this helps
raise funds for them. They are also doing it to shore up
leadership positions as well as to have some ground to
fight.

Their hope that this is a pathway to victory according to
Andrew Gee is a bankrupt one. Seeking short term gain at
the expense of decades of campaigning by Indigenous
people could have the opposite effect at the ballot box
for the Coalition. We shall have to wait and see whether
the decency of Australians prevails.

Foxy, your opinion is nonsense as NOT all Coalition members see the Voice for what it is and will vote Yes, as you yourself have stated. If it was about raising funds, they are not very discreet. I've not given a cent to the No campaign, I read the intent of aboriginals who give the facts on how they envisage the Voice, Treaty, repatriations, land back.

http://www.facebook.com/watch?v=314699527756693
Listen to what the Uluru statement in full.

The truth is that Indigenous Australians are among the most
disadvantaged in the country.
Foxy,
They're only receiving the short end of the stick from their own standover merchants & definitely not from the Govt or any of us !
These same standover merchants are now the voices for the Voice & silly people support them to accumulate power they simply can't handle !

Dear Fester,

You put the following:

"The fact that the Voice will give a democratic privilege to one group of people over another is reason enough to reject it. So while there might be speculation as to what sort of world it will be, no amount of Orwellian doublespeak can convince me that I will be making Australians equal by creating inequality."

What a load of self serving tripe.

How on earth is an advisory group with zero veto power giving them a democratic privilege?

I'll tell you what democratic privilege is. It is having the protections afforded by Section 51 of the Constitution limiting Federal government power over you. No limits in the Territory which has the highest proportion of Indigenous people in it.

Thought you had protections via the Race Discrimination Act? Nope. Not if you are Indigenous. The government simply suspends it.

Howard didn't have to evoke the race powers within the constitution because they come as a default when governing the NT.

Thought you had rights to your land? Nope. Howard suspended the Native Title Act. There was no compensation for the land compulsorily acquired during the Intervention because: “the "just terms" compensation requirement that applies when the Commonwealth compulsorily acquires property under section 51(xxxi) also does not apply in the territories.”

Thought you would have equal say in the upcoming referendum? Nope. Even with the highest proportion of Indigenous people the Territory's block of votes counts for nothing when the tally of the States is done.

And how many Senators with real veto powers on laws does the Territory get? 2. Tasmania gets 12 with triple the representation at that level per capita.

So cry me a bloody river.

Dear Steele,

I think the Yes argument has some fundamental problems.

For one thing, I am repeatedly assured that the Voice will give indigenous Australians no privilege and that the role will be symbolic and advisory, carrying no power of enforcement. That strikes me as the Voice being a powerless bureaucracy and a waste of money.

Alternatively, if the Voice does have more than an advisory role, such as might be the case if it can have a say to any law being applied to an indigenous Australian either individually or collectively, then it is indeed a democratic privilege and should be rejected as a corruption of democracy.

Pushing the yes case so hard when it is supposedly innocuous makes people suspicious, so it is no surprise to see the no case taking advantage of this suspicion.

Governments at times do horrible things to people, not just indigenous Australians. The history of my heritage has repeatedly shown that treating people equally leads to better outcomes for all.

Whenever I hear the term 'Discrimination' it makes me think how many people actually know what discrimination is.
To my mind, discrimination means denying one & not another. It definitely does not mean getting rejected due to lack of effort & ability etc. Nor does it mean reduced help due to unwillingness to co-operate with the help offered.
Discrimination is giving more to one for less effort than the other, providing for one but not another with the same need, showing leniency to one but not another for the same breach of Law etc. or providing free education for one but not for the other from the same economic situation.
I know many who fit the scenario of discrimination black, white & brindle ! Mostly courtesy of incompetent & corrupt Leftist bureaudroids blaming conservative Authority !

Dear Steele,

You might also acknowledge Peta Credlin's efforts a little more graciously. Albanese did not look good equating people questioning the length of the Uluru statement with Q Anon conspirators and having Megan Davis confirm that it was only one page. Sky News then showed Megan Davis on numerous occasions telling audiences that the Uluru statement was quite a lengthy document.

Such examples as the above might make people feel that they are being lied to, or at least misled.

Albanese is demonstrating how to kill a referendum with misinformation and possibly dishonesty.

Dear Fester,

Absolutely bloody not.

This is what I posted on another thread:

Quote

Virtually nothing the Cretin has put is correct or with basis.

The idea that she had some bloody scoop through an FOI request is utterly ludicrous.

All this was presented in the Referendum Report in 2017.

"A synthesis of the Records of Meetings of the First Nations Regional Dialogues was produced by the Referendum Council. This synthesis, entitled ‘Our Story’, recounted the themes that emerged in the Dialogues and is reproduced below"

http://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf

The 429 word statement which the attendees signed off on is an extraordinary document and I have a reproduction on my wall.

To have the Cretin sullying it will all her crap is one thing but to have even half way intelligent people swallowing it hook line and sinker is just depressing.

End quote

I defy you to tell me what ground breaking information the Cretin has uncovered.

It is just duplicitous garbage designed to chip away at support for the Yes vote purely because Liberals like her want to take skin off Albanese.

Dear Steele,

The problem for the yes argument isn't with Peta Credlin, but with what she is presenting. When you have people stating that the Uluru statement is one page, then have footage of the same people saying that the Uluru statement is much longer than one page, that is not good for the Yes argument.

Dear Fester,

Of course it lies with the Cretin and her ilk.

Where was all this angst when the Referendum Report came out containing all that she is complaining about now?

That right, because it was handed down 6 years ago under a bloody Liberal government is why.

Now have you even gone and looked at it? Have you found a single thing in the Cretin's so called FOI document which wasn't clearly stated in the report?

Hell mate you can't keep gobbling up this garbage. You are just giving it the oxygen it really doesn't deserve.

Here is what you need to focus on.

"Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene
numbers. They should be our hope for the future.

These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.

We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country."

Steele is a Communist sympathizer and wants to hide the agenda of a fake aboriginal communist to gain control of Australia. It only takes 5% of the population to take control of the nation, as in China.

Wikipedia, Quote, "The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a 2017 petition by Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders calling for structural reforms, both in recognition of the continuing sovereignty of Indigenous peoples and to address structural "powerlessness" that has led to severe disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The document calls for the creation of two new institutions; a constitutionally protected First Nations Voice and a Makarrata Commission, to oversee agreement-making and truth-telling between governments and First Nations. These reforms can be summarized as Voice, Treaty and Truth. [26 pages]

The statement was released on 26 May 2017 by delegates to the First Nations National Constitutional Convention, held over four days near Uluru in Central Australia. The convention was held after the 16-member Referendum Council (appointed by prime minister Malcolm Turnbull [Republican] and leader of the opposition Bill Shorten on 7 December 2015), had travelled around the country, and met with over 1,200 people".

The ULURU STATEMENT IS VOICE, TREATY, TRUTH as stated in a 26-page document called the ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART.
http://ulurustatement.org/our-story/the-law/

The only historical truth they want told is what happened after 1788 nothing before that time, as it is too confronting. The Makarrata Commission is set up to deal with treaty making in States and local Councils. Voice will take control of what happens in the country, for example mining of coal, gas, rare minerals, water resources, and return of aboriginal laws and customs. Eg, Stopping gas exploration. They want a continuous percentage of GDP to repay for the wrongs done to aboriginals in past generations since 1788. That is part of truth telling.

Steele believes the Voice will give the government advice on how to change the health, and criminal outcomes of aboriginals - that is what he believes.

Quote,"Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.

These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.

We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country."

He did not read it carefully, it states "When WE have POWER [full sovereignty] over our destiny our children will flourish [aboriginal laws], they will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to THEIR COUNTRY. [Tribal lands]

The Uluru statement is returning sovereignty to aboriginal tribes and tribal customs so they can be proud aboriginals in their own country, released from the Colonizers powers and laws. As controled by Westminster Governments.

Dear Steele,

So you are proposing democratic affirmative action? That is another term for creating inequality to address inequality, and I think that might have a little less popularity these days. At least democratically I cannot support such action.

What is good is the promotion of indigenous Australians as being as intelligent and capable as other Australians, and of their cultural heritage as being rich and inventive, in many instances permitting survival in a very harsh and unforgiving environment.

Perception can be a challenging adversary.

Story by Olivia Day For Daily Mail Australia •
21h

Bruce Makudda Shillingsworth, a proud Muruwari and Budjiti man, filmed himself confronting the police officers in a video posted to Twitter

Forbade police from entering Muruwari land by using his car to block off a public road.

The confrontation occurred after police were responded to reports of illegal squatting at Ledknapper Nature Reserve at Enngonia in the state's north-west near the Queensland border.

Mr Shillingsworth tells the camera. 'What's happening is they're going out onto Muruwari country, they're thinking that they've got authority. I'm going to ask them right here right now about whether they've got jurisdiction,'

One officer: 'You're blocking a public road'.

'You're blocking a roadway, move your vehicle,' the other officer adds.

'This is a roadway in New South Wales.'

'This is Muruwari land,' Mr Shillingsworth repeats before telling the officers they're not allowed to enter traditional Aboriginal land.

'There's things that are going on and I know why you are going out there,' he says.

'I am giving you a direction to move your car. If you fail to comply with that direction, you may be committing an offence.'

Mr Shillingsworth then claims he is a 'law enforcement officer'.

Bruce Shillingsworth is a First Nations activist, artist and Aboriginal Childrens Advocate (ACA) while Bruce Shillingsworth Junior describes himself as a 'public figure' on social media
© Provided by Daily Mail
'You're committing an offence because that land from here onwards is Muruwari land and you should know that,' he tells the officer.

A NSW Police Force spokeswoman said Mr Shillingsworth had been charged with obstructing traffic and disobeying directions over the incident, which occurred in March last year.

The 31-year-old was found guilty of both offences and fined $400 after a hearing in September at Bourke Local Court.

Muruwari land stretches over 16,000sqm from Barringun on the Queensland/NSW border to Mulga Downs and Weela in south Queensland.

It includes Enngonia on the Warrego River, Brenda and Weilmoringle on the Culgoa River, and as far south as Milroy and Collerina in NSW.

Steelreflux,

The voice is looking more and more like a veto at every level of government. There is zero protection against just that. Albozo's word is worthless as he has shown himself to be a lying bag of excrement.

If the Voice is about health, education, employment as Burney claims. Then they are closing schools in remote areas.
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/labor-waffling-on-about-voice-while-not-prioritising-rural-indigenous-needs/ar-AA1f53o7?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=39786171313f4280823eac6ddb3f25c3&ei=22
It is not about education in remote communities.

Shadowminister,

Your last post shows what a complete blithering idiot you are. There is no veto power you fool. The fact you can't comprehend it is frightening.

Josephus,

There is little doubt you are one of the unchristian person I know. To take a genuine heart felt message from the statement about indigenous kids and rewrite it to sully it with fear mongering crap is utterly pathetic.

Nick off.

There is no veto power
SteeleRedux,
Famous last words !

.

According to the federal government register, there are currently 320 lobbying organisations and 676 lobbyists operating in Australia for a total of 2,243 clients. Officially, 39.6% of those lobbyists are former government “representatives”, but according to an independent study carried out by Guardian Australia, 52.8%, have a previous history within government or political party hierarchies.

As I understand it, the "First Nations Voice" is, for all intents and purposes, just another lobby and I don’t see why the First Nation Peoples should not be able to plead their case and defend their interests like any of the other 2,243 clients.

Failure to acknowledge their existence in the constitution as the sole occupants of the country for over 65,000 years is the non-recognition of an indisputable historical fact and a monumental injustice that should have been rectified a long time ago.

.

History is calling
So we are told
By our current government
That's prepared to be bold

They're prepared to admit
The wrongs of the past
To ensure that those wrongs
Don't continue to last

A new start is something
They now want to be made
So our Indigenous folk
Don't continue to fade

They're having a vote
For a voice to be heard
Directly by government
One that doesn't get blurred

We need to give
our First People a chance
To advise the government
How they can advance

It's up to us all
To do what's right
And ensure that we fix
Our historical blight

Let's not continue
To make them plead
And allow their communities
To thrive and not bleed.

