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.