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