Banjo Paterson, aboriginal activists already have many lobby groups within Government such as the NIAA who received $4.5 billion in 2022. The Voice is more than a lobby group, it is a power structure within our constitution to give power for self-determination of aboriginal tribes over the lands, waterways, resources, and beaches they had stolen from them by the British.

They believe it will take twenty plus years after the Voice to fully regain control of all that was stolen. That the British stole the land by murdering tribes, is being taught in schools and universities so the well-meaning young can easily accept it must be given back. This is part of truth telling and it is already being told in schools.

The Voice is the first step put in place by the Federal Government, then it is up to the States and Councils to put in place Treaties with local tribes upon which the state occupies. History has already been written by people like Bruce Pascoe and is being taught in schools and universities. The ABC and SBS and NITV are the major indoctrination of the program for full aboriginal control, and we are being wooed to go along with the program by voting YES.

IT IS TRUE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ONLY INVOLVES THE VOICE.
That just begins the program set out by the full Uluru statement.

Steele is politically blind to facts, as he cannot see Albanese is a hypocrite by claiming to be advancing aboriginal education yet is closing schools in aboriginal communities, depriving 150 children of education, and is shipping them four hours away for schooling.

Instead of establishing another very costly, and this time a dangerous voice, for the aboriginal industry, Australia should be shutting down the quangos already in existence, and using the annual $40 billion they cost annually for the benefit of all Australians of all races.

This massive cost, and fuss, for 3% of the population, most of whom look after themselves as well as anyone else, is a scandal. It is also insulting to the majority of people who identify as Aboriginal or part thereof.

For the very few who cannot cope, there is a very generous and readily available welfare system. If that's good enough for the whitefellas, it is good enough for the blackfellas.

Josephus,

Whenever I have the displeasure of skimming the garbage you regurgitate on here I am of two minds. Are you a blithering idiot or an evil hearted purveyor of mistruths and lies because you get a kick out of it?

I'm kind of leaning towards the first because I haven't seen an original thought in a single one of your posts.

The idea that the NIAA is a representative advisory body is a line no longer being used even by the No campaign proper.

They, as the rest of us with at least half a brain know, the NIAA is made up of less than 25% indigenous Australians, is a service delivery vehicle, and has no board structure just a CEO who reports directly to the minister.

http://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/niaa-org-chart-28-july-2023.pdf

So little Johnny Smith, whose grandmother, six generations ago, was aboriginal, is born with a smidge of aboriginal DNA.
And he now has a right to control land that his ancestor didn't own in the first place?
And the right to a multitude of other benefits too?
Costing the taxpayer millions of dollars.
And now he wants written in to the constitution that he will have direct access to government?
Where will it end?

Dear IF,

Does he regard himself as Aboriginal? Is he recognised
by an Indigenous community? Does he lay any claims to
his ancestry? And what land are you talking
about that he even wants? Please give us more details?

Where will it end?

Not sure if it ever will in your mind.

But perhaps you'll think up some new stuff - the day's not
over yet.

Ipso Fatso, you only need to identify as aboriginal and be accepted as aboriginal. They will welcome you into their Tribe [mob]. That is the case of the Communist Thomas Mayo who wrote the VOICE book, and his ancestry is Borneo, Scottish, and Jewish. You do not need any link by DNA to an Australian tribe. Find an Elder and make friends and you will be welcomed. You have 65,000 links back to tribes in Africa the same as the Australian Aboriginals. If you were persecuted by the British and sent to Australia even better. The British are the ones that must be overthrown as they murdered and oppressed the tribes and hung our brothers.
Ned Kelly lives.

Government agencies and community organisations request
proof of aboriginality when someone is applying for
Indigenous specific services or programs.

There are three criterias that have to be met:

1) Being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander discent.

2) Identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

3) Being accepted as such by the community in which you
live or have lived.

This was Warren Mundine in 2017.

Nyunggai Warren Stephen Mundine AO calls for a constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous voice to parliament in the publication of his essay Practical Recognition from the Mobs' Perspective-Enabling our mobs to speak for country.

“The push for recognition needs to capture the hearts and minds of Indigenous Australians. It must not be framed around the way others have looked at us, but how we look at ourselves; it must not be about recognising a race of people, but about recognising the First Nations of our country and the mobs to which each of us still belong.”
http://www.sbs.com.au/language/nitv-radio/en/article/a-guarantee-that-traditional-owners-will-always-speak-for-country-warren-mundine/eqgst9ocd

Then he joined the the Liberal Party in 2019 and look at him now.

The NSW Liberal Party looks to have joined the Victorian Liberals in deciding to remain as a useless opposition for the foreseeable future.

Opposition Leader, Mark Speakman, has announced that his drop-kick party will go against the federal party and support the Voice.

Speakman has been "quickly congratulated" by Comrade Albanese. What an honour!

We should be grateful, I suppose, that unlike New Zealand, for instance, it is the people, not politicians who will decide whether or not their country will be wrecked by racial division.

Dear Josephus,

You have much knowledge, but weighing into the history wars acknowledges the yes argument. Whether you have been an Aussie for five minutes or five generations should make you no more or less equal in a democracy. Arguing for democratic privilege on the basis of your heritage is like a modern day version of the right of kings.

I find it curious that people who might normally be opposed to things like royalty and apartheid are supporting both in the belief that it is the only way to lift up a disadvantaged group of Australians. There is always a plan b.

great way to waste half a billion dollars

Dear Fester,

You wrote:

"I find it curious that people who might normally be opposed to things like royalty and apartheid are supporting both in the belief that it is the only way to lift up a disadvantaged group of Australians."

My God. Really? You are equating an advisory body without any veto powers to royalty or apartheid? Do get a grip mate. This is a completely fanciful comparison and one which continues a theme of debased fearmongering by your side of the debate.

From the Uluru Statement from the Heart

"Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene
numbers. They should be our hope for the future.

These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.

We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.

We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution."

Why is so frigging hard to accept this proposal for what it is? A factually based simple proposition that isn't taking any skin off your nose at all.

We will be wasting and misdirecting much more money and
resources if we continue to keep on making decisions for
our Indigenous people.

They have the solutions for their
problems in their communities. We just need to let them
have a Voice and the government to listen - to solve their
problems. It's something that has not been done before.
It's time it was done.

The solutions to many of the complex problems facing
Indigenous communities today already exist - but they
don't have the power to change policy to implement them.

It is important to have those opportunities that are
going to give Voice to individual communities.

One community is not the same as another and the priorities
of each community is different.

The truth is Indigenous Australians are among the most
disadvantaged in the country.

Unfortunately the Voice is being weaponised politically by
the NO campaigners. We can't let them win.

Dear Steele,

"The lobby groups campaigning to sink the Indigenous Voice
to Parliament Referendum have deep links to a number of
conservative Christian organisations and consultancies, a
Guardian investigation can reveal. There's more at the
following:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/13/indigenous-voice-no-campaigns-deep-links-to-conservative-christian-politics

We need to give
our First People a chance
To advise the government
How they can advance

Foxy,
All well & good but do they or anyone else know what they actually want to advance to ? If it is privileges they want then all I can say what more to they expect & if it's equal rights then they already have them even without the responsibility the rest of us have to adhere to.
There is a cut-off point where welfare has to stop & effort cuts in & that goes for everyone living here or so it should !
The argument that the indigenous Australians aren't reciving enough is not a our fault, their standover lords are responsible for that mess & these same people are now vying for positions on the Voice bandwagon !

After little more than a year, Paul Collits is calling Albanese our worst PM ever:

. Albanese has achieved in even less time than Whitlam a near total destruction of a nation.

• He is a rare breed of politician. Stupid and dangerous.

• He is willing to throw the country under the bus with his madness.

He shows no empathy for those who are struggling with a cost-of-living crisis. If anything, he seems to be going out of his way to worsen it.

politcom.com.au/albanese-on-track-as-worst-pm-ever

.

As Foxy just pointed out in her latest post, the NO campaign seems to be “spear-headed” (if I may use the expression) by the politically conservative religious organisation, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL).

Martyn Iles, former managing director of the ACL, published an article in The Australian last year in which he grossly misrepresented the Voice project in racial terms opposing Australians “by skin colour – black v white”.

I find it surprising that a major, highly reputable, conservative newspaper such as The Australian should publish an article whose principal, if not sole argument, is based on racist considerations.

For those who may have missed it, here is the link to the article :

http://www.acl.org.au/blog/indigenous-voice/

.

Dear Foxy,

You say that the Voice will have no power, that it will be advisory only, but then you write:

"The solutions to many of the complex problems facing
Indigenous communities today already exist - but they
don't have the power to change policy to implement them."

So if the Voice carries no powers (beyond advisory) to implement change, and the solutions are already known, then why aren't those changes being implemented now?

Of course many people are inspired by "politically conservative religious organisation, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL)", just like the rest of you are inspired by the Greens Party and the Communists.

What a stupid comment from Banjo Django Paterson, who goes on to insinuate that The Australian is racist, when it is Paterson himself and his kind who are the ones supporting the ultra-racist Voice.

But, again, I have to say that there is no point trying to understand stupid people.

Dear Fester,

Past governments have made the decisions for our Indigenous
people without consulting what works best in their communities
for them. That's why it is important to give them a direct
Voice to Parliament Vote YES - the power is still with
government, but at least listen to what the Indigenous have
to say.

_______________________________________________________________

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Ignore the Ad Hominem attack.

A typical tactic used by many on discussion forums such as this
one. Instead of addressing someone's
argument or position - another poster irrelevantly attacks the
person or some aspect of the person who's making the
argument. It shows this poster unfortunately, is not capable of higher-level thinking.

Past governments have made the decisions for our Indigenous
people without consulting what works best in their communities
for them.
Foxy,
That is as ignorant as I'm used to deal with over my years in communities. The people couldn't or wouldn't tell what they want as they had no concept of improving facilities. Nowadays complaints range from housing to shopping to health etc. In my early days I recall people telling me off when I offered to provide a shower set up or give advise on fixing general things. "we don't want your white man rubbish" was not an uncommon reply or "do you think I'm stupid" when trying to show how to use a tool. The community leaders who had exposure to the pleasures of travelling to southern centres for free got addicted to the jaunts & benefits & sharing wasn't a word in their vocabulary.
The people of the early days in some (Qld) communities worked but since the Goss labor Govt days education or rather indoctrination has changed work ethics to blame & pretend discrimination tactics. These tactics have proven to work rather well for the streetwise but this left the communities behind so far as community spirit went. Very soon into the Goss years the fake indigenous made their entrance & nothing's changed since appart from the monies wasted & prospects of decent people lost. That was Labor then & is Labor now !

Unlike the abominable GreenLabor race-obsessed and divisive federal government, the South Australian Labor government is planning to do something useful in our AYP Lands to enhance community safety through improved agency cooperation.

A SAPOL hub will be established to "deliver crucial child protection and family violence services within the region."

The SA government is not hanging around waiting for some city elite to 'voice' problems that they already know exist with community safety and child abuse; with drug and alcohol problems, and domestic violence.

No racist, divisive Voice needed. Boots on the ground: not elites mincing around in cities, pretending to be aboriginal.

Economic help will be in the shape of improvements to the Ernabella Arts Centre - with which I have a family connection. Simple things like bus shelters for locals travellers to and from Adelaide and Alice Springs; street lighting.

Maybe the SA government has at last heard local voices, not the Big Men, don't-worry-about-ordinary-abos loud mouth activist voices behind Albanese's Voice, which would do absolutely nothing for the only people actually in need of a leg up.

South Australia's 47th Premier Peter Malinauskas is
the first with a non-Anglo surname so it is no surprise
that he is always questioned about his heritage.

His paternal grandmother was Hungarian. She survived WWII
and escaped the post-war communist Hungarian state when she
emigrated to Bathurst in NSW. She married
Peter Malinauskas Senior, a Lithuanian refugee and the couple
moved to Adelaide.

Malinauskas' mother's forebears were middle-class Irish.
The stories of their work, hardships, et cetera in developing
their new country are truly inspiring.

