WTF?

So the best some can do is argue over their definition of what "statement" and "documents that provide some context" mean.

I have still yet to see anyone comment on the substance of these "documents that provide some context".

Where is the controversy?

Arguing over a definition. Not the definition provided by the author but by a TV commentator mind.

So for some this is the best they can do.

No substance but the arrogance to suggest that an author does not understand the structure of their own document.

a genuine invitation from 250 Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people
Foxy,
How many of them are actually indigenous ?

WTF?

Here is a quote from the book:

"It is 15 pages long and includes three elements: the one-page pitch to the Australian people; 'our story' of the First Nations history of Australia; and the explanation of the legal reform."

No need to take anyone's word for it. You can read it for yourself:

https://www.bigw.com.au/product/our-voices-from-the-heart-by-professor-megan-davis-and-patricia-anderson-ao/p/385319?gclid=CjwKCAjwo9unBhBTEiwAipC1190z7JRgyN1GGF7VcnnxU1U9vLHElKrEfufgV19koEPg_y1Q9TctthoCEJYQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Foxy,

The Yes campaign claims that the voice will make a difference but there is zero evidence that this will make any more difference than the other 1000-odd aboriginal groups / advisory committees etc.

This is just a $ 300,000,000 Labor boondoggle.

Senator Jacqui Lambie words to both Albanese and Dutton on the Voice.

"Cause when it (The Voice) goes down, and at this stage it looks like it's gonna go down, the only people to blame - if you think you can walk away from this and leave all that unintended hurt that it's going to leave behind, I tell you I'm going to be holding you personally responsible."

I'm not a great supporter at times of Jacqui, but she does often have something worthwhile to say.

WTF seems to think its all in a name. But it doesn't matter what its called. Call it the Protocols of the Elders of Uluru for all I care. The point is that those who pushed this nonsense originally said the Statement (or whatever WTF wants to call it) was the full 26 page document and only tried to walk that back after it became clear that the full document contained things the Yes cultists didn't want discussed.

Things like a treaty. Things like recognising in the Australian constitution a separate aboriginal constitution. Things like "two sovereignties" co-existing.

Had all this been explained at the outset, the referendum would have never got off the ground because the polling would have been horrendous. So they, the Yes-terday crowd, have tried to hide the true intent of the changes.

The people, it would seem, aren't buying it.