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.