Peter Malinauskas wrote on Facebook:

" The State can offer as much opportunity to South Australians
as it did to my grandparents more than 65 years ago. But none
of that is possible until as a government we believe
that any adversity will be overcome."

" We must do more and work hard as a government to lower
unemployment and ambition has to start with belief. No one has
ever achieved great things without believing in themselves first.
My South Australian Labor team believes we can. And I believe we
can."

The current Federal Labor government also believes it can make changes
for our First Nations people. They believe that change is possible
and the gap can be closed to health, education, employment, and
other essential services and programs. That things can improve.

It is up to all Australians to decide that adversity can and will
be overcome.

Voting YES at the Referendum is so important.

SO, WE PUT THE VOICE IN THE CONSTUTION AND THEY ADVISE THE GOVERNMENT _ WHAT HAPPENNS WHEN ALL THEIR DISADVANTAGE IS SOLVED - SAY IN 20 YEARS? DO WE THEN REMOVE IT FROM THE CONSTUTION?

No! the disadvantage in not the agenda, the agenda is what follows the VOICE, introduced at State and Council - the reinstatement of control of lands, forests, waterways, and beaches to the descendants of tribes that we are told had these stolen from them by the British and the Westminster Governments, culture, and laws. As Foxy tries to imply it is the British who raped the Planet and destroyed opportunities for aboriginals to practice their ancient culture.

However, it was the British settlements that gave them food when they were starving during droughts, and clothing when they were cold, the British that took in unwanted infants and educated them otherwise they were disposed of by their mothers. Over 65,000 years they had to dispose of most of their children because the Australian native food species could not support a population greater than 1,300,000. It was the British industrial revolution that began the advance in agriculture and was the reason for population growth and the improvements in life expectancy and health. I do not know of any aboriginal who wants to go back to pre 1788 and face the witch doctor and the superstitions of that history. Even our government believes they need to live as we in a Modern world otherwise they would not have a minister for aboriginal affairs, though inept in her current role to deal with disadvantage.

What you see in third world today during food shortages reflects on what was happening in Australia before 1788, death of infants was commonplace.

on what was happening in Australia before 1788
Josephus,
Never ! Didn't anyone ever tell you that this continent was called Nirvana before the bad settlers renamed it Australia ?

2) Identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

3) Being accepted as such by the community in which you
live or have lived.

Foxy,
yeah, right ! At a time when they're desperately trying to build up the numbers they'd give the ok to Snow White to identify as an Aborigine !

Dear Indyvidual,

All three criteria have to be met in order to qualify
as an Indigenous person. The government makes the rules.

The government makes the rules.
Foxy,
These rules were made under the proviso that integrity was used to determine the requirements, alas !

The Voice is contentious proposal that is actually ‘hard to defend’ as it is prima facie racist and goes against Australia’s long standing commitment to equality for all, and our one-person-one-vote form of liberal democracy. It is a policy that will ultimately (after implementation of the Uluru Statement, Treaty and Truth-Telling) lead to co-sovereignty within Australia - two separate ‘states’ and differing governance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people and the rest of Australia - as has happened in New .Zealand, the example that Albanese , in one of his rants, said we should follow.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

To avoid any misunderstanding, perhaps I should explain the reason for my surprise at seeing The Australian publish an article in which the former MD of the Australian Christian Lobby grossly misrepresented the Voice project in racial terms.

Please be assured that it is not, as you suggest, because I wish to “insinuate that The Australian is racist”. If I had good reason to think that The Australian was racist, I would clearly say so.

Nor do I take inspiration from any of the sources you indicate (politically conservative religious organisations, the Greens Party or the Communists).

The Australian newspaper article came to me as a very pleasant surprise. I saw it as an all too rare and totally unexpected manifestation of freedom of expression (of an author) as well as the freedom of the press.

While I thoroughly oppose and condemn the racist ideas and theories expressed by the former MD of the conservative Australian Christian Lobby, I just as thoroughly approve and applaud his right and the right of The Australian newspaper to express them.

I regret the unavowed censorship of so many publications and media, not just in Australia, but throughout the so-called “free world”. I also regret the discrete auto-censorship of so many authors and would-be authors.

I dearly value my freedom and independence, ttbn, and do my best to avoid any outside influence. And though I see myself as an ordinary person, I notice that I share some of the sentiments and ideas of people like George Orwell and Noam Chomsky as well as a few others.

Here is George Orwell on the freedom of the press :

http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go

And here is Noam Chomsky on freedom of speech :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?=VjoAmkonH50&ab_channel=TheOriginsPodcast

.

.

Oups ! Something went wrong there !

Let's try this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsdvYbG3U_U&ab_channel=Chomsky%27sPhilosophy

.

There are several fatal problems with Albozo's "voice".

The first of which is that it is inherently racist,
The second is that the question posed in the referendum is a simple yes/no answer and provides no limitations on the scope of the voice.
The third reason is that Labor intends to require consultation with the voice at every level of government and every single decision law or regulation.
The fourth reason is that by all appearances the voice of every level of parliament will include the first stages of treaty negotiation and who knows reparations etc.

Dear Shadowminister,

I believe the main problem with the Voice referendum is it's paradoxical nature. I hear how the Voice is essential to empower indigenous communities to inform government and engage effective strategies to solve their problems, yet when I try to understand the specifics I am told that the problems of indigenous communities already have effective solutions, the Voice will have no power, and the government will have no obligation to take the advice given. Like the wonders of the quantum world, when you take a look in the box all you find is a dead cat.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

« The Voice is … prima facie racist … »

That's just a presupposition on your part, ttbn. The terms of the Voice referendum have not yet been published and probably won’t be until the ballot papers are in hand.

Though our constitution, as it stands, is clearly racist, I doubt very much that the terms of the projected referendum will also be racist.

The constitution gives the Federal Parliament power to make laws for “The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. Deemed necessary, that is, by the Parliament itself.

The argument for including such a provision in the Constitution was provided at the conventions that drafted the constitution by the then-leading political figure and proponent of a federated Australia in the colony of New South Wales, Sir Edmund Barton, later to become the first Prime Minister of Australia.

He told the Convention when it met in Melbourne in January 1898, “Questions which relate to the whole body of the people, to the purity of race, to the preservation of the racial character of the white population, are Commonwealth questions and should be so exclusively”.

Whereas, as I understand it, the objective of the Voice is simply to acknowledge our indigenous peoples in the constitution as having inhabited the country for over 65,000 years prior to the arrival of the British colonisers and pass legislation to allow them to have a say in the laws affecting them.

It has nothing to do with race, skin colour, religion/cosmology, culture, lifestyle, or any other aspect. It just has to do with who was here first and how long it took the others to get here and take over the country without bothering to ask the inhabitants if they agreed.

To quote the former MD of the Australian Christian Lobby who wrote in the conclusion of his article in The Australian :

« There is only one race, ultimately: the human race »

So there you go. He finally got it right.

And I couldn’t agree more.

.

"The Voice is an attempted Coup by a group of Australians who want to set-up an Aboriginal Aristocracy". (www.dark-emu-exposed.org) A soft-coup, not with guns and hard violence, "but with rhetoric, bullying and a low-information referendum."

"If the referendum (were to succeed), absolutely no legislation will be developed, proposed or enacted without The Voice Party having a default power to demand on being consulted by, engaged with, listened to ......"

Voice designer academic lawyer Megan Davis confirms that:

"The voice will be able to speak to all parts of the government, including the cabinet, ministers, public servants, and independent statutory offices and agencies – such as the Reserve Bank .....". (the parliament) "can’t shut the voice up”.

Dear Banjo,

So it is okay to grant democratic privilege retrospectively (over a century before federation) to Australian citizens descended from the native inhabitants on the basis that they were here first? What does that argument say for the democratic rights of recent migrants?

It may not seem like apartheid to you, but don't be so sure that the divine right of kings is more acceptable.

Well, I finally see the light! Comrade Thomas Mayo has given us the drum. He has informed those proposing the Uluru Statement that we must get rid of the sovereignty of the British Crown as it is the Crown that is incarcerated our children and murdering our men. Our Mob have every right to things we find when hunting through our tribal lands. We need our mob's sovereignty reinstated as Cook stole the land on 29 April 1770 for the oppressive British crown. It is the British Crown that is the problem.

Albo is fighting for our mob, and we gave him the spear of Makarrata, which is our most powerful weapon to overthrow the British Crown and reinstate our Mob's sovereign Nation under our flag.

Vote Yes to remove the British Crown and reinstate our mob's sovereinghty.

For a full reading of the program after the Voice see:
http://www.malarndirrimccarthy.com.au/media/pz1ioqgm/13052021-makarrata-commission-factsheet-1.pdf
This is the pledge of the Labor Party, and it is Labor who supports the Uluru Statement in Full. Truth telling only covers the oppression placed on tribal people since 1788 by the British, that needs repatriation.

" … it is the Crown that is (incarcerating) our children and murdering our men."

So, according to Commo Mayo, it's not the children committing crimes and getting rightly locked up? It's not women being murdered by aboriginal men?

It's King Charles 'what done it'.

These people get crazier and crazier every time they yap; as do the 'yes' voters, who keep coming up with crazy excuses to divide Australia by race: to excuse official government racism, the trashing of democracy, rule of law, equality and the traditional 'fair go' for all.

"For Indigenous Australians the concept of a "fair go,"
is meaningless."

"A Fair go is meaningless when applied to the full
suit of armour of disadvantage that First Nations people
have experience on a daily basis. For them life in the
settler colonial state has never been fair by every
measure. They are still chained firmly to the bottom of
the socio-economic ladder."

There's more at:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/27/for-indigenous-australians-the-concept-of-a-fair-go-is-meaningless#

Josephus,

Why on earth would you be pissing your bed over some truth telling?

On second thoughts, scratch that, it is pretty obvious why.

Never mind how heavily the importance of truth pervades the bible just stick with your toxic RW ideology and deny truth telling and all it stands for.

As for truth, dark-emu-exposed.org/home/beware-a-white-person-bearing-connections reveals that investigations into academics and politicians who self-identify as aboriginals have revealed that many of them are fakes.

An interesting read for anyone not a Leftist ideologue and a fan of fairy tales.

Bruce Pascoe gets a brief mention, but we all knew he was a fake from the get go. There are other academics and politicians who might pop up spinning more lies while this nonsense caused by the Voice drags on.

still chained firmly to the bottom of
the socio-economic ladder."
Foxy,
As are many of basic wage workers who don't have the option of low interest loans & free education for their children !
Will they get a Voice enshrined in the Constitution ?

The following link explains:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/13/voice-to-parliament-wont-give-special-rights-to-indigenous-australians-legal-experts-say

Thomas Mayo's family tree is interesting:

. Father’s ancestors from: Malaysia, the Philippines, Nuie, Vanuatu and Singapore. Some German ancestry also.

. Mother's ancestry: Polish, Jewish and English.

. His great-grandparents might have had some Torres Strait Islander in them, but no proof could be found.

Thomas Mayor is a Torres Strait Islander man
born in Larraka County in Darwin.

The following link explains his background:

http://abc.net.au/qanda/thomas-mayor/13796732

He undertook an 18 month journey around the country to
garner support for the First Nations Voice. There's more on
the link.

ttbn, I've mentioned before you do not need original Australian tribal DNA to be accepted into the tribes Mob. Just be recognized by a tribal Elder, for example Thomas Mayo his heritage shows zero aboriginality.
The Independent Education website describes Mayor more accurately: “His father, Celestino Mayor, is of Philippine and Dayak (Borneo) ancestry and his mother, Liz Mayor, brings Polish, Jewish and English ancestry to the family.”.

http://www.directory.gov.au/people/thomas-mayor

Foxy's post of the Guardian is correct, the Voice is a Federal arm of Government. It is up to the States and local Councils to make Treaties and laws to give aboriginal tribes powers over their lands, waterways, resources, and beaches, because Australia is a Federation of States. The police, hospitals, housing, and education are also State controlled. This is where the power lies in reinstating aboriginal sovereignty and removing the crown.

The English Crown will be removed for an Aboriginal socialist Republic controlled by Tribal Elders.

Labor MP, Gordon Reid, is the latest person, or the latest politician, to self-identify as aboriginal in the current race frenzy, claiming that his granny is a Wiradjuri woman.

This claim has apparently "surprised" and "concerned" Wiradjuri people, as they don't seem to know the lady at all. She also thinks that she is aboriginal, but that doesn't necessarily make it so, according to people who know what they are talking about. And, a genealogical investigation suggests that Ms Reid's ancestry is totally European.

These days, you can identify as a doorknob, and nobody cares. But, in the matter of race, and the rewards to be gained by being a member of a certain race in very race-obsessed Australia, you must be able to prove it with your DNA.

The English Crown cannot be removed without a referendum
and needs to be supported by a majority of voters
nationally and a majority of voters in a majority of states.

The Voice to Parliament is an advisory body

In his comeback to Andrew Bolt and others who have made clear their scepticism - based on genealogical records - of his claim to aboriginality, Reid still did not provide proof of his supposed ancestry.

The complete lack of evidence didn’t stop his Labor colleagues from giving him a big shout out of course. They believe anything.

Reid moaned about people's "desire" to "strip" him of his "pride".

'Legal definitions of Aboriginality' states:

36.28 In summary, the Commonwealth government appears to apply the three-part test of Aboriginal descent, self-identification and community recognition for determining eligibility for certain programs and benefits.

Reid's critics have decided that he passes on two parts of the test - self ID, (which is nonsense to my way of thinking) and community recognition (which must have occurred after the first interview with certain Wiradjuri), but not the big one, actual Aboriginal descent.

Foxy, it is the ultimate hope of aboriginal sovereignty, which they believe might take 20 years or more.

What does Dr Gordon Reid's claim to be of
Aboriginal ancestry have to do with the
Voice to Parliament?

Please explain.

Dear Josephus,

What do you know about Aboriginal Sovereignty and
what their aims are? Please provide us with some evidence
as you appear incapable in understanding even the basics
of the Voice to Parliament.

.

As I recalled on a previous thread, ever since Cook landed in Botany Bay, home of the Eora people, in 1770, the British colonisers considered that Australia was uninhabited, by virtue of the doctrine of terra nullius.

But it was not because they ignored the existence of the Aboriginal peoples, it was because they simply discounted them as a species of subhuman primates that had not attained the degree of civilisation that warranted consideration of their attendant rights. They were deemed part of the local flora and fauna, indigenous animals. But as a number of reputable anthropologists subsequently pointed out, this was largely due to their ignorance of the intricacies of the Aboriginal culture and lifestyle.

That was 253 years ago now and we are about to be asked to vote on whether we should acknowledge their existence in our constitution and allow them to have a say in laws concerning them.

Today, it is estimated that 10% of Indigenous Australians have already attained or are studying for a bachelor's university degree or above (compared to 51% of the total Australian population).

A national referendum is planned sometime before the end of this year. The precise terms of the referendum have not yet been published and probably won’t be before the ballot papers are in hand.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Professor Anne Twomey, one of the experts advising the federal government on this referendum, explains that a simple constitutional amendment followed by more detailed legislation makes sense.

"We don't want things frozen into the constitution that might be hard to change in the future. We want to have flexibility".

"So, if the Voice isn't working well, if there are problems in it, say corruption or some sort of other issue, then you can legislate to resolve that."

That seems good sense to me. Unless there is something contrary to that in the wording, I shall probably vote “yes”.

The racist arguments of the politically conservative religious organisations don’t hold water so far as I am concerned (c.f., Jeremiah 2:13 KJV).

This is how I see it :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrLTe1_9zso&ab_channel=rich963

.

Dear Banjo,

Your comments raise another problem with the referendum. The government could just legislate the Voice. This would save $300 million and would allow voters to see how it works in practice. If it works well then a referendum could be proposed if it were thought necessary. If it fails to meet expectations, then the legislation could be amended or repealed. This approach would also the Voice to be replaced if a better solution were found.

To give an analogy, it is like committing to full production without making or testing a prototype, which strikes me as ill-considered.

The Voice has zilch to do with social, economic or humanitarian issues, it's about power to satisfy the unwarranted hatred of pseudo indigenous activists !

Dear Fester,

The following link explains why we just can't establish
the Voice to Parliament:

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

The heavily government-subsidised and pampered Qantas has joined the the Yes cheer squad. How much of our money is being used by Albanese to garner support from the corporates. There is really nothing in it for Big Business to barrack for the Voice: it certainly pisses consumers off. So, they must be getting nice big bribes and benefits from the corrupt Albanese government. Same with sporting organisations.

Dear Foxy,

The four points in your link are:

-Constitutional change is part of the Uluru statement.

-Constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians.

-Constitutional change will make the Voice impossible to remove by an act of parliament.

-Constitutional change will give the Voice strong popular legitimacy.

These are far from good reasons not to test a legislative prototype of the Voice, which the opening sentence of your link admits is possible. Further, if the referendum fails, then it might be difficult for a government to legislate the Voice in the face of public disapproval. This would be especially bad if the Voice is as good an idea as you believe.

The agenda is to ultimately remove the British Crown from Australia, as it is the crown that has stolen the land and its organizations, like courts and police, who is oppressing aboriginal children and men.

These views are being taught in schools and University to increase the guilt and present a sanitized view of aboriginal history and culture, so that children and new migrant citizens believe repatriation means returning the lands to the rightful tribal owners and their Mob. The Labor party education strategies sees this as the way to change societies views, and when the time is right will hold a Republican Referendum and install aboriginal elders as heads of State, with a new constitution.

The following link explains what the Indigenous Voice to
Parliament is, what does it mean and what it's all about:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/14/what-is-the-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-what-does-it-mean-explained-referendum-campaign

OOOOps - sorry, my mistake.

Here's the link again:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/14/what-is-the-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-australia-what-does-it-mean-explained-referendum-campaign

Foxy,
I can't see any reference to how the Voice will deal with the racist activists in its ranks ?

Dear Indyvidual,

What racist attitudes?

Dear Fester,

You had earlier said: "The fact that the Voice will give a democratic privilege to one group of people over another is reason enough to reject it. So while there might be speculation as to what sort of world it will be, no amount of Orwellian doublespeak can convince me that I will be making Australians equal by creating inequality."

But in answering BP you say: "The government could just legislate the Voice. This would save $300 million and would allow voters to see how it works in practice. If it works well then a referendum could be proposed if it were thought necessary."

Why would you respond in this fashion when you clearly don't support a Voice at all?

What racist attitudes?
Foxy,
The ones who gloss over lack of effort & make that lack a racial issue !

Dear Indyvidual,

I don't know what you are talking about.
You need to be more specific - and give examples.
Thanks.

I see Julian Leeser stated, "He says the voice will help close the “horrendous” gap in outcomes for Indigenous people, citing that an Indigenous woman is 35 times more likely to be assaulted and an Indigenous boy is more likely to go to jail than university.

I wonder if he knows that assaults are happening by aboriginal men, and aboriginal boys are committing crimes because of the home culture they grow up in. The only cure is removing them from these remote communities and placing them in a disciplined environment. The Voice will not change behaviors, as they want to fight and appropriate things they like.

A Great case to Vote NO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be8E9aagdls

Josephus,

Did you really link to a video from Anderson? My goodness. The bloke's hyperbole is usually off the charts by default and his opening lines here don't disappoint.

"Australian's will make one the the most important political decisions of their lifetime..."

"...which would make SPECIAL representations to parliament and to the executive on an EXTRAORDINARY range if not ALL policy matter that might come before the government."

Emphasis added by him. He really does come off as a dropkick.

But leaving that aside his Referendum Report from 2016 did make some telling observations:

"Finally, it is clear from the responses that there is a need to address the perceived impact of constitutional recognition on Indigenous aspirations for sovereignty or a treaty. A number of respondents noted that the movement in support of sovereignty was gaining some ground. Any final proposal will need to clearly differentiate the issue of constitutional recognition from treaty. Awareness-raising should focus on clarifying the fact that recognition in no way precludes a treaty, and indeed, may present a pathway towards it."

http://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2016-06/Final_Report_Aboriginal_Torres_Strait_Islander_Act_of_Recognition_Review_Panel_1MB.pdf

Oh dear. The world on its head. The Voice's popularity is dropping like the proverbial and it's a wicked plot by political extremists.

The reality is that it is the yes campaign that failing to provide satisfactory and logical answers to simple questions.

Albanese could have legislated the Voice with little fuss and expense, and were constitutional change is the objective then a working prototype is always a much easier sell, but with this dumb approach the Voice may never become a reality.

Oh, and how ironic to see the champions of the working class siding with the elites and accusing the plebs of being misled. Keep on digging!

give examples.
Foxy,
non-indigenous claiming to be indigenous whose parents didn't even exist by the time welfare was in place to help the indigenous.

Dear Fester,

Speaking of "failing to provide satisfactory and logical answers to simple questions" I will ask again:

Dear Fester,

You had earlier said: "The fact that the Voice will give a democratic privilege to one group of people over another is reason enough to reject it. So while there might be speculation as to what sort of world it will be, no amount of Orwellian doublespeak can convince me that I will be making Australians equal by creating inequality."

But in answering BP you say: "The government could just legislate the Voice. This would save $300 million and would allow voters to see how it works in practice. If it works well then a referendum could be proposed if it were thought necessary."

Why would you respond in this fashion when you clearly don't support a Voice at all?

.

I indicated in my post on page 15 of this thread that there are currently 320 lobbying organisations and 676 lobbyists operating in Australia for a total of 2,243 clients, and, as I understand it, the "First Nations Voice" is, for all intents and purposes, just another lobby.

In my view, lobbies and democracy go together like water and fire. Combining the two in the greater interest of society, as a whole, is no mean task – if at all possible.

I can only imagine that, in their great wisdom, the legislators accord privileges to the 2,243 special interest groups with a certain degree of parsimony so as to keep the flame burning.

Lack of transparency is probably considered an important precaution when ceding to pressure groups, the rule being that what the general public ignores doesn’t get them upset.

Obviously, the facts don’t count. It’s what the people believe are the facts that counts.

If the Voice passes, we will no longer have 2,243 but 2,244 special interest groups lobbying the legislators for what they perceive to be their interests.

These special interest groups are precisely that. They don’t necessarily represent the interests of society as a whole. Society allows them to operate by virtue of the principle that “the true measure of a democracy is the way it treats its minorities”. But that, of course, does not mean that they should be given a free hand.

It seems evident to me that all parties to the lobby system should be strictly controlled, monitored and held accountable to the general public for their decisions and actions. But for that to happen, there has to be transparency at all times, at all levels.

There is no legislation in Australia at the federal level in respect of lobbying. There is just a lobbyist register and a code of conduct that applies to third-party lobbyists who only represent 20% of the total – without any real monitoring.

Whereas, if the Voice is adopted, it will be subject to specific legislation including obligations of transparency, accountability and effective monitoring.

.

Dear Steele,

My view is from the peanut gallery. I don't support the Voice, but that is not reason for me to think about why the Yes campaign is going so badly or how the Voice might have succeeded if things were done differently. I find the whole show interesting.

We now know that, if the Voice was successful, we could definitely expect:

Reparations and compensation.

Abolishing Australia Day.

Expanding WA-style Aboriginal cultural heritage laws that mean you have to pay up every time you want to do something on your own property -

just for starters.

The current and childish distraction set in motion by Sleazy Albanese about how many pages of demands there are is pathetic.

The question is not whether the additional pages are formally part of the Uluru Statement, it is whether they are relevant in better understanding that Statement; and they are certainly that, revealing the truth behind the Albanese lies.

The Uluru statement from the Heart isn’t just the first one-page statement; it’s actually a very lengthy document of about 18 to 20 pages, and a very powerful part of this document reflects what happened in the dialogues. (Prof. Megan Davis).

Albanese's threats to liberal values can be challenged if we wish to get up and do it. The future course of history is never inevitable.

Little or nothing has been said about Albanese's absurd comparison of his Voice claptrap with Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which began with 'all men are created equal'.

Albanese doesn't believe that, deeming that aboriginal Australians are not equal to the rest of us, can't look after themselves, and need our help; help that no other race or culture gets in this country.

Albanese's 'address' begins with the message that aboriginal Australians are not equal.

Whereas the Gettysburg Address sought unity, the Voice - every time it is mentioned by the Alboracists - seeks separation of one race from the rest of us. They want payback.

Malice towards white and other non-aboriginal Australians oozes from the Voice.

If you believe that aboriginal people are lesser humans and mentally challenged to be able to enter a modern society - Vote YES. For special treatment.

If you believe that aboriginal people are equal in intelligence and their situation is rescuable by education and self-discipline to be able to enter a modern world - Vote NO. For equality.

Dear ttbn,

The equality issue silences the voice for me, so everything else is a floor show. What interests me at present are Peta Credlin's efforts regarding the length of the Uluru statement. Albanese is looking the complete fool, now acknowledging that he hasn't read the full document, but presumably he gets the vibe of it. Amazing! Here is the main guy pushing the referendum and he hasn't read the Uluru statement when the likes of Megan Davis are suggesting that every Australian should read the statement in full. You couldn't make that up.

The Report from the Royal Commission into the Deaths
in Custody, the Bringing Them Home Report, the
Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation's final Report
and the Referendum Council's Final Report all mark
significant steps in understanding the effects of
colonisation, dispossession, forced removal and trauma
on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as well
as understanding their remarkable resilience.

Most recently the Uluru Statement from the Heart captures
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aspirations for a
fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia
based on justice and self determination. All of these
reports including the Uluru Statement share a common message
that there is a need to understand the truths of the past to
avoid repeating the wrongs of the past today.

That is why it is so important to vote YES for the Voice
to Parliament.

Dear Foxy,

The Uluru statement is the culmination of these things. Albanese has made it an election promise to implement the Uluru statement in full, a promise he has often repeated. He hasn't read the document, yet he wants all Australians to support it in the referendum. I hope you read the fine print before you sign Foxy and aren't just relying on the vibe to guide you like Albo is.

Such idiocy could never eventuate with a non-academic indoctrinated at the helm !

Dear Fester,

You're wrong when you posted that you couldn't make
this stuff up. The NO campaigners are doing precisely
that and people like yourself unfortunately are falling for
this misinformation.

Peta Credlin claim that the Uluru Statement from the Heart
is a 26 page document, with policies including reparations
for First Nations peoples is false.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a ONE page document
as confirmed by the authors (and fact-checked).
Papers released under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act
contain the Statement but also include 25 pages of minutes
held by Indigenous Communities - which are NOT part of the
Uluru Statement.

There's more at the following:

http://rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-mega-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-is-one-page

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

http://rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/uluru-statement-from-the-heart-is-one-page

Fester

We have Albanese as Prime Minister because we have a low-information electorate.

Much, if not most, of the information they need to vote intelligently is not seen in the mainstream media. Most people don't read books these days, relying on the internet, not knowing that Google and the like bury anything that is not woke and left-wing thinking under so many layers few people will bother wading through. This is why it is so easy for the Leftists who splash references all over the place agreeing with their ideology and politics. The internet is already censoring for Albanese. He doesn't need any new totalitarian Bill.

It might be the same if society was to the right as much as it is to the left today, but the right/conservative politics is a distant memory.

Given that Australian PMs have been virtual presidents (some would say dictators) since Turnbull, Morrison and now Albanese, voters should forget parties and go by the leadership. I don’t believe that all the Ministers and backbenchers in either party are absolute pricks like our last three PMs have been.

Dear Foxy,

Straight from the horse's mouth:

"But what are the other 25 pages? I’ve read them, what are they?” Mitchell said.

“What they are is a record of meetings … they’re records of the big lead-up that happened, in the lead-up to, ironically … the Uluru Statement from the Heart,” the PM said.

“Do you agree with most of what is said in those 25 pages?” Mitchell said.

“I haven’t read it,” Mr Albanese said.

“You haven’t read it?” Mitchell said.

“There’s 120 pages — why would I?” the PM said."

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/why-would-i-anthony-albanese-hasnt-read-additional-25-pages-of-uluru-statement-material/news-story/dc24efdd1546b9c7183418f82d3bf553

And there are videos of Megan Davis and Pat Anderson saying the statement is longer than one page. Unlike Albo, they have read the statement in full, and Megan Davis has urged all Australians to read it in full.

Dear Indyvidual,

Surrounding the Uluru Statement are signatures of over 250
delegates who attended the Conference and reached a consensus.
There are 100 First Nations representatives in the Statement
or signers who included the name of their nation.

Do your research and think before you post.
Just a suggestion.

Dear Fester,

You claim: "The Uluru statement is the culmination of these things. Albanese has made it an election promise to implement the Uluru statement in full, a promise he has often repeated. He hasn't read the document, yet he wants all Australians to support it in the referendum. I hope you read the fine print before you sign Foxy and aren't just relying on the vibe to guide you like Albo is."

Why is this idiocy still getting a run?

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a single page document. The accompanying Our Story is additional material as any sensible person can understand.

The fact that this utterly disingenuous trope from the Cretin is getting the run it has really does speak to the intelligence and/or the motives of so many of those who are perpetuating it.

Dear Fester,

The 26 pages of minutes of meetings held by Indigenous communities
are NOT part of the Uluru Statement. And they are available
for all to read. Nothing has been hidden. And the implications
suggested by the NO campaigners reek of desperation.

Quite sad really.

Dear Steele and Foxy,

You can listen to a recording of Megan Davis and Pat Anderson at Melbourne Town Hall about the Uluru statement. A little after 44:30 you can see Pat Anderson say it is 18 pages long, so you don't have to take my word for it, nor Peta Credlin's for that matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQnIQly4sKk

Nothing has been hidden.
Foxy,
In all sincerity, seek help !

Steelreflux,

If the other 25 pages are not part of the "statement" then why are they published as attached to the statement?

A comparison would be the pages of fine print at the back of any contract. Only an idiot like Albozo could ignore it.

Gawd save us. Sigh.

Dear Fester,

Is this really that hard to understand?

Okay, here is the Australian Constitution from a different foi response to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet:

http://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-logs/foi-2021-017.pdf

You will note the entire document is 142 pages long.

There is a 5 page Overview similar if you like to the OUR STORY of the Uluru document. There is a 3 page index. There are 5 pages of notes included at the end of the Constitution. Then there is the accompanying Acts Interpretation Act 1901 which goes for a further 97 pages.

But the Constitution proper would be regarded as 36 pages long.

A non-foi version can be found here: http://www.aph.gov.au/constitution

The link shown when you go to this page is titled View the Constitution as a single document (PDF 584KB). That is 50 pages long. However less the overview at the start and the notes at the end it is 36 pages.

The overview and notes were written quite recently. However anyone being invited to read and understand the Constitution would of course read them as well, but these aren't the Constitution proper and would not be regarded by the courts as such.

So no matter what you are being fed by the Cretin this is not a smoking gun or a scoop. It is in my view ust a sad and twisted woman making mischief. Time to cut the apron strings.

Dear Steele,

Here is Megan Davis talking about Our Story as the part of the Uluru statement, from about 14:30:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph23ROLV9I0

I don't ascribe to the conspiracy theorists, but I think that the statement is a bit longer than the one with the signatures around it.

Professor Megan Davis an architect of the Uluru
Statement made her clarification clear:

"The Uluru Statement from the Heart is ONE page.
It is 439 words. It is supported by other documents
contained in the Referendum Council report that
reflect and document the many regional dialogues and
consultations leading to it."

"These have been made public for seven years. They are
found on the Referendum Council website. These are the
official documents."

"The public, politicians, and media have been encouraged
by the Uluru Dialogue to learn more on the Statement for
seven years."

Professor Davis went on to categorise debate on the length
of the Uluru Statement as a reflection of the way Indigenous
issues are treated in this country.

"The fact that a single NO advocate has used her privileged
media platform to confuse mainstream media and our political
leaders so dramatically about the Voice tells you everything
you need to know about the way Indigenous issues are treated
in this country."

"When we speak, we are ignored. When we work harder to
re-assure - we are ignored. When we strive to meet the many
hurdles that are put in front of us the goal posts are shifted.
When we encourage ALL Australians to inform themselves by
reading deeply that is distorted and weaponised by a NO
campaign that has no alternative and is intent on misinformation
and division."

My goodness!

Dear Fester,

Are the Overview and notes part of the Australian Constitution or not?

"The Uluru Statement from the Heart is ONE page.
It is 439 words.
Foxy,
Then please publish it here for all of us to see !

DOES MEGAN DAVIS NEED A VOICE IN THE CONSTITUTION? IS SHE DISADVANTAGED AND LESSER THAN THE AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN? DOES SHE NEED HOUSING, EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT? HOW HAS SHE SUFFERED UNDER OUR GOVERNMENTS?

THE VOICE, ACCORDING TO MEGAN DAVIS, IS GIVING POWER TO ABORIGINAL ELDERS TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN MOBS"S FUTURE.

Dear Josephus,

As I saw her, Meagan Davis is intelligent, learned and focused. She proposed removing the race powers from the constitution which would get a yes vote from me any day. But proposing a democratic privilege for indigenous Australians, an elected body of indigenous Australians immune from removal by the legislative assembly, is undemocratic and divisive.

There has been a re-imagining of aboriginal culture. What is now imagined has very little resemblance to the reality of the past. Connecting the past to urbanised, mainly mixed race people is bollocks. And 'real' aborigines live in remote camps, where they can't be helped because they don't work (there are no jobs in the middle of nowhere) they don't go to school, many don't even speak English. And the lazy buggers won't do anything about it. Everything they have now has been supplied by whitey, and they can't even take care of what they are given.

These people won't help themselves by moving to somewhere there are jobs; they won't send their kids to school (and the government doesn't make them, is it does with non-aboriginal parents); they won't stay off the grog; they won't stay out of jail; they won't stop bashing women. They do bugger all for themselves, and they have no pride in themselves or their imagined past.

Virtue signalling, which is all the Voice would be, plus well-paid sinecures for a couple of dozen activists, would not make one iota of difference to these no-hopers.

After 235 years, people who still haven't joined in with 97% of the population who are enjoying modernity, civilisation and prosperity are never going to do so, just because another crackpot scheme is vomited up by a cynical Prime Minister and and a bunch of Blackticvists who are in on the con for their own reasons.

The Prime Minister and his slippery supporters talk about 'truth'. What a load of nonsense, coming from a bunch of people who have lied about just about everything to do with this Voice rubbish, but who have well and truly been found out.

Albanese has really lost his marbles now, saying that he cannot see how a NO vote will "advance aboriginal issues".

Duh! It won't. Nobody said it would! It's his YES vote that's supposed to do that, but people are deciding to vote NO because they don't want more money spent, and an even bigger aboriginal industry, on something else that will not advance aboriginal issues.

How on earth did this dill get into Parliament, let only become Prime Minister.

I don't know what I'm doing wrong but I can not download or even just read this 439 word page everyone's referencing ?
Hopefully Foxy or SteeleRedux or Paul1405 will put it up here for us to see !

Dear Indyvidual,

Here you go mate.

http://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/final-report.html#toc-anchor-ulurustatement-from-the-heart

SteeleRedux,
Thank you, it'll take me some time to digest the 1 (38) page.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

« We now know that, if the Voice was successful, we could definitely expect:

1. Reparations and compensation.
2. Abolishing Australia Day.
3. Expanding WA-style Aboriginal cultural heritage laws that mean you have to pay up every time you want to do something on your own property - »
.

You raise some interesting points there, ttbn.

1. It was Scott Morrison, Prime Minister and leader of the conservative coalition government who decided reparation in 2021 for members of the “Stolen Generations” after a group of Indigenous people began legal action for compensation.

Morrison told Parliament that AUS$378.6 million would be allocated to redress the human damage of the policy, including one-off payments of AUS$75,000 for its victims.

This compensation was obtained from the conservative government without any need for a “First Nations Voice”.

2. As far as I know, nobody expects Australia Day to be “abolished” per se, but please correct me if I am wrong. And any decision to change the name and/or the date would have to be made conjointly by the Australian federal and state governments, but this has, so far, lacked sufficient political and public support.

According to the latest poll, a special Roy Morgan SMS Poll on 24 January 2023, nearly two-thirds of Australians (64%) say January 26 should be known as ‘Australia Day’, virtually unchanged on a year ago.

In any event, the proposed First Nations Voice would have no power to either change or delete Australia Day even if there were sufficient political and public support to do so.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

3. As I’m sure you are aware, ttbn, a 46,000-year-old Aboriginal heritage site destroyed by Rio Tinto in 2020 was one of more than 463 sites that mining companies operating in Western Australia had applied for permission to destroy or disturb.

None of the applications had been refused. And under the state’s 48-year-old Aboriginal heritage laws, only the land- or leaseholder had the right to appeal – traditional owners did not.

New Aboriginal cultural heritage laws were promulgated in 2021 but they went too far in attempting to protect the heritage sites and were rescinded 39 days later.

The problem you mention was settled two years ago, ttbn, you should know that. It no longer exists.

As a matter of fact, the WA branch of the National Party says it supports the creation of a national Voice and the WA Liberal Leader Libby Mettam has taken a similar stance.

See for yourself :

http://thewest.com.au/politics/wa-nationals-support-indigenous-voice-c-9001981

http://thewest.com.au/politics/state-politics/voice-to-parliament-wa-liberal-leader-libby-mettam-defies-federal-party-position-says-she-will-vote-yes-c-10262046

.

So far, I've read some good points however, there's quite a bit of idealistic waffle that is not consistent or comparable with the actual mentality of people then & now.
We have a situation where victors play victim & vice versa by manipulating historical context to gain modern benefits.
The way I see it is that no-one is pointing out personal effort by people to help themselves or others.
The settlers have all but ruined & overused natural resources & outsiders are still doing so sanctioned by the people to satisfy the demands for consumer products by the average every day person living here & the royalties paid to selected indigenous key figures who are not distributing benefits as the providers of the benefits are requesting. This may or may not get worse with the Voice depending on the characters in charge. I personally know one of the Voice panel & this person is locally known as a very racist control freak & another I know is a nice enough person but a fence-sitter & not a clear cut decision maker.
When the Voice makes a clear point of individual effort & responsibility requirement for all then I'd consider giving some support but not as things are at present. There's too much corruption & antagonism & in my book enshrining activist mentality in the Constitution is ill advised & definitely wrong !

The Voice gives Australians a wonderful opportunity to tell Albanese and minority activists where they can put their divisive nonsense. They can vote NO to it.

The tide just might be starting to turn against the woke, virtue-signalling Left.

A marketing strategist and consultant interviewed on ADH TV Tuesday night reported that a mere 10%-13% of people across ALL generations are actually woke or believe in wokeness.

You won't see or hear that on the mainstream media, or your ABC.

If you have had enough of the depressing sludge on mainstream media, or just want to hear alternative views, download the ADH TV app to a smart TV or other devices. Presenters are: Alan Jones, David Flint, Fred Pawle, Nick Cator, Damian Coory, Dave Pellowe, all interviewing prominent and knowledgeable Australians, plus overseas guests. Mark Steyn and Spectator TV are also available. Free.

Dear Banjo,

Libby Mettam withdrew her support for the Voice after seeing what can go wrong if you don't get the details right:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-12/wa-liberal-leader-to-vote-no-on-the-voice-after-supporting-yes/102722890

A yes vote is like signing the contract before it is written.

" The Uluru Statement from the Heart is ONE page.
It is 439 words. It is supported by other documents
contained in the Referendum Council report that
reflect and document the many regional dialogues
and consultations leading up to it."

"These have been public for seven years. They are found
on the Referendum Council website. These are the
official documents.. The public, politicians and media
have all been encouraged by the Uluru Dialogues to
learn more on the Uluru Statement for seven years."

The recent on going debate on the Voice and the length
of the Uluru Statement is a reflection of the way
Indigenous issues are treated in this country.

"The fact that a single NO advocate (Peta Credlin)
shamefully has used her privileged media platform to
confuse the main stream media and our political
leaders so dramatically about the Voice tells you
everything you need to know about the way Indigenous
issues are treated in this country."

"When we speak, we are ignored. When we work harder to
reassure - we are ignored. When we strive to meet the
many hurdles that are put in front of us the goal
posts are shifted. When we encourage ALL Australians
to inform themselves by reading DEEPLY - that is
distorted and weaponised by a NO campaign that has
no alternative and is intent on misinformation,
scare tactics and fear mongering and division."

(Taken from a speech by Prof. Megan Davis - an architect
of the Uluru Statement - made for clarification).

Albozo was right, a NO vote will do nothing for Aboriginals, however, there is no evidence that a YES vote will do either.

There are many Aboriginal councils and organisations set up to provide advice and 11 Aboriginal MPs. Albozo has given no indication as to how the voice will make any improvement other than boosting the opulent lifestyles of the self appointed activists.

Did you hear Megan Davis say they held the Uluru convention on the weekend so all could attend as they all had work commitments and had to leave early to go home, that it was a gathering of educated first nations from across the country.
1. ALL HAD WORK COMMITMENTS.
2. ALL HAD HOMES.
3. ALL WERE WELL EDUCATED.
Listen to her lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQnIQly4sKk

I have not heard from Foxy, Paul, or Steele, claiming Megan Davis and the Uluru Mob are disadvantaged and as Linda Burney claims needs Work, a Home or education.

It is a con for power over those without aboriginal heritage to pay up. VOTE NO.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Read and do the research. You seem to not know what the
Voice is about and what it will do despite it being
explained so many times on this Forum and links given.

Please inform yourself before posting in future.

Dear Foxy,

Seeing as you know so much about the Voice you might offer the PM a comprehensive enlightenment on the matter so that he wont have to rely entirely on the vibe. But first you should read the Uluru statement in full as it is better to read something more substantial than a summary.

better to read something more substantial than a summary.
Fester,
Anyone can write something "good' & people accept it as it is written. However, when it gets to the stage where the accepted written words then get twisted into totally different meaning it is too late, much like this Voice thing !
In the beginning it was a proposal to acknowledge the Aborigines as the original/traditional inhabitants of this nation, that's what we read & were told. In the meantime, some of these activist "Architects" of the Voice have been unable to contain their enthusiasm at the support they enjoyed & started to tell & show what their real agenda is. Some of it reads & sounds good, more of it is bad, bad for this Nation !
I still remember some of the earlier activists shouting "all we want is an apology" well, there were several apologies since.
What people of this nation need to understand is that the activists don't live in the remote communities & don't want to anyway & don't give a hoot about the conditions of the true Aborigines. Bad non-indigenous have provided & still provide for the Aborigines, the activists don't !

Fester, Exactly, Foxy only reads the headlines, and listens to Albo.
She will not answer the questions I ask, because she has no answer. Is the Voice about housing, education and employment, as those that propose the Uluru Statement has no need of any of these. The Voice leads to sovereignty and power, and the continuing of the guilt industry. We will bash you down for what you did to our ancestors.

Fester,

Thank you for your advice. I have read the Uluru
Statement. I have done my research. Perhaps
you need to do the same so you can think before
you post.

Josephus,

The same applies to you.

Foxy,
can you save us reading time & please point us to section that says equal responsibilities ?

Dear Foxy,

Well done! Now hop to it and offer Mr Albanese some enlightenment on the Voice. He is looking a complete dill and could use some help.

Fester,

Been there and done that.

Take your own advice and you do the same for Dutton
who's totally lost the plot. There's a good chap!
Dutton needs more help - desperately.

Indyvidual,

You need to do your own research so you can fully understand
what all this is about. Which it appears you don't have a
clue at the moment.
I can't help you as it appears that you don't understand
even the basics. Have a go for yourself. If you still
don't get it - go to a library .They'll be able to help.

Dear Foxy,

No thanks. With my understanding of the Voice I would need to see a prototype working first, so I don't see how that qualifies me to brief anyone. You on the other hand have such an understanding of the Voice that makes a prototype unnecessary. Maybe you could do a two for one deal and brief Albanese and Dutton together?

Dear Fester,

We have seen prototype after prototype and they inevitably get trashed by incoming governments and we reinvent the wheel all over again.

ATSIC was a glaring example. Rather than working to fix problems within the board, even though the ATSIC structure on the ground was functioning well, it was scrapped by Howard.

Surely this is a cogent argument for a Voice enshrined in the Constitution because people like you will be forever claiming that we don't have a working model.

Fester,

Thanks for the kind words.

Our Prime Minister already knows
what's involved. Peter Dutton is a conservative pundit
who has a remarkable amount of free speech. He doesn't
need me. He has his own agenda.

But thanks for thinking of me so highly.

Foxy,

I have read and done the research and I doubt that you have. Even Albo does not seem able to give any details.

Your links to platitudes given by voice supporters have zero legal bases and are at best benign opinions meant as bromides for the masses.

That the voice is to be consulted at every level of the elected government and civil service means that the power and scope of the voice are far beyond what Albozo would have us believe.

Australians are not stupid enough to sign Labor a blank cheque.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I can assure you that I have done my research and I
find it difficult to believe that you don't seem
to understand what the Voice is all about. Try again
with an open mind, and don't insert what isn't there.
This is such a simple request and I truly don't
understand why you insist on making it complicated.

I'm sure that if Dutton would have come up with this
idea you'd be all for it. It's a real shame that
politics has been brought into it. But as
Prof. Megan Davis pointed out - this is the way
the Indigenous people and their issues have been treated
in this country. We need to make changes to that.
It's way overdue.

Foxy, you are true to your name - sly.
I ask you to defend the Voice for the lokes of Megan Davies, and Linda Burney. How are they disadvantaged? You have no answer, which means they have no need of a Voice, as you understand the Voice. In that case VOTE NO!

Dear Steele,

How many iterations of rule have there been before our current system of government and how long did it take? You claim that Atsic had minor problems that could be fixed simply, but obviously many other people thought otherwise and the decision gets made by the majority. That is democracy.

I think it would be far worse to establish a system that would be much harder to change by a democratically elected parliament. I have no illusions that government doesn't make mistakes, but I will always prefer to have a say. The Voice would not be answerable to my vote, and that I think decidedly undemocratic.

Dear Foxy,

You are very welcome, and I wish that Mr Albanese knew half as much about the Voice as you do.

They'll be able to help.
Foxy,
Our local Library hasn't heard of it and, you why ? Because no-one I spoke with is aware of a reference to indigenous being required to accept equal responsibilities & you don't appear to know either !

Dear Josephus,

I see a forum like this as an opportunity to give your opinion and to hear the opinion of others, which is what I see here. I certainly appreciate the efforts people make here regardless of whether I agree with them. It has special relevance for me when I think of the implications of dividing Australian democracy on the basis of racial heritage. This KC at least thinks the need for the Voice is unfounded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwKGf9dik1c

.

Dear Fester,

.

It’s interesting to see that Libby Mettam, the Liberal Party leader for WA has had second thoughts on the Voice vote. Given the extraordinary botch-up of the WA government’s new Aboriginal cultural heritage laws, it’s no wonder she has decided to run for cover – once bitten, twice shy !

She has lost faith in legislators but continues to support indigenous recognition in the constitution.

She insists “This is a great opportunity to get this right” but regrets the lack of details on the makeup of the Voice, whether the members of the committee would be elected or selected, how it would lead to practical outcomes on the ground … “What we can't afford is the absolute confusion and mess we have experienced here in WA with the Labor government in respect of the Aboriginal culture heritage laws”.

She has a point there. What is best? Work out all the details before or after the vote. Judging from the recent disastrous experience in WA, Libby Mettam says to get it right it must be before the vote.

Maybe, but I’m sure the federal government and its three advisory groups have given serious consideration, precisely, to that important question:

1. First Nations Referendum Working Group (20 members)
2. First Nations Referendum Engagement Group (40 members)
3. Constitutional Expert Group (8 members)

The Working Group, in particular, is charged with :

• the timing of the referendum
• the wording of the constitutional amendment and question
• information about the principles of the Voice.

I am equally sure the federal government and all 68 members of the three advisory groups are fully aware of the humiliating failure of the WA Labor government to foresee the dramatic negative effects of their proposed new Aboriginal cultural heritage laws prior to adoption.

Apparently, the WA Nationals leader Mia Davies maintains her support for the YES vote.

And, who knows, perhaps the liberal leader might eventually realise that the WA Labor government has sounded alarm bells for the federal Labor government, and change her mind once again.

.

Foxy,

"One of the nation’s leading silks has warned that the referendum on the proposed Indigenous voice to parliament is vulnerable to legal challenge in the High Court because it misleads voters.

Stuart Wood KC has produced a legal opinion that says the referendum question fails to state the core function of the proposed Indigenous voice to parliament and the executive.

Instead, the question that will be presented to voters emphasised the notion of constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

In an opinion written jointly with barristers Paul Jeffreys and Jakub Patela, Mr Wood states that the emphasis in the referendum question on constitutional recognition is significant because there is differential support among electors for recognition and the proposed voice.

“In our view, the government’s proposed question misleads and misinforms voters about what they are being asked to approve,” they write.

Their opinion, which was commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs, says the referendum question is seriously deficient and “will be open to challenge by seeking relevant relief”.

Foxy,

While you constantly claim that I am misleading you have yet to provide anything that proves that I am wrong instead you provide links to "yes" proponents' opinion pages.

If you have done research then it is clear that it was filtered to avoid inconvenient truths.

As I came out against the voice long before Dutton, perhaps he is following me

.

Here is an interesting article on Australia's lobbying laws :

http://insidestory.org.au/flying-high/

.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/ng-interactive/2023/aug/14/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-poll-results-polling-latest-opinion-polls-referendum-tracker-newspoll-essential-yougov-news-by-state-australia

This shows it all. The question is whether Albozo will survive this rejection at the polls.

Shadowminister,
This states at the beginning; A proposed Law : to alter the Constitution to recognise the first peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve of this alteration ?

Well, firstly, it says nothing about managerial input by the Indigenous, also the term Aboriginal is vague as the Australian Aborigines are Aboriginals of this Country & many Aboriginals from other Nations have moved here. Do they count as Aborigines now ? This could be exploited by a clever Lawyer devoid of integrity.
As to recognising the Aborigines as the First people of Australia I'd say we'd have 100% agreement !
As to the integrity & ability of pseudo-indigenous activists to make policies for the good & social harmony this Nation I'd guess the argument wouldn't even make it to the table going by past performance & present rhetoric !

Dear Banjo,

I am sure that the groups considering the Voice and recognition were very capable, but if capable groups of people were so reliable at solving problems I think we'd have had Utopia long before the written word.

Dear shadowminister,

Accusations of misleading voters are always part of the show, and your mention of Stuart Wood provides an example. He argues that constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians and the establishment of the Voice are separate questions, yet voters will only have one question on the ballot paper. The "fact checking" tends to assert that conspiracy theorists are claiming that there will be two questions on the ballot paper when in fact there is only one.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/voice-referendum-trick-question-claim-is-complete-nonsense/

Yes, the fb comment in the link is misleading, but there is no mention of it perhaps being a misinterpretation of legal opinion that the referendum asks a double barreled question.

No matter how much two or three posters knock themselves out arguing pointlessly with people as stupid as themselves, most of the 17 plus million Australians have already made up there minds how they will vote.

Here are two links that are worth a read:

http://auspublaw.org/first-nations-voice/is-the-voice-too-uncertain-or-risky

And :

http://auspublaw.org/first-nations-voice/the-voice-imagined-legal-problems-distract-from-the-substance

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm certainly no pundit on the issues of the Voice.
But I have tried to provide links to experts on
the issues involved. I hope that you will have a
read of the two links that I've just given. I found
useful especially in presenting the bigger picture.

provide links to experts on
the issues involved
Foxy,
Experts or self interest people exploiting good will ?

Indyvidual,

It helps if you ask the right questions.

That might be a good idea if you trusted any of the government experts.

After the now exposed total lies they told us about Covid, & their vilification of ivermectin, I will never trust any of our bureaucrats ever again. I will trust this government even less if that is possible.

Only the completely naive or totally thoughtless will believe there are not hidden agendas in this referendum.

Only the completely naive or totally thoughtless will believe there are not hidden agendas in this referendum.
Hasbeen,
Absolutely no doubt about that !

Only the completely naive or totally thoughtless will believe that you can exclude 97% of the population from a democratic process and achieve better outcomes.

I find it amazing how the Democrat bleating outfits are so keen to support 3% of the population to the point of minority rule which, going by these numbers, amounts to actual Dictatorship !

Dear Hasbeen,

There are no hidden agendas in this referendum. It is that simple a proposition I really felt it wouldn't have been complicated even for someone like you. It appears I could be wrong.

Dear Fester,

You bleat: "Only the completely naive or totally thoughtless will believe that you can exclude 97% of the population from a democratic process and achieve better outcomes."

What an anaemic and self serving take on this. Victimhood writ large. No sense of wanting to address the deep gap in life outcomes which should shame any decent Australian.

Dear indyvidual,

This is not minority rule not is it a dictatorship. It is a bloody advisory body you dolt.

This really does have you lot pissing your pants and knocking your knees. Relax. There is no skin off your collective little noses if this gets up. Enough with the group hysteria.

It is a bloody advisory body you dolt.
SteeleRedux,

Not yet !
If I'm the dolt than that makes you one of those Hasbeen described so perfectly below. And, this dolt has already witnessed first hand how this Voice will be worked by those given the authority to work it !

Only the completely naive or totally thoughtless will believe there are not hidden agendas in this referendum.

Dear Steele,

I am wary of calls to abandon democracy as the only way to attain outcomes. I'd rather stick with the devil I know thanks.

Dear Fester,

And still no proper acknowledgement from you of the issues of poverty, trachoma rates, 20 to a 3 bedroom house, insanely high incarceration rates, children more likely to go to jail that university, the simple plea from the Uluru Statement from the Heart:

"Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future."

None of that makes even the slightest impression. Rather it is all about what you might miss out on. Your perceived slice of democracy somehow at risk.

Really not a good look.

.

Until the ballot papers are in hand, nobody can say with certainty what the text of the questions we must vote on will be.

The fact is we Australians are notorious for voting NO at referendums. We have had 44 referendums and we only voted YES 8 times. That’s a success rate of 18% and a failure rate of 82%.

So, for the referendum to have an 82% chance of succeeding, the question must be in negative form. Since there is an 82% chance of a NO vote, the two negatives result in a positive outcome.

For example :

Version 1 :

Do you agree that First Nations Peoples should have a say in laws concerning them ?

Vote : NO (82%) – YES (18%)

Result : Negative
.

Version 2 :

Do you agree that First Nations Peoples should not have a say in laws concerning them ?

Vote : NO (82%) – YES (18%)

Result : Positive
.

This is just to illustrate a point. Obviously, the tactics employed by governments are far more subtle and sophisticated than that. The Howard government’s draft of the last referendum 24 years ago (in 1999) re Australia becoming a republic is a case in hand.

.

So up comes SR, mouth piece for the labor party & government assuring us there is no hidden agenda in the voice.

Even if I believed government bureaucrats, I still would not believe anything by SR. I wonder if he ever manages to lie straight in bed?

SteeleReflux and his ilk are panicking.

Australians are increasingly becoming aware of the BS in the claims that this is only a voice to parliament when Albozo and his 40 clowns have clearly refused to rule out the voice having representation at every level of government or rule out measures to prevent the judiciary effectively making this voice a veto. That this is also clearly a first step towards drawing up a treaty is also clear.

The only positive from this Labor vanity project is that Albozo is likely to get knifed when the $300m waste of money is thrashed by the voters.

Dear Steele,

I agree with you that there are many concerns to be addressed, but I cannot see how that the solution proposed is the only way to start improving things, that solutions with the current system are impossible, or that ceding the control of indigenous affairs from a parliament elected by all to a group of Australians on the basis of ancestral heritage is not a debasement of democracy.

You yourself Steele believe that the ATSIC Howard destroyed could have been made to work, so why not try again? Democracy isn't perfect, but it lets you do that at least.

By claiming that the Voice is the only answer you build the biggest straw man of all.

SteeleRedux,
The descendants of those 'stolen' are mostly living in modern society @ condition & doing well & in many cases better than many descendants of the invaders.
Those who weren't stolen or saved depending on your degree of integrity, are the ones living in the conditions & society you tell us are discriminating & need our help.
So, tell us which indigenous are enjoying a better life style & longer life ? The stolen or the ones left to their communities ?

I decided to vote NO at the beginning. Dutton’s 'details' mean squat. The Voice is simply a bad idea. Always was, always will be.

There is not single issue affecting a small percentage of aborigines that could not have been solved decades ago, given all the money and people involved in the industry. A shameful waste of money and effort has gone into a lost cause.

One result of this Voice nonsense will be a loss of good will for aborigines, including those who are against the Voice. That's one of the problems with identity politics, the targeted group are all seen - no matter how incorrectly - as being the same: which, of course, is the way that racist Sleazy Albanese sees all aborigines real and imagined.

It is doubtful that the reputations of Australia, Australians and the Australian tradition of a fair go for all will survive this disgusting event in our history.

Australia as we know it today would not exist if we had
insisted on complete certainty and a complete absence of
risk before embarking on constitutional change in the 1890s.

Australians then were asked to vote on a proposal constitutional
change adoption of the constitution we now have. That proposal
involved considerable uncertainty and risk. A new system of
government was being established. A new country was being
envisaged. Many important questions could not be fully answered
ahead of time, including how the courts would interpret the
document the people were voting to approve or reject.

Despite these uncertainties, risks and unanswered questions,
Australians voted YES. We continue to be the beneficiaries of
that decision today.

Australia has one of the most stable
and well-functioning constitutions in the world.
That does not mean the constitution
is perfect. Far from it. Even the drafters of the
constitution knew that ensuring that the documents
could be amended from time to
time was important. That has occurred 8 times. Before these
amendments were approved there were new uncertainties, risks and
unanswered questions. This is not unchartered terrain for
Australia.

There's much more at the following link:

http://auspublaw.org/first-nations-voice.is-the-voice-too-uncertain-or-risky

It is worth a read.

My apologies. Here's the link again:

http://auspublaw.org/first-nations-voice/is-the-voice-too-uncertain-or-risky

The following link also is worth a read:

http://auspublaw.org/first-nations-voice/the-voice-imagined-legal-problems-distract-from-the-substance

Dear Foxy,

You are demonstrating in your own way why the yes campaign is failing. The biggest blow came when Mr Albanese was adamant that the Uluru statement was just one page and all the yes advocates fell in behind him regardless of what they might have said in the past. No clear explanations, just waffle, emotive appeals and dogma.

So much for truth telling.

Fester,

The Prime Minister explained the length of the Uluru
Statement from the Heart. It was only one page. The
rest were supporting documents and not part of the
Statement.

This has all been explained. Yet you seem to want to
continue stirring. I can't understand why you're doing
that. Your interpretation of the truth sadly differs
from the realities.

I'll leave you to enjoy your attempts at stirring.
Although it is a poor show and inevitably should be
ignored.

Walking away.

"Until the ballot papers are in hand, nobody can say with certainty what the text of the questions we must vote on will be."

Untrue.

The question has already been decided and legislated....

"A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Do you approve this proposed alteration?"
_________________________________________________________________-
By way of explanation, the Proposed Law is:

"The ‘Proposed Law’ that Australians are being asked to vote upon is set out in the Constitution Alteration Bill. If approved at the referendum, the following words would be added to the Constitution:

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

*there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

*the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

*the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures."

Amanda Stoker, dumped by the Lefty Liberals, correctly notes that "lead voice" Albanese doesn't even understand the Voice, even though he is trying to "cajole and manipulate Australians into supporting a proposal for a near-permanent change to our nation’s institutions".

As she knows, and we all know, Albanese has not read the full document. He has, in fact, openly made a fool of himself, and asked why he should read it.

Sheesh! Why would he have read up on everything before trying to convince Australians to vote for it?

Silly old us for thinking that he should!

So much for his "modest" proposal when he doesn't even know what that proposal really is, and the traumatic effect it would have on the way Australia is governed - forever.

Goodbye to all people being equal before the law and good bye to democracy itself.

The Voice would "throw sand in the gears of government" , "slow the approvals process for projects", "open wider the scope for challenge to ministerial decisions" - "all without evidence that it would make a jot of difference" …to.. "Aboriginal Australians who largely live in remote communities".

All successes so far have been achieved without a Voice, by "traditionally elected governments" doing their job properly, and "individuals making choices to change their lives for the better."

No indulgence in group grievance, which shifts responsibility for daily actions from the individual to the collective - which is what the Voice would do. There's that Communist 'collective' again.

Stoker believes that Albanese is either treating Australians with disrespect, or he is not being frank about the nature of the Voice.

She had "had thought it was the former", but it, "Turns out (to be) the latter."

And so say all of those people who can see through Albanese.

Yes voters your take on this please !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8M4kIvRMMc

Indyvidual,

You have just proven why the YES vote is so necessary
for the Voice. The Indigenous communities know full
well what needs to be done to fix the problems in
their communities. They don't have the power to
implement the solutions and to date, all decisions
have been made for them by others without any
consultation of the communities. A Voice would get
better outcomes. Glad you see that. That is what
people like Marcia Langdon, Noel Pearson, Linda Burney,
et al, are asking of us. To get better outcomes for
their people.

That's why a YES vote is so important.

Dear Foxy,

Milgram psychology might suffice for the faithful, but as one of the great unwashed I need more convincing. What I cannot reconcile are numerous records of public addresses by Megan Davis and Pat Anderson where they point out that the Uluru statement is longer than one page, along with the NIAA returning a 26 page document after an FOI request for the Uluru statement. All that changed after Mr Albanese's conspiracy theory comments on the floor of parliament.

My take is that they had to fall in line as the alternative was to acknowledge that the guy heading the Yes campaign was an uninformed moron.

Fester,

Here's a fact-check for you:

http://rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/uluru-statement-from-the-heart-is-one-page

Fester,

Speaking of morons?

We all should have zero tolerance for sanctimonius morons
who try to scare people with lies and misinformation.
It;s extraordinary how many morons there are in the
NO campaign in both number and depth of moronity.

So concerned about aboriginal kids in Australia's remote areas is Albanese - spruiking that at the Gama Festival about opportunities for a better life via education - so concerned is he, that he has axed new boarding schools in WA and NT, and the upgrading of an existing school under the 'Studio Schools' model, part of Coalition plans in 2021, with $75 million to do it.

One of the schools was for years 7-12 was to be in the area where the Gama Festival is held. The existing school carers only for students up to year 6.

The school in WA was to be a 7-12 boarding school which would have accommodated students who currently have to travel FOUR HOURS a day to attend the Roebourne District High School.

The Coalition intended to develop boarding schools in remote areas to increase school attendance. Albanese just blew it out his backside when he kidded gullible listeners at the Festival that he wanted an Australia "where more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are going to school, finishing school and finding a path to a qualification they want and deserve for a job they love”.

Vote YES for more lies, Vote NO to stop more lies and hold Albanese to account.

Foxy,
Your mentality is plain & simply broken !

Dear Foxy,

The best thing to do would be to show the 26 pages from the foi request, then people could form their own opinions of what's what. Here is a link to "Our Story" that Megan Davis said all Australians should read when she believed that the statement was longer than one page:

https://ulurustatement.org/our-story/

My guess is that the statement is longer than the Gettysburg Address and shorter than War and Peace.

Foxy,

There are vast numbers of sanctimonious morons on the YES side, each telling NO voters what they think the "voice" is.

The problem is that the question in the referendum is so vague as to be a blank cheque and given Labor's record of lying to the voters there is a lot of healthy skepticism.

The question needs to be longer and define exactly the limits to the voice before anyone will believe Labor otherwise the outcome is just an assumption.

Dear Foxy,

To reiterate, you have allowed yourself to be mislead about the length of the Uluru statement by a psychological technique studied by Stanley Milgram, whereby an authority figure can override the evidence before you.

My suggestion is that you look at the evidence forming the opinions rather than the "fact checks". You could get pointers to the evidence for the Uluru statement being longer than a page from Peta Credlin's defence of her claim:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qAWIzOk_0c

Alternatively Foxy, you could visit the ABC, that illustrious organisation that ran a "fact check" showing that the Uluru statement was only one page, and listen for yourself to Megan Davis saying that the statement was much longer (from about 33 minutes if you don't want to listen to the whole thing).

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/bigideas/indigenous-recognition-as-a-step-towards-an-australian-republic/10772592

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« The question has already been decided and legislated.... »
.

That’s correct, mhaze, the federal parliament passed the Constitution Alteration Bill on Monday 19 June 2023.

Here are the details :

http://www.niaa.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/referendum-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-voice

We’ll just have to wait to see how it is presented on the ballot papers.

If, miraculously and against all odds, the referendum passes, the Voice will have to be created and submitted to Parliament for legislative approval.

The business plan is that of a well-structured professional lobby :

1. make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

2. make representations proactively

3. respond to requests for representations from the Parliament and the Executive Government.

4. have its own resources to allow it to research, develop and make representations.

5. The Parliament and Executive Government should seek representations in writing from the Voice early in the development of proposed laws and policies

Perhaps they will hire some of our former political leaders to advise and assist them to do their lobbying as the supermarket chains do.

Coles, for example, is represented by both ECG Consulting and Bespoke Approach, while its own parent company, Wesfarmers, has former West Australian premier Alan Carpenter in charge of corporate affairs. Woolworths has a government relations team composed of former Labor and Liberal advisers, under the direction of a former leader of the National Party, Andrew Hall. Aldi engages GRA (Government Relations Australia), one of Australia's largest lobbying firms, whose staff includes former Federal Labor treasurer, John Dawkins.

Peter Costello is one of the many former politicians and staffers working in lobby firms. Former Howard chief-of-staff Grahame Morris is director of Barton Deakin Government Relations.

Since the 1980s, lobbying in Australia has grown from a small industry of a few hundred employees to a multi-billion dollar per year industry employing more than 10,000 people representing every facet of human interest and activity.

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) activists include every prime minister we ever had, from John Howard to Scott Morrison.

.

Fester,
I had to stop reading the link you provided. It is so coloured in that it becomes painful to read to someone who has actually experienced living with indigenous & pseudo-indigenous. It is a total distortion of any possible truth or fact. It'd make a great novel but not a historical document !
I can see how it would appeal to city dwelling ignoramuses but then again, the report is made up by such people. I'm afraid that by knowing a few of the people pushing the Voice, just reading a couple of sections in this report has totally convinced me of the lack of integrity of the Voice movement !

Foxy on 13/8...
"Ignore the Ad Hominem attack.

A typical tactic used by many on discussion forums such as this
one. Instead of addressing someone's
argument or position - another poster irrelevantly attacks the
person or some aspect of the person who's making the
argument. It shows this poster unfortunately, is not capable of higher-level thinking."

Foxy on 19/8....
"Speaking of morons?

We all should have zero tolerance for sanctimonius morons
who try to scare people with lies and misinformation.
It;s extraordinary how many morons there are in the
NO campaign in both number and depth of moronity."

Schizophrenia? Two Foxys in the group? Hypocrisy?

Indyvidual,

I am glad you found the link useful. I was looking for some links from the yes camp that suggested the Uluru statement was longer than a page. As for Peta Credlin's suggestion that Mr Albanese intended to implement the statement in full, I suspect that the truth is that he was unaware that the statement was longer than a page, which is perhaps more embarrassing.

As for the plight of indigenous Australians in remote areas, I am more in the camp believing that the problems are not about the lack of a voice, but the lack of accountability.

Gentlemen,

Prof. Megan Davis has asked us to "read deeply."
That nothing is hidden and is on the Referendum
Council website and has been for seven years.
The public has been encouraged to access the
information.

Anyhow, we all shall decide at the ballot box how
we're going to vote on this issue. The Australian
voters usually get it right in the end.

I'm sure that they will do so this time as well.

Enjoy your Sunday. This has been an interesting
discussion and as always, I look forward to our
next one.

Enjoy your Sunday.

Cheers.

The Australian
voters usually get it right in the end.
Foxy,
Not at the last election not even with all the incompetent & selfish bureadroids all in the same camp !

Just remember people, it was 200+ years of poor government policy that got us where we are.
If there is a problem today, successive governments created it.

Now after 200+ years of failures and incompetence they claim to have a solution.

They make an awful lot of claims, the government.
Most of it is bloviating and isn't worth the time of day.

Former politician Julie Bishop has said that she has
sat through too many "Closing the Gap," speeches in
Parliament, and in some instances the key measures were
getting worse not better.

So it's not a question of
money, it's not a question of politicians coming up with
policies. The Government knows best.
It is a question of giving Indigenous people
the franchaise to make decisions to implement policies
that will work. We've got to give it a chance, according to
her.

She added:

" I believe a YES vote is a step in the right direction.
No one's claiming that it's going to end inequality and
disparity, but surely, we have to try something that comes
from the Indigenous people themselves,"

____________________________________________________________________

Indyvidual,

Try acting like a normal, happy, and mentally stable person
today.

I wish you luck.

According to Julie Bishop the "Government knows best,"
attitude regarding the Indigenous people has to change
to something that comes from the Indigenous people
themselves.

She says we've got to give it a chance.

Our Prime Minister still believes that the YES campaign
can get up.

"Constitutional change is hard in this country. Only 8
propositions have been successful out of 48 but I'm
confident that Australians will take this opportunity to
vote YES," Mr Albanese told nine's 60 Minutes.

He denied that he had staked his legitimacy as Prime
Minister or the credibility of the Labor Government upon
the outcome of the referendum.

"It's NOT about me and it's NOT about any politician," Mr
Albanese said.

"It's not my product. It's a product that came from
Indigenous Australians and it's one I support."

"My plan is to be successful at this referendum and I'm
determined to stand up for my values and keep my election
promise and I have faith in the Australian people."

Fingers-crossed he's right.

Oh dear Foxy. The more of your commentary I see the more I think of Labor as a cult religion. As if an infallible pm and a climate change and energy minister believing in windmills and solar panels wasn't enough.

Fester,

Ask yourself who would you like to replace our current PM
and his political party seeing as you're so adamant
against what we've got currently?

Does the Coalition and their leader Peter Dutton appeal
to you much more? Or would you have preferred the former
PM - (It's not my job) Scott Morrison?

Or is Dutton just another revolving face destined for failure
fronting a party that's being torn apart from the inside?

Australian voters decided they deserved better at
the last election.

Well at least better than the Coalition and their chosen leaders.

Talking about cults:

To paraphrase Isaac Asimov:

There is a cult of ignorance in Australia and there has
always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been
a construct thread winding its way through our political
and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that
democracy means that ignorance is just as good as
knowledge.

"Ask yourself who would you like to replace our current PM
and his political party seeing as you're so adamant
against what we've got currently?"

I've got some cows on the property where I live.
Pick one, any one.
Got some ducks and magpies and kangaroos, saw a 6ft python a day or two back.
Pick one of them.

Foxy's pulling the 'shite sandwich switcheroo'

Ask yourself which half of a shite sandwich do you find most appealing to eat.

Answer = Neither. None of the above.

Don't be forced to choose the lesser evil.
You don't chose to eat half a shite sandwich because you think the other have has more shite on it.
A sensible person just says no, I'm not eating this crap.

How can a government even present this question without bias or supporting one position?

Do you hear Albo saying this isn't about what myself or my government wants, it's up to Australians themselves to decide.

No they don't say that, they're spending millions on flyers promoting they're preferred 'Yes' policy position.
Does the No campaign get equal government funding?

This whole thing is just another poorly cooked up government rort.

If Foxy is willing to post a video on YouTube eating one half of the shite sandwich and saying "Mmmm, It's so delicious"
- That's not going to make me want to try it.

People in this country need to stop following fools down the garden path.

It's easy, just say none of the above.
And until those government morons are forced to listen, nothing will ever change.